Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.The citations below are (generally) to be found in standard email format. Thus, * = emphasis or emphases and _ = italics. This has been done to make it easier for you to spread these quotations around the world by email in letters to friends, discussions groups, bulletin boards, in debates, etc. ************************* TOPICAL INDEX Against Independency Against Anabaptists Attainments Being/well being distinction Close Communion Open Communion Confessions (subscription) Contradictory Oaths Covenanting -perpetual obligation -intrinsic obligation (superadded obligation) -covenant renewal Covenanted Reformation Civil Government Eschatology Extraordinary Ordination Extraordinary Acts False Ministers False Worship Headcovering Holy Days -- Christmas, Easter etc. Historical Testimony Lord's Supper Marks of the True Church Martyrs Moral Person -- the church Musical Instruments Occasional Hearing Orthodoxy -- Heresy Partaking in the Sins of Others Regulative Principle Revolution Church Separation from Corrupt Churches Settled vs. Broken State of the Church Subordinate Standards -- Implicit Faith Terms of Communion Toleration Unity of the Church ************************* Against Independency ************************* Nevertheless, we also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers into which this common cause of religion is now brought by the growing and spreading of most dangerous errors in England to the obstructing and hindering of the begun Reformation, as namely (beside many others) Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianism, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed Liberty of Error, Scandal, Schisme, Heresy, dishonouring God, opposing the Truth, hindering Reformation; and seducing others (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [1638–1649 inclusive_], p. 333). Our unanimous judgment and uniform practice, is, that according to the order of the Reformed Kirks, and the ordinance of God in his Word, not only the solemn execution of Ecclesiastical power and authority, but the whole acts and exercise thereof, do properly belong unto the Officers of the Kirk; yet so that in matters of chiefest importance, the tacit consent of the Congregation be had, before their decrees and sentences receive final execution, and that the Officers of a particular Congregation, may not exercise this power independently, but with subordination unto greater Presbyteries and Synods, Provincial and National: Which as they are representative of the particular Kirks conjoined together in one under their government; so their determination, when they proceed orderly, whether in causes common to all, or many of the Kirks, or in causes brought before them by appelations or references from the inferior, in the case of aberration of the inferior, *is to the several Congregations authoritative and obligatory and not consultatory only* (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [1638–1649 inclusive_], p. 108, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). ************************* Anabaptist ************************* "the covert nature of the Anabaptists' methodology... Knox regard(ed) the Anabaptists as more dangerous than Papists... The 'horrible and absurd' opinions of the Anabaptists are 'rotten heresies' and 'damnable errors.' The adherents to such teachings are 'blasphemers' and vile slaves of proud Lucifer.' In the _First Books of Discipline_, the Anabaptists are classed among the 'enemies to the Christian religion.' The _Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva_ speaks of the Anabaptists as 'limbs of Antichrist'" (Kevin Reed's Introduction to John Knox, _A Warning Against the Anabaptists_, reprinted 1984, pp. 13,16 -- On the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN" at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). ************************* Attainments ************************* James Kerr, on the Sabbath, June 20th, 1880, in a sermon preached in Greyfriar's Churchyard, in Edinburgh, titled "A Third Reformation Necessary: or, the Piety, Principles, and Patriotism of Scotland's Covenanted Martyrs; With Application to the Present Times," makes the same point concerning the monumental character of the international transactions that transpired during the Covenanters' combat with the forces of antichrist. While also giving us great insight into some of the most important battles of Second Reformation warfare, Kerr proclaims, regarding the combat of these faithful witnesses, They stood for the Supreme Authority of the Holy Scriptures; for the Exclusive Headship of the Lord Jesus over the Church; for the Church's independent spiritual jurisdiction and power; for the Divine right of Presbytery; for the purity of worship in the Church and the Church's freedom from all unauthorized rites and ceremonies. They stood for every pin of the tabernacle, for every item of truth to which they had attained... 'Whose faith follow.' Let us embrace those doctrines affecting the Church's existence, privileges and prosperity, for which the martyrs suffered, and let us imitate their fidelity to the high attainments of a preceding period. The great Scriptural doctrines for which they were honoured to contend and which constituted the Church's glory, are still more or less lightly esteemed by even many professing Christians and ecclesiastical denominations... (A)rminianism is making rapid strides to popularity. Dishonour is done to the royal prerogative of Christ as Zion's King by those Churches that appeal to or base the claim of rights upon the Revolution Settlement -- a Settlement that proceeded upon Erastian principles and left many of the attainments for which the martyrs suffered in the oblivion to which the Stuarts had consigned them... The doctrine of Christ's Exclusive Headship over His own Church, and of the freedom of the Church under her exclusive head, requires to be vindicated and testified for against all modern departures therefrom. There is need to maintain and propagate the doctrine of the Divine right of the Presbyterian form of Church government, for at the present time only two of the Churches -- and these among the smallest -- hold this doctrine in all its Scriptural completeness. There is a need to maintain the high scriptural doctrine concerning the modes of worship in the Church, that no rite or ceremony is to be introduced into the forms of worship for which an express prescription, direct or indirect, cannot be produced from God's Own Word. The additions to the Church's worship of forms of human invention, and called for in order to the gratification of mere religious fashion, constitute one of the saddest signs of the present time. 'As though God has been defective,' as Charnock writes with reference to such innovators, 'in providing for His own honour in His institutions, and modelling His own service, but stood in need of our directions and the *caprichios* of our brains. In this they do not seem to climb above God, yet they set themselves on the throne of God, and would grasp one end of His sceptre in their own hands. They do not attempt to take the crown from God's head but discover a bold ambition to shuffle their hairy scalps under it, and wear a part of it upon their own.' **By the unflinching maintenance and profession of these doctrines, then, we are to prove ourselves the legitimate descendants of Scotland's Covenanted Martyrs.** This duty may draw down upon us reproach and shame, but, as the doctrines are Scriptural, the shame, like that of the martyrs, is transformed into glory. These doctrines are not now popular nor fashionable; still they are in advance of this age and prevailing ecclesiastical opinions, and they shall be popular and fashionable in the Church everywhere when 'God shall help her, and that at the breaking of the morning.' They shall have a resurrection with power, when Zion shall be set upon the mountains, and when the glory of her King shall array her, they shall be triumphant when the whole banner for the truth shall wave upon the battlements of the Millennial Church of Jesus" (Cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint 1996], pp. 32-35, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). The Covenants are an important attainment, no lasting and binding agreement is attained without establishing them first. Session 23, 1648, A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England And considering of what importance the Solemn League and Covenant is unto all the interests of both kingdoms concerning their religion,liberties and peace. To make an agreement without establishing of it were not only to rob these Nations of the blessings they have already attained by it, but to open the door to let in all the corruptions that have been formerly in the kirks of God in their lands and all the abuses and usurpations that have been in the civil government, and again to divide these two kingdoms that are so happily united and conjoined. Therefore as we wish that all misunderstanding between the Nations and between the King and People may be removed, so that there may be a happy and lasting peace, so that there may be no agreement without establishing and enjoining the Covenant in all these three kingdoms...(_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_. p. 410, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). In short, while, on the ground and in the language of our reforming ancestors, we hold that our Covenants are a *norma recta--a right rule*, with which other symbols of our profession should harmonize; we also hold that the Scriptures are *norma recti, the rule of right*, TO REGULATE ALL (_The Reformation Advocate_ magazine, 1874, Vol. 1:1, pp. 6, 7, emphases added). It is in vain for them to palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the covenant to the Scripture, for subordianta non pugnant. The covenant is norma recta,– a right rule, though the Scripture alone be norma recti,–the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to have anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But to profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault, and worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs thereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by men professing the name of God (George Gillespie, _The Works of George Gillespie_, "Male Audis", 1646, reprinted in 1991 [SWRB] from the 1846 edition, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, p. 13, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). [This is--GB] *a tenet looked upon by the reformed churches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of Arminius*; for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort, did cry down the obligation of all national covenants and oaths, &c., in matters of religion, under the color of *taking the Scripture only for a rule*. