Libertines alledge, Luke 9:51,52,53, &c. When Christ by a village of the Samaritans, was dejected and denied James and John Say, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire come downe from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But Christ rebuked them and said, yee know not what manner of spirit yee are of? for the Son of man is not to come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. Then are we to spare the lives of those that refuse the true and sound doctrine of the Gospel,yea who oppugne it, and to admonish them; Celfus saith1, this example is not proposed to compare the Samaritans with hereticks, or the Apostles with the Ministers and the Magistrate, but that the benigne and meeke engine of Christ, in matters of Religion, for if the Apostle had moved the same question touching hereticks at that time, Christ would have given the same answer. The Holland Arminians say, if Christ suffered not his Disciples to conceive a desire of revenge from heaven from the onely love and zeale of Religion against the Samaritans that denyed lodging to him, farre lesse must we beleeve that he will suffer, that in matters of Religion, for meere conscience any maifest violence should be exercised; for Christ saith, the Spirit that leads you is raging, vehement, fiery, the spirit of my Disciples is not so2. 2. Your spirit seeks to destroy lives, out of a zeale for Religion, the Spirit of the Son of man is for saving, not for destroying of mens lives. And this generall answer of Christ forbids all cruelty in the matters of Religion, saith Celfus.The not burning of the Samaritans doth prove nothing for the immunity of hereticks from the sword.
Answ. First, the Libertines must prove from this, that the Disciples made Religion the quarrell, why they would have the Samaritans burnt, and not an inhumane fact of denying against the Law of nature, an act of hospitality to strangers,and that because of the envy between the Jews and Samaritans, Christ seeming to grace Jerusalem, with his presence, then the Samaritans have had a high esteem of Christ, and were offended that so mighty a Prophet should visit their hatefull enemies, this was an act of envy rather then an heterodoxy in the faith, or opposing the doctrin of the Gospel.
2. The Samaritans were yet in their Idolatry and utterly ignorant of the Gospel now we had never a question with Libertines, whether the first thing to be done to such as will not admit Christ or his messengers within their houses; and for the first act of refusing to hear the Gospel, before they be instructed, we are to call for the Magistrates sword to kill them, or for fire from heaven to destroy them? we think no we should thinke this no way of God to convert them (wee plainly say) It is not lawfull to us to goe with fire and sword, to force the Indians, Samaritans, or any heathen to embrace the Christian faith, the weapons of our warfare are not carnall, if they be within our power, we may restraine them, 1. From spreading their blaspemies to hurt and seduce the soules of the people of God. 2. We may hinder them from reproaching God or his son Christ in the hearing of the people of God, as David fought against Goliath, who blashemed the living God. 3. If they do Nationall injuries, and acts of hostility, we may raise armes against them, and in these warres in case of subduing, we may intend the porpagating of the Gospel to them, as the Master is to command and teach his servants, Gen. 18:18. Deut. 6:6,7.so the victors having made the subdued people their servants, doe now acquire some masterly power over them to see them instructed in the knowledge of the true God. Nor is the intention of overcomming in a lawfull warre, the more unlawfull, but rather more spirituallized by the accession of a spirituall intention to doe good to their soules, whether wee may by force take their children from them, and train them up in the Christian Religion, is disputable, since their condition of being subdued denudes them not of the naturall relation of fathers to sonnes, or because in so robbing them of their children, we should but spoyle them of the actuall abuse of that paternall right, which is now conveyed to runne in a right channell, to traine up young ones in a right way, whereas their parents would imploy it to a wrong end, it would seeme no violence to the soules of young ones, since nothing is done, but by gracious education and istruction.4. If they joyne with us in one Religious Covenant, and we sweare with our lives and goods to defend one another, we may cause them stand to the oath of God they were under. As Asa compelled not onely Jusay but those of Israel that fell in to him, to stand to the oath; for the Covenant, when it is mutuall, giveth a reciprocation of Rights to each Kingdome over the other, for if he that makes a promise to another, much more he that sweares a Covenant to another, makes over a right to the other, to plead for the fulfilling thereof, omnis qui promittit facit jus alteri, cui est fact a promissio, ad requirendath promissi implectionem. This is cleare in the Kings covenanting at his coronation with his people, and the people with the King, in the compacts between the master and the hired servant, between two merchants; if this were not, the nerves of all societies, and lawfull confederations between man and man, nation and nation should bee broken. 2. Omne promissum cadit in debitum, promise becomes debt, and so doth a Covenant.
But before I say more of compulsion of heathen, that are without. A word to the wise of forscing within, and of the Covenant, endeavouring of uniformity, not the Prelaticall in Ceremonies and canonicall obedience, which Familists impute to the Covenant, but Scripturall uniformity in the same faith and forme of wholesome words, and eternall worship and ordering of it, which is not indifferent, as Libertines and Familists, who in this are brethren against Presbyterians, the Authors of their breathing in England, (but we intended good to men, not to sects) endeavouring of nearest uniformity in the three Kingdomes, which we did sweare is contrary to actuall tollerating of all sects and Religions, but the Sectaries endeavour the latter, and have compassed it, ergo, the Sectaries are gone contrary to their Oath and Covenant. The Proposition is evident setting up of all sects and Religions by a Law-tolleration, is an endeavouring, yea and actuall erecting of the widest multiformity that is, Yea but the Ordinance provides against Antitrinitarians, Socinians, Papists.Answ. There is no porvision against them, Papists will say Amen to tollerate them.2. There is no provision made to try Socinians and Papists whether they be such or no, but the old way of trying them by the Law removed, and no new one established, then are they the same way tollerated, that the Familist, Antinomians, Arminians, Libertines, Enthysiasts, Antiscripturists, Sceptists, Seekers, are tollerated, who all will acquiesce to the Ordinan e, as I conceive, and within these few yeares would have rejoyced at lesse then the halfe of it.
A certaine Author hat written a Tretise called Ancient bonds3, in which there is little antiquity, lesse verity, no impartiality, much ignorance, for he neither doth, nor can so much as state the question. And he saith We are to endeavour Reformation of Religion in the three Kingdomes not simply, but according to the owrd of God, the only patterne and regulation of the best Reformed Churches, and of us, we clip the Covenant of these words.
