# New Reprint of Samuel Rutherford's "Pretended Liberty of Conscience"



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 18, 2013)

Does a member of the PB own this work and if you do may you let me know about the quality, format, etc...?

Conscience, Liberty, and God's Word - Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford (Dec 18, 2013)

I don't own the version by Reformation Heritage Books, but the work is available online A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience: Tending to ... - Samuel Rutherford - Google Books &c. A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience

There also appears to be a preview of _Conscience, Liberty and God's Word_ here (published by Gospel Covenant Publications in 2011): Conscience, Liberty and God's Word: A Free Disputation Against Pretended ... - Samuel Rutherford - Google Books


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 18, 2013)

Thanks Matthew. That preview from Google is exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 18, 2013)

I don't like the stylistic choices but it looks to have been done with considerable effort; but beware you are supporting the Steelite cause in purchasing the volume.


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 18, 2013)

Since I have supported the Steelite cause by purchasing the book myself would you mind telling me what the Steelite cause is? Thanks.


----------



## MW (Dec 18, 2013)

Steelites teach that the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms are binding on churches today and must be subscribed to. They make this a mark of the church and set themselves apart as the only true church as to "well being" -- a distinction they have custom-made to try to justify their separatist behaviour.


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 18, 2013)

Thanks Matthew. Is it that they make this a mark of the church that makes them distinctive (and troublesome)? Surely it is not all that unusual to believe that the covenants are still binding on the churches...


----------



## MW (Dec 18, 2013)

If we get technical it could require alot of details. Covenants bind the entities who subscribed them. The parties who entered into them are bound. Insofar as a church or nation claims "descent" from a lawfully constituted body there is a "descending obligation" on that body. This is not renewing them, subscribing them, or discriminating on the basis of them. The "renewals" are illegal since it is not required by the lawful authority which made them in the first place. "Subscription" is invalid because the conditions which called the covenants into being are long since passed away, and conditions are essential to a covenant. Finally, "discrimination" is immoral because it sets up human standards of judgment which are beside God's standards.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 18, 2013)

Thank you so much, Rev. Winzer.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 19, 2013)

Man is it just me, as I find the cover picture extremely offensive, we have the goddess of reason & the worlds
largest Asherah posted on the Front cover supposed statue of Liberty, I say this more so for the publishers 
indiscrete choice of cover art though I'd say admin rules would be against the posting of Idolatrous Images on the forum.


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 19, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> If we get technical it could require alot of details. Covenants bind the entities who subscribed them. The parties who entered into them are bound. Insofar as a church or nation claims "descent" from a lawfully constituted body there is a "descending obligation" on that body. This is not renewing them, subscribing them, or discriminating on the basis of them. The "renewals" are illegal since it is not required by the lawful authority which made them in the first place. "Subscription" is invalid because the conditions which called the covenants into being are long since passed away, and conditions are essential to a covenant. Finally, "discrimination" is immoral because it sets up human standards of judgment which are beside God's standards.



I can see the difficulty with a group that insists that holding to the covenants is a mark of the Church and who therefore reject churches which do not share their view. I'm not sure, however, that I'm understanding what you are saying. Are you making a distinction between descending obligation to those covenant vows and renewing our vows to them? Could you explain that? 

Also, how does subscription to them become invalid simply because the conditions have changed? The conditions have changed since the Westminster standards were composed and we continue to subscribe to them. Surely, all that the covenanters were vowing to do _was what was right and godly for any Christian to do in any age_! Change the name of the country and the obligation remains. 

I'm also having trouble understanding what you meant by


> "discrimination" is immoral because it sets up human standards of judgment which are beside God's standards.


 Again, what I have heard hear about the schismatic nature of the Steelites (as they have been described) is worrisome and sounds immoral - but is it accurate to say that discrimination is immoral when the standard is a human standard? The Westminster standards are authored by men but we discriminate all the time on that basis because we believe those standards accurately summarize God's standards - same could be said of the Solemn League and Covenant, which is why Cameron, Cargill and Renwick (in a certain sense) discriminated against those who broke their vows or refused to make them.


----------



## MW (Dec 19, 2013)

stephen2 said:


> Are you making a distinction between descending obligation to those covenant vows and renewing our vows to them?



A representative authority can enter into obligations on behalf of another but the vow itself is voluntary. Only the individual who makes a vow can renew a vow. If another individual chooses to make the same vow he is not renewing it but entering into it.



stephen2 said:


> Also, how does subscription to them become invalid simply because the conditions have changed? The conditions have changed since the Westminster standards were composed and we continue to subscribe to them. Surely, all that the covenanters were vowing to do _was what was right and godly for any Christian to do in any age_! Change the name of the country and the obligation remains.



Technically not even the Confession is subscribed. A "formula" is subscribed and vows are made relative to the Confession.

To answer the spirit of the question, a Confession does not depend upon conditions. The very essence of a covenant consists in "conditions" and "promises."

The fact that the name of the country has to be changed in the covenant is sufficient basis to show it is no longer binding "as a covenant." The new country has never entered into such a covenant. It cannot be held to sworn obligations which it has never sworn to uphold.

