FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[743]Gen. vi. 17, 18. vii. 16.[744]Gen. xv. 9-18.[745]Gen. xvii. 7-14.[746]Gen. xxii. 1-18.[747]Gen. xxvi. 3-5; and Ps. cv. 9.[748]Gen. xxviii. 11-22.[749]Exod. xix. xx.[750]Exod. xxxiv. 6; see also ver. 10.[751]Num. xxi. 2, 3.[752]Deut. xxix. 13.[753]Jos. xxiv. 25, 31.[754]2 Sam. vii. 11-22; 1 Chron. xxviii. 8.[755]2 Chron. xv. 15.[756]2 Chron. xxx. 12.[757]2 Chron. xxx. 27.[758]2 Chron. xxxiv. 33.[759]Ezra x.[760]Jer. l. 4, 5.[761]Is. x. 22.

[743]Gen. vi. 17, 18. vii. 16.

[744]Gen. xv. 9-18.

[745]Gen. xvii. 7-14.

[746]Gen. xxii. 1-18.

[747]Gen. xxvi. 3-5; and Ps. cv. 9.

[748]Gen. xxviii. 11-22.

[749]Exod. xix. xx.

[750]Exod. xxxiv. 6; see also ver. 10.

[751]Num. xxi. 2, 3.

[752]Deut. xxix. 13.

[753]Jos. xxiv. 25, 31.

[754]2 Sam. vii. 11-22; 1 Chron. xxviii. 8.

[755]2 Chron. xv. 15.

[756]2 Chron. xxx. 12.

[757]2 Chron. xxx. 27.

[758]2 Chron. xxxiv. 33.

[759]Ezra x.

[760]Jer. l. 4, 5.

[761]Is. x. 22.

COVENANTING PREDICTED IN PROPHECY.

The fact of Covenanting, under the Old Testament dispensations, being approved of God, gives a proof that it was proper then, which is accompanied by the voice of prophecy, affording evidence that even in periods then future it should no less be proper. The argument for the service that is afforded by prophecy is peculiar, and, though corresponding with evidence from other sources, is independent. Because that God willed to make known truth through his servants the prophets, we should receive it as transmitted by them, in a manner peculiarly calculated to invite attention. A statute tells what, according to the authority of God, ought to be done. The revelation of God's purposes unfolds precisely the same things as to be done, but according to his sovereign arrangements made to lead to them. Prophecy declares, indeed, the purposes of God, but specially the carrying of them into effect in individual cases. In the purposes of God, each fact agreeable to his will is provided for. In prophecy, such of these facts as he has resolved to make known are presented. The reality of the pre-intimation of these shows their importance, and points out that preparation ought to be made for them. The assurance that a fact of Covenanting is predicted is a substantial argument for its lawfulness. The individuals, to perform it, may be urged by a variety of motives; yea, even by the promise in reference to their doing of it, without knowing at the time that they were the special objects of the promise. The argument from prophecy derives its value from two things,—that the subject of prophetic intimation, as provided for by the Lord himself, is warranted, and, that it is beyond the power of men either to fulfil it otherwise than he has arranged, or to prevent its accomplishment. Prophecy describes, with precision, facts that will take place. Men are brought into the circumstances to which a prophecy refers, and they may be ignorant of the fact. Afterwards they know it, and attest the verity of the prediction. The descriptions afforded in prophecy concerning the circumstances of the truth predicted are not given to provide these circumstances, for that is done according to a sovereign Divine arrangement; but are afforded to show, after the fulfilment, that the truth was indeed that which had been foretold. Prophecies, that duty will be done, lead men to it, not as attracted by its circumstances, but as directed by the Divine counsel.

Prophecy, therefore, independently of its fulfilment, affords a reason for Covenanting. Properly authenticated, it has the force of an important argument. Shown to be prophecy, both by the circumstances in which it was uttered, and by the fulfilment, it is manifestly conducive to the duty. The fulfilment of prophecy is a scriptural test of its truth; but manifestations made of Divine approbation to the prophet, even before what was uttered by him was fulfilled, also attest that such was of God. It is the prophecy, as authenticated by one or other, or both of these things, that gives encouragement to perform the service. Did God speak by his servants in order to inform men, that his name should be called upon, in vowing and swearing unto him? Then, because of such a peculiar manifestation of his will, the duty behoves to be performed. If the dictation of his will as a law in reference to the service had been sufficient, he would not otherwise have enjoined it. And if his will manifested in that manner confers obligation, does not the revelation of it, in the condescending, though gloriouslanguage of prophecy, as well as otherwise, bind to duty? Shall he use any means to make his pleasure known, of which men, by giving obedience, will not testify their approbation? Shall God speak, and yet men not respond?

Covenanting was predicted in prophecy in reference to Old Testament times. The prophecies under this head may be divided into those of the earlier prophets, and those of the later. The first class includes in it, those of Jacob and Moses, and others, who were employed to predict the future circumstances of Israel. Referring to the Church of God as a covenant society, in general they foretold that the exercise of Covenanting should be performed by its members. As an instance of explicit references made to the duty, we may advert to the blessing of Moses on the tribe of Levi.[762]That prophecy, though not limited to the periods of the former dispensations, may be considered as specially including in it a prospective regard to every act of Covenanting, in which the Church and nation of Israel as such engaged after it was delivered. The predictions of the later prophets in regard to Covenanting in the former ages, were fulfilled, on the return of the Jews from Babylon.[763]They were so explicit, and so soon fulfilled, as to afford most emphatically an exhibition of the will of God in regard to their object.

