First, Mr. Bacon asserts that the PRCE
maintains that taking Solemn League and Covenant is necessary to exist as a truly constituted church.
Essentially the difference between the Reformation
Presbyterian Church and PRCE is that the Reformation Presbyterian Church
maintains that a church can be truly and biblically constituted without
swearing the Solemn League and Covenant and the PRCE claims that a church is not a properly, truly, biblically
constituted church if it has not formally adopted the Solemn League and
Covenant (Defense Departed).
The
issue is strictly whether the Solemn League and Covenant is a necessary document in order for a church to
be a properly, truly, biblically constituted church (Defense Departed).
Second, Mr. Bacon argues that the Solemn
League and Covenant is used by the
"Steelites" in principally the same way as Rome uses its doctrine of
Tradition.
Neither is this a minor distinction. The Reformed
and Presbyterian churches maintain that the church is built on the apostles and
prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The
Romanist church maintains that the church is built upon Scripture plus the
traditions of the church. Without the tradition there is no true constitution.
While the content of the traditions differ between the Roman Catholic Church
and the Steelites, the principle is the same: without the "right"
tradition, no constitutional church can exist. This distinction is essential to
the very definition of Protestantism. Epistemologically speaking, sola
scriptura is prior even to sola
fide or solo Christo (Defense Departed).
Third, Mr. Bacon denies that the Solemn
League and Covenant binds him to
historical or accidental aspects of the document, but admits it does bind him
to moral duties only so far as they directly apply to God's law.
So, then, we account the Solemn League and
Covenant an edifying historical
document which contains in it several moral duties. But we deny that the
existence of moral duties within a document binds subsequent generations of the
church to the historical and accidental aspects of the document. As Calvin
said, these things should be "accommodated to the varying circumstances of
each age and nation." It should further be noted that whatever in a
document is a moral duty is a moral duty so far and only so far as it is a
direct application of God's moral law (Defense Departed).
I will deal with the two false accusations
first, and then proceed to discuss Mr. Bacon's erring comments regarding the
binding nature of the Solemn League and Covenant.
In the previous section I demonstrated
that the PRCE maintains that, strictly speaking, the only mark necessary to the
being or essence of a true visible Church is a visible profession
of the truth and doctrine of godliness. For this reason, the PRCE has always
believed the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett to be a true church (as to
its being). The reason I have devoted so much time to these ecclesiological
distinctions is that the huge majority of Mr. Bacon's unqualified libel is
based upon his misunderstanding of this one concept. His charge that we
maintain that it is necessary to swear the Solemn League and Covenant to be a truly constituted church, while failing to
qualify what he means by the word church is a perfect example of his inability to apply this necessary
distinction.
First, Mr. Bacon's inability to
distinguish the being from the wellbeing
of the church has again led him to make a seriously flawed and unqualified
accusation about the PRCE. In this respect, I judge Mr. Bacon's conduct to be a
violation of the ninth commandment. His sin is aggravated by the fact that he
has publicly sinned while holding the office of a minister of Christ. His
testimony against us has led his followers to fight against that which is
agreeable to God's word and intended for their edification. Those who believe
what he is saying should carefully consider to whom they turn for counsel, lest
his bad manners and churlish libel become for them an example to follow.
This leads us to consider the next topic
which stands in need of clarification. Mr. Bacon, either by ignorance or
design, has directed all the attention to the wrong question. He wishes to make
the PRCE say that it is necessary to take the Covenants in order to be a Christian
church (esse). A more informed
opponent would understand that the question truly revolves around whether or
not it's necessary to the wellbeing of a Christian
church to keep the promises representatively made by their forefathers. Taking
the Covenants are not an absolute necessity to the essential constitution of
the church and we have never, in any of our writing or preaching, said they
were. Instead, we have maintained that, in a covenanted land where lawful
promises have already been made, they are necessary to keep for the wellbeing
of our constitution and for the integrity of our witness for Christ. Lawful
promises must necessarily be kept, and covenants once made, are necessary to
own, adopt and renew, lest we open ourselves to the charge of taking the Lord's
name in vain.
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God,
thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of
thee; and it would be sin in thee (Deuteronomy 23:21, AV).
Therefore, dear reader, I ask you not to
let Mr. Bacon's vague notions cloud the question. The question is about the wellbeing
of the church and not its being;
about whether a church is being faithful to Covenant promises already made and
not about whether a church is Christian or Pagan. Practically we must determine
whether we ought to approve of, and associate with, churches who are
unfaithfully violating binding covenant obligations, and whether or not we are
duty bound to conscionably withdraw from them as covenant breakers. The importance
of this question must not be underestimated. Those who approve of, and
associate with, obstinate covenant breakers are accomplice to their crimes
while those who testify against them remain free of their sinful influence and
just punishment.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in
vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
(Deuteronomy 5:11, AV).
The PRCE has never said that the Covenants
are necessary to the existence
of a church, but rather that the Covenants are necessary to the wellbeing
of a church (assuming, of course, that the church in question has descended
from the original covenanting churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland). Our
forefathers made covenant promises on our behalf and we cannot preserve or
maintain a faithful testimony while ignoring their formal and material
obligations. For a nation, church or individual to ignore the obligations
formally laid upon them by their ancestors would be to open themselves to the
legitimate charges of covenant breaking and perjury, both of which are
fundamentally destructive to the wellbeing
of the Church of Christ and to the perfecting of the saints. This would be to
willingly and purposely subvert the intended purpose of the ordinance of
covenanting as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (25:3),
Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath
given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and
perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by
his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual
thereunto.
Since the appearance of Brian Schwertley's
slanderous, "Open Letter" (April, 1997), and especially since Mr.
Bacon's Defense Departed
appeared on the FPCR web site (August, 1997), young and inexperienced (and some
who should have known better) believers have come to the sad conclusion that
that PRCE does not think that anybody is a Christian church unless they take
the Covenants. We have received calls and letters from some brethren indicating
that Mr. Bacon's scandalous misrepresentations have sinfully affected some dear
people, and we cannot adequately express how grieved we are by this turn of
events. The misrepresentations expressed in Mr. Bacon's Defense Departed are among the most ignorant and dishonest I have
encountered from a man of his supposed calibre of scholarship. How he can have
a clear conscience regarding what he has written is beyond my comprehension! I
do pray that God will grant him repentance in this matter. Again, for the sake
of those who believed Mr. Bacon's report, I repeat that the PRCE unequivocally
states that it is NOT NOT NOT necessary to swear the Covenants to be a truly
constituted church (as to essence).
If those who oppose us cannot believe our explicit statements then I fear our
arguments will have little effect upon such a calloused prejudice.
Immediately after Mr. Bacon utters his
unqualified charges he compares us with the Roman Catholic Church, which
teaches that all who do not accept her traditions are to be considered nonchristian churches. While he represents the
position of the Roman Catholic Church correctly he proceeds to violently twist
our meaning into something far different from what we have ever taught.
The Catholic Church in her most recent
official Catechism says:
The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour, after his resurrection,
entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to
extend and rule it.... The Church constituted and organised as a society in
the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and
by bishops in communion with him (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 234, Lumen gentium 8, par. 2, emphases added).
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on
Ecumenism states:
For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone,
which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of
salvation can be obtained. It was also to the Apostolic college alone, of
which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the
blessings of the New Covenant, in
order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should
be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God (Catechism
of the Catholic Church, p. 234,
Unitatis redintegratio 3, par. 5, emphases added).
Again, I remind the reader of Mr. Bacon's
charge:
Neither is this a minor distinction. The Reformed
and Presbyterian churches maintain that the church is built on the apostles and
prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). The Romanist
church maintains that the church is built upon Scripture plus the traditions of
the church. Without the tradition there is no true constitution. While the
content of the traditions differ between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Steelites, the principle is the same: without the "right" tradition,
no constitutional church can exist. This distinction is essential to the very
definition of Protestantism. Epistemologically speaking, sola scriptura is prior even to sola fide or solo Christo (Defense Departed).
It is true that the Church of Rome puts
Tradition and Scripture on the same level of authority as the following
citation demonstrates.
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put
down in writing under the breath of of the Holy Spirit. And Holy tradition
transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the
Apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully
preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by preaching. As a result the Church to
whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does
not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures
alone. Both Scripture and
Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and
reverence (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, p. 7, Dei Verbum
9, emphases added).
The PRCE's first term of communion
requires, "An acknowledgement of the Old and New Testament to be the Word
of God, and the alone infallible
rule of faith and practice."
Our fourth term of communion states:
That public, social covenanting is an ordinance of
God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament; that the National
Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of this divine institution;
and that these Deeds are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in
consistency with this, that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh,
Scotland, 1712 was agreeable to the Word of God.
Notice that our Covenants are said to be agreeable
to God's Word and not equal to God's Word. The Word of God is our "alone
infallible rule of faith and practice,"
while the Covenants are said to be subordinately "agreeable to God's
word." The Papists say that
Scripture and Tradition are to be equally reverenced while we say that all our
standards are subordinated to the Word of God. How can Mr. Bacon fail to notice
the difference? That which is humanly composed though agreeable to God's
Word is subordinate to God's Word and not equal to it. Consequently, it is impossible and dishonest to
misrepresent the position of the PRCE as making the Covenants equal with
Scripture in the same sense as Rome equates Scripture and Papal Tradition. I do
not understand how Mr. Bacon can miss something so patently obvious. Since I do
not believe that Mr. Bacon is feebleminded,
I conclude that he intended something more sinister by making this comparison.
To demonstrate how far off the mark Mr.
Bacon actually is, I now must refer to an email discussion held between Pastor
Price and Mr. Bacon on December 18, 1996. In this correspondence Mr. Bacon
objects to Pastor Price's position by writing, "You have made the Solemn
League and Covenant the rule of
faith and practice. By referring to the nonnecessity of taking a particular covenant as a sin, you have made it
the (or at least "a") rule of faith and practice." It is here that
Mr. Bacon displays his significant ignorance on this subject. Samuel Rutherford
heard this exact objection from the Arminians of his day and I ask the reader
to observe how closely Mr. Bacon's objection matches that of the Arminians.
Mr. Bacon states, "You have made
the Solemn League and Covenant
the rule of faith and practice... or at least "a" rule of faith and
practice."
Samuel Rutherford replies:
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, 10:13,
2932). 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 reprint, 1996, p. 25).
According to Rutherford, Nehemiah's
Covenant was necessary to be taken, as was the directive of the Assembly of
Elders and Apostles in Acts 15. The necessity of obeying these human
constitutions was based on the
fact that they were agreeable to Scripture. Though both were subordinate to God's Word, I observe that
Rutherford rightly concludes that they form a secondary rule of faith and thus
they become necessarily obliging
upon all for whom they were intended.
Consider the necessity of the covenant
laid upon the tribes of of Israel in the fifteenth year of Asa, where
"whosoever should not seek the Lord God Of Israel should be put to
death."
And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of
Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all
the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from
mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the LORD, that was before the porch of
the LORD. And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them
out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of
Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him. So they
gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth
year of the reign of Asa. And they offered unto the LORD the same time, of the
spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep. And
they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all
their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the LORD God
of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. And they sware unto the LORD with a loud voice,
and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets. And all Judah rejoiced
at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their
whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about
(2 Chronicles 15: 815, AV, emphases
added).
Would Mr. Bacon also upbraid Asa saying,
"You have made the Covenant of Israel a rule of faith and practice. By
referring to the nonnecessity of
taking a particular covenant as a sin, you have made it the (or at least
"a") rule of faith and practice." This exemplifies the absurdity
of Mr. Bacon's Arminian objection.
Furthermore, doesn't Mr. Bacon consider the Westminster Confession of Faith to be a fallible, subordinate, secondary rule of
faith which is agreeable to God's word? Are not the ministers and elders of the
Reformation Presbyterian Church bound to uphold it in so far as it agrees with
the Word of God? Would they allow someone who obstinately and wilfully teaches
against it to come to the Lord's Table? Why then does he object to the
Covenants being used as subordinate standard in the same way?
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon writes
(email) to Pastor Price regarding the necessity of covenants:
Necessity implies some rule other than Scripture
which binds the conscience. If you wish to take the Solemn League and
Covenant (which I assume you have
done), no bother to me. However, the term "necessity" implies
precisely the position that y'all have now taken which I believe to be directly contrary to the
doctrine of sola Scriptura.
No, Mr. Bacon, necessity doesn't imply
some rule other than Scripture which binds the conscience. Fallible human
constitutions such as Confessions, Covenants and faithful acts of church courts
all bind the conscience, if and when they agree with the Word of God. A good and necessary deduction from Scripture
binds just as much as Scripture itself.
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things
necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit,
or traditions of men (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:6).
The necessity of covenant keeping is based
upon a good and necessary deduction taken from the third commandment. We must
necessarily own and renew the Covenants because we are commanded to keep the
vows made on our behalf by our faithful covenanted forefathers.
They are turned back to the iniquities of their
forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to
serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant
which I made with their fathers (Jeremiah 11:10, AV).
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay
it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is
it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay
(Ecclesiastes 5:4,5, AV).
Necessity in the case of covenant keeping
originates from Scripture alone and for this reason we say that it is necessary
to renew and keep the Covenants. These Covenants were lawfully sworn, and we
are therefore now obligated to pay what we owe. Is Mr. Bacon saying that good
and necessary consequences deduced (inerrantly but fallibly) from Scripture do
not necessarily bind? What kind of Protestant doctrine is this? Does Mr. Bacon
truly believe that good and necessary deductions which bind are contrary to sola
Scriptura? Even the doctrine of sola
Scriptura is an historical
deduction. Does that bind? Of course it does, and I am amazed that Mr. Bacon
would attempt to argue in such a childish fashion.
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath
to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth (Numbers 30:2, AV).
Samuel Rutherford refutes Mr. Bacon's
Arminian notions as follows:
1. Only the Word of God is the principal and formal
ground of our faith. Eph. 2:2022;
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).
Why then does Mr. Bacon object that we
make the Covenants, "at least 'a' rule of faith and practice"? The
reason Mr. Bacon is arguing like an Arminian is that he does not properly
distinguish between the alone infallible rule of faith, and secondary rules of
faith and practice. He does not seem to recognize that fallible standards
bind our conscience as secondary rules of faith when they are agreeable to
God's Word. It is not the
subordinate standard that ultimately binds the conscience but rather the
supreme standard of holy Scripture speaking in the subordinate standard that
binds the conscience.
Pastor David Steele comments:
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,
1874, Still Waters Revival Books reprint, 1997, Vol. 1:1, pp. 6, 7, emphases
added).
Pastor Steele's faithful explanation
places him in good company. Compare his explanation of our subordinate
Covenants with that of the noted Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster
Assembly, George Gillespie.
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).
Furthermore, Gillespie notes that those
who argue like Mr. Bacon place themselves in very bad company.
[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).
There is no reasonable explanation for Mr.
Bacon's objection other than the fact that he has not adequately understood
these fundamental truths. I'm sure the Arminian churches worldwide would
approvingly endorse his objection, and in this regard he has unwittingly become
their spokesman. I encourage the reader to obtain a copy of Samuel Rutherford's
Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience and carefully examine whether or not Mr. Bacon has
entirely imitated the Arminians in this regard. Let the reader observe how
little Mr. Bacon truly understands about the necessity of covenanting and how
ready he is to rail at those who, by the grace of God, have been given this
knowledge. Mr. Bacon's reasoning, if applied consistently, would result in
railing against both Rutherford and Nehemiah as well. The PRCE does not equate
the Covenants with Scripture any more than Nehemiah or Rutherford. The
Covenants bind because they were lawfully sworn and agreeable to God's Word.
Accordingly, these Covenants are fallible, subordinate, secondary rules of
faith, and inasmuch as they are agreeable to God's Word they cannot be broken
without sin.
Again, I repeat that our first term of
communion requires, "An acknowledgement of the Old and New Testament to be
the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice."
Does Mr. Bacon ever once acknowledge this in his Defense Departed? Does he ever acknowledge that we state that the
Covenants are agreeable to God's Word? What shall we say about a man who
appears to be given over to the sin of so grossly misrepresenting the beliefs
of others? How can Mr. Bacon honestly expect others to believe him in the
pulpit when he's behaving this way? We explicitly state that the Word of God is
our alone infallible rule of faith and practice, and yet Mr. Bacon expects to
convince others that we have equated the Covenants with the Word of God. Dear
reader, what does "alone infallible rule of practice" mean to you?
Mr. Bacon's objection is so absurd that I can hardly believe it has become
necessary to answer it . What more could we say to convince Mr. Bacon that the
Word of God is our alone infallible rule of faith and practice except to repeat
our first term of communion? It is both sad and sinful that he cannot
personally accept our plain words and expression of faith, but for him to
aggravate his sin by brazenly deceiving others about what we believe is a high
form of mischief. He should be ashamed of himself. His attitude should be one
of profound embarrassment for so completely misstating our beliefs, and we
await a humble apology and true repentance for his scandalously perpetrating
this public spectacle. It is one thing to disagree and debate over different
theological positions but we cannot fathom how Mr. Bacon could come to this
conclusion based upon anything we have written. Again, I remind the reader that
if Mr. Bacon claims to have meant to say that the PRCE believes it is necessary
to take Covenants only in regard to the wellbeing
of the church, his crime is further aggravated. For if he understood what we
really meant, then why did he fail to qualify his public charges, and thereby
lead young and inexperienced Christians to the wrong conclusions?
Mr. Bacon admits his confusion in the
following excerpt from his Defense Departed when he says:
This demonstrates two things about their
dissociation: first, it proves that Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, regardless
of confused and confusing statements to the contrary, considers "the covenants" to be a
necessary sine qua non of a
church's constitution if that church is to be considered a true church (Defense
Departed).