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing (George Gillespie, _The Works of George Gillespie_, "Male Audis", 1646, reprinted in 1991 [SWRB] from the 1846 edition, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, p.13, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). ************************* "Being" -- "Wellbeing" Distinction ************************* We recognize this distinction every day in regard to a Christian man; and it is no less to be recognized in its application to Christian society. There is many a doctrine and truth of revelation, in regard to which a man may err without ceasing on that account to be a Christian man; and there may be many a duty recognized in Scripture as binding upon all, in which he may be totally deficient without forfeiting his Christianity. In other words, there is much in doctrine and duty, in faith and practice, necessary to the perfection of a believer, which is not necessary to the existence of a believer as such; and so it is with a Christian Church. What is essential to its *existence* as a Church is something very different from what is essential to its *perfection* as a church.... This distinction is of considerable value, and not difficult, under the teaching of Scripture, to be applied. We read in Scripture that the Christian Church is, "the pillar and ground of the truth," and that, "for this cause the Son of God himself came, that he might bear witness to the truth." In other words, we learn that the very object for which the Church of Christ was established on the earth was to declare and uphold the truth.... *Judging then by this first test, we are warranted in saying, that to hold and to preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ is the only sure and infallible note or mark of the Christian Church, because this is the one thing for the sake of which a Church of Christ has been instituted on earth. A true faith makes a true church and a corrupt faith a corrupt church: and should it at any time apostatize from the true faith altogether, it would by the very act, cease to be a Church of Christ in any sense at all. The Church was established for the sake of the truth and not the truth for the sake of the church*.... For this thing then the Church of Christ was instituted; and this thing, or the declaration of the truth, must therefore be, in its nature and importance, paramount to the church itself. Again we read in Scripture that Christ," gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." In other words we learn that ordinances and office bearers have been established for the object of promoting the *well–being* and edification of the Church. These things then [the ordinances and the ministry--GB], unlike the former [the truth--GB], were instituted for the sake of the Church and not the Church for the sake of them; and these things [the ordinances and the ministry--GB] therefore, must be, in their nature and importance, subordinate to the Church (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol. 1, 1869, SWRB reprint, 1991, pp. 56–59, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). In the second place, what are those things which, unlike the truth, have been instituted for the sake of the Church, and not the church for the sake of them? Such, unquestionably, are those ordinances, office bearers, and discipline which have been established within the Christian society. These being instituted for the advantage and edification of the Church, are, from their very nature, subordinate and secondary to the truth, for the holding and publication of which both they and the Church itself exist. They may be necessary, and are necessary, for the *perfection* of the Church, but they are not necessary for its *existence* (James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, 1869 Vol. 1, SWRB reprint, 1991, p. 59, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). I have already mentioned the important distinction between a true church [being--GB] and a pure church [well–being--GB]. A church may retain the principal doctrines and ordinances of the Christian religion in her profession, in such a measure, that she may be called a true church; and yet she may as an ecclesiastical body, have such errors in doctrine; such human inventions as integral parts of her worship; such unscriptural officers and usages in her government; or may be chargeable from such defection from reformation, formerly attained, that we cannot be faithful to the cause of Christ, which, in these respects, is opposed; nor to the catholic [universal--GB] church, for whose true interest we are bound to use our best endeavours; nor to the souls of men, which are deeply injured by such evils; without withdrawing from her communion. A particular church, in this case, though she ceases to be a pure church, may still be called a true church of Christ, on account of the measure, in which she retains the profession of his truths and ordinances. (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, p. 77, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). But join to the possession of the true faith the administration of the outward ordinances, as necessary to constitute a Christian Church--and you assign to outward ordinances a rank and value which are not justly theirs, and make them primary, and not, as they truly are of secondary importance (James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, 1869, SWRB reprint, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 61, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people. As it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the Church; and this belongs even to the Papists (_Calvin's Commentaries_, Vol. 9, p. 285, Baker Book House, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei); either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 121, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/T.htm). However when we categorically deny to the papists the *title* of the church [as to its well–being--GB], we do not for this reason impugn the *existence* of churches among them [as to their being--GB]. Rather we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). In the same way if anyone recognizes the present congregations-- contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine--as churches (in full communion of which a Christian man must stand--even to the point of agreeing in doctrine), he will gravely err. For if they are churches the power of the keys is in their hands; but the keys have an indissoluble bond with the Word, which has been destroyed among them. Again if they are churches, Christ's promise prevails among them; Whatever you bind,"etc [Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 23:20]. But on the contrary, they disown from their communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants of Christ. Accordingly either Christ's promise is vain, or they are not, at least in this regard, churches. Finally instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Consequently, by this reckoning either they are not churches or no mark will remain to distinguish the lawful congregation of believers from the assemblies of Turks (_Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.10, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). To sum up, I call them churches [esse--GB] to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered--and to the extent that some marks of the church remain--especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devils wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church [bene esse--GB] (_Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godliness, is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church." (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 251, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). That which is unseen is the form and essence of an invisible church, and that which is visible must be the essential form of a visible church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 242, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). And whereas our Divines say, that the church is invisible, because faith which is the specific and constitutive form of the Church is invisible, and known only to God the searcher of hearts (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 418, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). There are degrees of necessity; *some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church*, as matter and form, viz., visible saints, and a due profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the gospel. *Thus it is possible a church may be, and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time: some things are only respectively necessary to the well–being of a church*; thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect (_The Divine Right of Church Government_, p. 121 Jus Divinum Regiminus Ecclesiastici, ed. by Thos. Henderson, published in 1844, see also Naphtali Press edition, p. 123, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/S.htm). Abraham called with his house to leave idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to the Lord (Gen 12:1–18) professes and teaches as a Prophet the doctrine of the covenant, and God appearing revealed the Gospel unto him (Gen 12:1–3, Gen 15:4–7) and so he and his house are a visible church, when, not while many years after and until he was ninety and nine, the seal of circumcision was ordained and given to him and his house, Gen 17:1–3. (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 17, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). *...and the church is a true visible church in the wilderness... which yet wanted [lacked--GB] circumcision and the passover forty years in the wilderness* (Josh 5:5–7), this proves that there is a true visible church, where Christ is, and yet wanteth the ordinary seals, Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 17, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). *But a church may retain the essence and being of a visible church, and yet have no discipline in actual use, or little*, and though want [lack--GB] of discipline do leaven a church, yet it does not (as Robinson says) evert the nature thereof, and turn it into Babylon and a den of dragons (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 288, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). Any sort of profession, whether by an avowing of that Gospel to one another, or suffering for it, even when the shepherds are smitten and the flock is scattered is a very practical and speaking mark that such a company is a true church (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 16, SWRB photocopy, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). And yet if these may be, to wit, hearing and professed receiving, here is an essential mark by which persons before they receive seals are made members and visible disciples, and societies visible and Churches essentially differenced, 1. From all the false churches visible upon earth, who have not the sound of the word preached and professedly heard and visibly received and 2. from all civil societies 3. from all Pagan and heathen societies on earth. Ergo they were a distinct Christian society, differenced essentially, and if they should all die before they had been baptized or had received the seals they have been true visible church members; and if killed for the truth they had died visible professing martyrs, and the called Church of Christ (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline _, 1658, p. 17, SWRB photocopy, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). These have a ministry *essentially* entire who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments, Matthew 28:19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, p. 240, 1644, SWRB photocopy, emphasis added). John Robinson, Rutherford's Independent opponent from New England, objects, How can England forsake the church of Rome and forsake the ministry within the church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry makes a true church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB photocopy, p. 240, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). Rutherford responds, England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamental parts of faith and not separate from Rome's baptism or ministry, in so far as they *essentially* be the ordinances of Christ. (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 240, SWRB photocopy, emphasis added). However when we categorically deny to the papists the *title* of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather *we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine* (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). ************************* Close Communion ************************* If there be no lawful refusing of sacramental communion, with a particular church, then there can be no lawful separation from it, till it be unchurched. But the latter is absurd; and therefore the former. I think it manifestly absurd to say that we are not to separate from a partucular church, however degenerate and corrupt in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; till it is no church of Christ at all ; for this would be to suppose that, though Christ has provided the censures of the church as a means of preserving her from the danger arising from the offenses of one or a few members, has provided no means of her preservation from the far greater danger of utter ruin by the prevailing influence of a corrupt majority. When such a majority is found incorrigibly obstinate in their opposition to any steps towards a thorough reformation, it is evident, that there is no remedy but secession. By such a majority, one great end of church communion, which is, that the truths and institutions of the Lord Jesus may be preserved pure