A church might choose to recognise the covenants as a part of its historic testimony but it has no power to use them as if they were binding in and of themselves.

The moral matter contained in the covenants is binding, but that is owing only to the fact that the moral matter is biblical. Covenants, however, contain a superadded obligation in which the individual binds himself upon certain conditions to uphold its stipulations.



stephen2 said:


> The Westminster standards are authored by men but we discriminate all the time on that basis because we believe those standards accurately summarize God's standards - same could be said of the Solemn League and Covenant, which is why Cameron, Cargill and Renwick (in a certain sense) discriminated against those who broke their vows or refused to make them.



If one discriminates on the basis of biblical standards he is rightfully discriminating on the basis of God's standards. A covenant, however, contains superadded obligations. Thereby a person binds himself to fulfil specific duties -- duties which are made specific according to the "conditions" noted in the covenant. These superadded obligations are voluntary by nature.

By making a Covenant of the same nature as a Confession the distinguishing characteristic of a Covenant is removed.


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 20, 2013)

> The fact that the name of the country has to be changed in the covenant is sufficient basis to show it is no longer binding "as a covenant." The new country has never entered into such a covenant. It cannot be held to sworn obligations which it has never sworn to uphold.


 I find it interesting that (if I am correct) the covenanters treated the covenant as binding on those also who had never bound themselves to it. If I am right, they did that because they believed that in binding themselves and their fellow citizens to the covenant they were binding them to do what was _already_ their duty to do.



> A covenant, however, contains superadded obligations. Thereby a person binds himself to fulfil specific duties -- duties which are made specific according to the "conditions" noted in the covenant. These superadded obligations are voluntary by nature.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In what sense was the Solemn League and Covenant merely voluntary by nature? This was a covenant that bound people to do (as I noted above) what already they had a duty to do. Nothing more. Perhaps you explain more what you mean by "superadded obligations are voluntary by nature." 

Thanks


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2013)

stephen2 said:


> I find it interesting that (if I am correct) the covenanters treated the covenant as binding on those also who had never bound themselves to it. If I am right, they did that because they believed that in binding themselves and their fellow citizens to the covenant they were binding them to do what was _already_ their duty to do.



A vow that is lawful as to matter may be imposed by lawful authority. If this idea is extended outside the bounds of lawful authority it ceases to be a lawful imposition. The National Covenant of Scotland requires the government of that dominion to impose it. The Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms requires the government of those dominions to impose it. Besides these governments there is no other authority which may impose vows relating to national matters.



stephen2 said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In what sense was the Solemn League and Covenant merely voluntary by nature? This was a covenant that bound people to do (as I noted above) what already they had a duty to do. Nothing more. Perhaps you explain more what you mean by "superadded obligations are voluntary by nature."



Please consult the Solemn League and Covenant itself -- "living under one king, and being of one reformed religion." These are the conditions which brought the Covenant into existence.

The manner of its swearing is stated as follows -- "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*..."


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 21, 2013)

Thanks for your replies Matthew. I want to go back to one question that wasn't answered. What is it that is distinctive about the Steelites? We have found ourselves in a discussion about those national covenants and whether or not they are still binding. This cannot be distinctive of that particular group as there are many of us who hold a similar view. Is it that they require this for membership or that they consider it a mark of the Church?



> A vow that is lawful as to matter may be imposed by lawful authority. If this idea is extended outside the bounds of lawful authority it ceases to be a lawful imposition. The National Covenant of Scotland requires the government of that dominion to impose it. The Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms requires the government of those dominions to impose it. Besides these governments there is no other authority which may impose vows relating to national matters.



Brother, if you were to ask the persecuted covenanters of Scotland under what authority they could bind themselves and others to the covenant they would tell you: King Jesus! Lawful authority is only lawful when it [that authority] does its duty, and the magistrate's duty is to protect the Church, to confess Christ and to hold the law of that King who is his King and the King of all kings (and hold that law as his own and his nation's law). Read over the covenant. Except for references to noblemen, barons, kings and particular nations notice what is actually sworn: 

"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... That we shall in like manner, without respecct of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy... supersitition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine... We shall... preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true relgion, and liberties of the kingdoms... We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter this League and Covenant..." (for example)

Again and again I have read that document and found contained in it only what is the duty of every Christian in every generation whether in Scotland or Canada or the US, whether under a King a Queen or a President... 



> The manner of its swearing is stated as follows -- "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..."



To your knowledge did they treat this covenant as binding on the nation?


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 21, 2013)

If I may, Stephen, the Steelites believe that a personal avowal to these covenants is required for church membership and ecclesiastical union in the parts of the world that were once the British Empire. Thus, they have separated themselves from all other churches. Some of them have no officers in their churches for this reason. Others remain independent, because they cannot join themselves to non-"covenanted" churches.

It's not the substance of the covenants that is wrong. What is wrong is requiring the keeping of a vow that one has not made, and dividing over that issue. The United States, for example, was never under the Solemn League and Covenant, but they claim that it is.