I can understand why he thinks our
dissociation was confused, since it's apparent he did not understand what we
were saying. The point I wish to make here is that the word
"confusing" used in this context can only refer to Mr. Bacon's own
confusion. If he didn't understand what we meant then why didn't he ask us
before going to such an extreme? Why would he draw conclusions
"regardless" of confused and confusing statements? Shouldn't he have
regarded his confusion as a signal to ask more questions before penning public
charges against us? Even under the most charitable construction his actions are
sinful and in need of repentance.
Having dealt with Mr. Bacon's first two
accusations I will now proceed to discuss Mr. Bacon's erring comments regarding
the binding nature of the Solemn League and Covenant. To do this I intend to follow the following
format. First, I will establish
that both the National Covenant
and the Solemn League and Covenant were
originally intended to be sworn as an everlasting covenant. Second, I will establish the purpose for which the Covenants were sworn,
viz., to glorify God, and to preserve and maintain the true church (as to wellbeing). Third, I will demonstrate who the original parties were in the National
Covenant and the Solemn League
and Covenant. Fourth, I will prove that Canada and the United States
were among the parties bound by the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant Fifth,
I will pinpoint exactly where Mr. Bacon has erred as I discuss the intrinsic
obligation of the Covenants. Sixth,
we will answer the question Do the
circumstantial details of the Solemn League and Covenant bind us? Seventh, I will discuss the negative application of the
Covenants, and briefly examine the concepts of withdrawal, censure and
separation.
a.
The original intent of the Covenanters was to swear an everlasting Covenant
never to be forgotten.
When interpreting any historical document
we must strive to ascertain the original intent of the authors of that
document. In many cases this is difficult and time consuming, though in this
case it is easy and obvious. Those who originally swore the Covenants left us
no doubt as to what their intentions were.
1. The National Covenant was intended and sworn as an everlasting Covenant.
On September 22, 1638, six months after
the National Covenant was
renewed in Scotland we read the following protest against the proclamation of
King Charles I, which called for the Covenanters to forget their subscription
of 1638 and to renew the National Covenant as it was subscribed in 1580.
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).
2. The Solemn League and Covenant was intended and sworn as an everlasting Covenant.
John Brown (of Haddington), in his book
entitled, The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration, (1803), points out that the Westminster Assembly
considered the Solemn League and Covenant 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" (The Absurdity and
Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy, Blasphemy, Idolatry,
Popery, etc., 1803, Still Waters Revival Books reprint, 1997, p. 161,
emphases added).
Finally, we read the words of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1643) where they address, "their
beloved brethren, Ministers in the Church of England," in preparation for
the swearing of the Covenant.
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,
[16381649 inclusive], 1682, Still
Waters Revival Books reprint, 1997, p. 205, emphases added).
This establishes beyond any shadow of
doubt that those who originally swore the Covenants swore them with the intent
of entering into an everlasting covenant with God. It is also easily observable that these Covenanters were
members of a truly constituted Christian church (bene esse) before taking these Covenants. Why then would Mr.
Bacon say, "it proves that Puritan Reformed Church... considers "the
covenants" to be a necessary sine qua non of a church's constitution if that church is to be
considered a true church," if it is so patently obvious that the
Covenanters constituted a true church before swearing the Covenants? I can only
think that he is trying to give others the impression that the PRCE is doing or
requiring something different than the General Assembly of Scotland, when in
reality our position toward the Covenants is precisely the same as theirs.
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon writes to
Pastor Price,
Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning
ourselves with a 17th century document is sinful (that seems to be what I've
read thus far in both your overture and your posts)?
Archibald Mason explains,
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
appellations bestowed upon them by the Spirit of God. (Archibald Mason,
"Observations on the Public Covenants Between God and the Church,"
1821, cited from The Fall of Babylon the Great By the Agency of Christ and
Through the Instrumentality of His Witnesses, Still Waters Revival Books reprint, 1997, p. 45, emphases added).
Like our covenanted ancestors, we believe
that these Covenants were originally sworn as "everlasting covenants"
and that their binding obligation extends throughout the duration of the moral
person.
In his Defense Departed, Mr. Bacon inadequately describes a moral person
as follows,
The term "moral person" may present just
a bit of confusion to those not familiar with seventeenth century ecclesiology.
By "moral person" the Steelite document refers to all those who are
part of a covenantal "unit." Thus a family, a church, and a nation
are all moral persons because God treats with them as they are covenanted
units. I suppose a school or a business could be a moral person if the right
conditions were met, though I have not seen any Steelite literature extending
the term in that way (Defense Departed).
While Mr. Bacon gives a vague and general
idea of this important concept, his description is so woefully inadequate that
I believe it would be profitable to acquaint the reader with a more competent
explanation. In so doing, we can better understand in what sense these
covenants are called "everlasting."
Pastor David Scott explains:
1. Ecclesiastical and national societies are moral
persons. By a moral person I mean that each of these kinds of society has an
understanding and a will of its own, by which it perceives, deliberates,
determines and acts. An individual person, is one that has the power of
understanding and willing; the name moral person is therefore applied to a
society, having an understanding and a will common to the whole body, by which,
though made up of a vast number of individuals, it possesses the power of
knowing, deliberating, determining, and acting. A moral person may enter into
contracts and covenant obligations; and these are as valid when entered into,
as the covenant obligations of individual persons. Being moral persons,
churches and nations are capable of entering into covenant with God; and that
it is their duty to do so, I have demonstrated in the preceding section. Such
obligation, when constituted agreeably to the will of God, are necessarily
perpetual; for it is not the individuals merely of which the society consists,
but the society itself, as a moral person, that covenants. In the case of personal covenanting, no one
will question that the covenant obligation extends throughout the whole life of
the individual; the same principle prevails in relation to social covenanting:
the obligation extends throughout the duration of the moral person.
2.
The church is a permanently existing body. It has undergone, indeed, several
changes in its external administration, but it is the same now that it was when
first constituted. The church in the wilderness of Sinai is identical with the
church in the days of Adam and Eve, and continues still the same moral person
in the nineteenth century. The removal by death of individual members, does not
destroy the identity of the moral person, which remains unaffected by the
removal of a thousand generations. Covenant obligation entered into by the
church, in any given period, continues of perpetual obligation throughout all
succeeding generations, and that too, on the recognized principle that the
church continues the same moral person.
3.
National society does not possess an undying constitution like that of the
church, it may be dissolved; and history presents a vast number of instances of
the entire dissolution of nations. But the obligation created by national
covenanting, extends throughout the duration of the society, because it is a
moral person; and if the perpetuity of the obligation may be limited, it is
limited only by the moral person ceasing to exist (David Scott, Distinctive
Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, 1841, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 6163, emphases added).
Add to this the teaching of Thomas Houston
where he further explains the nature of federal obligations:
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,
SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 35, emphases added).
From the source above, we learn that
Covenants were "everlasting" in the sense that they bind those
societies who take them for the duration of their existence, or until the
intended ends of the Covenants are accomplished and maintained. In other words,
the covenant obligation is as perpetual as the society that takes them. To this
day, the societies who took the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant continue to exist (as moral persons), and
consequently, continue to be bound by all the terms and obligations of these
promises. That these covenants were sworn on our behalf in the seventeenth
century is as irrelevant as if they had been sworn in the twentieth century.
Mr. Bacon shows his ignorance of the relevant issues when he asks, "Are
you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century
document is sinful?" He needs to explain exactly why he is no longer a
part of the moral person of the Church of Jesus Christ descending from the
Covenanted Church of Scotland (or the posterity of the Nation of Britain),
before he can convince us that these covenants no longer bind us. That I am
sure he could never do.
Those who follow Mr. Bacon's teaching walk
together hand in hand within the deep pit of covenant breaking. From this pit
they look up at those who plead with them to climb out, and call us "the
separatists." "Come down into this pit with us," they cry.
"You schismatics, don't you see it's a sin to stay separate from us? Can't
you see that for hundreds of years, most of the nations have joined us down
here? How can we be wrong when all the churches and ministers are ignoring the
promises made to our Master? Every scholar would have to be wrong for you to be
right. Join us, or we will try to set everyone down here against you."
From atop the pit we say, "Brethren, you have fallen into a deep pit and
we desire to be with you, except we have seen light at the top and our King has
shown us the way out. We are not boasting that we are better than you. We are
only pleading with you to come and see what God has graciously given. Our
forefathers marked the way for us before we were born and God's Word has given
us the light to see their landmarks. Those with you have moved these landmarks
in order to keep you in the pit, but we can show you where they are and help
you out. We cannot return to you but you must return to us (Jer.15:19). We
cannot join you in the deep pit of covenant breaking, but rather you must come
join us so that we might have unity in the light of the sun. This is the place
where our forefathers dwelt. Come join us and keep the promises made to our
Master. Tell the others and bring the whole nation with you so that we can
dwell together in peace. The table is set, and we go now to His table of
communion. Please climb out now and eat and drink with your brothers. They
reply, "Are you seriously telling us that we must keep our fathers old
promises? Our fathers are long dead and we have sailed to another land where
few have even heard of these promises. Surely those actual promises don't apply
to us any more. We admit that these promises are good examples and strong
reminders of what our Master requires, but you want us to keep the traditions
of men. You want us to climb out using the same path as our forefathers. Just
because they did it that way doesn't mean we have to. We are wiser than you,
and have not invented new rules to keep people from our table down here we are more tolerant and therefore we
enjoy great unity. You are nearly alone, and we are all against you. Return to
us, enjoy our meal and we will forgive you for climbing out of the pit."
Finally, we respond, "We must go now for our Master calls. We will
continue to call out to you as we go, but today you must hear our voice for if you reject it now, it will grow faint as we
walk away. Soon you will become so angry with us that you will not even hear
the words we say your railing will
drown out the sound of our voice in your ears, and what will become of you
then? We have invented no new rule, but rather we are simply calling you to
keep the Master's old rule. It is He who told our fathers to make their promises.
It is He who tells us that they are still binding. And it is He who tells us to
keep our promises. We will continually knock on our Master's door and plead
with Him to show you your error, but we warn you that His patience will not
last forever. Soon He will come and reckon your account. He will ask why you
did not climb out of the pit? Why you did not listen to the truth? Why you are
persecuting His children? In that day you will be ashamed before the piercing
eyes of the Judge. We only desire our Master's approval and your fellowship in
the light. Come brethren, stop fighting with us, and follow the footsteps of
the flock. Climb out of the deep pit of covenant breaking."
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, [16381649 inclusive], 1682, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 474475, emphases added).
Did not the General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland just equate Mr. Bacon's ideas about covenanting with the man of
sin? Truly the darkness of the pit of covenantbreaking makes for strange bedfellows. Sadly, those like Mr. Bacon,
who so promiscuously dispense with binding oaths, find themselves in the
company of those who suffer the plagues that justly attach to their sin.
And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your
soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that
ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over
you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and
cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies
shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before
your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when
none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I
will punish you seven times more for your sins. And I will break the pride of
your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And
your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her
increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. And if ye
walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times
more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts
among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and
make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. And if ye will
not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; Then
will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for
your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of
my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send
the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
(Leviticus 26:15-25, AV).
Now, I will endeavor to prove that the
Covenants are intended for the wellbeing
of the church and not the being
of the church. This I'll do by demonstrating that the Covenanters clearly
purposed to swear the covenants for the preservation and maintenance of the
true church and not for the existence of it. This will demonstrate that Mr.
Bacon totally misrepresents our meaning when we say it is necessary to take the
Covenant of the Three Kingdoms. We mean that it is necessary for the
faithfulness, preservation and maintenance of the church, but not necessary for
its existence.
The Purpose of Swearing the National
Covenant.
1. In the preface to the National
Covenant we read of the direct
purpose of the Covenanters when they say,
...subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the
year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General
Assembly: with a general bond for the maintaining of the true Christian
religion, and the King's person;
and, together with a resolution and promise, for the causes after expressed, to
maintain the true religion... (emphases
added).
2. Later in the same document there is
again a direct statement of purpose:
In obedience to the commandment of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former
times [sounds like attainments GB],
and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors
[sounds like more attainments GB],
and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by act of council,
commanding a general band to be made and subscribed by his Majesty's subjects
of all ranks; for two causes: one was, For defending the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the
Confession of Faith above written, and a former large Confession established by
sundry acts of lawful General Assemblies and of Parliaments, unto which it hath
relation, set down in public Catechisms; and which hath been for many years,
with a blessing from heaven, preached and professed in this kirk and
kingdom, as God's undoubted truth, grounded only upon his written word (emphases added).
The Purpose of Swearing the Solemn
League and Covenant.
1. The stated purpose of the General
Assembly of Scotland for swearing the Solemn League and Covenant, viz., the most powerful mean for settling and
preserving the true religion.
The General Assembly's approbation of the Solemn
League and Covenant, August 17,
1643, Session 14, states:
The Assembly... All with one voice approve and
embrace the same [the Solemn League and Covenant GB] as
the most powerful mean, by the blessing of God, for settling and preserving the
true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty's dominions and
propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty's
throne to all ages and generations
2. The first article of the Solemn
League and Covenant states its
primary purpose, viz., the preservation of the true religion in the Church of
Scotland
That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly,
through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
against our common enemies (emphases added).
These quotations establish the
Covenanter's original intent and purpose in swearing the covenants. To use
their own words: "Let us enter in a perpetual Covenant for ourselves
and our posterity, with singleness of heart, intended and sworn to be an
everlasting Covenant never to be forgotten," for the purpose of "settling and preserving
the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty's dominions and
propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty's
throne to all ages and generations." The PRCE intends and purposes nothing different in the taking of the
Covenants than the original swearers did. Why should we alter such a godly
purpose when we realize that we are still bound to these original promises?
Being bound to these promises is a joy and a help to all who recognize them.
These covenants do exactly what they were intended to do by promoting unity in
doctrine and uniformity in practice. Truly God has been merciful to open our
eyes to our past covenant breaking ways (from which, by His incomparable grace,
we have repented). Having stated and demonstrated that we do not plead the
necessity of taking the Covenants for the existence of the church, but rather
for the preservation and maintenance of the church, we can now move on to our
next consideration that of an
examination of some relevant correspondence between Pastor Price and Mr. Bacon.
In an email discussion between Pastor
Price and Mr. Bacon on November 20, 1996, Pastor Price wrote:
Dick, since you acknowledge you have read the
material we have sent regarding covenanting and the perpetual obligation of
covenants, do you agree with us or not? What did you understand by the
statement at the first meeting in Atlanta, GA: It is not necessary to take the
Covenant of the three kingdoms.
Mr. Bacon replied:
I agree with 100% of what you are saying in the
doctrinal and theoretical level. I also agree with 99 44/100% of what you are
saying in the practical level. Also, not only I, but you and Greg [Barrow GB] agreed to the statement that "it is not
necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms." I still do not
think it is, nor do I think the material you sent has demonstrated such a
necessity.
I do not understand how Mr. Bacon can
honestly say that he agrees with us 100% on a doctrinal and theoretical level
and 99 44/100% on a practical level. Isn't this the same man who says that we
have "erred on a principle essential to the definition of
Protestantism"? Did he not call us "Steelite Popes," and
"these newest children of the Pharisees?" (Defense Departed). How can such agreement come from one side of his
mouth while with the other side he compares our doctrine to Romanists? It would
seem to me that Mr. Bacon is either very poor at math or he has severely
misstated his degree of agreement with us. Nevertheless, the issue on which I
wish to focus at this point is that Mr. Bacon clearly stands by the statement
made by the Reformation Presbyterian Church in its pretended court: "it is
not necessary to take the Covenant of the three kingdoms." This statement of
the RPC, like many of their statements, is unqualified and imprecise, leaving
those who are considering its import in a position of guessing exactly what was
meant.
When Pastor Price asked for clarification,
Mr. Bacon replied evasively:
I would be happy to answer any questions you have
about the implications of taking or not taking specific historical covenants,
including [the GB] Solemn League and Covenant. But I probably meant the same thing you and Greg did when you
agreed to the very same phrase. Further, that question came up at our first
meeting in October of 1994 and was discussed to a degree that apparently
satisfied you at that time. (emphasis added)
It is true that this question did come up
at our first meeting in Atlanta, GA, and it was passed with little or no
discussion. I know that at the time I could not figure out why such a motion
was being made at an organizational meeting. It is also true that we passed the
motion in ignorance and have since publicly repented of doing so. The problem
is that neither Mr. Bacon nor the Reformation Presbyterian Church have repented
of doing so, and until they do, we believe them to be guilty of both obstinate
covenant breaking and wilful perjury. This is the main reason for our
dissociation from them.
Compare these two contrary statements,
Mr. Bacon and the Reformation Presbyterian
Church say, "It is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three
kingdoms."
The General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland (16381649), and the PRCE
say, "Let us enter in a perpetual Covenant for ourselves and our
posterity, with singleness of
heart, intended and sworn to be an everlasting Covenant never to be forgotten," for the purpose of
"settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace
in his Majesty's dominions and propagating the same to other nations, and for
establishing his majesty's throne to all ages and generations." Dear
reader, is it not readily apparent that these two sentiments are at opposite
ends of the spectrum?
How can these Covenanters designate their
covenants as "everlasting" and "perpetual" if their
obligations applied only to the generation of people who actually swore them?