Covenanting was predicted in prophecy in reference to New Testament times. Both in the first and in the later ages, the performance of the duty in these ages was foretold. It was intimated when it was said concerning the Messiah,—"Unto him shall the gathering of the people be."[764]Many prophecies uttered concerning the restoration of Israel, refer to the present dispensation; and consequently, the predicted exercises of Covenantingwhich these contain, to it also belong.[765]Corresponding to the prophetic intimation concerning a people who should be created to praise the Lord, is that of a new heavens and a new earth; both are to be fulfilled in gospel times, and by those who were to be created, engaging in the duty of taking hold on God's covenant.[766]The Saviour was promised for a covenant of the people, and for a light of the Gentiles; and also that he might establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolated heritages.[767]The last of the Old Testament prophets, at the same time that he speaks of the covenant of the priesthood having been broken by the Jews, who were unbelievers, uttering the prediction,—"My name shall be great among the Gentiles,"[768]pre-intimates that all the heathen nations shall use the name of God in vowing and swearing unto him. Early was uttered the prophecy,—"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."[769]An illustration of it is given in these words,—"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also?"[770]Its reference to Covenanting is therefore manifest. Many passages besides, from the Old Testament prophets, show that the Gentiles in their national capacities shall vow and swear to God.[771]And in the book of Revelation, the same is foretold.[772]Explicit predictions are made concerning the Egyptians vowing a vow and performing it, and concerning the Assyrians along with them and Israel being reckoned as the Lord's people, which fall to be fulfilled in the later times.[773]And by the voice of prophecy we are assured, that by Covenanting, in the last days, Israel and Judah shall be gathered and united as the Lord's people.By the breaking of the staff "Beauty," a prophet was called to signify that the Lord's covenant with Israel was broken; and by the cutting of the other staff, "Bands," he was directed to show, that the brotherhood—certainly one which had been professedly by covenant, between Judah and Israel should be broken.[774]But even an earlier prophet, by the use of the corresponding emblems,—of one stick for Judah and Israel his companions, and another for Ephraim and all the house of Israel his companions, in joining them into one stick, was commissioned to testify to their being joined to one another, in taking the Lord for their God, in the latter day.[775]Referring to the words of sacred psalmody,—"Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O Lord, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name;"[776]as prophetic, an apostle unfolds the exercise of Covenanting as incumbent till the latest times. Yea, as a fruit of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the service, in the loftiest terms, is foretold. "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them."[777]

Hence, in conclusion. How important to attend to such prophetic intimations! They are the word of God. They were indeed addressed through men, but their origin is Divine. They are addressed to us. In times past God spake unto the Fathers by the prophets; he still speaks to us in his word. By the authority of the Lord Jesus, we are commanded to search the Scriptures;—the Old Testament as dictated by his Spirit, and the New as also from Him. While we read his word, he speaks to us from heaven. Let us not be slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have written.

FOOTNOTES:[762]Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.[763]Some of these are contained in Is. x. 22; xxviii. 15-22; Jer. l. 5.[764]Gen. xlix. 10.[765]See Jer. xxxi. 31-34, and Heb. viii. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; xxxvii. 26; as instances.[766]Ps. cii. 18-22; Is. lxv. 16, 17.[767]Is. xlii. 6; xlix. 8.[768]Mal. i. 11.[769]Gen. ix. 27.[770]Rom. iii. 29.[771]Ps. xxii. 27; Is. lii. 15; Zech. ii. 14.[772]Rev. xi. 15; xv. 4.[773]Is. xix. 18-25.[774]Zech. xi. 10, 14.[775]Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28.[776]Ps. xviii. 49.[777]Ps. lxviii. 18; see also Zech. ii. 11.

[762]Deut. xxxiii. 8-10.

[763]Some of these are contained in Is. x. 22; xxviii. 15-22; Jer. l. 5.

[764]Gen. xlix. 10.

[765]See Jer. xxxi. 31-34, and Heb. viii. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; xxxvii. 26; as instances.

[766]Ps. cii. 18-22; Is. lxv. 16, 17.

[767]Is. xlii. 6; xlix. 8.

[768]Mal. i. 11.

[769]Gen. ix. 27.

[770]Rom. iii. 29.

[771]Ps. xxii. 27; Is. lii. 15; Zech. ii. 14.

[772]Rev. xi. 15; xv. 4.

[773]Is. xix. 18-25.

[774]Zech. xi. 10, 14.

[775]Ezek. xxxvii. 15-28.

[776]Ps. xviii. 49.

[777]Ps. lxviii. 18; see also Zech. ii. 11.

COVENANTING RECOMMENDED BY THE PRACTICE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.

The approved practice of the Church of God in Covenanting, is recommended to us by these two things,—that it displays a voluntary regard to his will, and that it exhibits his power accomplishing his purpose.

The example of the people of God, while they walk in all his ordinances and commandments blameless, is a warranted motive to duty. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."[778]Their practice in the discharge of the duty of Covenanting, accordingly, is worthy of imitation. Were we doubtful whether or not their observation of the exercise were according to the will of God, we should not be encouraged by it; but when assured of its consistency with the Divine record, we are called to follow it. Their devout performances of the duty, then, present a reason for discharging it, strong in proportion to the force of every warrant which they had for engaging in it, but though in accordance with these, different from each of them. True, we are not to compare the doings of men with the command of God; but when he calls us, we are under obligation to observe these, when presented as an illustration of duty, or as a motive to perform it. On account of the same reasons for which the Church of God in former ages attended to Covenanting, we should attend to it; but we should perform it because of their example besides. Did they engage in it because of the manifestations of its obligation upon them, made inthe Scriptures, and also on account of the approved practices of their predecessors? We should perform it for the same reasons, and for this cause besides, that they themselves engaged in it. "We desire ... that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises."[779]

The practice of the Church of God, warranting to engage in the duty, is a manifestation of Divine favour made by Him in enabling her to act to the fulfilment of his designs. Were his people called to duty according to his command? He vouchsafed the strength requisite that they should obey. Were they attracted to it by the anticipation of good from Him? He afforded the grace by which they were drawn. Through them performing the service, was promise or prophecy regarding it fulfilled? The glory of God was displayed by Him fulfilling his word. Because of the displays of Divine excellence made on its performance by the saints, contemplating their example, we are called to the duty.

On these two grounds, the practice of the New Testament Church, engaging in Covenanting, to which here but merely a slight reference can be made, invites to the duty.

The practice of the Church of God in the Apostolic age, in regard to this matter, has been considered before;[780]to those cases that were explicitly approved of God, it belongs.