If one holds the old Covenanter view that (1.) the covenants are to be acknowledged to be good and godly, and (2.) that we should seek similar arrangements in our own land, then he is not a Steelite.


----------



## MW (Dec 22, 2013)

stephen2 said:


> What is it that is distinctive about the Steelites? We have found ourselves in a discussion about those national covenants and whether or not they are still binding. This cannot be distinctive of that particular group as there are many of us who hold a similar view. Is it that they require this for membership or that they consider it a mark of the Church?



I suppose the critical word is "binding." If the covenants are "binding" then every church which does not recognise the binding nature of the covenants are de facto covenant breakers and should be treated as such. A church which regards the covenants as "binding" would be required by consistency of principle to impose them on the members of the church and to make them necessary for identifying the true church. This is the Steelite position. I would not deny that they are consistently carrying through their principles, just as I would not deny that Saul of Tarsus was consistently carrying through on his principles when he persecuted the church of God. I would simply maintain that the principles are false, and they can be shown to be false in the way they bring forth bad fruit when they are consistently followed.

Concerning the rest of your reply it appears to me that you are confusing the binding nature of a covenant with the binding nature of the moral matter in the covenant. They are two different things. If you think the covenant binds because the moral matter is binding then you have negated the positive function of a covenant. If anything this detracts from the historical significance of the covenants because it teaches the idea that they serve no purpose.


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 23, 2013)

> If I may, Stephen, the Steelites believe that a personal avowal to these covenants is required for church membership and ecclesiastical union in the parts of the world that were once the British Empire. Thus, they have separated themselves from all other churches. Some of them have no officers in their churches for this reason. Others remain independent, because they cannot join themselves to non-"covenanted" churches.



This is very helpful. Thank you. On this basis, I can see the strenuous objections being made against the Steelite position.



> It's not the substance of the covenants that is wrong. What is wrong is requiring the keeping of a vow that one has not made, and dividing over that issue. The United States, for example, was never under the Solemn League and Covenant, but they claim that it is.



I think the basis for this is the way that OT covenants were treated. They were not only binding on the generation that made it in the first place but also on subsequent generations. The United States being once a part of the British empire and Canada still part of that empire would, then, be bound by these same vows. So far I don't see any problem with the Steelite position. Its their making it a matter of union that is problematic as I see it.



> I suppose the critical word is "binding." If the covenants are "binding" then every church which does not recognise the binding nature of the covenants are de facto covenant breakers and should be treated as such. A church which regards the covenants as "binding" would be required by consistency of principle to impose them on the members of the church and to make them necessary for identifying the true church. This is the Steelite position. I would not deny that they are consistently carrying through their principles, just as I would not deny that Saul of Tarsus was consistently carrying through on his principles when he persecuted the church of God. I would simply maintain that the principles are false, and they can be shown to be false in the way they bring forth bad fruit when they are consistently followed.



This is the conclusion that, apparently, the Steelites have reached. I'm not sure it follows necessarily. There are those who would, following similar logic break ties with those who use instruments or hymns in churches, whereas others who are similarly convinced would insist that this would be a serious mistake. 



> If you think the covenant binds because the moral matter is binding then you have negated the positive function of a covenant. If anything this detracts from the historical significance of the covenants because it teaches the idea that they serve no purpose.



I would reply by asking, first, what part of the Solemn League and Covenant is not morally binding? Second, when I have read the covenants made by various men in the past I have found a similar theme. For the most part these men have only promised to do what was already their duty to do. I'm not sure that it detracts from their historical significance or that it means they serve no purpose. I don't want to exhaust your patience on this. I am willing to hear you explain where I am misunderstanding the purpose behind a covenant, but I am also willing to drop the subject if it is eating too much into your time. 

I have appreciated this Matthew even if it seems we are not seeing eye to eye.


----------



## MW (Dec 23, 2013)

Stephen, there is an obvious difference between moral duties in themselves and moral duties as covenanted. The covenant adds a binding obligation of its own. As WCF 22.4 says concerning an oath, "it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt." If it were otherwise the covenant would serve no purpose.

The moral duties in the covenant cannot make the covenant itself binding. If they did we would be bound to every lawful covenant that had ever been made by anyone. This is so blatantly false it should require no refutation. Special circumstances are needed to enter into a covenant and the covenant is only binding in relation to those circumstances.

Another way of saying the same thing is to state that the conditions in a covenant are applications of moral principles to specific circumstances. The moral principles are by nature binding at all times in every place, but the applications are specific to the circumstances of time and place. This is clearly demonstrated in the National Covenant of Scotland where the original covenant was updated by means of legal and moral additions which made it relevant to the circumstances of 1638.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 25, 2013)

stephen2 said:


> The United States being once a part of the British empire and Canada still part of that empire would, then, be bound by these same vows



The covenants were not made by the empire as such. They were made by the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland in the case of the Solemn League and Covenant, and by the kingdom of Scotland in the case of the National Covenant. 

The United States is a different moral person than those nations.


----------