To describe something as everlasting and perpetual when in
reality you mean temporary is a
deception of the highest order and we would need some very compelling evidence
set before us to prove that our faithful forefathers were guilty of such
dishonesty. Why would they even mention their posterity if the covenants only
applied to those who, in the seventeenth century, actually raised their right
hand to formally swear these oaths? When Mr. Bacon states that "It is not
necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms," does he mean that
these covenants have become old and inapplicable to our times? Yes, and while
he does give lip service to the Covenants' moral obligations, I will show how
his neglect of its formal obligation is an error too notable to excuse. Either
Mr. Bacon and the pretended presbytery of the Reformation Presbyterian Church
are right and the Covenant of the three kingdoms does not intrinsically apply
to the Church in Canada and the United States, or the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland (16381649), and
the PRCE are right and the intrinsic obligation of the covenant of the three
kingdoms does obligate and bind us to an everlasting agreement. If I can prove,
as I shall do presently, that these covenants were not simply made between men
and nations, but rather between men and God, then we will understand why these
covenants were intended and denominated everlasting and perpetual. Once we understand that God is the other party in
these covenants we will see why neither time nor geography will release us from the oaths made on our behalf by our covenanted
forefathers. Because our promise is to God, and these covenants have been sworn
in His name, we can be released from their obligation only upon the authority
of God himself. Mr. Bacon needs to prove that God has released us from this
formal obligation and he needs to prove exactly how and when that happened if
he hopes to maintain his argument.
To date all he has done is arrogantly declared that it is not necessary to take
these covenants, and in so doing he has spoken directly contrary to the
original intention of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
To prove the position that these
"everlasting covenants" still morally obligate us, and that to uphold them is necessary to the wellbeing
of the church, we must answer this question: Who are the parties involved in
the Covenant?
To determine who the covenanting parties
are we must go directly to the Covenants themselves.
First, I cite the Act Ordaining, by
Ecclesiastical Authority, the Subscription of the Confession of Faith and Covenant [National Covenant GB], with the Assembly's Declaration, to show that
the covenanting parties are God Himself and the Church and Nation of Scotland.
The General Assembly considering the great
happiness which may flow from a full and perfect union of this kirk and
kingdom, by joining of all in
one and the same Covenant with God,
with the King's Majesty, and amongst ourselves; having, by our great oath, declared the
uprightness and loyalty of our intentions in all our proceedings; and having
withal supplicated his Majesty's high Commissioner, and the Lords of his
Majesty's honourable Privy Council, to enjoin, by act of council, all the lieges
in time coming to subscribe the Confession of Faith and Covenant; which, as a
testimony of our fidelity to God, and loyalty to our King, we have subscribed (The
National Covenant, emphases
added).
We
all and every one of us underwritten,
protest, That, after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters
of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved in the truth by the
word and Spirit of God: and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess
with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm, before God
and the whole world, that this
only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing
salvation to man (The National Covenant, emphases added).
Neither do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion,
combination, or what else our adversaries, from their craft and malice, would
put upon us; seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an
unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King,
and the peace of the kingdom, for the common happiness of ourselves and our
posterity (The National
Covenant, emphases added).
THE Solemn League and Covenant, for reformation and Defense of religion, the
honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three
kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; agreed upon by Commissioners from
the Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, with Commissioners of the
Convention of Estates and General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; approved
by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament, and the
Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them anno 1643; and
thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all ranks in
Scotland and England the same year;
and ratified by act of the Parliament of Scotland anno 1644. (And again renewed in Scotland, with an acknowledgement of sins and engagements
to duties, by all ranks, anno
1648, and by Parliament, 1649; and taken and subscribed by King Charles II, at Spey, June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1,
1651) (The Solemn League and Covenant, emphases added).
...for the preservation of ourselves and our
religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice
of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of GOD'S people in other
nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a
Mutual and Solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with
our hands lifted up to the Most High GOD, do swear (The Solemn League and Covenant, emphases added).
That
we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD,
endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed
religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed
Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three
kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of
Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that
we, and our posterity after us,
may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in
the midst of us. (The Solemn League and Covenant, emphases added).
John Cunningham explains the nature of
these covenants and their relation to the Covenant of Redemption and the
Covenant of Grace as follows:
Covenanting is the exercise of either entering, in
an individual or a social capacity, solemnly and formally into the Covenant of
Grace, or of renewing it. From the definition it follows, that by
Covenanting men do make a covenant with God. The renovation of a covenant is not less a covenant than was the
original bond. In Covenanting is given that acquiescence in the conditions of
the Covenant of Grace which is an essential of a covenant, and the free offer
to enter into it being continued, acceptance in the service is enjoyed. As
certainly, therefore, as that called the Covenant of Grace, is in reality a
covenant, is every lawful engagement entered into by solemnly Covenanting with
God possessed of the character of a covenant. But such a covenant is not
distinct from the Covenant of Redemption, nor from the Covenant of Grace. It is
dependent on that covenant as made with the Mediator, and consistent with it as
established with men. In all the three cases the God of grace is one of the
contracting parties (John
Cunningham, The Ordinance of Covenanting, 1843, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 8, 9, emphases added).
John Guthrie, faithful minister of Christ
(one of the 400 ministers banished by the King in 1660), explains the
importance of recognizing that God is a party in the Solemn League and
Covenant.
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, SWRB reprint, 1996, p. 668).
Further on in the same sermon Guthrie
continues:
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. 673674).
What could extend and transmit an
obligation to posterity if swearing an everlasting covenant with God on behalf
of posterity fails to accomplish the task? The evidence already presented must
forcibly lead the reader to understand that the obligations of the Covenants
are extended far beyond the original covenanters.
On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon wrote to
Pastor Price,
Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning
ourselves with a 17th century document is sinful (that seems to be what I've
read thus far in both your overture and your posts)? If so, then you have made
that 17th century document the rule of faith and practice. Necessity is not
laid upon me to hold the traditions of men else God shares the throne of my conscience with mortals.
Thomas M'Crie replies:
If there is any truth in the statements that have
now been made, the question respecting the obligation of the British covenants
is deeply interesting to the present generation. The identity of a nation, as
existing through different ages, is, in all moral respects, as real as the
identity of an individual through the whole period of his life. The individuals
that compose it, like the particles of matter in the human body, pass away and
are succeeded by others; but the body politic continues essentially the same.
If Britain contracted a moral obligation, in virtue of a solemn national
covenant, for religion and reformation, that obligation must attach to her
until it has been discharged. Have the pledges given by the nation been yet
redeemed? Do not the 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).
Yes, Mr. Bacon, I am seriously suggesting
that you align yourself with these seventeenth century covenants, and you do
not have have to bind your conscience to the rules of men to do it. You only
have to keep a promise and own an obligation intended for your good, made by
those who represented you in an everlasting covenant with God. This promise is
one that God will require of you even if 354 years have passed since it was
sworn. Have you forgotten Saul and the Gibeonite oath?
And Joshua made peace with them [the Gibeonites GB], and made a league [covenant GB] with them, to let them live: and the princes
of the congregation sware unto them (Joshua 9:15, AV).
Then
there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David
enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody
house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and
said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of
the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them:
and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah)
(2 Samuel 21:12, AV).
Scripture says that Saul, in his zeal, and
with the best of intentions, broke an approximately 400 year old covenant, made
between Joshua and the Gibeonites. God was far more than "seriously
suggesting;" rather, He was "definitely requiring" that Saul
keep a 400 year old promise made by his forefather Joshua. God sorely punished
Israel, and the whole nation had to endure three years famine for Saul's
covenant breaking zeal. Is the PRCE seriously suggesting that God will hold us
to a 350 year old covenant made by our forefathers? Yes! What will Mr. Bacon
and his children have to suffer before he admits his sin and repents? Will his
whole house have to suffer before he realizes his error? What will this
covenant breaking nation have to suffer before they mend their perfidious ways?
God has not changed and He will require us to pay our vows whether they were
made in the seventeenth century or in 1997.
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or
addeth thereto (Galatians 3:15, AV).
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in
vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
(Exodus 20:7, AV).
When
thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for
the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.
But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee (Deuteronomy 23:2122, AV).
d.
Who are the posterity referred to in the Covenants?
Since Mr. Bacon claims that he is not
intrinsically bound by these everlasting covenants, it is very important to
answer this question Who were the
posterity to whom the Covenanters intended this everlasting covenant to apply?
Are we in Canada and the United States included in these everlasting covenants
with God? This is settled beyond all doubt when the General Assembly says that
they originally intended to swear an everlasting covenant for settling and
preserving peace in "all his Majesty's Dominions." Obviously, this raises yet another question
Who were included among the
dominions of Charles I or Charles II at the time this covenant was sworn?
Canada and the United States were a
part of "his Majesty's dominions" when the Covenant was sworn and
consequently we are morally and formally bound to own, renew and adopt these
everlasting covenants.
I would like to thank Pastor Greg Price
for allowing me to use the following draft from his forthcoming book entitled, A
Peaceable Plea or Worldwide Protestant Unity, in response to this particular question.
Since we acknowledge that we are the
individual, ecclesiastical, and national posterity of the covenanted kingdoms
of Scotland, England, and Ireland, we confess it to be our solemn duty not only
to own the obligation of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant, but also, to renew as a public testimony our
sworn duty to these covenants as God's people. For the sake of any who would
question that those individuals and families of British descent, or those
churches that have descended from the Presbyterian churches of the Second
Reformation in Great Britain, or those nations, colonies, or territories that
have directly descended from Great Britain are morally and formally bound by
these solemn Covenants we offer the following brief testimony.
1. The Westminster Assembly, the Church of
Scotland, and the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland swore the Solemn
League and Covenant on behalf of
not only their living posterity, but also on behalf of all their individual,
ecclesiastical, and national posterity for all ages to come.
We Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens,
Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms
of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one
King, and being of one reformed religion. . . after mature deliberation,
resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and Solemn League and Covenant,
wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted
up to the most High GOD, do swear. . . we shall each one of us, according to
our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm
peace and union to all posterity (Solemn
League and Covenant [1643 GLP], emphases added).
a. Note who the "all posterity"
(as mentioned in the Solemn League and Covenant) includes in a letter written by the Westminster
Assembly and sent to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (1644):
Those Winds which for a while do trouble the Aire,
do withall purge and refine it: And our trust is that through the most wise
Providence and blessing of God, the Truth by our so long continued agitations,
will be better cleared among us, and so our service will prove more acceptable
to all the Churches of Christ, but more especially to you, while we have an
intentive eye to our peculiar Protestation, and to that public Sacred Covenant
[i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant GLP] entered into by both
the Kingdomes [Ireland is not formally omitted here, but is omitted only
because this English Assembly is addressing the Scottish General Assembly GLP], for Uniformity in all his Majesties Dominions (The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The
Church Of Scotland [16381649 inclusive], 4 June 1644, Session 7, "The
Letter from the Synod of Divines in the Kirk of England, to the General
Assembly", SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 231, 232. The original spelling and
punctuation have been retained, emphases added).
b. Not only did the Westminster Assembly
understand the "all posterity" bound by the Solemn League and
Covenant to be "all his
Majesties dominions", but the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
also officially declared the same to be true in their letter (1648) to Charles
I:
As we do not oppose the restitution of your
Majestie to the exercise of your Royall Power; So we must needs desire that
that which is GODS be given unto Him in the first place, and that Religion may
be secured before the settling of any humane interest; Being confident that
this way is not only most for the Honour of GOD, but also for your Majesties
Honor and Safety. And therefore as it was one of our Desires to the High and
Honourable Court of Parliament that they would solicte your Majestie for
securing of Religion, and establishing the Solemn League and Covenant in all your Dominions [the Solemn League and Covenant having been sworn and made law by the Parliaments
of England and Scotland, it was required that Charles I swear to establish it
and to enforce it in all his dominions before he would be allowed to exercise
his royal authority GLP] (The
Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland , [16381649
inclusive], August 12, 1648, Session 40, The Humble Supplication of the
Generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland unto the Kings Most Excellent
Majesty, p. 439. The original spelling and punctuation have been retained,
emphases added).
c. Finally, observe that not only did
these ecclesiastical bodies (namely, the Westminster Assembly and the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland) interpret the "all posterity"
bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to be those who lived within the bounds of "all his Majesties
dominions," but it was likewise interpreted to be the case by the
parliament of Scotland (February 17, 1649). Furthermore, this parliament
identifies the National Covenant
and the Solemn League and Covenant
to be laws that constitute the "fundamental constitution of this
kingdom" which cannot be made null and void.
As likewise the manifold acts of parliament, the
fundamental constitution of this kingdom anent [concerning GLP] the
king's oath at his coronation, which judging it necessary that the prince and
people be of one perfect religion, appointeth, that all kings and princes at
the receipt of their princely authority, solemnly swear to observe in their own
persons, and to preserve the religion as it is presently established and
professed; and rule the people committed to their charge, according to the
will of God revealed in his word, and
the loveable constitutions received within this kingdom; and do sundry other things, which are more fully
expressed therein: And withal, pondering their manifold solemn obligations to
endeavour the securing of religion and the covenant, before, and above all
worldly interests: Therefore, they do enact, ordain and declare, That before
the king's majesty, who now is [Charles II GLP], or any of his successors, shall be
admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall, by and attour the foresaid oath [i.e. the coronation oath GLP], assure and declare by his solemn oath, under
his hand and seal, his allowance of the national covenant, and of the Solemn
League and Covenant, and
obligations to prosecute the ends thereof, in his station and calling. And that he shall consent and agree to
acts of parliament establishing Presbyterian churchgovernment, the Directory for Worship, Confession
of Faith and Catechisms, as they are approven by the general assembly of this
kirk, and parliament of this kingdom, in all his Majesty's dominions; and that he shall observe these in his own
practice and family, and that he shall never make opposition to any of these or
endeavour any change thereof. (John Thorburn, Vindiciae Magistratus: or, The
Divine Institution and Right Of The Civil Magistrate Vindicated [Edinburgh: D. Peterson, 1773], SWRB reprint,
1997, p. 67, emphases added).
Naturally, since both of the kingdoms of
England and Ireland in their national and ecclesiastical capacity also swore
the Solemn League and Covenant
(1643), the Solemn League and Covenant legally became a necessary element of the "fundamental
constitution" of those kingdoms ("in all his Majesty's
dominions") as well.
2. Is it possible to know which nations
were solemnly bound as the "all posterity" by the Solemn League
and Covenant (1643) and thus
included in "all his majesties dominions?" Clearly, it was all the
subjects and the dominions under the Crown of Great Britain (including the
United States and Canada, both of which were then designated as "the
dominions in America").
a. The first colonial Charter issued by
the English crown (1606) was for the settlement of Jamestown in Virginia. Here
it is noted that the colony of Virginia is declared to be one of the kings
"Dominions" as much as any other royal dominion, and its members are
considered by James I to have the same rights as those living in the
"Realm of England."
It provided that all . . . Persons, being our
Subjects [i.e. subjects of the Crown of England GLP], which shall dwell and inhabit within . . . any of the said
Colonies and Plantations, and every [one] of their children, which shall happen
to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies
and Plantations, shall Have and
enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other
Dominions, to all Intents and
Purposes, as if they had been
abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said
Dominions (Cited by Clarence
Carson, Basic American Government,
[Wadley, Alabama: American Textbook Committee, 1993], p. 126, emphases added).
b. In 1663, Charles II granted a charter
to eight English gentlemen who had helped him regain the throne of England. The
charter document contains the following description of the territory (then
designated Carolina) which the eight Lords Proprietors were granted title to:
All that Territory or tract of ground, situate,
lying, and being within our Dominions in America (Cited on the World Wide Web page entitled,
"State Library of North Carolina," http://HAL.DCR.STATE.NC.US/ncs1home.htm,
emphases added).
c. On November 11, 1743 at Middle
Octarara, Pennsylvania, Reformed Presbyterians under the leadership of Rev.
Alexander Craighead renewed the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. They did so because they realized the colonies in
America were "his majesties dominions" (as referred to by the
Westminster Assembly, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the
Parliament of Scotland, cf. above), and they also realized that they were a
constituent part of the "all posterity" included in the Solemn
League and Covenant. Therefore,
they were bound to own and to renew these covenants as God provided the
occasion to do so in His wonderful providence.
There never was any Nation, but the Nation of the
Jews and this Realm [note that these Reformed Presbyterians understood the
colonies to be within the "Realm" of Great Britain and therefore
bound by the national covenants of Great Britain GLP], that were so highly honoured, as for the whole
Nation to enter into Covenant with the Lord; and yet, alas! how little does the
Generality of this Nation think of this unspeakable Dignity! how many slight
it! yea, how many look upon our National Covenants as a Yoke of Bondage, as if
it were a Bondage to come under the most solemn Vows imaginable, to appear for
God and his Cause, and against his Enemies? That which our renowned Forefathers
gloried in as their greatest Honour and Happiness, we in this corrupt Age, do
grievously despise, which discovers what base Spirits we are of, that delight
more to be in League with the avowed Enemies of God's Glory, than with himself.
. . . And thus our holy Covenants, National and Solemn League, discover
themselves to be perpetual and of constant Obligation upon this Realm [including the colonies of America GLP].
1. By their being National in their nature, as is
plain from themselves, and so had the Power of the Nation to confirm them.
2.
By the Terms of them, as appears from several Sentences in the Covenants.
[1].
The National [Covenant GLP], towards
the latter End of it, which is as follows, 'And finally being convinced in our
Minds, and confessing with our Mouths, that the present and succeeding
Generations in this Land, are bound to keep the aforesaid National Oath and
Subscription inviolable.' Again, 'We therefore faithfully promise for
ourselves, our Followers, and all under us, both in public and in our
particular Families and personal Carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves,
&c.'
[2].
From the first Paragraph in the Solemn League and Covenant, which is as follows, 'That we and our Posterity
after us, may as Brethren, live in Faith and Love, and that the Lord may
delight to dwell in the Midst of us!'
3.