The practice of the Church of God in the three centuries immediately succeeding the Apostolic age recommends the duty. Creeds, Confessions, and Covenants, obtained in that period; summaries of Christian doctrine, received and adhered to, are recorded byIrenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and others. To oppose the manifestation of error, these would appear to have beenmade. The primitive Christians, in order to the attainment of Church membership, were required not merely to assent to such creeds or confessions, but also to confirm their acquiescence by oath.[781]The younger Pliny represents them as meeting on a certain day—obviously the Sabbath—and among other exercises, then engaging in addressing themselves in prayer to Christ, binding themselves by aSolemn Oath, to what we know to be duty.Justin Martyrrepresents Baptism to adults as given only to those of them who vowed to live according to the confession of their faith. And to the practice of Covenanting by oath, on the reception of Baptism,TertullianandJeromealso allude. The service, as authenticated, continued till the days of Gregory Nazianzen. During the period too, covenants were subscribed; and at some stages at least of it, those who had become exposed to the censures of the Church, on being restored, were required explicitly to enter into covenant again. Such procedures were, in measure, more or less perfect, according to the statutes of the word of God, enjoining vowing to Him; and they have a claim to be regarded as the fulfilment of some of the prophecies regarding the duty of Covenanting, that refer to the last times. The beneficial practical consequences of them, in many cases, gave corroborative evidence that they were warranted.

The federal transactions of the Churches of the Reformation recommend the duty. To what extent the practice may have been engaged in by the few in Europe who held the truth during the dark ages, we do not well know. That it was much attended to, we may rather infer, than use as an argument. But with the dawn of the Reformation came the practice of Covenanting. Step by step the Churches proceeded in opposition to Popery, by solemn engagements. By them the friends oftruth were united together. By them, where they stood, successively through grace, they triumphed, even when they fell;—they knew not to flee. The history of the Church's reformation is written in her Covenants.

First. The federal transactions of the Churches abroad. The Waldensian and Bohemian Churches—the forlorn hope of the Reformation, nobly led the way by Covenanting. Two Confessions of the faith of the Waldenses are valuable monuments. Some Waldenses who settled in Bohemia, are understood to have become the followers of John Huss. These frequently practised Covenanting. The Churches of the Waldenses and of the Protestants of Germany, in November, 1571, entered into a solemn covenant engagement, in which was made a profession of their faith, and a resolution to adhere to the true Christian Reformed Religion. Previous to this, by the famous league of Smalkald, renewed in 1536, the Protestant princes and people of Germany became engaged to maintain together the doctrine and truth of the gospel, and peace and tranquillity in the empire and German nation. In the Reformed Churches, Covenanting was common. According to Beza, on July 20, 1537, the capital articles of the Christian religion and discipline wereswornby the Senate and people of Geneva. Berne and Lausanne also came to be included in the league. The Churches of Holland, and of Hungary and Transylvania, and others on the continent of Europe, had recourse in like manner to solemn vows. The tendency to enter into such engagements survived the wreck of the period that has elapsed since the days of the Reformation; and was nobly illustrated in recent times, as when a number in the Austrian dominions, when about to be cruelly expatriated for their attachment to the truth, pledged themselves to adhere to it, by a "Covenant of Salt." The practiceextended to America. There settlers from Europe, at Salem, in 1629, by Covenanting, solemnly incorporated themselves into a Church of Christ. And afterwards the practice of Covenanting in the adopted land obtained.

Secondly, and lastly. The Covenant engagements of the Church in Britain and Ireland. Scotland was honoured, early in the Reformation, to declare valiantly for the truth. Though a Hamilton, and a Wishart, and other noble confessors and martyrs, were soon sacrificed, it pleased God to place a safeguard around a Knox and others, that the truth might be diffused. And when the rulers of the nation were wholly devoted to Popery, in his goodness and mercy He saw meet to put it into the hearts of some of the nobles, and of many of the people, to offer themselves willingly, by Covenanting, to use means to effect its removal. The first covenant against Popery was ratified at Edinburgh, in December, 1557. It was signed by the Earl of Argyll, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald Lord Lorne, John Erskine of Dun, and others. The next was entered into at Perth, in May, 1559. The third was made at Stirling, in August of the same year. The fourth, at Edinburgh, in April, 1560. The Fifth, through the exertions of John Knox and George Hay, at Ayr, in September, 1562. In 1580, theNational Covenant, drawn up by John Craig, and directed against the whole of the Romish corruptions, was entered into; next year, the General Assembly sanctioned the covenant, and the Church received it; it was renewed in 1590, and also in 1596. On the 28th of February, 1638, the covenant, with an addition that was virtually directed against Prelacy, was renewed at Greyfriar's Church, Edinburgh; thousands had assembled; the solemnity was accompanied with prayer and fasting; and with the most profound emotions, the covenant was sworn and subscribed. In order to carry into design its effect, in Glasgow, November, of the same year, sat down the Assembly—celebrated for overthrowing Prelacy in Scotland, and for its other acts of reformation. And as a manifestation of attachment to the cause of the covenant, in the consequent ever memorable times, there appeared on the banners of the Scottish people, the memorable motto, "For Christ's Crown and Covenant." These covenants are binding still on the people of Scotland. It is their duty still to declare for their object. Making efforts to maintain the kingly authority of Messiah, they ought to regard his covenant. Only those who see his covenant, see properly his crown. But to proceed. In consequence of negociations between the people of England and those of Scotland, "the Solemn League And Covenant," between the three kingdoms, was entered into. It was directed against Popery and Prelacy, and every other species of error; it engaged the nations to endeavour to attain to uniformity in religion; it recognised the duty of obeying civil rulers in the Lord; and it was sworn by men of various communities, but by them as all of one reformed religion. In August, 1643, it was approved by the Scottish Convention of Estates, and by the General Assembly, on one day. It was sworn thereafter at St. Margaret's, Westminster, by both Houses of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, and the Commissioners from Scotland. It was afterwards subscribed by both Houses of Parliament, and by the Assembly of Divines, and generally by persons of all ranks in the United Kingdom. It was renewed in Scotland in 1648, and by the Parliament in 1649. Being scriptural in its matter, and not yet implemented, and besides, having been acquiesced in by the civil power, it isto this day binding on the nations;[782]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.[783]It is not too much to describe it, in the language of a most justly esteemed writer, as "a document which we may be pardoned for terming the noblest, in its essential nature and principles, of all that are recorded among the international transactions of the world."[784]

The National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant, were renewed, with various additions, at Lanark, before the devoted but disastrous struggle at Pentland, in 1666; at Lesmahagow, in 1669; at Auchensaugh, near Douglas, on July 24, 1712; and at Crawfordjohn, in 1745. What was suited to these times in the engagements made on those occasions, and not yet accomplished, is binding, through the deeds of the parties who entered into them, on those whom these parties represented.