(Side notes: The word of God as it is in every mans conscience no rule of Reformation in the Covenant. The equivocation of Sectaries in swearing the Covenant.)
Answ. The word of God (say the Familist in their Petition to King James an. 1604.) as we understand it. So as Libertines understand it, and according to their conscience, so the Jewes would sweare to endeavour a Reformation according to the word of God in the Old Testament, as they understand it, and the Rapist according to the word of God as they understand it, to written and not written and will the Author dare to looke God or men in the face and say the words, according to the word of God, is according as every Covenanter understands the word of God, the Prelaticall man, the Socinian, Ariian, Familist, Antinomian, Seeker, Soparatist, Antiscripruist, Antirinitarian, Arminian? for all these did take the Covenant (if we speake de genere sinculorum) or did those that took the Covenant speak or meane that tolleration of all these sects and Reformation, and nearest uniformity can consist, or that he, and all these had this sense under-hand of these owrds (according tothe word of God) that is as Socinians, Libertines, Familist, Antinomians, &c. expound the word of God? If so, we must justifie the Jesuits equivocaltion, and their oaths with mentall reservation, for the sense of Prelaticall men, and of those that goe for Heretickes and Schismatickes now as then, to wit, Socinians, Libertines, Arrians, Familist, and the rest were knowne Heretickes, and Schismatickes, and their Scoinian, Arrian, Familisticall,& c. sense of the word of God, was excluded in the second Article of the Covenant in these words, We shall--endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy--Superstition, Heresie, Schisme, &c. by this Jesuiticall sense, we all sweare we sahll endeavour to be perjured, and to reforme each mans Religion according to his owne sense of the word, and whereas in former times it was beleeved that Christ was God-man. WeFamilists sweare to reforme Religion in the three Kingdomes in that part and to teach and professe, that every Saint is so Godded, and Christed, that there is as much of the fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling in every Saint as in Christ; so that there be as many Saints, as many Christs, and as many Gods minifested in the flesh, as there be Saints, for since liberty of conscience was then not professed, and was a point holden by no Reformed Church, yea not by the Church of New England, the best Reformed Church (as this man saith) but detested by all, it was presupposed that the true sense of the word of God was against it, and Independents who then did sweare the Covenant knew our minde, and did sweare the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in doctrine, worship, and discipline against the common enemy, and they knew Presbyteriall Governmnet approves both of the censures of the Church and of the Magistrates sword against heretickes, and therefore Tarkes and Pagans would never have sworne a Covenant to endeavour uniformity in one Religion according to the word of God, and after petition the Parliament to set up in England the widest multiformity that Sathan can devise, and say they have sworne to endeavour the nearest uniformity in Religion, and yet to preach and print, and endeavour by the same Covenant, and the word of God the rule of sworne Reformation the widest multiformity, and that the Lord should be one, and his name one in both Kingdomes, and yet that the Lord be two, or ten, and his name, that is, the maners and kinds of Religions be two and twenty, that Gods name may be divided amongst Socinians, Arrians, Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, Seekers, Antiscripturists, Libertines, Scepticks, Enthysiasts, Brownists, Independents: this is worse then a Popish implicit faith, which we disclaim.Ancient Bonds p. 68
The other thing (saith he) left out which yet referres to all, The Covenant is, that hee that sweres shall by all lawfull wayes and meanes, and according to his place and calling endeavour to performe the Covenant, v. 13. to bring the Churches to uniformity, and to extirpate heresie As for instance, it is the goldy Magistrates duty, their place and calling, to send forth Ministers to the darke places of the land, and to set up lights to guide mens feet into the wayes of truth and peace, and reclaime them from errors: and he cannot be urged upon his calling to punish or compell gainesayers. And the Minister is to doe it in his place by exhorting, rebuking, instructing, but he is to goe no further, he is not to deliver men up to judge, and be an executioner.The Author of the Ancient bonds an ignorant prevoricator in the Covenant.Answ. The words by all lawfull meanes and wayes, which this man puts in Italian letters, and says are left out by the Author, whom he refutes, may soon be left out, for they were never in the Covenant The man will defend the Covenant and apparently hath sworne it, but I thinke he hath scarce read it, for these words are not in the Covenant, let him read againe. Turpe est doctors sum culpa redarnit ipsum.
2. He sweare to bring the Churches to nearest uniformity according to his place, but when this man defends the tolleration of all the sects in England, Socinians, Arians, Familists, for he writing anno. 1645 when above twenty sundry Religions in England came to the streets, he excepts not one in all his Treatise, but calls them all the godly party, Saints, Brethren, the Godly, and ownes them so, in his preface and whole booke.He must grant there is no uniformity in faith, discipline, worship, by the word of God, for if all these be Saints, Godly and holy Brethren, they have all one faith, and are savd, but let him tell me, by the next, if he can answer, whether there is a nearest, or any uniformity in faith, worship, and government betweene Presbyterians, and Socinains, Familists, Antinomians, and Seekers, yet this man sweares to indeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity amongst all the Saints who are to be tollerated, but let him say, if he hath, in this case ingenuity on learning, what nearest uniformity hee knowes amongst all these, whether the Covenant should not obliege a Libertine to indeavour the widest (???pg. 254) and deformity of religions amonsgt these, and to plead for frobearance of them all as he expoundeth it.
(Side note: Al moral compelling of hereticks, and refuting of false teachers by the word, is as unlawfull as compulsion by the sword, according to the principles of Libertines.)