That these Covenants are perpetual, and of a constant binding Power over this
Realm, is further evident by their Agreeableness to the holy Word of God; that
they are so, few who call themselves Presbyterians deny; yea, we know of none
that ever did or can prove them to be otherwise (Rev. Alexander Craighead, Renewal
of the Covenants [Middle Octorara,
Pennsylvania, 1743], SWRB reprint, 1995, pp. 12, 13).
d. It is certainly worthy of note that the
faithful body of Reformed Presbyterians designated as the Reformed Presbytery
of Scotland issued a public testimony (entitled Act, Declaration, and
Testimony for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation, which testimony was originally emitted in 1761)
of the fact that in one of the dominions of his majesty, namely Canada,
Great Britain had violated its covenant obligations by permitting popery to be
established as a religion within Quebec. This Reformed Presbyterian body (the Scottish heirs to the
Covenanted Reformation as articulated by the Westminster Assembly) clearly
understood Canada, a dominion of Great Britain, to be bound by the same
covenant obligations as was Great Britain herself.
[T]here has, of late, [been GLP] a very singular instance of the same kind
occurred [i.e an instance of the exercise of tyrannical civil power GLP], in the course of administration, which the
presbytery cannot forbear to take notice of, but must embrace the present
opportunity to declare their sense of, and testify against; and especially, as
it is one that carries a more striking evidence than any of the former, of our public
national infidelity and licentiousness, and of our being judicially infatuated
in our national counsels, and given up of heaven to proceed from evil to worse,
in the course of apostasy from the cause and principle of the reformation. We
particularly mean the instance of a late bill or act, which has been agreed
upon by both houses of parliament, and which also, June, 1774, was sanctioned
with the royal assent, entitled "An act for making more effectual
provision for the government of the province of Quebec in North America." By which act, not only is French despotism,
or arbitrary power, settled as the form of civil government, but, which is
still worse, popery, the Religion of Antichrist, with all its idolatries and
blasphemies, has such security and establishment granted it, as to be taken
immediately under the legal protection of the supreme civil authority of these
nations in that vast and extensive region of Canada, lately added to the
British dominions of North America.
. . . How disgraceful and dishonourable is this public act in favour of popery,
even to the nation itself, and its representatives, who are the authors of it.
How palpably inconsistent is it with our national character and profession as
Protestant, and with our national establishments, civil and ecclesiastical
(both which are professedly built upon reformation from popery), to come to
take that idolatrous religion under our national protection, and become
defenders of the antichristian faith; nay, were it competent for the presbytery
as a spiritual court, and spiritual watchmen, to view this act in a civil
light, they might show at large, that it is a violation of the fundamental
national constitutions of the kingdom [the Solemn League and Covenant became a legal and necessary element of the
fundamental constitution of Great Britain in 1643 GLP], and reaches a blow to the credit of the
legal security granted to the Protestant religion at home. We need not here
mention how contrary this act is to the fundamental laws and constitutions of
the kingdom of Scotland [cf. what is said by the Parliament of Scotland
concerning the National Covenant and
the Solemn League and Covenant
being enacted as a legal and necessary element of the fundamental laws and
constitution of that kingdom GLP], which
are now set aside. But it is contrary to, and a manifest violation of the
Revolution and British constitution itself; contrary to the Claim of Right,
yea, to the oath solemnly sworn by every English and British sovereign upon
their accession to the throne, as settled by an act of the English parliament
in the first year of William III. By which they are obliged to "profess,
and to the utmost of their power maintain, in all their dominions [here,
again, the Reformed Presbytery notes that Canada is within the dominion of
Great Britain GLP], the laws of God, the true profession of the
gospel, and the true reformed religion established by law." But these
things the presbytery leave to such whom it may more properly concern. Let it,
however, be observed that the presbytery are not here to be interpreted as
approving of the abovesaid oath, as it designedly obliges to the maintenance of
the abjured English hierarchy and popish ceremonies, which might better be
called a true reformed lie, than the true reformed religion. Nevertheless, this
being the British coronation oath, it clearly determines that all legal
establishments behoove to be Protestant, and that without a violation of said
oath, no other religion can be taken under protection of law but what is called
Protestant religion only (The Reformed Presbytery, Act, Declaration, and
Testimony, [1761], SWRB reprint,
1995, pp. 82, 84, emphases added).
e. In a document written by Thomas
Jefferson entitled "A Summary of the Rights of British America", the
following brief reference to an Act from King George III demonstrates that even
those living in America understood they were a dominion of his majesty.
One other act passed in the 6th year of his reign
[George III GLP], entitled "An
Act for the better securing dependency of his majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great
Britain." (Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/106/8, emphases added).
f. The following excerpts occur in the
newspaper that Benjamin Franklin published in Philadelphia (The Gazetteer
and New Daily Advertiser) wherein
reference is made to colonies in what is now Canada and the United States as
being dominions of the Crown.
In considering of these questions, perhaps it may
be of use to recollect; that the colonies were planted in times when the
powers of parliament were not supposed so extensive, as they are become since the Revolution: That they were planted in lands and countries
where the parliament had not then the least jurisdiction: That, excepting the yet infant colonies of Georgia
and Nova Scotia, none of them were settled at the expense of any money granted
by parliament: That the people went from hence by permission from the crown,
purchased or conquered the territory, at the expense of their own private
treasure and blood: That these territories thus became new dominions of the
crown, settled under royal charters, that formed their several governments and
constitutions, on which the
parliament was never consulted; or had the least participation. January 6, 1766
(Cited from the World Wide Web page at: gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28,
emphases added).
The Colonies had, from their first Settlement, been
governed with more Ease, than perhaps can be equalled by any Instance in
History, of Dominions so distant.
February, 1773 (Cited from the World Wide Web page at:
gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28, emphases added).
We would further affirm that just as the
lawful covenant of a father binds all his children presently living as well as
those yet to be born ("Why do we deal treacherously every man against his
brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" Mal. 2:10), likewise
the lawful civil covenants of national parents bind their national progeny. For
if one is willing to grant that the lawful covenant of a father can bind any of
his descendants, he must be willing to grant that the same lawful covenant
binds all of his descendants, for the same moral obligation that rests upon any
one descendant rests upon all descendants. Thus, it follows that the United
States and Canada as nations (and all other national descendants of Great
Britain) are children of Great Britain and are bound by the lawful covenant
(i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant) of their national father solemnly sworn with uplifted hands to the
living God in 1643 and renewed on various occasions in Scotland and the United
States by Reformed Christians. Samuel B. Wylie (17731852), Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
of Philadelphia, noted the personal, ecclesiastical, and national obligations
binding those living in America. He cogently responds to several objections
raised concerning the formal obligations of covenants made by fathers on behalf
of their posterity.
Objection 2: "But these covenants [i.e. the National
Covenant and the Solemn League
and Covenant GLP], for which you contend, were only oaths of
allegiance [to Scotland and Britain
GLP], and, consequently, can have no obligation, when you remove to a foreign
land."
Ans.
It will be admitted, that they were oaths of allegiance; but it was primarily
to the Governor of the universe, and secondarily to the government . . . . With
respect to the first, let us examine whether any of those circumstances, which
can dissolve allegiance [to God
GLP], has actually taken place. Allegiance may cease, by any of the three
following means: First, by the dissolution of the dynasty, or government, when
things revert to an original state of nature. Second, by emigration. Allegiance
and protection being reciprocal, when the latter is no longer necessary, the
former, of consequence, ceases. Third, by breach of the mutual compact, on the
part of the government. This compact, being necessarily involved in the
relation between the governed and the governor, ceases to bind the former, when
violated and broken through the latter. Has any of these things taken place, to
dissolve our allegiance to the Supreme Ruler? . . . The oath of allegiance to
the government of Britain, even were it morally constituted, however, ceases
[because we have met the second condition mentioned of above, namely that of
emigration from Great Britain to another nation GLP]. The conditions, on which it was entered into, no longer exist.
Seeing we have emigrated from that country, the obligation, of course, is null
and void. But, our relation to God still remains the same. And even by that
part of the covenant, which respects allegiance to government, we hold
ourselves still so far bound, that, whenever we find legitimate rulers, in the land
where we live, we will consider the duty of subjection, for conscience sake,
not only as a moral duty, required by the divine law, but also, as a duty unto
which we are bound by covenant.
Obj.
3. "But these covenants were local, and required the performance only of
local duties, and consequently, are not obligatory in other lands."
Ans.
The objection is virtually answered, in removing the one immediately preceding
[i.e. objection 2 GLP]. It is
admitted, there are local peculiarities connected with the substance of these
covenants. For these local peculiarities, we do no contend. In our terms of
communion, adapted to our existing circumstances, in the United States, when
recognising the obligation of these covenants, we declare, that "This obligation
is not to be considered as extending to those things which are peculiar to, and
practicable only in, the British isles; but only to such moral duties, as are
substantially the same in all lands." Whatever things in these bonds were
of a circumstantial nature, as we have hinted above, may vary with a change of
circumstances. But our relation to GOD, is not a circumstantial or local thing.
Love to GOD, and our neighbour, will still continue obligatory, though some
circumstances, connected with the expression and exercise of it, may, and often
do, vary.
Obj.
5. "These covenants were national, and so have no obligation on
individuals, when they cease to be members of the national community who
entered into them."
Ans.
Had the duties, contained in these covenants, been only of a temporary, local,
or circumstantial nature, this objection would be relevant. But we have
endeavoured, above, to shew, that these bonds contemplated the duties of the
moral law, which is obligatory upon all men.... But here we might enquire, of
what is a nation composed? Is it not of individuals? Can a nation be nationally
bound, and the individuals not be individually bound? To what is the nation
nationally bound? Is it not, to yield a cheerful obedience to all GOD's holy
and divine commandments, in their national character? Is not the individual
individually bound to do the same, in his individual character? If he is thus
bound in Britain, does the soil of Colombia loose him of all obligation to, and
make him independent of, the Moral Governor? In as far as this moral obligation
is concerned, between national and personal covenanting, there is only a
numerical difference. In the latter, one individual is personally bound; in the
former, three, four, or five millions of individuals, are personally bound. If
individuals are not personally bound, they are not bound at all. To talk of an
individual being [only GLP]
nationally bound would be a solecism [i.e. an error GLP] worthy of the greatest blunderer (Samuel B.
Wylie, A Sermon on Covenanting, SWRB,
1997, pp. 109112).
Rev. John Cunningham, a Reformed
Presbyterian minister from Scotland also drew attention to the perpetual
obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant upon the nations and churches descending from the
Scotland, England, and Ireland.
Being scriptural in its [i.e. the Solemn League
and Covenant GLP] matter, and not yet implemented, and besides,
having been acquiesced in by the civil power, it is to this day binding on the
nations; to this day it binds the Churches in the three kingdoms, the Church of
Scotland, and all those who have seceded from it as an establishment, as well
as those Presbyterians who never were connected with that Church since the
Revolution [the Revolution of 1689 in which William and Mary came to the throne
of Britain GLP] (John Cunningham, Ordinance
of Covenanting, 1843, SWRB, 1997,
pp. 374, 375).
The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of North America at its meeting in 1855 clearly elaborated the binding
obligation of the National Covenant
and the Solemn League and Covenant
upon the posterity in the United States. Although the Reformed Presbyterian
Church had by this time defected from some of the testimony of its forefathers
(the Auchensaugh Renovation,
and the Act, Declaration, and Testimony as terms of communion), nevertheless, it yet maintained at this point
in time a faithful testimony to the binding obligation of these covenants.
These federal deeds [i.e. the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms GLP] we hold to be moral in their nature and
scriptural in their character, and that they descend with unabated obligation
from the original covenanters to their posterity who were represented in the
taking of them; and whilst we abjure any fealty or subjection to the government
of that nation with which they were originally connected [i.e. Great Britain GLP], we now joyfully own and take for ourselves
the Godhonoring and Godhonored place which such obligations impose, as the
priceless legacy of our pious ancestors, whose faith we would follow, and whose
noble example we would imitate. . . . We approve, moreover, the devotion and
faithfulness of our pious predecessors, who, amidst weakness and reproach, from
time to time, renewed these sacred bonds, and so contributed to perpetuate and
transmit them to us, their posterity. Deploring, therefore, the sin of the
profane rejection of these covenants, and their subsequent widespread neglect, desiring to be free from any
participation in its guilt, seeking to confirm our own souls in a godly purpose
of devotion to the service of our God Most High, and to encourage all who shall
follow us in our testimony, to hold fast in his ways, we resolve to renew the National
Covenant, and Solemn League and
Covenant, in all their
obligations, not peculiar to the church in the British Isles, but applicable in
all lands, and essentially interwoven in the immutable law and word of our God
(The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Form of Covenant
Renovation, 1855, pp. 8, 9).
Pastor Thomas Houston, D.D., pastor of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church in Knockbracken, also confirms the perpetual
obligation of these solemn covenants upon posterity when he writes,
On the ground of the moral character of our
fathers' federal deeds [namely, the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant GLP],
they may be regarded as, in some sort, obligatory upon other Churches and
nations, besides those that can trace their descent directly from the original
covenanters. And certainly, those who have sprung from the same stock, and who
in America, or in the distant colonial dependencies of Britain, owe much of the
scriptural light and freedom which they enjoy to the principles developed in
the sacred vows of Britain, and to the blessing that has remarkably rested upon
a nation, which was married to the Lord, have peculiar reasons to view these
covenants as worthy of all admiration, and devoted regard (Thomas Houston, A
Memorial of Covenanting, 1857,
SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 68).
And finally, we would draw the attention
of our readers to the following words which demonstrate the attitude of
faithful Reformed Presbyterians in the United States as it relates to their
moral obligation to own formally the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant.
To some it may appear strange, that a Church
located in the United States of America should give such prominence as it did
to the British Covenants [i.e. the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant GLP].
Living in another continent, and having no political [present GLP] connection with Britain, on what ground was
this matter embodied in the Testimony, and acknowledgment of the Covenants made
obligatory on the members [i.e. members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
which was established as its own church court in 1798 GLP]? In answer to this it will be sufficient to
quote the fourth term of Communion, as adopted by the American Church. It is to
this effect: "An acknowledgment that public covenanting is an ordinance of
God, to be observed by Churches and nations under the New Testament
Dispensation, and that those Vows, namely, that which was entered into by the
Church and Kingdom of Scotland, called the National Covenant, and that which was afterwards entered into by the
three kingdoms, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and by the Reformed Churches in
those kingdoms, usually called the Solemn League and Covenant, were entered into in the true spirit of that
institution; and that the obligation of these Covenants extends to those who
were represented in the taking of them, although removed to this or any other
part of the world, in so far as they bind to duties not peculiar to the Church
in the British Isles, but applicable to all lands." This amounts, we presume, simply to this that the essential principles of the Covenants
concerning liberty and religion, the reciprocal duties of nations and rulers,
and the obligation which both owe to Christ as Governor among the nations, were
binding on American Churches and on American citizens who were of British
origin (Matthew Hutchison, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 1893, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 406, 407, emphases
added).
(This ends Pastor Price's faithful contribution
to this particular question. This writer would like to publicly thank him for
his gracious assistance in this regard.)
Next, Mr. Bacon claims he is only morally
bound to the covenants and that these covenants have no formal obligation in
and of themselves, while the PRCE affirms that we are morally and formally bound to the covenants.
In his Defense Departed Mr. Bacon says,
So, then, we account the Solemn League and
Covenant an edifying historical
document which contains in it
several moral duties. But we deny that the existence of moral duties within
a document binds subsequent generations of the church to the historical and accidental aspects of the
document. As Calvin said, these things should be "accommodated to the
varying circumstances of each age and nation." It should further be noted
that whatever in a document is a moral duty is a moral duty so far and only so
far as it is a direct application of God's moral law (Defense Departed).
My
people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they
have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place
(Jeremiah 50:6, AV, emphases added).
Thomas M'Crie replies:
Some of the principles on which it has been attempted
to loose this sacred tie are so opposite to the common sentiments of mankind,
that it is not necessary to refute them: such as, that covenants, vows and
oaths, cannot superadd any obligation to that which we 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).
Regarding the necessity of formally taking
the Solemn League and Covenant,
Mr. Bacon shows how he judges this Covenant to be little more than a godly
example and an edifying historical document, materially applicable only to the
seventeenth century, but not formally binding upon us today.
So the Steelite turns that which was good and
useful and lawful for the church of Scotland to use in time of national and
ecclesiastical distress to that
which is nothing more than the imposition of traditions upon the conscience (Defense
Departed).
Here Mr. Bacon alleges that the Covenants
were sworn simply to provide a
remedy for a temporary and national emergency.
Thomas M'Crie replies to this common
objection saying,
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).
e. The Essence of Covenants Intrinsic Obligation
Mr. Bacon asserts:
Whether we speak of the moral duties, the moral and
perpetual obligations, or the moral substance, we refer only and always to that
which is binding on the conscience because it is from God's moral law (Defense
Departed).
Pastor Greg Price responds:
We affirm that we are not only morally bound to own
and renew the National Covenant
and the Solemn League and Covenant because
they are agreeable to the Word of God, but we acknowledge that we are formally
bound to own and renew these biblical covenants as well because they were made
on our behalf. In other words, we are not only bound by these covenants because
what is contained within them is agreeable to God's moral law, but we are
further bound to these covenants because they were sworn on our behalf as their
posterity. For if only the fathers who originally made the covenant were
formally bound by the terms of the covenant, then the posterity could never be
accused of having broken the covenant of their fathers they could only be accused of breaking God's moral
commandments. But time and time again, the posterity are accused of breaking
not only the moral commandments of God, but also of breaking the covenant of
the fathers. That is simply to say that if the covenant of our fathers only
morally binds us, then we are only guilty of transgression of the law of God
contained therein. However, if the covenant of our fathers both morally and
formally binds us, then in addition to our transgression of God's law, we are
guilty of perjury as well. Thus, we have seriously aggravated our guilt by
formally breaking the covenant of our fathers. That it is true that national
covenants made with God formally bind the posterity is evidenced from Scripture
(Greg Price, Draft from a forthcoming SWRB publication entitled, A Peaceable
Plea for Worldwide Protestant Unity).