It would not savour much of candour to keep out of view, that by other parties besides, these covenants have been renewed since the Revolution; though it must be declared, that of the renovations made by such we cannot in all things approve.

Scotland, nay Britain, we may then say, was solemnly dedicated to the Lord. When will the Covenanted work of Reformation, which at present lies under the bann of many wicked acts, yea, even under the act confirming the Union between Scotland and England, be revived? May therebe soon fulfilled to our people again the promise,—"Thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married."

It must be admitted that the testimonies of those who opposed the Romish apostacy were in accordance, at least in some measure, with the mind of Christ; and it cannot be denied, that the many to whom we have referred, delivering those testimonies with all the solemnity of an oath, appeared, to the fulfilment of ancient prophecy concerning those who in the last times should testify for him, as his "Witnesses." Besides, has there not been fulfilled in our own land, as well as elsewhere, in those who engaged in Covenanting, in part such promises as this,—"He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.... I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." That this promise may in due time be fulfilled to all who are in darkness, let us endeavour to imitate, in their devotedness of heart to God, those whose conduct we have been led here to consider, and who enjoyed so abundantly the benefits of that promise.

FOOTNOTES:[778]1 Cor. xi. 1.[779]Heb. vi. 11, 12.[780]Chap. xii.[781]Vitringa.[782]See "Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation." Glasgow, 1841. Lecture VII., by the Rev. Dr. W. Symington.[783]Appendix B.[784]"History of the Church of Scotland." By the Rev. W.M. Hetherington, A.M. Edin., 1842.

[778]1 Cor. xi. 1.

[779]Heb. vi. 11, 12.

[780]Chap. xii.

[781]Vitringa.

[782]See "Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation." Glasgow, 1841. Lecture VII., by the Rev. Dr. W. Symington.

[783]Appendix B.

[784]"History of the Church of Scotland." By the Rev. W.M. Hetherington, A.M. Edin., 1842.

SEASONS OF COVENANTING.

The duty is never unsuitable. Men have frequently, improperly esteemed the exercise as one that should be had recourse to, only on some great emergency. But as it is sinful to defer religious exercises till affliction, presenting the prospect of death, constrain to attempt them, so it is wrong to imagine, that the pressure of calamity principally should constrain to make solemn vows. The exercise of personal Covenanting should be practised habitually. The patriot is a patriot still; and the covenanter is a covenanter still. "It is not enough that the heart be once given to God; when this has really been done it is a great attainment; but it must again and again be surrendered in renewed acts of self-dedication, in order to the maintenance of any thing like fidelity and steadfastness in his service. A daily recognition of our relationship to Christ, is full of comfort and encouragement, and is at the same time invaluable as a means of sanctification. How precious the privilege of being able in all difficulties and dangers, to speak of the great Jehovah in the language of Paul,—'God, whose I am, and whom I serve!'[785]How powerful the argument, in applying for deliverance from evil of whatever kind, employed by the Psalmist,—'I am thine, save me.'[786]"[787]And though the exercises of Social Covenanting are not practicable so frequently as those of that which is personal, thereis no reason why they, any more than the other, should be reckoned as incumbent only on occasions of an extraordinary nature.

But special seasons do give peculiar calls to the duty in all its variety. Times of hazard and distress, by displaying in relief, the vanity of all the aids that mere creatures could afford, and finding men looking around for comfort and support, invite, with a power peculiar to themselves, to look to Him who is a present help to his people in every time of need, and cordially, by Covenanting, to respond to his invitation,—"Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."[788]When religion is low, and error and vice and ungodliness prevail, the hosts of darkness are successful; but their clamour is unfit to drown the cry, so fitted to inspire with holy zeal, then urging to special devotedness to the Lord's cause,—"Who is on the Lord's side?"[789]In times of reviving, there are transmitted by every gale from heaven, the words of the Redeemer, inviting his Spouse—his Church, individually and socially to the holy duty of acknowledging Him as her Lord,—"Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away."[790]When the friends of truth unite for its maintenance, either in an incorporate or other capacity, they are called to follow the Lord, the "Leader." Is it said of the wicked,—"They are confederate against thee (or, against thy Covenant they shall covenant)"? What ought to be the conduct unitedly of those, who individually are interested in the Lord's Covenant? Are they not urged, to declare most explicitly by formally taking hold upon it, that they have come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty?[791]

FOOTNOTES:[785]Acts xxvii. 23.[786]Ps. cxix. 94.[787]"Enter into thy Closet." By the Rev. James M'Gill, Hightae, Lochmaben. Glasgow: David Bryce, 1843;—a most valuable work on the secret duties of religion.[788]Ps. l. 15.[789]Exod. xxxii. 26.[790]Song ii. 10.[791]Appendix C.

[785]Acts xxvii. 23.

[786]Ps. cxix. 94.

[787]"Enter into thy Closet." By the Rev. James M'Gill, Hightae, Lochmaben. Glasgow: David Bryce, 1843;—a most valuable work on the secret duties of religion.

[788]Ps. l. 15.

[789]Exod. xxxii. 26.

[790]Song ii. 10.

[791]Appendix C.

Hence the exercise of Covenanting has powerful claims. It is important. It is unfolded by a flood of light from the page of Divine truth. It is intimately connected with the manifestation of the glory of God. It is related to every other duty incumbent on men. It contemplates the best interests of society at present and to come;—it bears upon the maintenance of the just rights of mankind, and the glory of the Church in Millennial times. And it is an important means of sanctification, and of perseverance in grace. By means of it, each one of the glorious community of which Christ is the Head is called to manifest attachment to him; and through it to become more and more like unto him: so that the whole body of the faithful, each one having been taken into God's Covenant, and enabled to abide by it,—the Church, as the Lamb's wife, may be presented faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.