3. But wee are (saith he) to indeavour by all lawfull meanes and wayes, the nearest uniformity among the Churches, and the onely lawfull way, as he thinks is not by force, but by rebuking, instructing, exhorting, and by no weapons, but onely by the word of God. But since this Author and all the Nation of Libertines goe upon this principle, Religion is not to be compelled by force, for we are not infallible, and those whom we force as hereticks may be no hereticks, for ought we know, but as sound in the fiath as our selves. Then we have no faith, nor any wellgrounded perswasion of the word of God, to refute them by the words and we refute them not of faith, but sinfully and erroniously, for they may be as sound in the faith, as we our selves, for ought wee know, and this is a strong argument against morall wayes of gaining hereticks by the power of the word, for if they may be sound in the faith, and we the hereticks, though we refute them by the word, we may be perverting the right wayes of God and fight against Christ, as Elimas; for Elimas onely by morall wayes, not by force or violence laboured to pervert the fiath of Sergius Paulus, and it is not apparent that Elimas was perswaded in his conscience, that the Gospel Paul preached was the truth of God, and so by no meanes, lawfull or unlawfull, by force, or by the word of God, are we to indeavour uniformity, for our indeavouring is not of faith, nor from the real ground of the word, but from meere opinions and conjectures, for it may by (say Libertines) that all those whom wee refute as hereticks, be sound in the faith, and we, not they the hereticks, and those whomm we refute, are as much oblieged in faith to refute us as we to refute them. So I see not how Libertines can use so much as morall compelling of Hereticks. For 1. They cannot compell them with the sword to forsake their heresies, because the sword bearer being fallible knoweth them not to be heresies, they may be necessary truths for him. Erga, because the Pastor is no more infallible then the Magistrate, the Pastor with certainty of faith cannot say, thus saith the Lord. Jezabel is a false Prophetesse, Hymeneus and Phyletus depart from the faith, for Jeabel, Hymeneus and Philetus may be sound in the faith, and this Pastor who refuteth them, the false heretick, for there is no peremptory and imposing decision of any of these, till the last judgement, since now the infallible Prophets and Apostles are dead. 2. Upon this ground, yee canot eschew any as heretick after twise admonishing him of his heresie, for ye have no faith, nor divine certainty, it is an heresie that he holdeth, it may be you who admonish him are the heretick: only upon opinion you admonish him. 3. YOu cannot rebuke any Heretick sharpely, that hee may be sound in the faith, for you are not infallible in the bestowing of the lashing of your tongue on a heretick, more then the Magistrate in beating him with the sword, and your rebuking of him may be heretcial and unjust, and he the man sound in the faith. Upon the same ground you cannot admonish and intruct him in faith. Nor, 5. Call the opinion of the Magistrate coercing of men with the sword for their conscience, a bloody tenet and persecution of the Saints. Nor, 6. Can you in faith refute him lodging in your house, and all your 7. Saying in the pulpit, such a way of Familisme is a way of heresie, is not resolved in, thus saith the Lord, by such preacher, but such a preacher so thinketh, possibly phancies, that the Lord sayth such a way is heresie. And by the same reason what ever pastors preach, especially except it be two or three fundamentalls which all Christians, Papists, Socinians, Lutherans, Protestants, Familists, Arminians, Seekers, &c. Is but the dictates of their own conscience, and so they preach, so they beleeve, and so they professe not, because God so saith, but because their conscience so dictates to them. And here is the Libertines Creed, Me thinks Christ died for sinners, the dead shall be raised,&c. And so Libertines are very Papists in this, and resolve our faith into the testimony of men, the conjectures of the conscience.4 So he goes on Hee expounds uniformity and nearest conjunction, to be absolute conjunction and identic. If we be agreed of the same Church Officers with the reformed Churches, and have cast ou the old Usurpers, cashiered the Common-prayer booke, Ceremionies, Alters, Crucifies (all which we have don by the Covenant) do we not save our Covenant, though we cast not our Churches into such Classicall proviniciall, or national formes.
(Side note: The Magistrate as the magistrate cannot send ministers but in a complufory way.)
Answ. Nor do we plead for absolute indentitie in doctrine, and worship, but indeavour it we ought. But how I pray you doth the Magistrate (for that I had almost forgot) send Ministers to rebuke, exhort and reclaime men from their errors, but not compel gainesayers? The Magistrate (I am sure) sent not Paul and Barnabas it was not so from the beginning, in the Apostolick Church there were no Parliament Ministers. But it may be the Author meanes a politicall civill sending of Ministers to extirpate heresies. But be it so, all Magistrcall sending of Magistrates is a commanding of them by the sword in a compulsinve way, that they goe preach against Familisme, Socinianisme, Arrianisme. But if so, good Sir remember your selfe, the Magistrate, as the Magistrate doth not request, and morally by the power of the word (for he hath not any such Spirituall armour, I conceive, for his warfare) intreat, and say, good Pastors, I beseech you go preach against St. Del, Randal, Saltmarsh and other Familists, and extirpate their heresies; private men so send Pasotrs, but as a Magistrate he must say, I command you goe preach agaisnt these heresies, under the paine of bearing the vengeance of my sword, now if the Pasotrs reply, Good Master Judge, we cannot doe that, for we think Familisme a new glorious discovery of spirit, and Mr. Saltmarsh hath beaten out of the Scriptures, new sparkels of glory and flowings of free grace, Familisme is no heresie. If the Magistrate notwithstanding by his place and calling send these, and command them to goe and extirpate Familisme, doth he not compell the conscineces of these pastors he sends? what doe ye then talke of no compelling? for what ever the Magistrate by his place doth command which is lawfull, if Ministers or any other refuse to obey, he may use the sword against them. Ye cannot say, if it be a matter of conscience he cannot compell them to doe it by his place: then (say I) by his place hee cannot command them neither. Beside that, this answer is, directly agaisnt the words of the Covenant, if every man in like manner. Art. 2 Be to endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy Heresie and Schisme, in his severall places and callings, as the Author saith, this regerres to the whole obligation of each person respectivley. Then is the Magistrate according to his place and calling, which is to beare the sword, to compell with the sword, the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Heresie and Schisme, and what hath the Author gained by this glosse, which I conceive is the true glosse except he mean the Magistrate, as the Magistrate should lay aside his sword and fall to prayers, requests, obtestatons,that hereticks would lay aside their errours and preach sound doctrine, but now he doth so pray and request, not according to his place, as a Magistrate, but according to his vocation as a Saint and a Christian, which yet crosses the Covenant, and makes the Parliament not as the supream Court of Judges to take the Covenant, but as so many private Christians.