Archibald Mason adds:
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], covenantbreaking 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 covenantbreaking 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, SWRB reprint, 1997,
emphases added).
And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant
that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against
them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen
that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that
they should not do like them (2 Kings. 17:15, AV).
They
are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear
my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and
the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers
(Jeremiah 11:10, AV).
In a December 18, 1996 email
correspondence with Pastor Price, Mr. Bacon tells us exactly what he considers
to be the moral and perpetual obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant:
As far as the moral and perpetual obligations of
the Solemn League and Covenant,
I find them fully spelled out in the documents produced by the Assembly,
including the Confession, Catechisms, Form of Presbyterial Church Government,
and Directory for the Public Worship of God, etc. And I adhere completely to
those moral and perpetual obligations (attainments, if you prefer) (Defense
Departed).
It is notable that Mr. Bacon failed to
include the Acts of General Assembly in his list, but I will deal with that
distinctly in the forthcoming misrepresentations. For now, we must observe that
Mr. Bacon has failed to acknowledge that the swearing of the Solemn League
and Covenant, in and of itself,
created an intrinsic obligation, real and distinct though not separated nor
separable from the law of God.
Samuel Rutherford observes that swearing
such a covenant is a moral duty and that the omission of it is sinful.
To lay bands of promises and oaths upon a backsliding heart, is commanded in the third Command,
and is not 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 Gospelvows (Samuel
Rutherford, A Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, p. 482, SWRB reprint, 1997, emphases
added).
Though a man may live and die a Christian
without ever swearing or owning a particular national Covenant, Rutherford
explains that failing to do so (in a covenanted land) is a sin of omission
against the third commandment. The sin is committed when one fails to do all
that can be done to restrain a backsliding heart, be it individual or national.
To illustrate the error Mr. Bacon is
promoting I ask the reader to consider the following hypothetical situation.
A certain man finds himself backsliding
and given over to misrepresenting the beliefs of others. He knows that this is
a violation of the ninth commandment and he desires to repent of these foul
deeds. He has learned that a lawful remedy to such sin can be found in making a
personal covenant with God. Consequently, he swears an oath to God promising to
endeavour to carefully read and listen to his opponent's arguments before
publicly assaulting and misrepresenting them. Having done this he recognizes
that he has laid a new obligation upon himself that is real and distinct though
not separated or separable from God's Law. God, by means of the third
commandment has instructed him that he would be negligent in not doing
everything possible to keep himself from this sin. Understanding this, he views
his personal covenant as a way of restraining himself from sin by using the
means God has prescribed in His Law. Thus, his personal covenant is neither
separated nor separable from God's third commandment. Next, this man knows that
he was already bound by the ninth commandment before he took his personal
covenant. What then did he accomplish by personally swearing to bind himself to
something he was already entirely bound to keep? He voluntarily engaged himself
to a specific duty required in God's Law and called upon God Himself to witness
his selfengagement. By this act, he
formed a new and distinct moral and perpetual obligation which did not exist
before his swearing of the covenant. He superadded an obligation that is subordinate to God's law because it depended upon following
the third and ninth commandments. It is for this reason that we can say that this
covenant is real and distinct from God's Law. A new perpetual and moral
obligation was formed that could either distinctly be kept or broken. Prior to making his personal covenant this man
would be guilty of breaking the ninth commandment every time he misrepresented
someone. However after making this selfengagement,
he would be guilty of adding covenant
breaking and perjury to the crime of bearing false witness. A greater band has
now been laid upon him to restrain him from wantonly committing this crime. A
greater chastisement will follow the violation of his promise, and conversely,
a greater reward will attend his faithful keeping of it.
Thomas Houston explains:
The grand and fundamental ground of a religious
covenant is the moral law. The law of God alone can bind the conscience. No oath or bond is of any force that is opposed
to it.... The obligation of the law of God is primary and cannot be
increased that of a
voluntary oath or engagement is only secondary and subordinate. By the Divine law, we are obliged to the
performance of duty whether we choose it or not by covenants we voluntarily bind ourselves.... where the vows made
respect duties enjoined by the law of God, they have a intrinsic obligation of
the highest and most constraining kind (Thomas Houston, A Memorial of
Covenanting, 1857, SWRB , 1997, p.
29, emphases added).
Returning to the previously noted
hypothetical situation, we see in light of Thomas Houston's concise
explanation, that the vow taken by the man given over to misrepresenting others
is no new rule of duty, but a new bond to make the law of God his rule. This
intrinsic obligation of covenanting applies to all lawful covenants made by man
and it is the very essence of all covenants. Once a new bond is sworn an
additional obligation is formed
that can either be kept or broken. This is what happened when the Solemn
League and Covenant was sworn.
This intrinsic obligation is what Mr. Bacon is attempting to avoid when he says
"it is not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms." He
says he is willing to be bound by the Law of God, but he sees no reason to
actually own a seventeenth century covenant any further than that. He believes
this covenant to be an edifying historical document that lawfully served its
purpose for that particular situation and time. He believes it to be a faithful
example, but sadly, to him, it serves only as a mere acknowledgement and
reminder that God's law requires obedience and perhaps that extreme
circumstances call for more drastic remedies. I think it is safe to say that
Mr. Bacon does not think the swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant has added any new obligation to himself personally
or to the Reformation Presbyterian Church corporately. The same moral and
perpetual obligations that existed before the Solemn League and Covenant was sworn are precisely the same moral and
perpetual obligations to which he is bound after it was sworn: no less, no
more. By his reckoning the swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant was simply a restatement of already existing moral
obligations sworn in an agreement only applicable to the then existing
generation. To Mr. Bacon no new, real and distinct, superadded, perpetual
obligation was formed when the Solemn League and Covenant was sworn. By his reckoning there is no way for Mr.
Bacon or anyone else in 1997 to break the actual Solemn League and Covenant itself. This is what he is saying when he says
that, "it is not necessary to take the covenant of the three
kingdoms."
Commenting upon the distinct nature of
superadded covenant obligations Thomas Houston explains the error of Mr.
Bacon's position:
But, moreover, religious covenants have an
obligation distinct and peculiar. Although
the authority of God, expressed in his law and speaking through his word, is
supreme and cannot possibly be increased, there may be a superadded obligation
on a man's conscience to respect and obey His authority, arising from his own
voluntary oath or engagement. This
is easily illustrated. We are bound at all times to speak the truth, and to
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, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 29, 30, emphases
added).
The PRCE believes that a superadded
obligation was formed when the Solemn League and Covenant was taken. As a result, this obligation,
superadded and subordinate to God's law, could now be either broken or kept. By
entering into this everlasting covenant, our covenanted ancestors voluntarily
engaged themselves and their posterity to God and thus we now must formally
own, adopt and renew both the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. The obligations, intrinsic to both covenants,
cannot be ignored without violating our forefathers agreement with God. This is
the reason we say, contrary to Mr. Bacon, that it is necessary to take, own and
renew the covenants of the three kingdoms. Please understand that swearing a
covenant is not making a new law, neither is it more directly placing ourselves
under the law of God (which is impossible), nor is it establishing ourselves in
some new relation to God's law. God has strictly commanded us to keep his
entire law and it would be foolish to infer that a mere man, by swearing a
covenant, could add some new relation to the law of God which He has not
already required. To imply such a thing is to strike at the perfection of the
law of God, at the perfection of God Himself, and consequently at the perfectly
finished work of Jesus Christ. We, like our representative forefathers, are not
inventing a new rule of law; rather, we voluntarily engage ourselves to make God's
law our rule. Understanding the nature of our voluntary engagement and the
intrinsic moralperpetual obligation
of covenants is critical to understanding why we (and all moral persons
represented in the covenants) must uphold both covenants in 1997. Mr. Bacon
errs when he teaches that it is not necessary to take the covenants of the
three kingdoms because he has not properly considered their intrinsic
obligation. His misunderstanding of the fundamental concept involved in all
covenanting lies at the heart of his error and is one of the prime causes of
his gross misrepresentation of our position. As long as Mr. Bacon continues in
his present misapprehension of this truth he will fall under the faithful
censure of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and we will
faithfully honor their ruling and remain withdrawn from him.
On July 27, Session 27, 1649, the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland declared:
Albeit the 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, [16381649
inclusive], 1682, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 460).
Similarly, on August 6, 1649, they say:
It is no small grief to us that the Gospel and
Government of Jesus Christ are so despised in the land, that faithful preachers
are persecuted and cried down, that toleration is established by law and
maintained by military power and that the Covenant is abolished and buried in
oblivion. All which proceedings cannot but be looked upon as directly contrary
to the Oath of God lying upon us and therefore we cannot eschew his wrath when
he shall come in judgment to be a swift witness against those who falsely swear
against His name (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of
Scotland, [16381649 inclusive], 1682, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 472473).
In 1643 the Solemn League and Covenant was sworn and a superadded obligation was formed.
This obligation bound the moral persons of Church and Nation for the duration of
their existence. Consider the following argument framed by John Brown of
Haddinton as he explains how the intrinsic obligation of the covenants
constitute their very essence and how these obligations are real and distinct
though not separated or separable from God's law. When our nations'
ministers understand the implications of this point, they will be much closer
to mending their covenant breaking ways.
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 deputygovernors
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 selfengagement
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 selfengagements, 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. 211 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 selfengagement, 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 selfengagements,
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. 2123. 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 selfengagements, 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 selfengagements 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 selfobligation,
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 therefore necessarily forbidden
in his law; and thus in regard to his authority in his whole law, as
necessarily holy, just and good. We are bound to fulfil it, from a regard to
the holiness, justice, faithfulness, majesty, and other perfections of God, as
the Guarantee of it, into whose hand we have committed the determination and
execution of its awful sanction, as
the gracious rewarder of our fidelity, or just revenger of our perfidy, and hence in regard to our own happiness, as
concerned in that sanction. In fine, we are bound to fulfil it in obedience to
that command of God, which adopts and ratifies it, requiring us to pay, fulfil,
or perform our vow, oath or covenant, Psal. L. 14. & lxxvi. 11. Eccl. v. 4.
Deut. xxiii. 21, 23. Mat. v. 33.
In
violating such a vow, We do not merely transgress the law of God, as requiring
the duties engaged, before the vow was made. But we also rebel against, and
profane that divine warrant, which we had to make our vow. We profane that
authority over ourselves in the exercise of which we made the vow, and
consequentially that supreme authority in God, from which ours was derived; and
so strike against the foundation of the whole law. We manifest a contempt of that law, which
regulated the matter and manner of our vow. We profane the vow, as an ordinance
of God's worship, appointed in his law. By trampling on a noted mean of
promoting obedience to all the commands of God, we mark our hatred of them, and
prepare ourselves to transgress them, and endeavour to remove the awe of God's
authority and terror of his judgments from our consciences. We blasphemously
represent the Most High as a willing witness to our treachery and fraud. We
pour contempt on him, as the Guarantee of our engagements, as if he inclined
not, or durst not avenge our villainy. Contrary to the truth and faithfulness
required in his law, and pledged in our vow, we plunge ourselves into the most
criminal deceit and falsehood. Contrary to equity, we rob God and his Church of
that which we had solemnly devoted to their service. Contrary to devotion, we
banish the serious impression of God's adorable perfections. Contrary to good
neighbourhood, we render ourselves a plague and curse, and encourage others to
the most enormous wickedness. Contrary to the design of our creation and
preservation, we reject the glory of God, and obedience to his law from being
our end. Meanwhile, we trample on the ratification of our vow, by the divine
law in all its awful solemnities, and manifold connections with itself, and requirement to pay it.
It
is manifest, that our covenanting ancestors understood their vows in the manner
above represented. They never represent them as mere acknowledgments of the
obligation of God's law, or as placing themselves in some new relation to God's
law, or more directly under any command of it. But declare that a man binds himself by a
promissory oath to what is good and just. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any
thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance. By a vow we more
strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties. And, in expressions almost innumerable, they represent the obligation
of their vows as distinct and different, though not separable from the law of
God. They no less plainly declared, that no man may bind himself by oath to any
thing, but what he is able and resolved to perform; no man may vow any thing which is not in his own
power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise of ability from God.
And in their several forms of covenant, they never once pretend to engage
performing of duties in that absolute perfection which is required by the law
of God, but sincerely,
really, and constantly to endeavour the performance of them (John Brown of Haddinton, The Absurdity and
Perfidy of all Authoritative Toleration, 1803, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 120127, emphases added).
While it isn't necessary to take the Solemn
League and Covenant to become a
Christian, it is necessary to own it in a land that is formally bound to this
everlasting covenant with God. Once this covenant was sworn it formed an
obligation that became a test of Christian faithfulness and a subordinate and
secondary rule of faith agreeable to God's Word. The intrinsic obligation of
the Solemn League and Covenant
is real and distinct. Ignoring it or railing against it will not make it
disappear. Many Covenanters and their children died telling us to take this
seriously, and all who have now read this can no longer claim ignorance of what
God will require at the last day. All who ignore these just claims of God are
without excuse.
Suffice it here to warn and indict
covenant breakers in the words of our venerable ancestors.
August 20, Session 15, 1647 A declaration and
Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethren
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
colourful 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 Gibeonites
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 themselves 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
[16381649 inclusive], 1682, SWRB
reprint, 1997, pp. 333334).
O
ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the
LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his
covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations (1 Chronicles
16:13-15, AV).
Moving on to a different aspect of our
present debate, I wish to allow Pastor Price to address Mr. Bacon's concerns
relating to the circumstantial details of the Solemn League and Covenant. Since our dear pastor had already completed this
task, I saw no reason to duplicate his work.
Mr. Bacon states:
The Reformation Presbyterian Church thus has
maintained and continues to maintain that the Westminster documents which we
have adopted were (see Westminster Bibliography Bacon) transacted upon the basis of the moral obligations of the Solemn
League and Covenant. The moral and
perpetual obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant are met and fulfilled insofar as a church commits
itself to those just requirements of God's word. The human constitutions by
which those commitments are met may vary from 1643 Scotland to 1997 North
America. (Defense Departed).
Pastor Price responds,
Are there circumstantial details within
these covenants that do not apply to the United States and Canada? Yes, there
are (e.g. the United States has neither king nor parliament, nor national
church; Canada has no national church; neither the United States nor Canada as
nations acknowledge their obligation to the Solemn League and Covenant). But that which is circumstantial does not alter
the moral obligations contained within these lawful covenants.
If there is any thing in these instruments [i.e.
the National Covenant and the Solemn
League and Covenant GLP], of a circumstantial nature, we admit it may
vary with the circumstances which produced it: but whatever is moral, will
remain as permanent as these nations, and as unchangeable as the great
Legislator [i.e. the Lord God Himself
GLP] (Samuel B. Wylie, A Sermon on Covenanting, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 98).
Consider that when the covenanted nations
of Israel and Judah were sent into captivity, they also were unable to keep
certain circumstantial elements of the covenant made with their fathers (e.g.
they had no king from among their brethren to reign over them, they had no
national church, they were unable to keep the worship required in the Law as
long as they were separated from the temple and Jerusalem), and yet God
preserved a faithful remnant of covenant keepers even in the land of their
captivity (e.g. Ezekiel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther, Mordecai, etc.). How did they keep
the covenant of their fathers? They obeyed all of the terms of the covenant
that were yet applicable to them while in captivity. All those in captivity
were yet formally bound by the covenant of their fathers (despite the
circumstantial differences that existed in captivity). Some (like Ezekiel,
Daniel, etc). were covenant keepers while others were enduring the divine
curses God had promised to bring upon them for breaking the covenant of their
fathers ("And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my
judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my
covenant. . . I will scatter you among the heathen" Lev. 26:15,33).
Observe that Ezekiel makes clear that Israel in captivity could not escape the
formal bond of the covenant: "And I will cause you to pass under the rod,
and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant" Ez. 20:37. Calvin's
exposition of this verse further evidences that Israel (in captivity) was yet
formally bound by the covenant of their fathers and not only morally bound to
the law found in the covenant. For Calvin distinguishes between the covenant
that formally bound Israel, but did not so bind the Gentiles. Whereas, if God
were only speaking of the moral law contained in the covenant, that would
equally bind the Gentiles as well.
Hence, the bond of the covenant means the constancy
of his covenant, as far as he is concerned: and the simile is suitable, because
God had bound his people to himself, on the condition that they should be
always surrounded with these bonds. Hence, when they petulantly wandered like
untamed beasts, yet God had hidden bonds of his covenant: that is, he
persevered in his own covenant, so that he collected them all again to himself,
not to rule over them as a father, but to punish their revolt more severely.
Here is a tacit comparison between the Israelites and the Gentiles; for the
Gentiles, through their never approaching nearer to God, wandered away in their
licentiousness without restraint. But the state of the elect people was
different, since the end of their covenant was this, that God held them bound
to him, even if the whole world should escape from him (John Calvin, Commentaries
On Ezekiel [Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979], p. 332).
Moreover, the faithful covenanters in
Scotland, England, and Ireland (of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries)
could certainly have maintained that certain circumstances mentioned in the Solemn
League and Covenant no longer
applied to them, and therefore they were no longer formally bound to keep it
(e.g. when Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector there was no king; or under Charles
II and James II the Solemn League and Covenant was burned and made illegal; or after 1707
Scotland and England became one nation, etc.). But such evasions were always
the proposed excuses on the part of covenant breakers as to why they were not
formally obligated to own or to renew either the National Covenant or the Solemn League and Covenant. The faithful words of the Covenanted and
Presbyterian General Assembly of the Church of Scotland should put all such
evasions to flight.