and entire, is avowedly and obstinately opposed; and therefore, in this case, the Lord Jesus, is saying to his people, as in 2 Corinth. vi.17, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate." Many limit such calls to our departure from the communion of Pagans and Papists. But they are applicable to our secession from any prevailing party, even though they should bear the name of Christians, of Protestants and Presbyterians, who, in their united capacity, or as a professing body, are going on in obstinate opposition to any of the truths and institutions of Jesus Christ; so that none can continue in their church communion, without being involved in the guilt of that opposition. From such Christ is calling his people to separate. It is not meant, however, that degenerate Protestants and Presbyterians are upon a level with Heathens and Papists; for there may be a just cause of separation from the former, though not so great as from the latter. A warrantable secession from a particular church of Christ, is a most serious and important step. It is the result of assiduity in searching the scriptures, of much prayer and fasting, of long struggling with a prevailing party, obstinate in a course of defection. When a warrantable secession has been made; and, while the ground of it continues, there is the highest moral necessity of adhering to it. The Lord Jesus is saying to those, who have taken such a step: Whatever profession or practice ye have attained of the truths and ordinances delivered in my word, "hold fast till I come:" and with respect to particular churches, that persist in the evils which have occasioned a necessary secession, his direction is plain. "Let them return unto you, but return ye not unto them." But when we have sacramental communion with any church from which we have separated, we do return to them: for, in our act of communicating with any church, we declare our agreement with that church in its peculiar and distinguishing profession of the christian religion: we own the profession of that church to be right, and to be so in preference to every different and contrary profession. This is a direct contradiction of the profession we make in our separate communion. According to this scheme, we may in our sacramental communion, one Sabbath profess, that all true believers shall certainly persevere in a state of grace unto the end; that the infants of church members ought to be baptised; that we have in the book of Psalms a system of psalmody sufficient for the exercise of singing in public worship; and that no hymns of human composure ought to be used in that exercise; or that the testimony, maintained by the Secession church, ought to be cordially embraced, as the testimony which Christ is calling his people to maintain at this day; and yet, on the very next Sabbath, we may, in our sacramental communion, profess directly contrary to our former profession, that true believers may fall away from their state of grace totally and finally; that infant baptism is no baptism; that the songs in the Book of Psalms are not sufficient for the exercise of singing in public and solemn worship, various hymns of human composure being thought more proper to be sung in New Testament worship; or that adherence to what is called the Secession Testimony is unwarrantable. Must we thus say, yea and nay; must we lie and prevaricate with God and man, in order to avoid the charge of unchurching and excommunicating the churches, from which we are justly separated. (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, p. 77-79, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). Anderson writes: "The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion. There is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local situation. But when a number of people, bearing the Christian name, combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church (i.e. constitutionally, according to their public character and profession--RB). It is not denied, that they belong to the catholic church (in as far as they, as individuals, profess the truth--RB); but it is denied, that there ought to be any such section or division in it. Thus, there ought to be no section of the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct subsistence, the support of episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the Scripture, of the propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of anti-scriptural doctrine, in opposition to that of God's election, redemption, effectual calling and the conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the support of ways and means of divine worship not found in Scripture. If the catholic visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would abolish all such sections. But no society ought to be called such an unlawful section, while it can be shown that it subsists as a separate society for no other end, than for the maintaining of something in the doctrine, worship or government of the church which belongs to the Christian religion as delivered in the word of God, or for exhibiting a testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture requires the catholic church to condemn. Such a profession of any party of Christians is no sectarian profession; and a union with them is not a sectarian, but properly a Christian union; and, being cordial and sincere, is a union in Christ; and communion upon the ground of this union is truly Christian communion. On the other hand, however much of our holy religion any body of Christians hold in common with others, and however many of them we may charitably judge to be saints, yet while their distinguishing profession is contrary to the word of God, communion with them, as a body so distinguished, *is sectarian communion*; as it implies a union with them in that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic church" (pp. 10-11, emphasis added). T.H.L. Parker writes, "Since the evangelical faith had only recently been preached in the city, and there were still many Romanists, the ministers also urged excommunication on the grounds of failure to confess the faith. _The Confession of faith, which all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva... must promise to keep and to hold_ had been presented to the Council on 10 November 1536. Let the members of the Council be the first to subscribe and then the citizens, 'in order to recognize those in harmony with the Gospel and those loving rather to be of the kingdom of the pope than of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.' Those who would not subscribe were to be excommunicated" (_John Calvin: A Biography_, p. 63, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/P.htm). 12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation" (Johnston, Pamela, and Bob Scribner. 1993. _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,p. 138, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/S.htm). John Anderson states, "The term sectarian, the favorite watch-word of this author, tends to divert the attention from the matter in dispute. The question is, whether a church's refusing to have sacramental communion with such as openly avow their opposition to one or more articles of her scriptural profession has such effects as are now mentioned? Does this refusal break up the unity of the church at large? By no means. The truths of God's word constitute the bond of unity in the catholic church; so far as they are publicly professed and preserved in the doctrine, worship, and government of the several particular churches. Hence it is evident, that what breaks up the peace of the catholic church, is not the faithfulness of particular churches in refusing, but their laxness in granting sacramental communion to the avowed opposers of undoubted truths of God's word, as exhibited in the public profession of any of the churches, every instance of this laxness tending to weaken the bond of their union. Does refusing sacramental communion with the avowed opposers of the truths of God, publicly professed by a particular church, chill the warmth of love to the catholic church? surely no: for it is manifestly the interest of the catholic church that every particular church should hold these truths in her public profession, and not tolerate opposition to them in her communion. Hence it must give sincere pleasure to a lover of the catholic church to see a particular church uniformly faithful in refusing church communion to open opposers of any one of the truths of God contained in her public profession... Does the faithfulness of a particular church, in refusing to have sacramental communion with the open opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, hinder her from using any means appointed in the word of God for promoting his spiritual kingdom? This is so far from being the case, that this refusal is supposed and implied in the use of several proper means for that end; such as, a church's contending for the whole truth exhibited in her public profession; the judicial assertion of the truths of God's word, and the judicial condemnation of the contrary errors; committing the word to faithful men, who will teach others the whole truth and nothing but the truth, according to the public profession or testimony of the church, in due subordination to the holy scriptures; recognising the solemn engagements, which the church has come under to preserve whatever measure of reformation has been attained. These means, which are certainly appointed in the word of God, cannot be sincerely used by any particular church, unless she be careful, that such as are avowed and obstinate opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, may not be received into, or continued in her communion. Whilst these means, of our Lord's appointment, are willfully neglected, we have little ground to expect the Divine blessing on such other means as men may pretend, to use for the advancement of his spiritual kingdom" (pp. 92-93). To see how closely this mirrors Calvin's teaching, see pages 126 to 135 in _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ (Presbyterian Heritage Publications' edition, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm, on the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN"). ************************* Open Communion (the sin of) ************************* In the first place, it is a sectarian communion. Its existence supposes that there are sects and parties in the catholic [i.e. universal--GB] church; and that the variety of men's opinions, habits and feelings, is sufficient to justify the continuance of them. Scriptural, sacramental communion [close communion--GB] admits of no sects; requiring all partakers of it to be one bread, one body; perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. In the second place, it is an unfaithful and dishonest scheme. It is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus; for under the pretext of expressing love to him at his table, it regards the denial of some of his truths or institutions, however openly or obstinately persisted in, as a trivial matter, deserving no church censure. When the advocates for this scheme represent the truths and institutions of Christ, that are publicly opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian and local peculiarities, they are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ, to these churches and to the whole catholic church. They are chargeable with attempting to heal the wound of God's people slightly, saying peace, peace while there is no peace. Thirdly, it is a backsliding scheme. There is nothing more incumbent on a particular church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles of Divine truth stated in her confession and testimony. But as soon as the practice obtains in any particular church of having sacramental communion with the open and obstinate opposers of any of these articles, that church, thereby, falls from her steadfastness, and *is chargeable, in some measure, with apostasy * (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, pp. 93–94, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). Mournful as the divisions of the Church are, and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured, it is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end. *We must not do evil that good may come; and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the procuring of peace with fellow Christians*. Is it necessary to remind you, that unity and peace are not always good, nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church? We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her catholic unity notwithstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion; and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound repose, and it could be said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language" (Gen. 11:6). It was a union and peace founded in ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection to human authority; and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror. But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived, and the interests of religion deeply injured, under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends. Among these I know none more imposing, nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time, than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian. *It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion, which persons may take to themselves or give to others. Its abettors make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed, in the way of burying the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to everything about which they may differ in opinion or in practice.* Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion differ very little from one another, and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honor of God, who is pleased with the various diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him, provided only they are sincere in their professions--a principle of difformity which, however *congenial to the system of polytheism, is utterly eversive of a religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will*, and on a revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty he requires of us. But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential, or fundamental, or necessary, or principal; others circumstantial, or non– fundamental, or unnecessary, or less important. The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by all true Christians; the latter form the subjects of difference among them, and ought not to enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship. On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations, not excepting Papists, Arians, and Socinians; while others restrict their plan to those called evangelical, who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship, order, and discipline of the Church. The distinction on which this scheme rests is itself liable to objections which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the Word of God; and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state it in a manner that is satisfactory, or which renders it subservient to any practical use. The Scripture, indeed, speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation, because they are first laid, and others depend on them--first principles, or elementary truths, which are to be taught before others. But their priority or posteriority in point of order, in conception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doctrines, or their necessity in order to salvation. Far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches. There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically, and on different accounts, may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance; and this, so far as known, may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them. It is not, however, their comparative importance or utility, but their truth and the authority of him who has revealed them, which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing, and maintaining them. And this applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths, especially those of a supernatural kind, are manifold and incomprehensible to us; it is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them; and if we could see them as God does, in all their extent and at once, we would behold the lesser joined to the greater, the most remote connected with the primary, by necessary and indissoluble links, and all together conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole. Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast; whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey; and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we cannot give to others. It is not, indeed, necessary that the confession or testimony of the Church (meaning by this that which is explicitly made by her, as distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole Word of God) should contain all truths. But then any of them may come to be included in it, when opposed and endangered; and it is no sufficient reason for excluding any of them that they are less important than others, or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men. Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons, "the Word of the Lord," in all its extent, "must have free course and be glorified" (cf. 2 Thess. 3:1). *And any act of men--call it forbearance or what you will--which serves as a screen and protection to error or sin, and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any proper means, is contrary to the divine law, and consequently is destitute of all intrinsic force and validity*. There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation, by all persons, of all capacities, and in all situations; or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals? Or, if we could determine this extreme point, who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our dealing with others, or the extent of a church's profession of faith? Is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellowship, but what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest, to the edifying of the body of Christ, to the advancing of the general interests of religion, and to the preserving, in purity, of those external means, by which, in the economy of providence and grace, the salvation of men, both initial and progressive, may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age? In fine, there is reason for complaining that the criteria or marks given for determining these fundamental or necessary articles are uncertain or contradictory. It is alleged that "they are clearly taught in Scripture?" This is true of the others also. "That they are few and simple?" This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them. "That they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary?" Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalogue of them? "That they are such as embraced by all true Christians?" Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such characters? If not, can they avoid running into a vicious circle in reasoning, by first determining who are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines, and then determining that these doctrines are fundamental because they are embraced by persons of that description? Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated, I have no doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wished to fix the attention of men on matters confessedly of great importance, and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians by discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet. But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority will be afraid of contemning or of teaching others to think lightly of anything which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion, or an interpretation of any part of Scripture, which seems to imply in it that God has given men a power to dispense with some of his own laws. And they will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion. These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried, and the errors or abuses which may prevail among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be, they set an example which may be carried to any extent. *So far as it is agreed and stipulated that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected, and that any error or sin shall be treated as indifferent or trivial, the essence of latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made for further advancements, and the way is prepared for ascending, through successive generations, to the very highest degree in the scale*. Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the former, but proceeding on the same general principle, has been zealously recommended, and in some instances reduced to practice, in the present day. According to it, the several religious parties are allowed to remain separate, and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them. This plan is liable to all the objections which lie against the former, with the addition of another that is peculiar to itself. It is inconsistent and self– contradictory. *It strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the Church, and confirms schism by law: while it provides that the parties shall remain separate, at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them*. [Note that this is Mr. Bacon's plan of communion--GB] By defending such occasional conformity, English Dissenters at a former period contradicted the reasons of their dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to their opponents: for where communion is lawful, *it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord's Table, and then going away and maintaining communion, through the remainder of the year, on their own separate and contradictory professions*. Nay, it has of late become the practice to keep, in the same church, an open communion table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day, and a close one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day; while the same ministers officiate, and many individuals communicate, on both these occasions. And all this is cried up as a proof of liberality, and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party. *It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable. By the former, that church which is most faithful, and has made the greatest progress in reformation, must always be the loser, without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates*. It behoves her profession and managements to yield, and be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed. And thus, by a process opposite to that mentioned by the Apostle, those who have built on the foundation "gold, silver, precious stones," are the persons who shall "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:12, 15). *By the latter, all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost, without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction; purity of communion is endangered; persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches; and a faithful testimony against errors and abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented, is held up to odium and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as tending to revive old dissensions, and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp.106–118, or free on Still Waters Revival Books web page at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Unity_00.htm, emphases added). ************************* Confessions (subscription to) ************************* However, two things can be asked about these confessions: first, their necessity; then, their authority. As to the necessity, *we say that it is not absolute*, as if the church could not do without them. For there was a time when she was without them, being content with ecumenical creeds alone or even without these, content with the formula of Scripture alone; but hypothetical on the hypothesis of a divine command and of the condition of the church, from the time when heresies, the danger of contagion, the calumnies of adversaries and intestine discords in religion began to disturb her, that the necessity and justice of our secession from the church might be manifested, that they might be held together in one body and so all distractions, dangerous dissents and schisms, wounding the truth and unity of the church, might be shunned. Their authority ought indeed to be great with the pious in the churches, but still sinking below the authority of the Scripture. For the latter is a rule, they the thing ruled. It [the Scripture--GB] alone is self–credible (autopistos) with respect to words as well as to things, divine and infallible; they, as divine in things, still in words and manner of treatment are human writings. Faith is immediately and absolutely due to it [the Scripture--GB]; to them an examination is due and that having been made, if they agree with the word, faith. It [the Scripture--GB] is the constant and immutable canon of faith; while they are subject to revision and new examination, in which it is right not only to explain and amplify them, but also to correct whatever fault should be found in them and reform according to the rule of the word. Hence it is evident that they err here in excess who hold such confessions as the rule of the truth itself and make them equal to the Word of God. *They are at best secondary rules, not of truth, but of the doctrine received in any church, since from them can be seen and decided what agrees with or what differs from the doctrine of the church*. *Therefore, their true authority consists in this--that they are obligatory upon those who are subject to them in the court of external communion because they were written by the churches or in the name of the churches, to which individual members in the external communion are responsible* (1 Cor. 14:32). Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly (ataktos) and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. *Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the Word of God (which alone has power to bind the conscience)*. Therefore, they err in defect who acknowledge no authority or a very slight authority in confessions; such are the neutrals and Libertines, who, to consult their own interests, profess nothing certain and determinate, but amid the conflicts of contradictions are undecided and fluctuate and, falling in with the winds of fortune, bend their sails to their influence. Their religion, consequently, you would properly call (if they have any) a monthly faith; nay, even a daily (hemerobion) or hourly. Unorthodox persons and heretics are such who, seeing that they are checked by such formulas as by a bridle that they may not scatter their errors to the winds, endeavor in every way, either openly, or secretly and by cunning, to destroy their authority. *As was done by the Arminians, who frequently* (in considerationibus suis in Confess. et Catech. Belgi. +) *have calumniously charged us with ascribing to these formulas an authority canonical and equal to the Scriptures, when they were read and explained in the public assembly, as if they were considered as the very Word of God. But the groundlessness of this accusation appears from the acknowledged difference between confessions and the Word of God* (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, pp. 284, 285, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/T.htm). But while the matter, as well as the ground, of the church's profession is properly speaking divine, the acts and modes of professing and maintaining it are necessarily human. When false and corrupt views of Christianity become general, it is necessary that confessions of the truth in opposition to them be embodied in formal and written documents, which may be known and read by all men. Vox emissa perit: litera scripta manet (a voice sent forth disappears: a written letter remains). It is not enough that Christians confess their faith individually: to comply with divine commands, to answer to their character as church members, and the better to gain the ends in view, it is requisite that they make a joint and common confession. When the truths contained in the Word of God have been explicitly stated and declared, in opposition to existing errors, by the proper authority in a church, an approbation of such statements and declarations may be required as a test of soundness in the faith and Christian fidelity, without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience, or the most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture. *The same arguments which justify the use of creeds and confessions will also justify particular declarations or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing in churches which still retain scriptural formularies. Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn the latter*. It is not sufficient to entitle persons to the character of faithful witnesses of Christ, that they profess a general adherence to the Bible or a sound confession of faith, provided they refuse or decline to direct and apply these seasonably against present evils. It might as well be said that the soldier has acquitted himself well in a battle, because he had excellent armor lying in a magazine, or a sword hanging by his side, although he never brought forth the armor nor drew his sword from is scabbard. The means alluded to are the unsheathing of the sword and the wielding of the armor of the Church. So far from setting aside the authority of Scripture, they are necessary for keeping a sense of it alive on the spirits of men, and for declaring the joint views and animating the combined endeavors of those who adhere to it. *By explaining and applying a rule, we do not add to it, nor do we detract from its authority* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp. 135–137, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm, on the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN"). _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_ (this book is at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm, under "COVENANTED GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND") On Subscription to Church Standards, 1. Full Subscription to Church Standards Required December 8, Session 16, 1638 (Book of Discipline) In the Assembly held 1590 when the Confession of Faith was subscribed universally (de novo) a ratification of the liberties of the Kirk, in her jurisdiction, discipline, Presbyteries, Synods, and General assemblies, and an abrogation of all things contrary thereunto; was ordained to be sought in Council and in Parliament. In the next session it was ordained that the Book of Discipline, specially the controverted heads should be subscribed by all ministers that bear or hereafter were to bear office in this Kirk and that they be charged by the Presbyteries under pain of excommunication; seeing the Word of God cannot be kept in sincerity unless the holy discipline be preserved. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 33. December 10, Session 17, 1638. (Confession of Faith) And findeth that first in general : In the Confession of Faith we profess, we willingly agree in our consciences to the form of religion of a long time openly professed by the Kings Majesty, and whole body of this realm, in all points, as unto Gods undoubted truth and verity grounded only upon His written word, and therefore abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 37. Act Ordaining the subscription of the Confession of Faith and the Covenant (1639) We by our Act and Constitution ecclesiastical do approve the foresaid Covenant in all the heads and clauses thereof and ordains of new, under all ecclesiastical censure, the the masters of universities, colleges, and schools, all scholars at the passing of their degrees, all persons suspect of papistry or any other errors; and finally all the members of this Kirk and Kingdom, subscribe the same..... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 87. 2. Those who speak or write against these standards or those who wrote them are to be censured as sectarian. March 26, Session 7, 1638. The assembly alloweth this article. Whereas the Confession of Faith in this Kirk concerning both doctrine and discipline so often called in question by the corrupt judgement and tyrannous authority of the pretended Prelats, is now clearly explained, and by this whole Kirk represented by this General Assembly concluded, ordained also to be subscribed by all sorts of persons within this said Kirk and Kingdom : The Assembly constitutes and ordains that from henceforth no sort of person of whatsoever quality or degree be permitted to speak or write against the said Confession, this Assembly or any Act of this Assembly, and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 51 Aug 1, Session 5, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that such as have subscribed the Covenant and speaks against the same, if he be a Minister, shall be deprived: And if he continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicate: And if he be any other man, shall be dealt with as perjured and satisfy publicly for his perjury. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 93 July, Session 21, 1648. Whosoever brings in any opinion or practise in this Kirk contrary to the Confession of Faith, Directory for Worship or Presbyterian Government may be justly esteemed to be opening the door to schism and sects: And therefore all depravers and misconstructors of the proceedings of the Kirk judicatiries, especially the General Assembly would take heed lest making a breach upon the walls of Jerusalem they make a patent way for Sectaries to enter. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 396. 1. Only the Word of God is the principal and formal ground of our faith. Eph. 2:20–22; 2 Tim. 3:16; Lk. 24:25. 2. A confession of faith containing all fundamental points is so far forth the Word of God as it agrees with the Word of God and *obligeth as a rule secondary, which we believe with subjection to God, speaking in His own word, and to this platform we may lawfully swear* (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 132, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). Contradictory Oaths Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Contradictory Oaths 1. The Confession of Faith interpreted to a contrary meaning and subscribed to is a contradictory oath which is sinful and censurable. December 20, Session 26, 1638. Concerning the subscribing of the Confession of Faith lately subscribed by his Majesties Commissioner , and urged to be subscribed by others. And in the mean time, lest any should fall under the danger of a contradictory oath, and bring the wrath of God upon themselves and the land, for the abuse of His name and Covenant; The Assembly by their ecclesiastical authority, prohibits and discharges, that no member of this Kirk swear or subscribe the said Confession so far wrested to a contrary meaning, under pain of all ecclesiastical censure. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 63 2. Oaths and Bands contradicting the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant are sinful and censurable. July 28, Session 18, 1648 Act and declaration against the Act of Parliament and Committee of Estates ordained to be subscribed the 10th and 12th of June, and against all new Oaths or Bands in the common cause imposed without the consent of the Church. And therefore the General Assembly professing in all tender respect to the high and Honourable Court of Parliament and Committee of Estates, but finding a straighter tie of God lying upon their consciences, that they be not found unfaithful watchmen, and betrayers of the souls of these committed to their charge, Do unanimously declare the foresaid subscription to be unlawful and sinful. And do warn, and in the name of the Lord charge all the members of this Kirk, to forbear the subscribing of the said Act and Declaration, much more the urging of the subscription thereof, as they would not incur the wrath of God, and the Censures of the Kirk. And considering how necessary it is that according to the eight desire of the Commissioners of the Assembly to the Parliament, the Kirk might have the same interest in any new Oaths in this cause, as they had in the Solemn League and Covenant, and what dangers of contradictory Oaths, perjuries and snares to mens consciences may fall out otherwise: Therefore they likewise enjoin all the members of this Kirk, to forbear the swearing, subscribing or pressing of any new Oaths or Bands in this cause, without advise and concurrence of the Kirk, especially any negative Oaths or Bands, which may in any way limit or restrain them in the duties whereunto they are obliged, by National or Solemn League and Covenant, and that with certification as aforesaid. And such as have already pressed or subscribed the foresaid Act and Declaration, The General Assembly doth hereby exhort then most earnestly in the bowels of Christ, to repent of that defection. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.378-379 July, Session 21, 1648. That they beware of all things which may ensnare their consciences, as evil council, evil company, false information, rash promises, and especially that they beware taking any Oaths, subscribing any Bonds, which may relate to the Covenant and cause of God unless such Oaths and Bonds be approved by the General Assembly or their Commissioners for the public affairs of the Kirk. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.399 3. An example of excommunication for obstinate maintaining of oaths contradictory to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. June 13, Session 10, 1646. Ordinance for Excommunication of the Earl of Seafort The General Assembly having taken to their serious consideration that perfidious band made and contrived lately in the North under the name of A Humble Remonstrance , against our National Covenant, and the League and Covenant of the three kingdoms; which tends to the making of division and fomenting of jealousy within this and between both kingdoms, to the prolonging of these unnatural wars, to the impeding of the intended uniformity of religion, and to the subversion of all the happy ends of our Covenants. And finding that George Earle of Seafort has not only most perfidiously himself subscribed the said wicked band, contrary to his solemn oath sin in the Covenants aforesaid... Therefore the Assembly moved with the zeal of God, do without a contrary voice discern and ordain the said George Earle of Seafort to be summarily excommunicate and declared to be one whom Christ commanded to be held by all and everyone of the faithful as an ethnic and a publican. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 303-304. ************************* Covenanting ************************* I shall leave every man to his Judge, and shall judge nothing before the time; and I wish every man to consider sadly and seriously, by what spirit and principles he is led, and whether he be seeking the things of Christ, or his own things; whether he be pleasing Christ; whether sin be more shamed and holiness more advanced, this way or that way; which way is the most agreeable to the Word of God, to the example of the best reformed churches, and so to the _Solemn League and Covenant_. The controversy is now hot: every faithful servant of Christ will be careful to deliver his own soul by his faithfulness, and let the Lord do what seemeth him good. The cause is not ours, but Christ's; it stands him upon his honour, his crown, his laws, his kingdom. Our eyes are towards the Lord, and we will wait for a divine decision of the business: "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will save us" (George Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 78, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). Yes, unto them which believe Christ is precious; and *I never question that he is so to multitudes who never heard of the British Covenants*; but I grieve when these are lightly called the "old covenants" by those under the obligation of them... (David Steele, Reminiscences, 1883, p. 262, emphases added). Arminians [argue--GB]--A confession [Covenant--GB] is not a rule of faith it hath not the lowest place in the Church. *The Covenant written and sealed in Nehemiah's time was a secondary rule of faith* [in the same sense as the PRCE's fourth term of communion--GB], *and a rule in so far as it agreed with the Law of Moses*, for they enter in a curse and an oath to walk in God's law, not to give their sons and daughters in marriage to the heathen, not to buy victuals from the heathen on the Sabbath, to charge themselves to give money to maintain the service of God.(Nehemiah 9:38, 10:1–3, 29–32). *Which written Covenant was not Scripture; and Acts 15, the decrees of the Synod was not formally Scripture, yet to be observed as a secondary rule*. (Samuel Rutherford, _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_, 1649, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 25). The only plausible objection offered by opponents to the doctrine and practice of public social covenanting is taken from the assumption, that it is superceded by the sacraments, especially the Lord's Supper. The assumption has never been proved, and is utterly groundless, as will at once appear to any unbiased mind, by considering that God instituted all three forms of taking hold of his covenant. If it be so that baptism and the Lord's Supper are substantially the same seals of the covenant as circumcision and the passover; then the consequence is inevitable, that as the whole people of Israel were taken and engaged to God at Sinai, he judged the two preceding forms incomplete. And since the privileges of God's covenant people are enlarged--not abridged, under the New Testament dispensation, and that public covenanting was a matter of frequent prediction and promise under the Old dispensation; it follows that this instrumentality is to be continued and exemplified (David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, p. 27) Calvin's first objective was to obtain, at a meeting attended by the whole city, an oath forcing the entire population to abjure the papacy and adhere to the Christian religion and its discipline, as comprehended under a few headings (Johnston, _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, p. 138, emphases added). Register of the Council of 24 12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation. 26 November 1537. Some people have been reported to have said that it was perjury to swear to a confession which had been dictated to them in writing . . . [Farel or Calvin] replied that if the contents of the written confession were studied carefully it would be seen that this was not so, but that it was a confession made according to God. Examples from holy Scripture (in Nehemia and Jeremiah) proved that the people should all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his commandments (cited by Johnson, _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, p. 138, emphases added). To swear to the true religion, the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawful oath; as to swear to any thing that is lawful, and to lay a new band on our souls to perform holy duties, where we fear a breach, and find by experience there hath been a breach, is also a duty of moral and perpetual equity; therefore such a sworn covenant is lawful (Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_, p. 134, emphases added). Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Covenanting and Covenants 1. The Blessing of God upon Covenanting January 23, Session 2, 1645 And when we consider how the Lord hath carried on His work here at the first taking of the Covenant, and since, against much learning and contradiction, against much policy, power, and all sorts of opposition (such as reformation useth to encounter) we are ravished with admiration at the right hand of the Almighty. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p.249 2. The Perpetual Obligation of the Covenant July, Session 21, 1648 To remember that as the violation of the Covenant by some in England doth not set us free from the observation thereof, and as no laws nor authority on earth can absolve us from so solemn an obligation to the most high God (which not only has been professed by this Kirk but in a petition in the city of London, and in public testimonies of many of the Ministry in England) So we are not acquitted and assoiled from the obligation of our solemn Covenant, because of the troubles and confusions of the times; But that in the worst of times all those duties,whereunto by Covenant we oblige ourselves, do still lie upon us, for we have sworn (and must perform it) concerning that Cause and Covenant wherein we solemnly engaged. That we shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promove the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever. And if against all lets and impediments whatsoever, then the altering of the way of opposition, or of the kind of impediments doth not alter the nature or tie of the Covenant, but we are obliged to all the duties therein contained The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p.399 August 6, 1649 Although there were none in the one kingdom who did adhere to the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, since in it we have not only sworn by the Lord, but also covenanted with Him. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve the other from their duty or tie to Him: Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereunto moral, though the other do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the Covenant in our places and stations. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these kingdoms, as one of the best means of steadfastness, for guarding against declining times: It were strange to say that the backsliding of any should absolve others from the tie thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only National, but also personal, everyone with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tenor of the Covenant. From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these kingdoms joining together to abolish that oath by law, yet could they not dispense therewith; Much less can any one of them, or any part in either of them do the same. The dispensing with oaths have hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practised and avowed by any but by that man of sin; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they join with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p.474-475 July 27, Session 27, 1649 Albeit the League and 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 and our posterity. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 460 3. Covenant Subscription a Term of Communion August 8,Session 6, 1643 The General Assembly considering the good and pious advice of the commissioners of the last Assembly, upon the 22 of September, 1642 recommending to presbyteries, to have copies of the Covenant to be subscribed by every Minister at his admission, doth therefore ratify and approve the same. And further ordains that the Covenant be reprinted , with this ordinance prefixed thereto, and that every Synod, Presbytery and Parish, have one of them bound in quatro, with some blank paper, whereupon every person may be obliged to subscribe: And that the Covenants of the Synod and Presbytery be keeped by their Moderator respective, of Universities by their principals, of Parishes by their Ministers, with all carefulness. And that particular account of obedience to this Act, be required hereafter in all visitations of Parishes, Universities, and Prebyteries, and all trials of Presbyteries and Synod books. The General Assembly considering that the Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh 1639. August 30. enjoining all persons to subscribe the Covenant, under all Ecclesiastical censure, hath not been obeyed: Therefore ordains all Ministers to make intimation of the said Act in their Kirks, and thereafter to proceed with the censures of the Kirk against such as shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant. And that exact account be taken of every Ministers diligence herein by their Presbyteries and Synods, as they will answer to the General Assembly. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 162. August 5, Session 10, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that if any Expectant [minister-GB] shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant, he shall be declared incapable of Pedagogy, teaching in a school, reading at a Kirk, preaching within a presbytery, and shall not have liberty of residing within a Burgh, university or College: and if they continue obstinate to be processed. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 94 Aug 1, Session 5, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that such as have subscribed the Covenant and speaks against the same, if he be a Minister, shall be deprived: And if he continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicate: And if he be any other man, shall be dealt with as perjured and satisfy publicly for his perjury. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 93 Act Against Secret Disaffecters of the Covenant (1644) The General Assembly understanding that diverse persons disaffected to the National Covenant of this Kirk, and to the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, do escape their just censure, either by private and inconstant abode in any one congregation, or by secret conveyance of their malignant speeches and practises; Therefore ordains all ministers to take notice when any such person shall come into their parishes, and so soon as they shall know the same, that without delay they cause them to appear before the Presbyteries within which their parish lies......And the assembly ordains the said commissioners not only to proceed to trial and censure of such disaffected persons but also to take a special account of the diligence of the Ministers, Elders, and Presyteries herein respective. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. pp. 220-221 August 20,Session 15, 1647 And if by the declaration of both kingdoms [Scotland and England-GB] joined in arms, Anno 1643, such as would not take the Covenant were declared to be public enemies to their Religion and Country and that they be censured and punished as professed adversaries and malignant. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 335. Act for Taking the Covenant at the first receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The General Assembly according to former recommendations, Doth ordain that all young students take the Covenant at their first entry into colleges; and that hereafter all persons whatsoever take the Covenant at their first receiving of the Lords Supper: Requiring hereby Provincial Assemblies, Presbyteries and Universities to be careful that this Act be observed, an account thereof taken in the visitation of Universities and particular Kirks, and in the trial of Presbyteries. The Acts of General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 422 see also p. 368 That all students of Philosophy at their first entry and at their lawreation, be holden to subscribe the League and Covenant and be urged thereto, and all other persons as they come to age and discretion before their first receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 4. The Covenants are an important attainment, no lasting and binding agreement is attained without establishing them first. Session 23, 1648, A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England And considering of what importance the Solemn League and Covenant is unto all the interests of both kingdoms concerning their religion,liberties and peace. To make an agreement without establishing of it were not only to rob these Nations of the blessings they have already attained by it, but to open the door to let in all the corruptions that have been formerly in the kirks of God in their lands and all the abuses and usurpations that have been in the civil government, and again to divide these two kingdoms that are so happily united and conjoined. Therefore as we wish that all misunderstanding between the Nations and between the King and People may be removed, so that there may be a happy and lasting peace, so that there may be no agreement without establishing and enjoining the Covenant in all these three kingdoms... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 410 5. Covenant Breaking a Heinous Sin August 20, Session 15, 1647 A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England Yet we should betray our own sense and betray the truth if we should not resent so great a sin and danger as is the breach of a solemn Covenant, sworn with hands lifted up to the most high God: which breach however varnished over with some colorful and handsome pretexts, one whereof is the Liberty and Common Right of the free people of England, as once Saul brake a Covenant with the Gibeonite in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah. Yet God could not then, and cannot now be mocked; Yea it is too apparent and undeniable, that among those who did take the Covenant of the three kingdoms, as there are many who have given themselve to a detestable indifferency or neutrality, so there is a generation which has made defection on the contrary part; persecuting as far as they could that true reformed religion, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which by the Covenant they ought to preserve against the common enemies; hindering and resisting the Reformation and Uniformity, which by the Covenant ought to be endeavored; preserving and tolerating those cursed things which by the Covenant ought to be extirpated ... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 334. One would have to be almost totally spiritually blind not to recognize that we have nationally "provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger." The result is that our cities are burned with fire, our land is devoured by strangers (covenant breakers, antichristian and pagan) and that "the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city." But the Lord has left us a remnant for "the work of the restoring of the ruined temple of the Covenanted Reformation, and thereby the effecting of a third Reformation" (James Kerr, as cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ by the Covenanted Ministers of Scotland, p. 47). 6. Opposers and slanderers of the Covenant considered Enemies to the Cause of God. July , Session 21,1648 But remember that the foulest actions have not wanted specious pretences; And if they who killed the Apostles did both pretend and intend to do God good service, what marvel that they who engage against the Covenant pretend to engage for it. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 397. The second sort of enemies, from which our present dangers arise, are secret malignants and dis-covenanters who may be know by these and like characters: Their slighting or censuring of the public resolutions of this Kirk and State. Their consulting and labouring to raise jealousies and divisions to retard or hinder the execution of what is ordered by public judicatories. Their slandering the Covenant of the three kingdoms and expedition into England, as not necessary for the good of religion.... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 280 ************************* Some Quotes from Archibald Mason's book entitled-- _Observations on the Public Covenants_ ************************* The public covenants betwixt God and the church contain his gracious engaging himself to be their God, and to bless them; and their dutiful obliging themselves to be his people, and to serve him. This is the nature of all religious covenants with God. If they are considered in any other light, they are misunderstood; and if they are held up to men in any other point of view, they are misrepresented. p. 9 An individual Christian in a personal, or a body of them in a public capacity, entering into a covenant with God, do it not with a view to obtain an interest in in him as their God, to regain his favor, or to aquire a title to his salvation; but, having received Christ by faith, and taken hold of the covenant of which he is the mediator for these purposes, they, in their covenanting with God, solemnly devote themselves unto him, and vow or swear, in the strength of this grace, to glorify and serve him with their bodies and spirits which are his. p. 9 Those who oppose that truth, for which we are now arguing, must hold it to be an immoral and unlawful thing, for a Christian people to avouch the Lord to be their God, and to serve him; that they have no warrant in the word of God to resolve, promise, vow, or swear that they shall to the uttermost of their power maintain his gospel, cleave unto his ordinances, obey his laws, support the interests of his glory in the world, and oppose whatever is contrary thereunto; and that it is a criminal and unlawful thing for them to join themselves unto the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten p. 23 In response to those who think we can only bind our conscience to the scriptures, Mason says: 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. p. 40 If it is lawful and necessary for the Christian, in his personal capacity to bind himself to all duty; must it not be equally lawful and necessary for the church to comprehend duties of every class; in their public and solemn engagements to the Lord? Since it would be dishonoring for the believer to come under a partial obligation to duty, it must be still more provoking in the eyes of his holiness, to see his professing church partial in the law. p. 67 That it is NOT the duty of Christians to bring themselves under solemn and voluntary obligations to serve their God, will never be believed by those who have had their senses duly exercised to discern between good and evil. That comprehensive duty which Christ requires of them, who have come to him, and have found rest in him, Take my yoke upon you Matt. 11:29, plainly includes this important exercise. p. 89 Whenever a person comes to be savingly enlightened in the knowledge of the law, and of its obligation upon him, he immediately resolves upon obeying it. His obedience to the law commences with that act, whereby he resolves that whatever others do, as for him, he will serve the Lord. The Christian cannot thus determine or resolve without bringing himself under a voluntary obligation to obey. It is therefore evident, that both the discovery of the original divine obligation of the law, and the Christian's willing engagement to fulfill it, are absolutely necessary unto all acceptable obedience. If these may be formed in the mind, they may be expressed in words unto the Lord. Of this we have innumerable instances in the scriptures. If they may be expressed in words, they may be uttered in the form of a promise, vow, or oath unto the Lord. If these things may be done by an individual, they may be done by a company, consisting of few or many, even by a whole nation. It is therefore, an important and necessary duty belongiing to Christians, either in their personal or collective capacities, to come under voluntary obligations unto the service of the Lord. The evil of opposing the duty of public covenanting with God, is evident from this subject. p. 90 The great evil of this opposition to our covenants consists in its being a fighting against God, a contempt of his ordinance, an injury done to his church, a striking against pure and undefiled religion, and an endeavor to harden the generation in their sin. p. 92 In the same visions with which John was favored, the martyrs of Jesus are said to be slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held Rev. vi. 9. The word of God is one thing, and the church's testimony for the truths of that word is another thing; and it was for their attachment unto the word of God, and for the faithful witness which they bare unto the truths of it, that they were put to death by their cruel persecutors. p. 103