2. If so, the Judges are not in their respective places to take the Covenant, nor endeavour the extirpation of heresie, because that is against the word of God, but then by what authority or calling did the Parliament cast our Old Usurpers, the Prelates, casheire the Service booke, Ceremonies, Alters, and Crucifixes? Either as a Parliament, and so by the sword: is not here yet the Prelates conscience squeezed to the blood? is not here highest violence done to the consciences of high alter men and adorers of crucifixes? Why to them more then to Familist? But if this was done by request, and words of butter and oyl from the Parliament and Committee-men, then are Ordinances of Parliament but meer requests to the subjects. But it is prtoestio coniraria facie.He addeth, if these words (we shall endeavour the extirpation of Schisme, and whatsoever shal be found contrary to sound doctrine, &c.) be levelled onely agaisnt the Congregational men, it was not faire to draw them into a Covenant to destroy themselves. Its disservice to the State, to spoyle the State of so many Godly and brave men, and seemes to be but the birth of that challenge agaisnt these men (to bee the Sandballets and Tobia's of this present worke) and is the highest breach of love.5
Answ. It is apparent the Congregationall men he meaneth are the Independents, who would have their Churches gathered out of true Churches. Who willn ot be called Schismaticks, as if ensis and gladius were not one thing, then this Author levelled these words against Presbyterians, as the Schiscaticks, for where ever one Church is rent from another true Church, one of the two is the Schismatick Church; sure but the Author willnot have Independents the Schismaticks, then was it faire to levell these words in the Covenant against Presbyterians, and draw them in a Covenant to destroy both ther soule and body?
2. The Congregationall men were not drawne, but they came to another Kingdome with faire words to draw Presbyterians in a Covenant, and said, and swore to indeavour uniformity, and yet practise this day multiformity of Religions and have put to the saile, the blood of many gallant men in Scotland, that so they may buy with their lives, cursed Liberty of Conscience. But will it not be bitternesse in the end?
3. The Author hints at a story that fell out in the Assembly of Divines where I was witnesse, Mr. Phi.Nye having sworne to endeavour the preservation of Presbyterian government in the Covenant, was pleased in the face of the Assembly in the Hearing of that renowned Generall of England, for the time, the Earle of Essex, and many other honourable and noble persons, to declaime against Presbyteriall governmnet, as formidable to States and free Kingdomes, as of old some called Jerualem the rebellious City, and the Prelates the same way burdened the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland but Mr. Alexander Hernderson, a man for piety, learning, prudency and singular moderation, from zeale, not from the Spirit of gall and wormewood, as the Author slanderously speaketh, said they were the words of Tobiah and Sandballet, to hinder the worke of Reformation; now whether that worthy man spake what hath now come to passe, let the godly Divines of the Assembly be judge.
4. We know now service to the State done by these men, but thta they set up with the sword all the blasphemous and hereticall Sect and Religions that Th. Muncer or John of Leydon phancied contrary to the oath of God, for they all professed they were for the Covenant, many of them did sweare it, with what conscience to performe, letCrumwel and others speake, God will not be mocked, which is such disservice tothe State of England as cannot but draw downe from heaven the vengeance of the Lord, and the vengeance of his Temple upon the land; or was it fair when the Congregationall men did hide their conclusion of liberty of conscience, would keepe that intended Idoll in the bottome of thier heart, and joyne in Covenant with Presbyterians, and sweare against multiformity of Religions in words, known to be contrary to sense and reason, and the same words of the Covenant, and now obtrude on us multiformity for uniformity.
5. The Author insinuates as much, as not to give them liberty of consicence, as a reward of thier valorons fighting, is disservice to the State. But ingenuous workman speake of their wages, before they ingage the work, but to keepe up any word of liberty of conscience untill the worke bee ended, and it come to disbanding, is no fair bargaining, but rather in plaine English, either fell to us Law, Liberties, Religion, and give them to us beside our arreares, or we must be a perpetuall standing Army to governe England, and manage Religion with the sword, and to set up all Religions, and destroy the Covenant and the Prtestant faith, and live upon the sweat of other mens browes.6
The Covenant with a faire interpretation may be urged against Presbyterians, and for the Congregationall way, as well as otherwise. The Covenant binds no man, nor number of men to State or Church for their parts respectively, to any paterne or degree of Reformation, conformity or uniformity with other Churches, but what shall satisfactorily to them and each of their consciences, appeare to be according to the word of God; and such a Reformation doe the Congregationall men desire, pray, preach, endeavour for and after, in the pursuance of the Covenant, as if there had beene no such outward Covenant obliging them, would yee have men driven in droves to the Sacrament still, and the preious and the vile mixed? and Idol-Shepheards suffered? and Bishops Courts, and Consistories continued? had these beene beaten downe, had not we underGod, as a forlorne hope first given them battell? how can ye say, we hinder Reformation? when we are for a further purer Reformation (your sleves being judges?) you would sit down on this side Jordan, we would advance? Sit you quiet, if you will not helpe us, as we helped you.
Answ. When you of the Congregationall way, that is, of the Church way (for none are Churches but you, we are excommunicated, and all else but your selves) did sweare to endeavour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in doctrine, worhsip, discipline, and government, which to your consciences, and all the Reformed Churches is Presbyterian, can the Covenant be turned agaisnt Presbyterians, as well as against you?How Independents sware to defend the Presbyterian government, and with tongue, pen, sword, cry out as it, as Tyrannicall, Antichristian, and Popish.
2. You write and preach that the government Presbyterian, is Popish, Antichristian, more tyrannicall then that of Babel, of Egypt, so all your way, and particaularly Mr. Burton in his Conformities deformity, and your Independents in the Assembly, yet you did sweare to endeavour its preservation, and all the Independents in both Houses spake against it as tyrannicall, and have voted to clog it with Erastianisme, I would beleeve Erastus, if he had sworne to endeavour the preservation of it, better then your oath. I think Pagans would not sweare to endeavour the preservation of any religious way which with tongue, pen, lawes, and sword, they endeavour to undoe and extirpate, see if distinctions will defend it against the common enemy, and whether these words, according to the word of God expounded by you, will save you from the quarrell and wrath of God for a broken Covenant? Passe over the Isles, and goe to Turkey, to America, and see if such a thing as this hath been?