It is advantageous. Preparation for it leads to accurate apprehensions of duty. It tends to cherish a devout solemnity of mind. It leads to the comforts of habitual holy communion with God. It impresses with a sense of increased obligation, that furnishes an ardour of mind, powerfully impelling to duty. It tends to unite many in affection, and sentiment, and zeal for truth. It presents instruction most solemnly to the young and rising race, led to inquire concerning it, "What mean ye by this service?" It is calculated to arrest for good the attention of society at large. And it provides benefits the most valuable and extensive, for generations unborn.

It is necessary. It forms a part of the systemof means devised by Jehovah for carrying forward his work; and it must be observed. His work, by this and other means, will be completed. Though the evils that have occurred in the world have been permitted, yet some are chargeable with blame for committing them, and others are culpable for not having used various means, of which Covenanting is one, in order that they might have been prevented. Though the Romish apostacy was permitted, yet who can tell how far the Church of God was culpable in not using extensively enough for its prevention, Covenanting—one means directly adapted to that purpose? And who can tell what effect the performance of the duty will have in leading to the good in store for the Church, even on earth, and to the prevention of evil which, if allowed, would arise?

The duty, therefore, should be observed.[792]It is irreligion that disregards it. Superstition and infidelity alike trifle with an oath; for Satan hates and tries to discredit this institution of heaven. Who, by not observing the ordinance of Covenanting would practically say, that it ought to be abolished? Who would say that one flower of the field should cease to exist in the vegetable world, because that many others emit a fragrance whose elements are the same as those of the sweets which it breathes, or display tints due to the same colours that afford its glorious hues? And who would say that this part of the glorious system of the means of grace is unnecessary? Let thisOrdinancebe observed, that evil, as a corrupt thing under the atmosphere and sun of heaven, may perish before it; that many may enjoy the blessedness of the inheritance of the saints; and that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, theMediatorof the New Covenant.

FOOTNOTES:[792]Appendix D.

[792]Appendix D.

Every species of co-operation with the appointed functionaries of an immoral and unscriptural civil government, may not imply the recognition of that power to be the ordinance of God. To co-operate with these for example, in the execution of justice, is not necessarily to acknowledge that the power is of God. If the forms of procedure be in themselves proper, and the laws just, the carrying of them into effect for the good of society and for the glory of God, is in itself right. But it is one thing to say that justice should be done in society, and also to aid in the execution of it, and it may be quite another to acknowledge that the civil rulers of the given society have a right to do so in virtue of authority from God. Justice should be done, by a civil power—agreeable to God's preceptive will. If no such power exist, the community are to blame for not originating such a power. And if justice be not done, they are also culpable;—because of the want of such a power justice is not to be undone. Were such to be allowed, the community would be chargeable with the crimes of both remaining without a proper civil power and permitting evil to be committed with impunity. To co-operate with an unlawful civil power in doing justice, is therefore to do less evil, yea more good, than would be done by refraining from co-operation.

The swearing of an oath by those called to testify to truth, or to act in the weighing of evidence, as on a jury, in order to the execution of justice, does not necessarily imply a recognition of the authority that calls to do so, to be of God. It is the using of a lawful means of giving assurance regarding truth necessary to be ascertained, but does not essentially imply that the claims of those exercising power to the use of that power, are good. A lawful constituted authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, has a right to claim an oath for proper purposes. But an oath may be sworn to others besides. It may be sworn for a good end, even to those whose pretensions to power and authority may not be well founded, but not asif they had a right to claim it, but merely because of the giving of it being in itself right. The oath may be sworn for a proper purpose before an individual who has correct impressions of its sacredness, even though he may be acting for an unwarranted civil authority. It is not easy to conceive, however, how one could swear an oath to an infidel, or to any other who regards not the oath as a solemn religious engagement. The giving of an oath before a judge and jury, or on a jury before a judge, under an unscriptural government, does not include the recognition of those as using a power deputed by God; but contemplates them as Christian men, though mistaken as to their power, yet doing what is in itself right, and which, if done by those possessed of authority from God, would be done in all things, though imperfectly, according to his will. To swear to do justice, is not to swear an oath of allegiance to an evil power. The one is a duty; the other would be sinful. It is because that no better means of doing justice can be employed, that oaths to do justice in the said circumstances should be given. For the assumption of power which does not belong to them, those who make it, but not those who even make oath before them to do what is in itself good, while they protest against their unlawful claims to authority, are responsible.

A civil government must either be the ordinance of God or not. It cannot be viewed as acting, in some things, in the character of a power ordained of God, but in others, as not possessed of authority from him. A good government, like a true Christian, often does what is evil. But a bad government, like the wicked, even though it do what in itself is right, cannot be viewed as in possession of privilege from God, or as acting for his glory. Yet the inflicting of a just penalty, even by an unwarranted power, is not to be reckoned as injustice, or—if a capital punishment, as murder. It is the claim to power which is made, but not the accomplishment of the deed of retribution—which in itself is just, that is faulty. Take for example the execution of justice on a murderer. Murder is not the crime to be laid to the charge of those who, acting for or under the authority of a power that is not of God, on proper evidence put to death one who has unjustly taken away the life of a fellow creature. If a government not authorised by God, after due investigation put a murderer to death, they do what in itself is right; but if they do so as those who in their incorporate capacity act for Him, they do what is wrong. By the deed they are chargeable with the sin, not of murder, but of assuming to themselves a designation whichthey do not sustain. No man in society should take upon him by himself to execute justice for the shedding of blood, whether he live under a good or a bad government, except the government refuse to defend the lives and properties of subjects, and even as some, nay, many governments have been, be chargeable with oppression and bloodshed. The reason why none should so interfere, is, that it is likely that the whole community would execute justice with more propriety than an individual. Yea, a whole community under an improper civil power should not of itself execute justice, if there were an accessible power apart from or connected with it, in which were lodged authority from God. Those, however, who would in such circumstances claim that power, may often be looked upon with a jealous eye, as in general they would be found least entitled to the possession of it. Those who have most warrantably declaimed against evil constitutions, have been among those who were least given to assume to themselves a title to power;—they have been found to defend themselves, but not rashly to usurp authority. If there were but one individual who could avenge bloodshed, and were his mind in a proper state, he would seem to have a call addressed to him to do so; failing to attend to it he would err. Were a community under an authority not of God, to fail to execute justice, they would be chargeable with two sins,—that of letting the murderer go unpunished, and that of not, in recognising the law of God, forming a constitution or government gifted with power lawfully to proceed against the criminal. Thus were either an individual or a community to avenge bloodshed, a lawful power being awanting, such would not be chargeable with murder. Were a community to do so without acknowledging themselves to be possessed of authority from God, they would be chargeable with sin, for not endeavouring to constitute an authority having attributes which He would recognise as in accordance with his will. Were they to do so as if possessed of that authority, while destitute of it, they would be chargeable with the sin essentially of usurpation; and with them, because of this, others acting so as to support their claim, would be guilty.