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Covenants -- John Brown of Haddington ************************* Brown (of Haddington), in his book _The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration..._ (1803), points out (on page 161) that Westminster Assembly considered the SL&C an "everlasting covenant." That the body of the English nation also swore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament, affirm, "The honourable house of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will, doubtless, stand by all those, who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an ***everlasting covenant*** with the Lord." p.161, The footnote tells us that the section Brown was quoting was taken from "Exhortation to take the Covenant, February, 1644." Furthermore, Brown annihilates Richard Bacon's novel view of covenanting throughout the last third of this book (pages 114-189). "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***." (Emphasis added) ************************* Perpetual Obligation of Covenants ************************* That by this new subscription [which Charles I was proposing--GB] our late Covenant [of 1638 --GB], and Confession may be quite absorbed and buried in oblivion, *that where it was intended and sworn to be an everlasting Covenant never to be forgotten*, it shall never more be remembered, the one shall be cryed up, and the other drowned in the noise thereof (Records of the Church of Scotland, p. 86, "The Protestation of the Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burrowes, Ministers, and Commons" [after reading the proclamation dated September 9, 1638], emphases added). That the body of the English nation also swore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament, affirm, "The honourable house of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will, doubtless, stand by all those, *who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an everlasting covenant with the Lord*" (_The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration_, 1803, p. 161, emphases added). Go on in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, against all opposition, without fear of whatsoever dangers, to purge the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches thereof, to set up all his ordinances in their full beauty and perfection, to the uttermost of your power, according to the pattern of the Word of God and zeal of the best Reformed Kirks. And let these two kingdoms be knit together as one man in maintaining and promoting the truth of the Gospel. *Let us enter in a perpetual Covenant for ourselves and our posterity* to endeavour that all things may be done in the House of God according to his own will, and let the Lord do with us as seems good in his eyes (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], p. 205, emphases added). That the obligation of religious vows and oaths extends to posterity is evident also, from the names which the Scriptures bestow upon the church's covenants with God. They are called an everlasting covenant, The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 24:5, AV), and a perpetual covenant, They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten (Jeremiah 50:5, AV). *These covenants are called an everlasting covenant, and a perpetual covenant, because their obligation is durable and permanent, and extends to future generations*. If the obligation of these covenants perished at the decease of the actual covenanters, they would be temporary, fleeting and transient in their nature indeed, and could have no title to these honourable appelations bestowed upon them by the Spirit of God. (Archibald Mason, Observations on Public Covenanting, 1821, p. 45, cited from _The Fall of Babylon the Great_, emphases added). *But these three 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 endeavour 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, endeavour reformation, so that if it were left all to one man, he must endeavour 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 covenant, 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 witness 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 (John Howie, _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_, 1880, p. 668). 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 so do 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, &c. But what if it come 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 Scripture. "I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy 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 (John Howie, _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_, 1880, pp. 673– 674). 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 principle stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled unto this day? Are we not as a people still bound by that engagement to see these things done? *Has the lapse of time cancelled 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 endeavour 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"* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 200, 1821, reprinted 1989, emphases added). The principle of continued or transmissible federal obligation is not liable to the objections that have been urged against it, and is no novelty. We do not make our ancestors a sort of federal head as Adam was to the human family, when we allege that our posterity are bound by their engagements. This is altogether a misrepresentation of the argument on the subject. *The descending obligation of the public covenants rests upon the essential character of organised society. It is the same party in different stages of its existence that is bound to moral obedience*; and the obligation rests in all its plenitude upon the community as the same moral agent, until the whole matter of the engagement be fulfilled (Thomas Houston, _A Memorial of Covenanting_, 1857, p. 35, emphases added). August 6, 1649. Although there were none in the one kingdom who did adhere to the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, *since in it we have not only sworn by the Lord, but also covenanted with Him*. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve the other from their duty or tie to Him: *Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereunto moral, though the other do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the Covenant in our places and stations*. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these kingdoms, as one of the best means of steadfastness, for guarding against declining times: *It were strange to say that the backsliding of any should absolve others from the tie thereof*, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only National, but also personal, everyone with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tenor of the Covenant. From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these kingdoms joining together to abolish that oath by law, yet could they not dispense therewith; Much less can any one of them, or any part in either of them do the same. *The dispensing with oaths have hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practised and avowed by any but by that man of sin*; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they join with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], pp. 474–475, emphases added). The permanent obligation of the Solemn League 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 the 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 (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 195, emphases added). Albeit the League and 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 and our posterity. (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive] p. 460). 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 (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], pp. 472–473). ************************* Intrinsic Obligation of Covenants ************************* 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 are previously under by the law of God*; and, that their obligation on posterity consists merely in the influence of example (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 197). The lax and prevailing sentiment by which this truth [of solemn covenant obligations--GB] is opposed, is the following. Religious covenants are not formally, but only materially [or morally--GB] 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. *[Is this not Mr. Bacon's exact argument?--GB] *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 formerly 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 [i.e. breach of promise--GB], covenant–breaking or perjury. Though we may pledge our veracity, by religious promises and vows unto God, if there is no [formal--GB] 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 fulfil 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 fulfil 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--GB] 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 (Archibald Mason, "Observations On The Public Covenants", 1821, pp. 40, 41, an appendix in _The Fall of Babylon the Great_, emphases added). To lay bands of promises and oaths upon a back–sliding heart, is commanded in the third Command, and is not Judiacal, Gen. 14:22. Gen. 28:20. Psal. 132:2. Psal. 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* (Samuel Rutherford, _A Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 482, emphases added). 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 a intrinsic obligation of the highest and most constraining kind (Thomas Houston, D.D., _A Memorial of Covenanting_, 1857, p. 29, emphases added). *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 fulfil our promises and federal engagements. If an oath is taken to declare the truth, this adds nothing, it 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 has 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 repugns 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."* (William Symington, _Nature and Obligation of Public Vowing_, p. 22). This superadded obligation of vows oaths and covenants is plainly recognized in Scripture, (See Numbers xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21; Eccles. v. 4,5). Divine threatenings distinctly specify, as a separate ground of punishment, breach of covenant, in addition to the transgression of God's law. (Thomas Houston, A Memorial of Covenanting, 1857, pp. 29, 30, emphases added). 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. 1. In his law, God, by the declaration of his will as our supreme Ruler, binds us, Deut. xii. 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*, Num.. xxx. Psalm lxvi. 13.15. & cxix. 106. &c. 2. *The obligation of our promises, oaths and covenants is always subject to examination by the standard, of God's law, as to both its matter and manner, I Thess. v. 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 iv. 11,12. Isa.. viii. 20. Deut. v. 32. 3. The law of God necessarily binds all men to the most absolute perfection in holiness, be they as incapable of it as they will, Matth. v.48. I Pet. i. 15, 16. No man can, without mocking and tempting of God, bind himself by vow or oath to any thing, 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 form God, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, Eccl. vii. 23. James iii.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, I John iii. 4. Rom.. vii. 14, 23, 24. *But it is only by that which is, in some respect, voluntary sinfulness, that we break our lawful vows, Psal. xliv. 47. 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, Psal.. cxi. 7, 8. 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 as 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 estate of innocence, made it proper, that he should be bound by his own consent or engagement, as well as 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, Psal.. lxxvi. 11. & cxix. 106. & lvi. 12. Isa.. xix. 18, 21. & xlv. 23, 24. & xliv. 5. Jer. l. 5, 2 Cor. viii.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, Num. xxx. 2–11--binding ourselves by that which we utter with our lips ver. 2, 6, 12, --binding ourselves with a binding oath,--binding ourselves--binding our soul by our own vow--our own bond, ver. 4,7,14. In forming our 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 fulfilment 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 fulfil it as an engagement to duties, and an obligation which stands upon or against us, Num. xxx. 5, 7, 9, 11. with Deut. xxiii. 21–23. Psalm lxxvi. 11. & 1. 14. Eccl. v.4, 5. Mat. v. 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 fulfil it as a bond, wherewith we, in obedience to Him, have bound ourselves, to endeavour 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 fulfil 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 fulfil our vow, as an engagement or obligation founded in the supreme authority of his law warranting us to make it. We are bound to fulfil 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 fulfil it, in obedience to that divine authority, by derived power from which, we as governors of ourselves made it to promote his honour. In those or like respects, our fulfilment of our vows is a direct obedience to his whole law. We are moreover bound to fulfil 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 holily and reverently used, and so in obedience to Command I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil it, as an ordinance of God, in which we have pledged our own truth, sincerity and faithfulness and so in obedience to Command IX. I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil 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 Command I. II. VIII. nay, in obedience to the whole law of love and equity, Mat. xxii. 37, 39. & vii. 12. We are bound to fulfil 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 Command I. III. IX. We are bound to fulfil 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