2. The Covenant bindes no man (saith he) to any degree of Reformation, but what shall satisfactorily appeare to each mans conscience to be according to the word of God. 1. Then the Reformed Religion in Scotland, in doctrine, worship, and government according to the word of God, appeared once satisfactorily to your conscience to be according to the word of God, so you tooke the Covenant, yet ye say it is Antichristian, it drives men in droves to the Sacrament, it is the Bishops Courts and Consistories continued. But yee did sweare to endeavour the preservation of their Reformed Religion according to the word of God the onely rule. But if it was sworne to as the Reformed Religion, was it not according to the word of God? is it reformed, and not according to the word of God? or was these words according to the word of God; A condition, insinuating what is in the doctrine and discipline of the Reformed Religion of the Church? not according to the word of God, to that you did not sweare. But so if the Turke should come and wage warre against Papists for their Religion, and a heathen people that maintaines thre bee more Gods then one, and that the Old Testament is not the word of God, should raise Armes agaisnt the Jewes, you might as well swear you should defend the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the Religion of the Jewes against the Turke, and those heathen people according to the word of God; for sure these fundamentalls that Jewes and Papists hold in doctrine are according to the word of God, and so you did swear no otherwise to defend the Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland then that of the Church of England, before these troubles arose for that ye swore to defend in so far as it agrees with the word of God, yea so ye did sweare to defend any Religion of any Nation you never heard of, according to the word of God, if you say, But we knew that Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland, therefore ye might sweare to it, but yee know not all the Religions of any Nation you never heard of. But if so, then yee knew the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be according to the word of God, then it appeared satisfactorily to your conscience so to be. But did their fundamentalls against Familists, Antiscripturaists, Socinians, Arrians, so appeare to your conscience to be according to the word of God, and their Antichristian and tyrannicall Presbyteries, that are but, as you say, Episcopall Courts and Consistories appear to be so, and that satisfactorily to your consciences if so, why judge ye Familists, Socinians, such as deny the Trinity, and such as make all the Saints to be Christ, and Goded with the indwelling fulnesse of God, to be Gods manifested in the flesh, to be Saints, brethren, the goldy party to be indulged? then you must question the fundamentalls of the doctrine of Scotland, and they did not satisfactorily appeare to your conscience to be according to the word of God. And why did you simply without any limitation sweare to endeavour the preservation of the Reformed Religion? you should have said, truly Reformed Religion of the Church of Scotland; and why did you sweare simply to the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the Church according to the word of God? when yee knew then, as now, their government was Antichristian, and not according to the word of Gof? and their doctrine even in fundamentalls not so sure but Socinians, Arrians, and the Saints your brethren the Familists may hold the contrary, and bee tollerated as Saints, and their doctrine, though opposite in fundamentalls to ours, may be as satisfactory truths to your conscience as ours of Scotland. Confesse and glorifie God, you sware the Covenant in a Jesuiticall reserved sense, kept up in your minde, as you insinuate pag.66,67. and such as the words cannot beare.Libertines make conscience, not the word of God their rule.
3. There is here a new Tricke put on the Covenant, it bindes to no truth but what shall appeare satisfactorily to the conscience of each swearer to be according to the word of God. If a Merchant promise and swear to a simple man to give him for such wares an hundred pounds, he gives him but an hundred punds Scotch, whereas the wares are to the man as dear as an hundred pounds Starling, is the Merchant absolved of his oath and promise, if he pay him but an hundred pounds Scotch?and say, it appeares staisfactorily to my Antinomian conscience the wares are of no more value then a hundred pound Scotch, and my oath andpromise obligeth me to no more then satisfactorily appeareth to any conscience the onely rule of my obligation, to be according to equity and justice, and so you are fully paid with an hundred pounds Scotch.7
(Side note: How Appearing to the conscience make no the word of God to be the obliging rule, but onely as touching the right and due manner of being obliged thereby.)
So this Author absolves us from all oaths and covenants, though we sweare not to kill a catpive taken in warre, and sweare to adhere to the fundamentalls that there is one God, Christ is the one onely Mediator, God and man, consubstantiall with the father, yet if after you have talked with Saltmars, or put your faith in the power of the sophirmes of a cunning Jesuit, he makes it satisfactorily appeare to your conscience that it is according to the word of God that the captive be killed, he is a merutherer, and there be as many Mediators, as there be Saints in heaven, and as many Christs Godded with the fulnesse of the Godhead, as there be Saints of the family of love, and so your oath to your fundamentalls obligeth you not and you are guilty of no perjury though first you sware to the necessary truths of God, and now ye turne apostate from both faith and oath. Libertines infuse such a magick in your erroneaous conscience that it is your onely rule, and displaceth the Law of nature from all obligation, or the word of God the onely rule of faith and manners, you are tyed no longer by the oath of God, then your weather-cock-conscience, with this new Moon, hath catched a new light, you are as if there had been no such outward Covenant obliging you, take it upon the word of this Gamaliel, dormii secure in utramque aurem. But though it be true, nothing doth oblige, but it must appeare to be according to the word of God, that it may oblige in the right and due manner and way, yet it is most false that it obligeth, as it shall appearr, or quatenus, because it doth appear to the conscience to be the word of God, for a quatenus ad binne valet consequentia. Then every thing obligeth, as it appears to be the word of God to the conscience most erroneous, then are some obliged to murther the innocent Apostles; for it appeares satisfactorily to their conscience to be the word of God, and service to God so to doe, Job 16:1. and some are obliged to sacrifice their sons to God, though they did vow and covenant the contrary in Bpatisme, for it appeares satisfactorily to their conscience, it is according to the eample of Abraham, to offer their sonnes to God, except God from heaven forbid them as he did Abraham.
5. To Libertines no Covenants nor Oaths of the most lawfull things layes on any more obligation to performance, then if these Oaths had never been made, if the erroneaous conscience gainsay.
6. You did know the discipline of the Church of Scotland debars not all from the Sacrament, except known unregenerate persons; yee knew their Consistories to be hatefull to the common enemies, why then did you swear to defend them against the common enemy, since both to your conscience and the common enemy they are contrary to the word of God.
7. You durst not give the first battle to Bishops, Scotland gave it to them, when your Grandees were as low as shrubs, as feared as Harts.
8. You hinder Reformation, your Independents wrought with all their power, there should be no Assembly, and that no old non-conformists, such as sound and learned. Mr. Ruthband, gracious and zealous Mr. Ash, and others, to bee members thereof, and would rather have had Prelaticall Conformists in the Assembly then they. You joyne with all the Sectaires, who are against Covenant, Government, Confession of faith, and Directory of worship, retarded the proceedings of the Assembly; we heard often in Scotland, you wished Prelacie were gone, if ye knew what to put in its place as if no Government known to you could fit England but Prelacy, and that of the Reformed Churches were not so good.