Albeit the League and Covenant [i.e. The Solemn
League and Covenant GLP] be despised by that prevailing party in
England, and the Work of Uniformity, thorow [through GLP] the retardments and obstructions that have
come in the way, be almost forgotten by these Kingdoms, yet the obligation
of that Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are
constantly to be minded, and prosecute by every one of us and our posterity,
according to their place and stations
(The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland, [16381649
inclusive], 27 July 1649, Session 27, "A seasonable and necessary Warning
and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and concerning duties
relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members
thereof," SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 460, emphases added. The original
spelling and capitalization have been retained).
(Pastor Price's response ends here, and
again I would like to thank him for his faithful work and gracious assistance
in this matter.)
I readily admit that many circumstances
have changed from 1643 to 1997. Many circumstances had also changed from 1643
to 1651. The unity of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was broken
and the reigning power had fled the country. Control was in the hands of the
conquering usurper Oliver Cromwell. Did this radical change in circumstances
change the obligation of the Covenants? Did the intrinsic obligation to own and
renew the Covenants suddenly fly away when Cromwell usurped power? Is it true
that, "the human constitutions by which those commitments are met may vary
from 1643 Scotland to 1997 North America," as Mr. Bacon argues?
If he means that we are to swear new covenants, entirely distinct from the Solemn
League and Covenant, to meet our
changing circumstances, then I emphatically say he greatly errs. If he means
that we ought to faithfully renew the Solemn League and Covenant, recognizing its intrinsic moral obligation, while
applying it to contemporary circumstances, then I wholeheartedly agree. This is
what was done in Auchensaugh, Scotland (1712) and again in Philadelphia
(October 8, 1880). The title of the Auchensaugh deed is instructive of its
purpose and pertains directly to this question of accommodating the Solemn
League and Covenant to our time
and position respectively.
The title reads:
The Auchensaugh Renovation of the National
Covenant and the Solemn League
and Covenant with the
Acknowledgment of Sins and Engagement to Duties as they were Renewed at
Auchensaugh, near Douglas, (compared with the editions of Paisley, 1820, and
Belfast, 1835). Also the Renovation of these Public Federal Deeds, ordained at
Philadelphia, October 8, 1880, by the Reformed Presbytery, with Accommodation of
the Original Covenants, in both transactions, to their times and positions
respectively.
From this it is readily observable that
the Reformed Presbytery intended to accommodate the original Covenants to the
time in which they lived. They faithfully recognized their intrinsic moral
obligation by holding to the original promises, and they also explicitly
testified against any group who unfaithfully attempted to imitate a covenant
renewal while evading its moralperpetual
obligation.
We adhere to the Renovation of the National
Covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712, as comprising the same grand Scriptural
principles with the original deeds, and preserving the identity of the moral
person, which became more visible in 1761 by a Judicial Testimony. Reexhibited in 1858 and 1876. We repudiate the
Renovation at Dervock, 1853, as being inadequate, defective, and unfaithful part of the document couched in abstract and
evasive and equivocal language. Also we condemn and reject the Pittsburgh Bond
[the present bond of the RPCNA GB]
as ambiguous, self contradictory and treacherous "a snare on Mizpah" (The Reformed
Presbytery of America, Act of Adherence to our Covenants, National and
Solemn League; as adapted to
the present time , emphases
added).
Do the socalled Steelites teach the same doctrine of covenant renewal as the
men of the Second Reformation? In answer to this query, I think there is none
better to turn to than the elder statesman of the Scottish commissioners
sent to the Westminster Assembly.
Surely Alexander Henderson would give us a true impression of what was intended
in the renewing of the National Covenant as he preached on the occasion of swearing the Covenant at St. Andrews
in early April of 1638.
In his sermon upon Psalm 110:3, "Thy
people shall be willing in the day of Thy power, in the beauty of holiness from
the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of Thy youth," Henderson
proclaims:
And indeed ye have just reason to be willing now.
Because
it is God's cause ye have in hand, and it is no new cause to us. It is
almost sixty years old; it is no less since this same Confession of Faith was
first subscribed and sworn to [158081 GB].
And it has been still in use yearly to be subscribed and sworn to in some
parts, among those in this land, to this day. And I think it would have been so in all parts of the land if men had
dreamed of what was coming upon us. Whatever is added to it at this time, it is
nothing but an interpretation of the former part; and if men will be willing to
see the right, that they may see that there is nothing in the latter part but
that which may be deduced from the first. And in the keeping of a Covenant we
are not found to keep only these same words that were before, but we must
renew it; and in the renewing thereof we must apply it to the present time when
it is renewed, as we have done, renewed it against the present ills (Alexander Henderson, Sermons, Prayers, and
Pulpit Addresses, 1638, p. 21,
SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1996, emphases added).
Henderson's doctrine of covenant
renewal is exactly the same as the Reformed Presbytery and the PRCE. What is Mr. Bacon's doctrine of covenant renewal?
He thinks the seventeenth century covenants should stay in the seventeen
century, and the renewal of our father's covenants are not included in his
doctrine or his practice. Rather, he seems to be intent in slandering all
attempts to accomplish that godly end by hurling aspersion at those who promote
it. Notice in the above sermon that Henderson says that the Covenant is now
almost sixty years old, and yet it was still being subscribed in some parts of
Scotland on a yearly basis. He urges his flock to renew it, by making
application to the present time, that it might strengthen the church of Christ
against the devil's wiles. I am
very thankful for the Reformed Presbytery, who upheld the same doctrine which
Henderson here teaches. If our nation were presently full of ministers like
those found in the Reformed Presbytery, we would not so readily wallow in the
confusion of the modern day malignants. Men such as Mr. Bacon will have us
believe that the socalled
"Steelites" taught something different than the great reformers of
the Second Reformation, and it is abundantly evident that such a sentiment is
grossly inaccurate. Now, dear reader, you have hard evidence to prove who is
telling the truth. Mr. Bacon's portrayal that we have no intention of
accommodating these covenants to meet our present circumstances is now exposed.
The PRCE presently owns both bonds, and is currently working on a Covenant
Renewal to accommodate and adapt these original covenants to our time and
circumstances respectively. We pray that God will send faithful labourers to
strengthen our hands in this complex and difficult task. Moreover, those, like
Mr. Bacon, the RPCNA (the pretended Covenanters) or most other socalled Reformed Presbyterians, who wish to avoid or
adulterate the intrinsic obligation of these faithful bonds will of course be
welcome only let them first repent
and make proper restitution for their past covenant breaking, perjury and
present slander against the true Covenanted remnant.
Mr. Bacon wishes us to believe that he is
a staunch advocate of public covenanting when he says:
The issue between the Steelites and the rest of the
body of Christ is not whether we today should practice the ordinance of public
covenanting. Not only do the Steelites believe public covenanting is for our
present day, so too does the RPC and the RPCNA. In reality every church that
practices baptism believes in public covenanting. It is not so clear and
central with others of God's people, but when we baptize we are covenanting
publicly in an engagement to be the Lord's (Defense Departed).
David Steele comments:
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 (The Two Witnesses, 1859, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 27)
It is true that our baptismal vow includes
the solemn duty of public covenanting, and I would never want to downplay its
importance or obligation. The question is whether or not Mr. Bacon's practice
of public covenanting in baptism exonerates him from the further duty of
renewing the other covenants he is already formally bound to uphold. Alexander
Henderson, in the above cited sermon (preached at the renewal of the National
Covenant), answers this question:
Now is there any of you but ye are obliged to be
holy? Ye say that ye are the people of the Lord. If so be, then ye must have
your inward man purged of sin, and ye must stand at the stave's end against the
corruption of the time, and ye must devote yourselves only to serve and honor
God. And your Covenant, that ye are to swear to this day obliges you to this;
and it requires nothing of you but that which ye are bound to perform. And
therefore, seeing this is required of you, purge yourselves within, flee the
corruptions at the same time, eschew the society of those whom you see to be
corrupt, and devote yourselves only to the Lord. Yet this is not that we would
oblige you to perform everything punctually that the Lord requires of you;
there is none who can do that, but promise to the Lord to do so, tell him that
ye have a desire to do so, and say to him, Lord, I shall earnestly endeavour to
do as far as I can. And, indeed there is no more in our covenant but this, that
we shall endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of our Christian
liberty; and albeit, none of you would swear to this, ye are bound to it
[the National Covenant GB] by your baptism. And therefore, think not that we are precisians
(or these who have set down this Covenant), seeing all of you are bound to
do it (Alexander Henderson, Sermons,
Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses,
1638, p. 23, SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1996, emphases added).
Henderson declares that by baptism we are
already bound to the obligation of the Covenant. To him these ideas were joined
together like husband and wife rejoicing side by side in the beauty of holiness
(1 Chron. 16:29). The one entering in by the washing of regeneration (Tit 3:5,
Heb 10:22) and the other endeavoring righteousness and peace with the solemnity
of a promise (Rom. 4:13, 2 Pet. 3:13). He argues that neglecting to swear to
that to which they were already bound would be contradictory and sinful. To
neglect the one while enjoying the other would mar the beauty of both. Each proclaim
the glory of God and together they promote unity of purpose and desire for
holiness.
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and
peace have kissed each other (Psalms 85:10, AV).
Whereas Henderson would marry these two
ideas together, Mr. Bacon would counsel separation. The covenant made at
baptism does not allow us to evade our duty as Mr. Bacon seems to imply; rather
our baptismal covenant (in a covenanted land) binds us to further uphold our
other lawful Covenant obligations laid upon us by our faithful forefathers (in
the same manner as parents obligate their children in baptism). I acknowledge
that Mr. Bacon believes that public covenanting is for the present day. The
problem is that he does not recognize his entire Covenant obligation, as taught
by Henderson in the above sermon. Like Mr. Bacon, those to whom Henderson spoke
were already covenanted by virtue of their baptismal vows, but Henderson
evidently believed that there existed an additional obligation to renew this sixty year old promise. According to Mr.
Bacon's doctrine, Henderson should have been content to let the National
Covenant die a natural death due to the fact that he was already promoting
social covenanting through baptismal vows. According to Mr. Bacon, Henderson is
making this sort of emphasis upon a covenant renewal too "clear and
central" in his system of doctrine. Does the taking of a baptismal vow
alter the necessity of renewing other previously binding covenants which are
agreeable to the Word of God? Not according to Henderson. On the other hand,
Mr. Bacon is again mixing his apples and oranges leading others astray by teaching halftruths. His alleged advocation for public
covenanting falls far short of the faithful example set by the ministers of the
Second Reformation. In view of this clear evidence, I cannot see how Mr. Bacon
will ever again dare say that he adheres to the doctrine taught and practiced
by the Second Reformation Scots regarding covenanting or covenant renewals. It
is one thing to say that, "I believe in public covenanting," and
quite another to understand the faithful application of the doctrine. Sadly,
Mr. Bacon appears to properly understand neither, and it is grievous that he
would pass on such ignorance to others. He needs to publicly repent of what
he has written. Under the pretence of upholding public covenanting he has in
reality upheld covenantbreaking,
and counselled others to follow him in his stiffnecked violation of the third
commandment.
Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were,
but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath
sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his
wrath may turn away from you (2 Chronicles 30:8, AV).
Has the PRCE "unchurched" all
who will not take the covenant as Mr. Bacon falsely claims?
On his church's web page, under the
heading of the Necessity of the Covenants, Mr. Bacon represents the PRCE as
having "unchurched" all who do not adopt the Solemn League and
Covenant. As seems to be his
practice when slandering others, Mr. Bacon fails to give us a precise
definition of the term "unchurched". His sinful and unscholarly lack
of precision leaves us wondering (again!) what he is attempting to say. Does he
mean "unchurched" as to being or "unchurched" as to wellbeing?
If, in the future, Mr. Bacon would provide us with a clear definition of what
he means by this term perhaps it could then be properly dealt with. As it
stands, his present charge is unqualified, undefined, and therefore
meaningless. As such, it only serves to further demonstrate his readiness to
uncharitably and imprecisely rail at others.
Though it is not presently possible to
determine the exact nature of Mr. Bacon's charge, I do think it is wise to
briefly discus dissociation and separation as they pertain to our solemn
covenants.
We follow the practice of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland (16381649)
and censure (bar from the Lord's Supper), or withdraw, from all those who will
not own their Covenant obligations. Though withdrawal or censure (depending
upon the circumstance) removes one from a close and intimate communion with the
PRCE, it does not mean that those who are thus dealt with are no longer deemed
Christians. As it pertains to the Covenants it simply means that those who are
thus censured, or withdrawn from, are considered unfaithful Christians or
churches who need to repent of covenant breaking and perjury.
Consider the many Acts of the General
Assembly of Scotland from 1638 to 1649 inclusive, (subordinate and agreeable to
God's Word) which confirm us in our actions of withdrawing from, or censuring
all, who will not take, own and adopt their binding Covenant obligations in
this nation.
1. 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, that 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, [1638-1649 inclusive], SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 87,
emphases added).
2.
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 quarto, 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 Presbyteries, 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, [16381649
inclusive], SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 162 emphases added).
3.
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 (Acts of the General
Assemblies of the Church of Scotland,
[16381649 inclusive], SWRB, 1997, p.
94).
4.
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, [16381649
inclusive], SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 93, emphases added).
5.
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 Presbyteries herein respective (The Acts of the General Assemblies of the
Church of Scotland, [16381649 inclusive], SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 220, 221,
emphases added).
6.
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, [16381649 inclusive], SWRB
reprint, 1997, p. 335, emphases added).
7.
Act for Taking the Covenant at the first receiving of the Sacrament of the
Lord's 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 the General
Assemblies of the Church of Scotland,
[16381649 inclusive], SWRB, 1997, p.
422, emphases added).
8.
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
(The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [16381649
inclusive], SWRB reprint, 1997, p.368, emphases added).
Let us summarize what the above cited Acts
are saying.
First, observe who were obliged to
subscribe the covenants: "all the members of this Kirk and Kingdom,
subscribe;" "every person may be obliged to subscribe;"
"enjoining all persons to subscribe the Covenant, under all Ecclesiastical censure."
Second, what happened to all who refused
to subscribe?
According to these Acts those who refused
to subscribe the Covenants were to be censured. Mr. Bacon's noting of an
alleged exception (Zachary Boyd) has been proven false though even if his
scholarship was accurate it would only serve to prove that the Ministers of
Scotland were being inconsistent and unfaithful to their stated Acts of General
Assembly. The reader is asked to look again at the language used therein, and
to evaluate whether Mr. Bacon has faithfully represented the position of these
faithful Covenanters.
The Scottish General Assembly states that,
"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;" furthermore the officers of the Kirk were instructed to
"proceed with the censures of the Kirk against such as shall refuse to
subscribe the Covenant."
Third, what happened to those who broke
Covenant after subscribing them?
Those who did subscribe and spoke against
the covenant suffered the same censure and were additionally cited for perjury.
As I have demonstrated, once the distinct and superadded obligation derived
from the voluntary selfengagement
takes effect, the charge of perjury and covenant breaking are both appropriate
and just.
On Aug 1, Session 5, 1640, the General
Assembly said "that such as have subscribed the Covenant and speak 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."
George Gillespie, Scottish Commissioner to
the Westminster Assembly George Gillespie states:
Those that refuse the covenant, reproach it, or
rail against it, ought to be looked at as enemies to it and dealt with
accordingly.... Refusers of the covenant and railers against it are justly
censured. (George Gillespie,
Miscellany Questions, Works,Vol. 2, 1846, reprinted 1991 by Still Waters
Revival Books, p. 81, emphases added).
Thus, it is clear that all were obliged
to take the Covenants
and those who refused or broke their vows were to be excommunicated.
Next, we must ask ourselves: How long did
the General Assembly intend these Acts to remain in effect. 1 year? 10 years?
or perpetually? Obviously, these Acts were to be enforced as long as the
Covenant to which they refer remains in force. The PRCE recognizes the faithful
court of our ancestors and realizes that the everlasting covenant sworn on our
behalf still applies to the churches of Canada and the United States (also many
other lands all his Majesty's
dominions at the time the Covenants were sworn). Consequently, as
Presbyterians, we cannot contradict the ruling of a faithful General Assembly
when it is agreeable to the Word of God. Our withdrawing from, admonishing, and
censuring, those who are guilty of breaking covenant, is an example of our
willingness to uphold their just and righteous rulings.
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count
him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15,
AV).
The Church of Scotland clearly censured
those who would not subscribe the Covenants. This is further evidenced by the
following excerpt.
And decerns and declares all and sundry, who
either gainsay the word of the evangel received and approved as the heads of
the Confession of Faith, professed
in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament
of King James VI., and ratified in this present Parliament, more particularly
do express; or that refuse the administration of the holy sacraments, as they
were then ministrated; to be no members of the said kirk within this realm,
and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so
divided from the society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6 of King James VI. declares, that
there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than was presently
at that time, by the favour of God, established within this realm (The
National Covenant, emphases
added).
When it is said that, "all and
sundry, who either gainsay the word of the evangel received and approved as the
heads of the Confession of Faith"
are to be accounted, "no members of the said kirk within this realm,
and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so
divided from the society of Christ's body," they are saying precisely the same thing as the
PRCE. Those who will not covenant and confess the truth are to be barred from
the sacraments and familiar fellowship. Is that the practice of the pretended
presbytery of the RPC? Do they maintain that anybody who speaks or acts against
the Confession or Covenants are "no members of the said kirk within this
realm"? No, on the contrary, they profess to hold communion and maintain
familiar fellowship with a broad spectrum of Christians who openly speak and
act against both. This is evidenced by the fact (which they do not deny) that
they do not require their members to agree not to speak and act contrary to
their church standards prior to partaking of the Lord's Supper, rather such
requirements are only required of their officers. Is it not abundantly
evident that they do not uphold the principles of the Second Reformation?