Reflecting on the descending obligations of the British Covenants on the people of these lands, by the current of an eventful providence we are conducted to the consideration of the circumstances of the "Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland." The events in the National Church of Scotland which have led to the separation from her communion, of the Protesting Church, and finally, the disruption itself, cannot be forgotten. The struggle that was maintained for the rights of the Christian people, for the independence of Christ's house, and the glory of the Redeemer as King of Zion and King of kings, is worthy of the most cordial approbation. With those who were employed as the willing and honoured instruments of emancipating the Church from the tyrannical restraints under which she so long groaned, and effected a dissolution of a connection with the State, fraught with so many evils as have been long felt by her, there ought to be but one feeling of Christian sympathy. A testimony for the truth, calmly, and effectively, and devotedly, has been borne by her, to her lasting honour. The Church has declared that the government has acted a tyrannical and wicked part by interfering with her privileges; and the people of Scotland have practically and memorably said, that it is sinful for the Church of Christ to be connected with an anti-christian State. The government of the land has been baffled. The rulers were not overborne by the voices of a majority in either House of Parliament; but by a calm and efficient resolution, we do not say, becoming the Scottish people, but worthy of Christian men, they have been defeated; and that would be wise policy, indeed, which would remove the shame of their overthrow. For the steps of reformation taken, for the noble sacrifice made by those who gave up their emoluments that they might be faithful, commendation is due; and that the Free Protesting Church may come to maintain, to its utmost extent, not merely doctrinally but practically, the testimony of Christ, is ardently to be desired. The accession of a great proportion of the youth preparing for the ministry, and of those engaged as itinerants in preaching the gospel, is a token for good; and the devotedness of the people of Scotland on the great emergency, in adhering to the "Protesting Church," and in yielding of their substance for it, is peculiarly cheering to the mind. The countenance given by those of the Presbyterian Church in England who were present, was encouraging and estimable, as it might have been expected; while the approving sentiments expressed by those from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in their circumstances, were truly honouring to them, and to that community. It was becoming others that by deputation they testified to their approval of the step taken at the great disruption. And, though what is here said is asserted on individual responsibility alone, it is declared, without fear of being in error, that another Community in the land—who consider it to be their duty to adhere to the whole of the Second Reformation, and to the testimonies of the martyrs who suffered after it, though not present by representation at the memorable secession, in order to signify their approbation, do rejoice at the step, and trust to see it followed by other procedures alike faithful.

The importance of the effects that are possible to follow from the disruption, demands the exercise of great wisdom on the part of the Protesting Church. Not less than the power to originate the great movement that has taken place, is requisite ability to direct it aright. The people of Scotland, like a mighty mass, have been brought to act; much depends upon the plan according to which the moving body may be made to bear. The future interests of the land, under Providence, would seem to be in the hands of those who now guide the ecclesiastical movement. The destinies of Scotland were in the hands of a few in days of peril. They were not unworthy of the trust committed to them. By the adoption of the same principles which the martyrs practically illustrated, be it the honour of the Protesting Church, free from persecution, if the Lord will, but still faithfully, though called to suffering, to transmit to posterity a legacy, ennobling and beneficial as that which those left.

It is necessary that the Church of Christ should proceed on principles laid down in the Divine word. When it does not do this, it acts not in character, but gives the enemies of the truth occasion to load it with reproach. The "Free Presbyterian Church" sustaining, as we conceive, the character of a Church of Christ, should do so in all things.

It is Presbyterian, and is therefore called to base its attachment to that form of government, on the principle, that it is of Divine right. To maintain, or admit, that other forms of Church government are of Divine original, is to surrender a scriptural truth, to act as if facts in providence could modify the institutes of that society which is essentially spiritual, to become liable to inefficiency in the maintenance of the truth, and to give scope to the unworthy suggestions of those who would contend, that what right even the Church maintains on an improper ground, other communities besides could claim as well as she. The state has no right to claim the prerogatives of the Church, nor to dictate to her the form of her government, or prescribe for her in other matters. The Statehas no right to say to the Church, that, because she does not hold presbyterianism on proper grounds, therefore it might declare that her government shall be prelatic. But, by holding Presbytery as alone of Divine origin, she would most effectively discountenance such unjust claims.

The Church, by a noble act, has thrown off the fetters of erastianism that had for so long been fastened upon her; let her act so as to be on her guard against every encroachment of that nature that might be proposed by the civil power. The struggle for the independence of the Church was resolutely maintained, and the yoke of those who attempted to diminish it, was dutifully thrown off. Let not any overture hereafter, ranging between complete submission to the State, and the mere use of the veto, on the part of the civil power, upon the appointment of a given minister to a congregation, though made by the State in the most attractive manner, be entertained. But let it be practically shown, as well as solemnly resolved by her, that she recognises only one Master—who is in heaven.