9. You would goe further on then we, and be over Jordan, but we had rather sit downe on this side of Jordan, as go over with you, for ye was not well over, when yee set up at the Kings house Idolatrous bowing to Altars, and the abjured Masse-booke, and Familists, Socinians, Antinomians, Seekers, Arrians, preaching Souldiers, who teach as many Saints, as many Christs and Gods manifested in the flesh, and when these perverters of the right wayes of God were silenced by a godly Preacher at London, they prayed woe with learning, it opposeth all the wayes of God; and is that a Reformation on the other side of Jordan, which sends out Apostles to preach that are blinde as Moles in the principles of the single Catechisme, who know not whether there bee one God, and one Mediator Christ, or millions of Gods and Christs, yet these are the onely anointed ones. It were good that such a Reformation were over Jordan, and millions of miles beyond America. ENDNOTES
1. Minus Celfus de heretick cocrecudis 24. 2. Remonstrantes Belg ci. Apol. c.24 p.279.3. Ancient bonds c.10.sect.3. p. 67.68.4. p. 76.69.5. p.69.70.6. pag.70,71.7. So Remonstrantes in vindicies Apol.1.2.c.6.135,136. neminem, post quam acceptavit decretum, (this Author, post quam acceptavit juramentum) ieneri illo diutius quam ea lege qua enus & quimdin iple in coiscientia sua judicat iliud esse verura.
Excerpted from: A
Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience by Samuel
Rutherford, being chapter 21 (a SWRB rare bound photocopy [1649], reprinted
1993).
Still Waters Revival Books,
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
(Reformation resources at great discounts!)
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
NO COPYRIGHT! COPY AND DISTRIBUTE FREELY
The
Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (1655
edition.)
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $199.95-90%=19.99
A
Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (1649 edition.)
Rutherford's Free Disputation, though scarce, is still one of his most important
works - with maybe only a few copies of the actual book left in existence.
Though Rutherford is affectionately remembered in our day for his Letters, or for laying the foundations of constitutional
government (against the divine right of kings) in his unsurpassed Lex Rex, his Free Disputation should not be overlooked - for it contains the
same searing insights as Lex Rex.
In fact, this book should probably be known as Rutherford's "politically
incorrect" companion volume to Lex Rex. A sort of sequel aimed at driving pluralists and
antinomians insane. Written against "the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and
other Authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious Tolerations of
Sects and Heresies," Rutherford explains the undiluted Biblical solution
to moral relativism, especially as it is expressed in ecclesiastical and civil
pluralism! (Corporate pluralism being a violation of the first commandment and
an affront to the holy God of Scripture). He also deals with conscience,
toleration, penology (punishment), and the judicial laws, as related to both the
civil and ecclesiastical realms. Excellent sections are also included which
address questions related to determining the fundamentals of religion, how
covenants bind us, the perpetual obligation of social covenants (with direct
application to the Solemn League and Covenant and the covenant-breaking of
Cromwell and his sectarian supporters), whether the punishing of seducing
teachers be persecution of conscience, and much more. Walker adds these
comments and context regarding Rutherford's Free Disputation, "The principle of toleration was beginning
to be broached in England, and in a modified shape to find acceptance there.
Samuel Rutherford was alarmed, or rather, I should say, he was horrified, for
he neither feared the face of man or argument. He rushed to the rescue of the
good old view... It is not so easy to find a theoretical ground for toleration;
and Rutherford has many plausible things to say against it. With the most
perfect confidence, he argues that it is alike against Scripture and common sense
that you should have two religions side by side. It is outrageous
ecclesiastically, it is sinful civilly. He does not, however, take what I call
the essentially persecuting ground. He does not hold that the magistrate is to
punish religion as religion. Nay, he strongly maintains that the civil
magistrate never aims at the conscience. The magistrate, he urges, does not
send anyone, whether a heretic (who is a soul murderer--RB) or a murderer, to
the scaffold with the idea of producing conversion or other spiritual result,
but to strengthen the foundations of civil order. But if he gives so much power
to the king, he is no lover of despotism withal: the king himself must be under
law. To vindicate this great doctrine is the object of another book, the celebrated
Lex Rex; of which it has been
said by one competent to judge, that it first clearly developed the
constitutionalism which all men now accept" (Theology and
Theologians..., pp. 11-12). In our
day Francis Schaeffer, and numerous others, have critiqued many of the problems
found in modern society, but most have spent little time developing explicitly
Biblical solutions - especially regarding the theoretical foundations that
Rutherford addresses here. Rutherford's Free Disputation provides a detailed blueprint for laying the
foundations that must be laid before any lasting, God-honoring solutions will
be found. Furthermore, Rutherford and his writings were the enemies of all
governments not covenanted with Christ. This book will give you a very clear
picture as to why "the beast" (civil and ecclesiastical) has reserved
his special hatred for such teaching. As Samuel Wylie noted "[t]he
dispute, then, will not turn upon the point whether religion should be civilly
established... but it is concerning what religion ought to be civilly
established and protected, -- whether the religion of Jesus alone should be
countenanced by civil authority, or every blasphemous, heretical, and
idolatrous abomination which the subtle malignity of the old serpent and a
heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, can frame and devise,
should be put on an equal footing therewith" (Two Sons of Oil: or, The
Faithful Witness For Magistracy and Ministry Upon a Scriptural Basis, softcover). Can our generation swallow Rutherford's
hard, anti- pluralistic, Covenanter medicine, poured forth from the bottle of
the first commandment, without choking on their carnal dreams of a free and
righteous society divorced from God (and His absolute claims upon everyone and
everything)? Not without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit -- that is for
sure! In summary, this book answers all the hardest questions theonomists (and
their wisest and best opponents) have been asking for the last 20-30 years (and
these answers are much more in depth than any we have seen in the last couple
of millennia [less about a century to account for the apostles]). As the reader
will discover, Rutherford was a wealthy man when it came to wisdom (and much
advanced theologically), and those who take the time to gaze into the King's
treasure house, as exhibited in this book, will find that they are greatly
rewarded. Furthermore, because of its uncompromising stand upon the Word of
God, this book is sure to be unpopular among a wicked and adulterous
generation. However, on the other hand, it is sure to be popular among the
covenanted servants of King Jesus! This is one of the best books (in the top
five anyway) for advanced study of the Christian faith. We have now obtained an
easy-to-read, amazingly clear copy of this very rare, old treasure. Great price
too, considering that a copy of the 1649 edition, containing this quality of
print, would likely cost upwards of $1000 on the rare book market -- though it
is unlikely you would ever see a copy for sale!