Furthermore, Mr.Bacon's practice is
contrary to the example set by the First Reformation under the godly influence
of John Calvin in Geneva. As Reg Barrow has accurately stated in his article
entitled Calvin, Covenanting and Close Communion, "it is a well documented fact that the
Genevan Presbytery [Company of Pastors
GB], in 1536, sought to excommunicate anyone who would not swear an oath to
uphold the Reformed doctrine as it was set forth in their Confession of
Faith."
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, Westminster Press, 1975, p. 63, emphases added).
Additionally, the company of Pastors in
Geneva took this one step further (enacting negative civil sanctions like those
of the covenanted Reformations found in the Old Testament under Josiah, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Asa, and Hezekiah) by commanding those who would not swear to the
reformation to leave the city:
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, emphases added).
(See Reg Barrow's, Calvin, Covenanting
and Close Communion, pp. 68, also the 5th letter in his response to Doug
Wilson in his book entitled, Saul in the Cave of Adullam).
These complete articles are free on SWRB's
web page at:
Another prime example of Reformation
principles, in speaking plainly and acting consistently against unfaithful
churches and ministers, was manifested by the faithful Protesters of the
General Assembly of Scotland in 1651. At this time, an unfaithful majority
faction of the General Assembly (called the Resolutioner party) openly broke
their covenant vows and initiated a dispute that quickly divided them from the
faithful minority (the Protesters). These compromisers under pressure from the
King, approved the placement of men (called malignants for their ungodly
character) in the army and places of public trust contrary to the covenants and
previous Acts of General Assembly. Thus, by evident perjury, these
Resolutioners made themselves coconspirators
and accessories to the crimes that followed the sad division of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Matthew Hutchison explains:
The former party [the resolutioners GB] had among them men of high character and
worth, some of whom afterwards regretted the position they had taken in this
controversy. They were more tolerant in the application of their principles;
among them the Second Charles found afterwards many of his willing tools, and
they constituted the bulk of those who accepted the Indulgences and Toleration
[later compromises GB] (M.
Hutchison, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 1893, SWRB, 1997, p. 21).
The compromise of the Resolutioner party
within the General Assembly of Scotland led to a division that remains
unhealed, and a schism that effectively set aside the original constitution of
the Church of Scotland. The seriousness of this schism can be observed in the
following excerpts. Note the actions of faithful Protester ministers as they
dealt with the unfaithful ministers of the Resolutioner faction. Mr. Samuel
Rutherford [Protester GB] would not
serve the Lord's Supper with Pastor's Blair and Wood [Resolutioners GB] though they had most other points of faith in
common.
In the time of the difference between the
Resolutioners and Protesters, at a Communion at St. Andrews, he [Samuel
Rutherford GB] ran to a sad height and refused to serve a
table with Messrs. Blair and Wood,
after all the entreaty they could make. At length Mr. Blair was forced to serve
it himself (Robert Gilmour, Samuel Rutherford, A Study, Biographical and
somewhat Critical, in the History of the Scottish Covenant, 1904, SWRB reprint, 1996, p. 201, emphases
added).
Obviously, I do not concur with the
assessment of Robert Gilmour, that Mr. Rutherford, "ran to a sad
height," when he refused to serve the Lord's Supper with Robert Blair, or
James Wood. Rather I believe that Mr. Rutherford was acting consistently with
the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith in refusing to serve the
Lord's Supper with obstinately scandalous (perjured) ministers. Did Rutherford
sin by refusing communion with perjured but otherwise godly men? No, instead he
acted faithfully and consistently in refusing to serve the Lord's Supper with
the scandalous. Was he saying these men were no longer Christians? No, he was
attempting to correct and restore the brethren he dearly loved by testifying
against their sin and not complying with their compromise. And if Rutherford
(who sought to apply faithfully the biblical obligations declared in the Solemn
League and Covenant) was unable to
serve the Lord's Supper "with" those who have scandalously
compromised their covenant obligations, much more would he refrain from serving
the Lord's Supper "to" those known to be guilty of such sins.
Rutherford aptly states:
Because the Churches take not care, that Ministers
be savoury and gracious; from Steermen all Apostasie and rottenness begin. O if
the Lord would arise and purge his House in Scotland! As for Churchmembers, they ought to be holy; and though all baptized
be actu primo members, yet such
as remain habitually ignorant after admonition, are to be cast out, and though
they be not cast out certainly, as paralytick or rottened members cannot
discharge the functions of life: So those that are scandalous, ignorant,
malignant, unsound in faith, lose their rights of Suffrages in election of
Officers, and are to be debarred from the Seals. Nor can we defend our sinful practise in this: it
were our wisdom to repent of our taking in the Malignant party, who shed the
blood of the people of God, and obstructed the work of God, into places of
Trust in the Church State, and the Army, contrary to our Covenants, they
continuing still Enemies. (Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Survey of the
Summe of Church Discipline, 1658,
SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 373, emphases added).
Not only would consistent Protesters not
administer the Lord's Supper "with" or "to" the
Resolutioners, but applying their doctrine uniformly they called the
Resolutioner Assemblies "pretended" and would not compear before
their courts. The Records of the Church of Scotland, reports the following events which depict their
godly and constant principles.
At this session [of General Assembly GB], Mr. Rutherford gave in a protestation against
the lawfulness of the Assembly, containing the reasons thereof in the name of
the Kirk, subscribed with 22 hands, and desired it might be read; but it was
delayed to be read, and all that subscribed the remonstrance, with some others,
went away (July 17, 1651, Session
6, Records of the Kirk of Scotland,
SWRB, 1997, p. 628, emphases added).
Did the Protesters sin when they walked
out of the meeting of the Scottish General Assembly (1651)? Were they saying
that the Resolutioner churches were not Christian churches? No, they simply
would not recognize the pretended authority of the Resolutioners compromised
majority.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;
neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment
(Exodus 23:2, AV).
How does Mr. Bacon explain the actions of
these Protesters? Does he accuse them of being rash and uncharitable for
walking out of the General Assembly? How does he explain Rutherford not serving
communion with pastors Blair and Wood? To date, Mr. Bacon's politically correct
commentary upon this matter seems decidedly undecided, and I could hardly
believe my eyes when I read in his Defense Departed that, "The paper on dissociation goes on to
speak of the Protester and Resolutioner split in the church of Scotland as
though it were germane to our nation and time." Sadly for Mr. Bacon and
his indefensible position, the history of the Second Reformation is entirely
applicable to our nation and time and he is a living testimony that those who
fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers
have set (Proverbs 22:28, AV).
The faithful warriors of the First and
Second Reformation did not fail in their duty toward those who acted or spoke
against their Confessions and Covenants. They admonished, withdrew from, and
even excommunicated those compromised brethren who would not repent of their
sinful deeds. The fact that these compromisers were otherwise godly Reformed
Presbyterians did not stop them from making a clear testimony against them.
They would not recognize their pretended courts and they openly bore witness
against their schismatic schemes. We simply seek to follow their godly example
while encouraging others to do the same.
Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not
Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor
swear, The LORD liveth. For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now
the LORD will feed them as a lamb in a large place (Hosea 4:15,16, AV).
Accordingly, churches such as the
Reformation Presbyterian Church who obstinately retain their unscriptural
doctrine and practice must be withdrawn from and testified against by
admonition and suspension from the Lord's Table. Their pretended courts must
not be recognized as anything other than schismatic attempts to destroy the
unity of Christ's church. They must be avoided (not attended!). All the
evidence points to the conclusion that they have receded from the truth and
apostatized into a backsliding state of spiritual adultery. Although they are
yet considered true Churches of Christ (as to being), they must sadly be viewed
as unfaithful churches (as to wellbeing).
Like Israel of old, such unfaithful churches have brought their lovers (false
doctrine, unauthorized worship, tyrannical government, and undisciplined
toleration) into the presence of their heavenly husband.
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was
poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers,
and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children,
which thou didst give unto them; Behold, therefore I will gather all thy
lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved,
with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against
thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy
nakedness (Ezekiel 16:36,37, AV).
John Calvin comments:
That there is an universal Church, that there has
been, from the beginning of the world, and will be even to the end, we all
acknowledge. The appearance by which it may be recognized is the question. We
place it in the Word of God, or, (if any one would so put it,) since Christ is
her head, we maintain that, as a man is recognized by his face, so she is to be
beheld in Christ: as it is written, "Where the carcase is, there will the
eagles be gathered together," (Matth. xxiv. 28.) Again, "There will
be one sheepfold, and one Shepherd," (John x. 16.) But as the pure
preaching of the gospel is not always exhibited, neither is the face of Christ
always conspicuous, (1 Cor. xi. 19). Thence we infer that the Church is not
always discernible by the eyes of men, as the example of many ages testify. For
in the time of the prophets, the multitude of the wicked so prevailed, that the
true Church was oppressed; so also in the time of Christ, we see that the
little flock of God was hidden from men, while the ungodly usurped to
themselves the name of Church. But
what will those, who have eyes so clear that they boast the Church is always
visible to them, make of Elijah, who thought the he alone remained of the
Church? (1 Kings xix. 10.) In this, indeed, he was mistaken, but it is a proof
that the Church of God may be equally concealed from us, especially since we
know, from the prophecy of Paul, that defection was predicted, (2 Thess. ii.
3.) Let us hold, then, that the Church is seen where Christ appears, and where
his word is heard; as it is written, "My sheep hear my voice," (John
x. 27;) but that at the instant when the true doctrine was buried, the
Church vanished from the eyes of men.
This Church, we acknowledge with Paul, to be the pillar and ground of the
truth, (1 Tim. iii.,) because she is the guardian of sound doctrine, and by her
ministry propagates it to posterity, that it may not perish from the world.
For, seeing she is the spouse of Christ, it is meet that she be subject to him.
And, as Paul declares, (Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 2,3) her chastity consists in
not being led away from the simplicity of Christ. She errs not, because she
follows the truth of God for her rule; but if she recedes from this truth, she
ceases to be a spouse, and becomes an adulteress (Articles agreed upon by The Faculty of Sacred
Theology of Paris, in Reference to Matters of Faith at Present Controverted
with The Antidote, Calvin's
Selected Works, Vol. 1, Tracts, Part 1, pp. 102103, reprinted in 1983 by Baker Book House and in 1997 by SWRB).
And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a
strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger (Proverbs 5:20, AV)?
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go
from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not
that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD (Jeremiah 3:1, AV).
To properly understand the Covenanter
position regarding dissociation and separation from pretended authorities, the
reader must become familiar with another important distinction, viz., the
settled vs. the broken state of the church. The nation of Scotland (16381649)
possessed both a truly constituted General Assembly, and the civil
establishment of the true Reformed religion, thereby enabling the church to
enjoy the blessed privilege of being "settled" in the land. Our case
in 1997 is vastly different. We have no National Presbyterian General Assembly,
nor do we possess the civil establishment of the one true Reformed religion.
Among the Reformers, such a disorganized state of affairs was referred to as
the "broken state" of the church. One of the most serious errors
of Mr. Bacon (and those like him), and one of the main reasons he so frequently
misunderstands the Reformers' doctrine of dissociation and separation is his
failure to grasp this important distinction. Mr. Bacon is fond of quoting men like Samuel Rutherford, James
Durham, and George Gillespie, who wrote extensively regarding true principles
of separation. What he fails to take into account is that they were applying
their principles to a time when the church was nationally established and bound
by faithful reformed covenants. Those who fail to make this distinction are
constantly taking the scriptural principles of separation pertaining to a
national church (settled) and applying these principles to the church in her
"broken" and "unsettled" state. The results are disastrous:
books are written like Mr. Bacon's, The Visible Church in the Outer Darkness (a book filled with both Popish error and
Independent confusion). In his public misrepresentation of Kevin Reed, Mr.
Bacon practically ignored the necessary distinctions of the Reformers (being
vs. wellbeing, settled vs. broken
state), and consequently led his readers to believe something far different
than the doctrine they actually taught. Through his false teaching, sincere
children of God are led to believe that separation from a Christian church,
even in a time of great apostasy (broken state), should be exceedingly rare.
Citing men (like John MacPherson, James Wood, and Thomas Boston) who did not
stand upon the biblical principles of covenanted Protesters (like Samuel
Rutherford, George and Patrick Gillespie, James Guthrie, Robert McWard, John
Brown of Wamphray, Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill and James Renwick), Mr.
Bacon has confused his readers into confounding the faithful teaching of the
Second Reformation with the dissimulation of those who were attempting to
justify their backsliding and compromise. He must be called to account for his
error (see Appendix G). Dear reader, take the time to carefully read the following
quotations. Those who understand what is being said will no longer be ensnared
by Mr. Bacon's false interpretation of the Reformers.
Faithful martyr of God, James Renwick,
explains the importance of this crucial distinction:
We distinguish between a Church in a Reformed and settled
state and confirmed with the
constitutions of General Assemblies and the civil sanctions of Parliament; and
a church in a broken and disturbed state. In the former, abuses and disorders can be orderly redressed and removed
by church judicatories, but not so in the latter. Wherefore the most lawful,
expedient and conduceable mean, for maintaining the attained unto Reformation,
is to be followed in the time of such confusions and disturbances, and that is,
(as we think) abstraction and withdrawing from such disorders in ministers
which we cannot get otherways rectified (James Renwick, An Informatory
Vindication, 1687, SWRB reprint,
1997, p. 61, emphases added)
We
distinguish between a Reformed Church enjoying her privileges and judicatories
and a Reformed church denuded of her privileges and deprived of her
judicatories. In the former,
people are to address themselves unto Church judicatories and not to withdraw
from their ministers (especially for ordinary scandals); But in the latter, when ministers are really scandalous (though not
juridically declared so) and duly censurable according to the Word of God, and
their own church's constitutions and censures cannot be inflicted through the
want of church judicatories, and yet they still persist in their offensive
courses, people may do what is competent to them and testify their sense of the
justness of the censure to be inflicted, by withdrawing from such ministers
even without the Presbyterial sentence
(James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 61, 62, emphases added).
We hold, that Schism, or disowning and rejecting
of, or groundless and unwarrantable separating from, true and faithful
ministers, to be a very heinous, hateful, and hurtful sin; yet this doth not
hinder, but that it may be duty, in a broken state of the Church, to withdraw from Ministers chargeable with
defection. For, seeing this Church hath attained to such a high degree of
Reformation; and seeing, by Solemn Covenants to the Almighty, we have bound
ourselves to maintain and defend the same; Seeing by reason of the enemy's
subtilty and cruelty, and the fainting, falling and failing of Ministers, so
many dreadful defections have been introduced, embraced, and countenanced; Seeing,
in these times of distempering confusions, we are now deprived of the remedy
of settled Judicatories, where unto we might recur for rectifying of disorders; And seeing we are bound to witness against these
Complying and backsliding Courses, whereby the wrath of God is so much kindled
against the Land: Therefore we hold it as our duty, that when a backsliding or
defection is embraced, avowed, and obstinately defended, in such things as have
been Reformed, either expressly or equivalently, especially being witnessed
against doctrinally, and further confirmed by other testimonies; We judge it
lawful, reasonable, and necessary; in a declining, backsliding, and troubled
state of the Church, to leave that
part of the Church which hath made such defection, whether Ministers or
Professors, as to a joint concurrence in carrying on the public work (according
as it is given in Command to Jeremiah 15:19, let them return unto thee, but
return not thou unto them) and to adhere unto the other part of the Church,
Ministers and Professors, whether more or fewer, who are standing steadfastly
to the Defense of the Reformation, witnessing against others who have turned
aside and declined therefrom; until the defections of the backsliding party
be confessed, mourned over and forsaken: This is no separation from the Church of Scotland, but only a
departing and going forth from her sins, backslidings, and defections, as we
are commanded by the Lord (James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication, 1687, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 36, 37, emphases
added).
Finally, I quote Alexander Shields who
wholeheartedly concurs with Renwick:
In a constitute and settled case of the church, enjoying her privileges and judicatories,
corruptions may be forborne, and the offended are not to withdraw, before
recourse to the judicatories for an orderly redress; but in a broken and
disturbed state, when there is no
access to these courts of Christ; then people, though they must not usurp a
power of judicial censuring these corruptions, yet they may claim and exercise
a discretive power over their own practice; and by their withdrawing from such
ministers as are guilty of them, signify their sense of the moral equity of
these censures that have been legally enacted against these and the equivalent
corruptions, and when they should be legally inflicted. As we do upon this
ground withdraw from the prelatic curates, and likewise from some of our
covenanted brethren, upon the account of their being chargeable with such
corruptions and defections from our reformation, as we cannot but show our
dislike of (Alexander Shields, A Hind Let Loose, 1797 edition, SWRB bound photocopy, 1996, p. 266,
emphases added).
Dear reader, do you see the importance of
these distinctions? Do you see the error that can arise from taking the just
rules of separation and applying them without distinction? In the settled state
of the church, where rightly constituted and established judicatories allow for
the orderly redress of abuses, separation should be exceedingly rare (like
Rutherford, Durham, and Gillespie teach). However, in our broken state of the
church, while we have no recourse to nationally established judicatories (only
to independent rival judicatories), we are left to claim and exercise a
discretive power over our own practice
as Rutherford and the Protesters practiced when the corrupt Resolutioner
majority "broke" the Church of Scotland. (see Appendix G). We testify
against the corruptions of our nation's churches and ministers, by barring them
from our communion table, writing against their errors and praying for their
reformation. In this broken state of the church their is no difference between
how we are to treat unfaithful churches and unfaithful individuals. If God has
commanded us to withdraw from and avoid disorderly and obstinate brethren, how
can we deduce that we are to tolerate disorderly and obstinate churches? If the
church is so divided that gross sin and error is protected by false
judicatories, then how are the children of God to obtain a lawful hearing for
their grievances? Should they submit themselves to those who frame mischief by
abusing their pretended authority? When the church is so broken and
disorganized that disorderly and obstinate churches are going from bad to
worse, the answer is not to plead for toleration. Such toleration proclaims a
liberty to sin and promises ecclesiastical protection for unfaithfulness. When
the hands of the wicked are strengthened and the children of God are encouraged
to tolerate evil, true religion is destroyed and reformation is hindered. Thus,
Scripture teaches that true religion ought never to require toleration and
false religion ought never to be tolerated. Those who rightly understand the
distinction between the broken and settled state of the church know that
dissociation and separation are the only true means of reformation when the
church has divided into rival judicatories and receded from the truth. Those who follow Mr. Bacon's impropriety will be
found propping up the hands of backsliders while condemning those who plead for
true reformation.