During the last few years, an arduous struggle has been maintained, in order to secure, as far as possible, the rights of the christian people. Now, it is possible to put the people in possession of the unfettered privilege of electing their own office-bearers; but to put any other party in possession of that right, would be to do those injury. The claims of lay patrons are without foundation in the word of God. The claims of presbyteries, or any other parties than the members of the Church themselves, are alike unsupported there. In order that the Church may act in character, her procedure in regard to the election of pastors and elders, must be scriptural. It is true, that whether the Church act scripturally or not, no civil class are warranted to usurp her rights; yet, were her procedure not according to the law of Christ, she would act undutifully, and would give advantage to enemies to declaim against her, to the diminution of her influence for good. Though the Church were to declare forThe Call, merely on the principle of expediency, but not as if according to the will of Christ, the State would have no proper ground for affirming, that therefore it had a right to use patronage—its principle of expediency; for a right of the Church can never be transferred to a civil power; yet the Church, by not legislating on scriptural grounds, could not act in such a manner as to deserve the recognition of her by the people as proceeding according to her true character.

The last few years have added to the Church of Scotland a high proportion of godly and devoted ministers. Errors, that would have been winked at in previous periods by some in her Assemblies, have been brought to light, and the laws of Christ's house have been brought to bear on those who maintained them. Purity of doctrine was a jewel among the late reforming majority. The orthodoxy of the ministers in general of the separated Church is undoubted. She adheres to the Confession of Faith. It is requisite that she direct a testimony against unsound doctrine, including the errors prevalent now in Churches called Christian; and that whatever scheme of co-operation with other Christians she may embark in, may be consistent with her regard for the truth.

The Headship of Christ over the nations is maintained by the Protesting Church; on that is founded the principle of the establishment of religion by the civil magistrate; that, was recognised in the late contendings with the civil powers, and especially in the second series of resolutions made at the Convocation of November; on that principle these resolutions were carried into effect at the late disruption;—it is desirable that, in the progress of the newly modelled community the principle be properly applied. The important application of that, which is now necessary, is the lifting up of a protest against the civil power, as immoral and unscriptural, and a consistent course of procedure in consequence. What justifies the disruption requires a dissent from the civil power, as a power not of God. That State with which the Church could not be connected, so as to enjoy her own privileges, cannot be the ordinance of God. If the government has been guilty of violating the rights and privileges of the Presbyterians of Scotland, has it not been acting in opposition to the will of Christ, and setting at nought his authority? Were the civil government possessed of less influence than it really has, men would likely be disposed to esteem it more agreeably to its true character, than they really are. Is an individual denounced for an act of injustice or oppression? And why should not a government? Even is a government, acting for the time being, worthy of being denounced for some things, and yet worthy of approbation, as if acting for God? Yea, is that constitution sound which admits of tyranny over the Church—injustice of a highly aggravated character, to be cordially supported by those who complain of its oppression? The same pretensions to power over her, that were put forth in acts of parliament,[793]when the Church was disorganised, and for acting on which the house of the Stuarts was driven from the British throne, have beenof late made in the councils of the nation. Can the power that would do so be approved? Why should any cling to an oath of allegiance to a power that, in this particular, as well as in others, is anti-christian? All have reason to beware of the attractions of such civil powers. What is it that gives evil governments their influence, but their power to terrify, and their wealth and honours to seduce? In one case, the ministers of the Community to whom we now direct our thoughts, have nobly cast the latter aside. It becomes her to act in other matters consistently with this. There are those who would overthrow the institutions of the land, that are noble, and plant anarchy where oppression flourished. But her principles, yea, the principles of all who hold the truth, are the reverse. These would wish that good men in power should be brought to see what is duty. They would not refuse to obey laws that in themselves are right. But they should not do so from a regard to the authorities in the land that enjoin them. If the present system of civil government cannot stand of itself, why should the people of Scotland, escaped from the trammels of tyranny, pledge themselves to support it? They ought not to bring in revolution, but neither ought they to continue, by adhering to their oath of allegiance, to give countenance to an unlawful civil power. Let their determination, and that of their brethren in the other parts of the empire, prove itself to be of a nobler order than what will be abated by unfavourable circumstances. Let it be put forth in leading to abstain from countenancing an evil constitution, and to raise above the fear of consequences. Arising from Christian principle, deep hid in the breast, let it give an energy which opposition would only increase, and which death itself would not subdue, but hand over with increased vigour to others.

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland should recognise the attainments made during the Second Reformation. Whatever steps of real reformation have been taken of late, have been in accordance with some of these. It is desirable that all of them should now be adopted. Tho Revolution Settlement suffered not the Church to advance beyond the Reformation made at 1592. Now that that compact has been abandoned by the Church herself, let her occupy fully the ground on which the Reformers, between 1638 and 1649, so honourably stood. By some laws of the land, indeed, many of these are condemned. But these laws are monuments of the tyranny and oppression of the government that made them. The Revolution Church of Scotland never recognised, as a whole thebrightest attainments made in the history of the Church in the land. During the late contest, indeed, the Act of Assembly, 1647, adopting the Westminster Confession, has been pleaded as the Act of the Church of Scotland at the Revolution, which had been made by the same Church before. But though that could not have been properly maintained without admitting that other laws of the former era, not ecclesiastically repealed, were also the law of the Church at the latter,[794]let the Church, now that she is completely unfettered, by ecclesiastical legislation solemnly adopt all the distinct attainments of the second reforming period, and thus serve herself an heir to the highest privileges enjoyed by the Church in our land.

It is good that the Free Presbyterian Church contemplates the erection of a Theological Seminary for a rising ministry. May it be called into operation, and greatly prosper; and may her youth—kept from the chilling influences of error, evangelically instructed and eminently pious, prove the means of diffusing widely the truth, in consequence of a momentous reformation.