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $199.95-90%=19.99
Lex,
Rex, or the Law and the Prince.
Without a doubt one of the greatest books on
political philosophy ever written. Rutherford's teaching, taken from Scripture,
decimated the "divine right of kings" doctrine and set up Scripture
as the standard by which to judge the actions, beliefs and constitutions of
civil government. Picking up where Brutus, in A Defense of Liberty Against
Tyrants, left off Rutherford here has penned a great Christian charter of liberty
_ against all forms of civil tyranny -- vindicating the Scriptural duty to
resist tyrants as an act of loyalty to God. Subtitled: "A dispute for the
just prerogative of King and people: containing the reason and causes of the
most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland, and their expedition
for the aid and help of their dear brethren of England; in which their
innocency is asserted, and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet,
entitled, ... The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings..."
Rutherford used this book to promote the great work of covenanted reformation
taking place in his day. Murray, in his Life of Samuel Rutherford (1827) notes,
"The work caused great sensation on its appearance. Bishop Guthrie mentions,
that every member of the assembly _had in his hand that book lately published
by Mr. Samuel Rutherford, which is so idolized, that whereas Buchanan's
treatise (de jure Regni apud Scotos) was looked upon as an oracle, this coming
forth, it was slighted as not anti-monarchical enough, and Rutherford's Lex Rex
only thought authentic...' During the period which followed the death of
Charles I. to the restoration, Rutherford took an active part in the struggles
of the church in asserting her rights. Cromwell had in the meantime usurped the
throne, and independency held sway in England. On the death of Cromwell in
1658, measures were taken for the restoration of Charles II. to the throne. The
Scottish Parliament met in 1651, when the national covenant was recalled -- Presbyterianism
abolished -- and all the decrees of Parliament, since 1638, which sanctioned
the Presbyterian system, were rescinded. The rights of the people were thus
torn from them -- their liberties trampled upon -- and the whole period which
followed, till the martyrdom of Renwick in 1688, was a scene of intolerant
persecution and bloodshed. Rutherford, as may be supposed, did not escape
persecution in such a state of things. His work Lex, Rex, was considered by the
government as 'inveighing against monarchy and laying the ground for
rebellion;' and ordered to be burned by the hand of the common hangman at
Edinburgh. It met with similar treatment at St. Andrews, and also at London;
and a proclamation was issued, that every person in possession of a copy, who
did not deliver it up to the king's solicitor, should be treated as an enemy to
the government. Rutherford himself was deprived of his offices both in the
University and the Church, and his stipend confiscated; he was ordered to
confine himself within his own house, and was summoned to appear before the
Parliament at Edinburgh, to answer a charge of high treason. It may easily be
imagined what his fate would have been had he lived to obey the mandate."
At this time Rutherford was already terminally ill and uttered his famous
words, "I have got summons already before a Superior Judge and Judicatory,
and I behove to answer to my first summons, and ere your day come, I will be
where few kings and great folks come." Don't miss this title, as its contents
will become more and more valuable to the extent that present civil governments
deny the Lordship of Christ, "frame wickedness by law," and persecute
the faithful. (Hardcover)
$29.95- 40% = 17.97
The
Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication: A Peaceable Dispute for
the Perfection of the Holy Scripture in Point of Ceremonies and Church
Government in which the Removal of the Service Book is Justified. The Six Books
of Erastus Against Excommunication are Examined; with a Vindication of the
Eminent Divine Theodore Beza Against the Aspersions of Erastus, The Arguments
of Mr. William Pryn, Richard Hooker, Dr. Morton... and the Doctors of Aberdeen;
Touching Will-Worship, Ceremonies, Imagery, Idolatry, Things Indifferent, An
Ambulatory Government; The Due and Just Power of the Magistrate in Matters of
Religion, and the Arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so Far as they Side with Erastus,
are Moderately Discussed. (Facsimile, 1646, also contains: "Scandal and
Christian Libertie")
Over 750 pages which Walker says
"contains the amplest exposition and vindication of our old ecclesiastical
principles." Rutherfurd here gives a classic defense of Presbyterianism,
touching on both church government and "the due and just power of the
Magistrate in matters of Religion." Regarding worship, he touches on
imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, ceremonies and will worship. Sherman
Isbell describes this book as follows: "Rutherford asserts that there is
delineated in the NT a form of Church government by elders and Presbyteries
which is of permanent obligation; more-over, that discipline and suspension
from the sacraments are vested with church officers rather than with the
Christian civil magistrate. The book also expounds the Westminster Assembly's
principle that the mode of acceptable worship is regulated by the will of
Christ as king speaking in the Scriptures; the Church is not at liberty to
alter or invent anything in worship or government which goes beyond the pattern
in God's Word. Rutherford's writings during the London years provide a
significant commentary on the theology of the Westminster Confession and
Catechisms" (Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, pp. 735-36). Innes notes that Rutherford had
"no hesitation in including among matters of faith - first, fundamental
points; second, superstructions built upon the fundamentals; third, circa
fundamentalia, things about
matters of faith;" making this an important look at the teaching surrounding
the Scottish view of the visible church, close communion, etc. An exceedingly
rare gem by this celebrated Presbyterian divine and Scottish commissioner to
the famous Westminster Assembly.
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $199.95-88%=23.99
The
Due Right of Presbyteries or a Peaceable Plea for the Government of the Church
of Scotland... (1644)
Almost 800 pages long, Rutherfurd here deals
with church membership, separation from the visible church, the civil
magistrate and religion, communion among churches, the errors of the
independents (specifically in New England) and much more. This could be
considered the Lex Rex of
church government -- another exceedingly rare masterpiece of Presbyterianism!