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with
thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against
the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the LORD is my
defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge (Psalms 94:2022, AV).
If
thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of
thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly,
saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor
thy fathers; namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh
unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the
other end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him;
neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people (Deuteronomy
13:69, AV).
No doubt Mr. Bacon thinks the Reformation
Presbyterian Church to be a faithful judicatory, and perhaps he would also
include such rival and contradictory judicatories as the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of North America (pretended covenanters) or the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church. These churches, ministers and brethren have all broken covenant with
God and we can no more own their judicatories than we can own the judicatory of
the Church of Rome. While these brethren are more faithful than any Romish communion,
their defection and backsliding are of such a scandalous nature that we can in
no way tolerate it for the sake of unity. For us to pass over something as
serious as perjury and covenant breaking would be for us to join hands in
silent compliance with those things which we have sworn in our Covenants to
extirpate and uproot. Unless our brethren, whom we love, humble themselves and
repent, we see no other option than to continue to pray for their restoration
while testifying against their defection.
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will
be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and
against false swearers, and
against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the
fatherless, and that turnaside the stranger from his right, and fear not me,
saith the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:5, AV, emphases added).
I close this section with a faithful
warning from the General Assembly of Scotland (August 6, 1649) and would ask
the reader to apply their words to the ministers and professing Christians
across Canada and the United States, even unto all the covenanted lands who
remain bound by the covenants of their forefathers.
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, [16381649 inclusive], 1682, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 472,
473).
Go back to Table of Contents
Go to next section
This book, The Covenanted Reformation
Defended (318 pages), is also
available from Still Waters Revival Books (swrb@swrb.com) as a cerlox bound
photocopy (for $14.99 US funds) or as a Hardcover photocopy (for $25.00 US
funds). Please add appropriate postage and handling. Thank you.
All pricing
in US funds.
The Westminster
Confession of Faith
"The product of Puritan conflict,"
stated Shedd, reaching "a perfection of statement never elsewhere
achieved.""All that learning the most profound and extensive,
intellect the most acute and searching, and piety the most sincere and earnest,
could accomplish, was thus concentrated in the Westminster Assembly_s Confession
of Faith, which may be safely termed the most perfect statement of Systematic
Theology ever framed by the Christian Church," writes Hetherington in The
History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (p. 345, emphasis added). "These are worth an
hundred victories on the battle field. We do not fear to say of them that they
are the finest transfusion into uninspired language of the sublime, awful,
blessed truths of the Word of God which the Church has as yet been honored to
make... Never can the Covenanters be robbed of the immortal honor of having,
while at the summit of their power, published this great principle to the
world" noted J.A. Wylie, in praise of the Westminster Standards (cited in
Johnston_s Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 101). Concerning the Shorter Catechism, which
is one of the items also included in this book, Mitchell, in his Westminster
Assembly: Its History and Standards,
notes: "...it is a thoroughly Calvinistic and Puritan catechism, the
ripest fruit of the Assembly's thought and experience, maturing and finally
fixing the definitions of theological terms to which Puritanism for half a
century had been leading up and gradually coming closer and closer to in its
legion of catechisms" (p. 431). The WCF is the greatest of all the creeds
of the Christian church. The church of Christ cannot be creedless and live.
Especially in an age of doubt and confusion, it is her duty to define and
proclaim the one true faith. Nowhere has the Reformed church done this so
effectively as in the Westminster family of documents. This book represents
Reformed thinking at its purest and best. It was intended, as part of the
covenanted reformation taking place during its compilation, to be adopted as
the binding confessional standard for every individual, family, court, church,
and legislature in the British Isles. Study it carefully and we think that you
will see why this same goal should be covenanted to by all serious minded
followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the definitive edition of the WCF
and its many related documents. It contains Manton's "Epistle to the
Reader," the Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, "The Sum of Saving
Knowledge," "The National Covenant (1638)," "The Solemn
League and Covenant (1643)," "Acknowledgment of Publick Sins and
Breaches of the Covenant (1648)," "The Directory for the Publick
Worship of God (1645)," The Form of Presbyterial Church Government
(1645)," "The Directory for Family Worship (1647)," an extensive
index and more! "Every effort has been made, by sparing no expense or
labour... to render it the Standard Edition," note the publishers. An
essential book for every Christian home, church, and state! Next to the
Bible itself, no other book can furnish you with as much necessary spiritual
information. Related item: William Hetherington's History of the
Westminster Assembly.
Protesters Vindicated:
Or, A Just and Necessary Defence of Protesting Against, and Withdrawing from
This National Church of Scotland on Account of Her Many Gross and Continued
Defections (1716)
The title continues: "More particularly,
her approving of, and going into the legal establishment of the Prelatic
constitutions of England. The generality of ministers swearing, in the Oath of
Abjuration, to maintain Erastianism, Prelacy, and English Popish Ceremonies.
Non-Jurants joining with Jurants, judicially approving that practice to be free
of scandal. The Church's establishing tyranny in government, against all who
will not join in communion with her, and approve her practices without redress
of grievances. Wherein these and several other causes of withdrawing are proven
to be justly chargeable on the Church, demonstrated to be contrary to the Word
of God and Reformed principles of this Church, and just grounds of withdrawing,
and setting up judicatures distinct from her; and the objections of Jurants and
others fully answered." This is a classic, detailed statement of the old
covenanted principles and the biblical attainments of the second Reformation
(like the Solemn League and Covenant, the Westminster standards, etc.). It is also
an excellent defense against the modern malignants who counsel Christ's
children to remain in the backsliding and covenant breaking denominations that
abound in our day. Very Rare! 270 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-85%=14.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $24.00 (US funds)
Records of the Kirk of
Scotland, Containing the Acts and Proceedings of the Generals Assemblies, From
the Year 1638 Downwards, As Authenticated by the Clerks of Assembly; With Notes
and Historical Illustrations, by Alexander Peterkin (1838 edition)
"The object of the present work is to
present to the public, in a form that may be generally accessible, the history
of one of the most interesting periods in the annals of our National Church, by
the republication of the Acts and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era of
her second Reformation; and, combined therewith, such historical documents and
sketches as are calculated to preserve the memory of an important, and,
ultimately beneficial revolution," notes Peterkin in his introduction.
This is one the most valuable publications we offer related to second
Reformation history and the many important questions that were debated (and
oftentimes settled) during this watershed period -- before, during and after
the sitting of the Westminster Assembly. It also contains some indispensable
information on the Protester/Resolutioner controversy (which reveals many
valuable lessons for Reformed Christians today), including excerpts from some
lost books and papers written by the Protesting Covenanters. The excerpts from
James Guthrie's The Waters of Sihor, or the Lands Defectione, in which Guthrie enumerates the errors of the
Resolutioners, as well as the marks of malignancy, is one prime example. Other
rare Protester documents (inveighing against the "pretended
Assemblies" of the Resolutioners), signed by the likes of Samuel
Rutherford and Robert Traill are also included. Very rare and very valuable --
a gold mine for the serious student of the second Reformation! 684 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-75%=24.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $34.00 (US 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). 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 -- and fittingly this work has been
called "the most profoundly reasoned document ever issued by the (R.P.)
Church." It 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.
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
Auchensaugh Renovation of
the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant; with the Acknowledgement
of Sins and Engagement to Duties as they were Renewed at Auchensaugh in 1712...
Also the Renovation of These Public Federal Deeds Ordained at Philadelphia,
Oct. 8, 1880, By the Reformed Presbytery, With Accommodation of the Original
Covenants, in Both Transactions, to their Times and Positions Respectively
(1880 ed.)
"In 1712, at Auchensaugh, the Covenants,
National and Solemn League, were renewed... At the renewal the covenant bonds
were recognized as binding the descendants of those who first entered into
those bonds. The Covenanters, however, sought to display the true intent of
those Covenants with marginal notes. These notes explained that the Church of
Jesus Christ, in Scotland (and around the world), must not join hands with any
political power in rebellion to the crown rights of King Jesus. The Covenanters
pledged the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church to the support of lawful
magistracy (i.e. magistracy which conformed itself to the precepts of God's
Word) and declared themselves and their posterity against support of any power,
in Church or State, which lacked biblical authority." (From "About
the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church" newsletter). An excellent
introduction (historical and moral) regarding the reasons, motives and manner
of fulfilling the duty of covenanting with God. Especially helpful concerning
the Biblical view of the blessings (for covenant-keepers) and cursings (for covenant
breakers) related to covenanting. As noted on page 37, "the godly usually
in times of great defection from the purity and power of religion, and
corruption of the ordinances of God's worship, set about renewing their
covenant, thereby to prevent covenant curses, and procure covenant blessing; as
we find both in scripture record, 2 Chron. 15:12-13; 29:10; 34:30-31; Ezra
10:3, and in our own ecclesiastical history." Times like ours certainly
call for a revival of the Scriptural ordinance of covenanting, for "[t]he
nations throughout Christendom, continue in league with Antichrist and give
their strength to the beast. They still refuse to profess and defend the true
religion in doctrine, worship, government and discipline, contrary to the
example of the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland in the seventeenth
century" (p. 136 in this book).
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
Various Official Acts,
Declarations, Protestations, etc., Concerning the Covenanted Reformation
Contains 24 rare documents from the period
1638-1650. One document, "The Act of Covenant Renovation" (1880) by
the Reformed Presbytery (which was a faithful renewal of the National Covenant
and the Solemn League and Covenant [adapted to the present time], with a
confession of public sins), is added from outside this period to illustrate the
continuing obligations that rest upon the moral person (civilly and
ecclesiastically). Among the seventeenth century documents we find much (from
both the church and the state) that relates to the central place that
covenanting played in the second Reformation. We also find various
authoritative international testimonies against Popery, Prelacy and Schism
(i.e. Independency, Cromwell, etc.), and for biblical covenanted uniformity,
divine right Presbyterian church government, and apostolic worship. Military
documents related to the second Reformation are also added. One proclamation by
Charles I is even included, to illustrate Royalist opposition to Reformation.
686 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-80%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $29.00 (US funds)
The Book of the Universal
Kirk of Scotland
Contains the earliest official records (acts
and proceedings) of the Established Reformed Church in Scotland, covering the
period from 1560 to 1616. Peterkin calls them "the only sure and
satisfactory memorials of the course of Ecclesiastical affairs in the times
immediately succeeding the Reformation." Lee, Clerk of the General
Assembly in 1828 writes (regarding the originals), "there is no difficulty
in proving that the volumes in question were laid on the table of the General
Assembly which met at Glasgow in 1638; and that they were pronounced by that
Assembly to be true and authentic Registers of the Kirk of Scotland."
Concerning this copy of "The Booke" ("for the first time fully
printed from the copies in the Advocates' Library"), Lee further states
that these records exhibit, "the real character of the internal government
of this national church. They display the operation of the principles by which
the first Reformers and their immediate successors were actuated. They
demonstrate that these men were not more distinguished by zeal for the truth,
than by loyalty to the head of the government, attachment to true principles,
(I do not say of toleration--for that was a term which they certainly did not
employ or approve)--of religious liberty and civil subordination. They bear
testimony to the strictness and impartiality of ancient discipline. They
vindicate the character of those illustrious men whose names have been unjustly
aspersed, but who, both by their doctrine and lives,--by their unwearied
exertions and their patient sufferings,--left an example, not indeed or
faultless excellence, but assuredly of the most noble, magnanimous, and
fearless adherence to the standards of our constitution. These Registers also
contain much that is capable of correcting erroneous representations of
historical facts with regard to the internal state of the kingdom--
institutions, habits, and customs, as well as the morals of the people, and the
spirit which was most prevalent at particular periods in various districts of the
land... they prove, that from the very first moment, it was the determined
object of the leaders of the Reformation, to establish such a Presbyterian
Government, as was at last, with the utmost difficulty completed... they
deserve to be preserved with care, as the most venerable remnants of a distant
age--as the earliest annuls of our infant church... of confessors and martyrs,
who counted not their lives dear to them; and who when they thought it
necessary, never shrunk from sealing their testimony with their blood... (they)
present the seal and superscription of glory to God, and good will to
man--peace to the church, and happiness to the state" (pp. xi-xii). John
Knox, the first name listed in the first record of the first General Assembly
(in 1560), of course, plays a prominent role in much of what is recorded here.
631 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-80%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $29.00 (US funds)
Saul in the Cave of Adullam: A Testimony Against
the Fashionable Sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson (Editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and
the Attainments of the Second Reformation by Reg Barrow
Doug Wilson and others at Credenda/Agenda used their magazine to publicly attack and slander
Reg Barrow (President of Still Waters Revival Books) in a column that they call
the "Cave of Adullam." This invective was Credenda's response to Barrow's comments on Knox Ring (where
Barrow noted that John Calvin would have excommunicated John Frame for the
apostasy that he manifests in his new book on worship). Numerous private
attempts were unsuccessfully made (by Barrow and others) to call Wilson to
repentance for this slander. Ultimately, charges for violation of the ninth
commandment were brought (in accord with Matt. 18:15-17) against Wilson by
Barrow. This book recounts the salient points of the controversy (and the
Matthew 18 proceedings) between Wilson and Barrow -- in their actual email
debates! Also included is Barrow's demonstration of why Calvin would have
excommunicated Frame and Greg Price's Testimony Against The Unfounded
Charges of Anabaptism. These
debates are a classic example of the differences that exist today between
paleopresbyterians (Barrow) and neopresbyterians (Wilson). Wilson's charges against Barrow, of Anabaptism,
separatism, etc. are all refuted under a mountain of quotations from
Reformation source documents. Barrow's refutations of Wilson's spurious charges
bring to light many aspects of Reformation thought that have been lost or
forgotten in our day. Besides the initial controversy (over Frame and worship)
and the restoration process (set forth in Matthew 18:15-17), this book should
be of special interest to all of those who love the "old paths" of
truth -- trod by our forefathers in the Reformed faith -- for some of the most
pressing issues of our day (regarding the individual, church and state) are
addressed herein. Classic statements, cited by Barrow, not only exhibit the
wisdom which God granted the best Reformers of both the first and second
Reformations, but also specifically demonstrate how Wilson and many other
modern Protestants actually reject the Reformation at many points (all their
protests not withstanding). "And they that shall be of thee shall build
the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations;
and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to
dwell in" (Isa. 58:12). This item is also available as a bound photocopy
for $7.98 (US funds) or a Hardcover photocopy for $19.00 (US funds).
Why the PCA is Not a Duly Constituted Church and
Why Faithful Christians Should Separate from this Corrupted
"Communion" by
Larry Birger
Two letters from Larry Birger, Jr. to the
session of his former congregation in the PCA, with an historical introduction.
Birger states, "This work is emitted by way of testimony against the
defections from the reformation of the true religion granted by God in ages
past, in hopes of playing some small part in the edification of God's people
currently languishing under such defected and defecting denominations." It
spotlights the differences between classic Presbyterian thought
[paleopresbyterianism] and what today is but a pale imitation
[neopresbyterianism] of the Reformation attainments that have been won [at the
cost of much suffering and many lives] in the past. This is a good practical
introduction to ecclesiology, testimony-bearing, and second Reformation
thought. It is also available as a bound photocopy for $3.98 (US funds).
A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the Present
Circumstances (1996)
This work explains why Christians should
separate themselves from those churches which deny biblical truth and its
implications. It defends this position using many Reformation source
documents. Samuel Rutherford has
been especially misunderstood concerning separation. Examples of misleading and
seriously flawed presentations of Rutherford's position on the church and
separation have been seen in Walker's The Theology and Theologians of
Scotland 1560-1750, Bacon's The
Visible Church and Outer Darkness
and a host of other works -- all of which overlook foundational second
Reformation truths set forth by Rutherford and his fellow Covenanters. This
book clearly demonstrates, from Rutherford's own actions and teaching (during
the Protester/Resolutioner controversy in the Scottish church), how far off
many previous works on this subject have been. It is the best short
introduction to questions
regarding the visible church and separation which we list.
(Bound photocopy) $9.95-60%=3.98
"The Reformed View of Schism"
The Reformers often said "that to avoid
schism we must separate." This should give the perceptive reader some
indication of how badly misunderstood the biblical teaching regarding schism
and separation (which should be differentiated in many ways) has become in our
day. Sadly, some of the most anti-Reformed work on this subject has been
written by contemporary individuals, who, though calling themselves Reformed,
"understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (1 Tim.
1:7). This excerpt from Clarkson's Plain Reasons for Presbyterians
Dissenting should contribute much
to correcting the problem of unbiblical ecumenism and place this doctrine (of
biblical unity in the visible church) back on its Scriptural foundation --
which was recovered during the Reformation. Clarkson cites Beza, Rutherford,
Gillespie, Dickson, Durham, McWard (Rutherford's "disciple"),
Marshal, Watson, Owen, Burroughs, and many others, while defending the truth
about schism. Objections brought against the Reformation view of schism are
also carefully answered. This is probably the single best medium length
treatment of this subject.)
Still Waters
Revival Books
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order
catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: (780) 450-3730
(Reformation resources at great discounts!)
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/ (Many free
books here!)