And, above all, it is necessary that the Free Presbyterian Church should have regard to explicit solemn covenant obligations. The vows of God, made by the Church in this land, are upon her; these she ought to acknowledge, and to endeavour to renew. Though these covenants were condemned by the laws of the land, they are still binding. The act of Queen Anne was against the Revolution Settlement, and, therefore, the reforming party in the Church of late declared that it was unconstitutional. The Revolution Settlement itself was based upon the overthrow of the whole of the Covenanted Reformation; and no more than the act of Queen Anne, regarding patronage, ought the sinful parts of it to be regarded. Popery exists, and Prelacy, absorbing Popery, exists. Would that the Free Presbyterian Church, by recognising the binding obligation of the covenants, National, and Solemn League and Covenant, and by adding to the binding obligations of these, engagements suited to the times, were to go forth in opposition to all evil, in all the gracious vigour of a faithful witness for the whole truth.[795]

The movement that has been lately made, contemplated in its highest character, appears the work of God. By a wondrous providence he has shut up the Church to acourse of duty, and has plainly indicated the necessity to persevere in it. On the other hand, contemplating the human instrumentality called to accomplish an estimable work, and approving much of the agents immediately employed, we should not be forgetful of the corresponding efforts made in time past, even in the National Church. Our heart is to the memory of such as had in their view the objects lately contended for, and in a day when the rights of the people were trampled on without remorse, willingly lifted the voice in the Assembly against patronage, and otherwise laboured for the removal of its flagrant enormities. There was good principle in the National Church, but evil caused much of it to be unseen, though some of it remained manifest. Gold may be dissolved by a compound acid, and for a time may cease to be observed, but not beyond the power of re-appearing. The gold cannot be decomposed: let a test be added, and the indestructible ore will re-appear. By a powerful solvent the noble principle in the National Church became nearly all invisible, though some of it could not be dissolved. A test has been added, and the whole has been precipitated, and nearly all of it has come out.[796]The sound principle and piety in the Church were the gold; moderatism, including erastianism and patronage, was the solvent; a wondrous providence applied a test; and the gold of true excellence shines forth. Let it be united by Covenanting, into one glorious mass, and be exhibited for beauty, and glory to God. Let the Free Presbyterian Church, remembering the past, wisely look forward to the future; and, reflecting upon what may be the effect of its procedure on other nations of the world, now act so as to present an example worthy the imitation of all. And it is humbly presumed that the standing of the Church, in the days of her greatest glory and efficiency in the land, in preference to every other, claims her adoption. The position, ecclesiastical and civil, of the friends and followers of the Second Reformation, like an ancient fortress held by comparatively few, but venerable from its eventful history, remarkable amid the ruin which time has laid around it, and displaying a massive grandeur as it rests on its broad and solid foundations, which had, during periods not very remote, been contemplated more as an affecting memorial of the past, than as a strength which should be available in time to come, has of late, while tyranny made progress, been somewhat approached, as it stands begirt with its gigantic bulwarks, surmounted with the banner of the Covenant,manifestly high above all other means of defending the Church; and it faithfully promises a vantage-ground, noble from its commanding altitude, and unassailable within its high defences, to which all in the land who love the truth should come, that to whatever outward peril they might be brought, they might maintain their christian warfare, to their continued honour and final triumph.

In order to suggest a good basis, whereon all in the land who hold the truth might unite in a capacity more or less intimate, the following observations are humbly presented for consideration. The friends of truth cannot justifiably persevere in supporting the British Constitution as the ordinance of God. The government, in order to its dignity and efficiency, proclaims itself to be worthy of cordial support. The claims which it puts forth may not be regarded by itself as of a very high order, yet it views them as indisputable; and even, though manifestly not an ordinance of God nor friendly to true religion, it seeks to strengthen its authority by availing itself of the use of a most sacred institution in religion—the oath. The government itself, though for certain ends it applies the oath, is not scriptural. And why should good men claim for it the character of an ordinance of God, to which even of itself it does not aspire? What right has an unscriptural civil power, any more than a corrupt ecclesiastical constitution,—what right has the British Constitution, any more than the Church of Rome, to claim for itself in things civil, the title, such as that usurps in things ecclesiastical, of an ordinance of God? Nay, the very fact of a government in gospel times supporting Popery, must cut it off from the title of a power delegated from above. It is simply because bad civil governments have great influence, that they lead men to pay them a deference which they would not yield to other systems charged with their evils. Why is an evil government at one period viewed as the ordinance of God, and at another as worthy of being overthrown? Does the character of such change by the accumulation or the long pressure of the very same—not new, evils? In the former case, the people who approve, misapprehend its true character, while they are able to endure; in the latter, they see it clearly, oppression having opened their eyes. Such were the governments of Charles II. and James VII. Though some approved of them as the ordinance of God, yet, atthe Revolution, the nation declared that they were not. And consequently they should never have been acknowledged as such. Men acknowledge the British Constitution at present as a power ordained of God. If Puseyism go on till the Protestantism of the empire be swamped in an inundation of Popery, the nation will form right views of the subject. May they soon entertain such views, lest such an event arrive!

The friends of truth under the present government should say to it in such a manner as not to be misunderstood,—We will obey your good laws, because they are good; but by oaths or otherwise we will not recognise your authority as of God.—We will co-operate with you in doing what is good; but so long as you continue to support evil, we cannot swear allegiance to you. Abolish all oaths of allegiance, and we will act along with you in every right matter.—Were all those who hold the truth in the united kingdom to do so, would not the request extort regard? And might not rulers see the propriety of yielding? Were such oaths to the present government abolished, then those who love the truth might enter parliament, and act without being responsible for the evils of the civil constitution and of the administration, and at the same time lead to essential political reformation; and the people could with a clear conscience return to parliament such men as might be possessed of proper character, and be of known attachment to the truth. Were a door opened in this manner for men consistently uttering their voice in the councils of the nation, then means should be assiduously used, on the part of the people and on the part of their representatives, for scripturally reforming the State, and for giving to true religion that external countenance and support which is due to it. The government would not act a weak part in conceding the abolition of the oath in the said cases. It would rather thereby attach to the support of what is good in it, men who would be equally at least with all others, amenable to every good law, but bound to duty by ties far stronger than those which human laws themselves could fasten. A good government should maintain the oath; but a government such as the British, ought not to claim it for the purpose of securing allegiance. That government seems at present disposed to concede the abolition of that oath to the Catholics of Ireland. Why should not the friends of truth in the empire, strive for the abolition of the oaths of allegiance sworn by themselves, in using which they, directly or indirectly, support what is evil, while Catholics are unwilling to swear, because, that by swearingthey are in some measure prevented from giving scope to their own cause?

Back to Index Next