Characterized by Walker as sweeping "over a wider field than most. Most
essential points which Gillespie has barely touched, Rutherfurd carefully
considers; as, for instance, the nature of the visible church as such, and its
constituent elements. Even in the Erastian controversy he is a necessary
supplement to his great contemporary. It is something to me altogether amazing,
the mass of thinking about Church questions you have in those writings."
Bannerman, in his Church of Christ calls this a "very learned and
elaborate treatise." Here is a sample of Mr. Rutherford's writing: "A
private subtraction and separation from the Ministry of a known wolf and
seducer,... this the Law of nature will warrant... as Parker saith from
Saravia, 'it is lawful to use that blameless and just defence, if the bad church-guide
cannot be deposed.' So the son may save himself by a just defence in fleeing
from his mad father, or his distracted friend coming to kill him. Now this
defence is not an authoritative act, nor [a] judicial act of authority, but a
natural act that is common to any private person, yea to all without the true
Church as well as within to take that care in extreme necessity, for the safety
of their souls, that they would do for the safety of their bodies" (1642,
cited in The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness magazine).
$199.95-87%=25.99
Fourteen Communion
Sermons (2nd edition, 1877)
All who relish Samuel
Rutherford's Letters will welcome the reprint of this volume, preached by
him at sacramental occasions in the years 1630, 1634, and 1637. Andrew Bonar,
who wrote the preface and notes, added two other sermons from 1630 and 1633
respectively. All breathe the same spirit as the famous
Letters and are full of racy remark and illustration, bearing on Scriptural
doctrine and Christian experience.
(Rare Bound Photocopy) $99.95-85%=14.99
The Reformed Presbyterian
Catechism (1853)
A manual of instruction, drawing from such
notable authors as William Symington and J.R. Willson, presenting
"arguments and facts confirming and illustrating the 'Distinctive
Principles'" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Chapters deal with:
"Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in general;" Christ's exclusive
Headship over the Church;" "The Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the
Word of God in the Church;" Civil Government, the Moral Ordinance of
God;" Christ's Headship over the Nations;" "The Subjection of
the Nations to God and to Christ;" The Word, or Revealed Will of God, the
Supreme Law in the State;" "The Duty of Nations, in their National
Capacity, to acknowledge and support the True Religion:" "The
Spiritual Independence of the Church of Christ:" "The Right and Duty
of Dissent from an immoral Constitution of Civil Government;" "The
Duty of Covenanting, and the Permanent Obligations of Religious Covenants;"
"The Application of these Principles to the Governments, where Reformed
Presbyterians reside, in the form of a Practical Testimony;" and finally
"Application of the Testimony to the British Empire." A most
important book, as we approach (possibly) the end of the great apostasy and
will be in need of preparing for the dawning of the glorious millennial
blessings to come; the days prophesied in which the church "shalt also
suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings" (Isa.
60:16).
(Rare bound photocopy) $29.95-70%=8.99
(CANADIAN FUNDS)
Act, Declaration, And
Testimony, For The Whole Of The Covenanted Reformation, As Attained To, And
Established In, Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt The Years 1638 and
1649, Inclusive. As, Also, Against All The Steps Of Defection From Said
Reformation, Whether In Former Or Later Times, Since The Overthrow Of That
Glorious Work, Down To This Present Day (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster
Assembly and testifies to the abiding worth and truth formulated in the
Westminster family of documents. Upholds and defends the crown rights of King
Jesus in church and state, denouncing those who would remove the crown from
Christ's head by denying His right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and
ecclesiastical spheres. Testifies to the received doctrine, government,
worship, and discipline of the Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming)
periods. Applies God's Word to the Church's corporate attainments "with a
judicial approbation of the earnest contendings and attainments of the
faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial condemnation of error and the
promoters thereof" (The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness, Dec. 17/93,
p. 558. Write for a sample of this highly recommended publication at: P.O. Box
131, Pottstown, PA, 19464, USA). Shows the church's great historical victories
(such as the National and Solemn League and Covenant, leading to the
Westminster Assembly) and exposes her enemies actions (e.g. the Prelacy of
Laud; the Independency, sectarianism, covenant breaking and ungodly toleration
set forth by the likes of Cromwell [and the Independents that conspired with
him]; the Erastianism and civil sectarianism of William of Orange, etc.). It is
not likely that you will find a more consistent working out of the principles
of Calvinism anywhere. Deals with the most important matters relating to the
individual, the family, the church and the state. Sets forth a faithful
historical testimony of God's dealings with men during some of the most
important days of church history. A basic text that should be mastered by all
Christians.
$19.95-70%=5.99
Sketches of the Covenanters
Stirring accounts of sacrifice and martyrdom
for the Reformed Faith that will bring tears to eyes of all but the
backslidden. Follows the chain of events which gave Scotland two Reformations
and a Revolution. Knox, the National Covenant, the Westminster Assembly, the
Field Meetings, and much more is covered. The history of great battles for
Christ and His royal rights are recounted in this moving history book. Sheds
much light upon the warfare with the dragon for true liberty. One of our best
history books, highly recommended!
(Rare bound photocopy) $39.95-75%=9.99
(CANADIAN FUNDS)
An
Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, Adopted by the Community of
Dissenters, etc.
Defends the inescapable necessity of creeds
and confessions, while promoting a fully creedal church membership. Shows how
the law of God obliges all Christians "to think the same things, and to
speak the same things; holding fast the form of sound words, and keeping the
ordinances as they have been delivered to us" (Col. 3:13). After laying
some basic groundwork, this book proceeds to defend the six points of the
"Terms of Ministerial and Christian Communion Agreed Upon by the Reformed
Presbytery." These six points are the most conservative and comprehensive
short statements of consistent Presbyterianism you will likely ever see.
Besides the obvious acknowledgement of the alone infallible Scriptures, the
Westminster Standards, and the divine right of Presbyterianism, these points
also maintain the perpetual obligation of our Covenants, National and Solemn
League, the Renovation of these covenants at Auchensaugh in 1712, and the
Judicial Act, Declaration and Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery. In
short, this book sets forth adherence to the whole of the covenanted
reformation, in both church and state, as it has been attained by our
covenanting forefathers.
$9.95-60%=3.98
An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, Adopted by the Community of Dissenters, etc. by Reformed Presbytery - PRESBYTERIAN HD COLLECTION
Back to swrb home page - Scottish Covenanters - Samuel Rutherford