National Covenanting in Scotland

[JP Wallace]

These are not strictly parallel cases. Saul’s massacre of the Gibeonites was a direct breach of a sworn oath between two peoples. Israel remained a theocratic nation under the same covenant law from Joshua to David. The Solemn League and Covenant was both a civil league and a religious covenant. The UK underwent fundamental constitutional shifts with the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Union of 1707, making the original parties and terms unrecognisable in the modern state.

I think you are moving the goalposts.

While it is true that Israel was still under God, in one case they were a wandering family about to be given a land, in the next they are a monarchy - some things changed, some remain the same - the covenant endures. This group of people had made a covenant and whether they liked it or not a later generation, in a now established geopolitical morarchial situation still held themselves bound to the original covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant is made with one man and his family, which becomes a nation, which becomes a monarchy, which goes into exile and no longer exists at all as a distinct people yet the covenant endures and when Ezra goes back to teach what does he teach "the Law of Moses". We can even go further - is it not the covenant of Abraham that is applied to a disparate people of different nations with different (at least theoretically speaking) forms of government.

You seem to expect that the original signatories and authors didn't think about the future at all, silly men that they were they just made a covenant that was only applicable to themselves with no room to allow for the situation they desired failing to come into being. Why would they bother? In fact there is a element of truth to that idea in that in what other terms could they possibly have made a covenant other than in the terms of their political mileu? But to imagine that they only felt bound to it within the terms of their own day I think is a wrong perspective especially in the political turmoil of the 17th century. They could not but make a covenant in their own historical context, not ours, but likewise we can maintain the same principles in a different context.

We are not so stupid as to think that the situation has changed but we do not think it has changed so much that it is wholly inapplicable. Indeed we believe it is de facto applicable no matter what the situation. We hold to the SL&C not just in principle, but essentially, so far as the political situation permits.

I also at times wonder what is all the fuss about? Surely the main issues are the principles, the letter is a contextualized way of explaining the principles, the principles are not accidents, but the substance, - the furtherance of the Gospel, the maintenance of godliness at all levels of society those are what the covenant is about.

 

[MW]

You seem to expect that the original signatories and authors didn't think about the future at all, silly men that they were they just made a covenant that was only applicable to themselves with no room to allow for the situation they desired failing to come into being. Why would they bother? In fact there is a element of truth to that idea in that in what other terms could they possibly have made a covenant other than in the terms of their political mileu? But to imagine that they only felt bound to it within the terms of their own day I think is a wrong perspective especially in the political turmoil of the 17th century. They could not but make a covenant in their own historical context, not ours, but likewise we can maintain the same principles in a different context.

Far from it. I hold them in the highest regard and desire the spirit of their actions to continue for the reformation of all parts of society. I simply recognise that the letter of a covenant binds the person who makes it, whether that "person" is an individual or a body corporate. One can APPLY it to all nations because its obligations are moral in nature. But the purpose of a vow or a covenant is to make a superadded obligation on the person making it. Therefore the superadded obligation of the vow or covenant rests on the original parties, which do not exist.

 

[JP Wallace]

That is but one definition of a vow or covenant.

WCF - 22:7 says that in taking such "we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or to other things, so far, and so long, as they may filty conduce thereunto."

So your definition of what a vow or covenant is, is truncated. I would argue that the SL&C more strictly bound the church, state and monarchy" to duties they already had, and which they still have. The fact that it noted the historical circumstances is natural and expected but is not necessarily the essential substance of the covenant.

 

[MW]

That is but one definition of a vow or covenant.

WCF - 22:7 says that in taking such "we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or to other things, so far, and so long, as they may filty conduce thereunto."

So your definition of what a vow or covenant is, is truncated. I would argue that the SL&C more strictly bound the church, state and monarchy" to duties they already had, and which they still have. The fact that it noted the historical circumstances is natural and expected but is not necessarily the essential substance of the covenant.

I just said, "One can APPLY it to all nations because its obligations are moral in nature." But the vow, as you quoted from WCF 22 is something in which a person binds himself to necessary duties. That is not truncated. It is the truth. The duty is necessary; the vow is voluntary. I can voluntarily enter into a vow, but my vowing cannot bind another person. The other person must enter voluntarily into it the way that I did.

 

[WithinThePale]

What of the national covenanting in Ulster with the Ulster Covenant? Multiple ancestors of mine were signatories to it, what duty does that apply to me? Was it established in error? Or is the landscape it took place in too fundamentally altered?

 

[JP Wallace]

Thomas the Ulster Covenant was a largely (in Ulster political terms you can never say "purely") a political covenant as opposed to a religious one. Also it was signed by individuals as individuals whereas the SL&C and the NC were signed at all levels of society, (representative of govt. and monarchy) not just personal.

So my take is that while i may concur with the aims thereof, I need not feel bound by it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What of the national covenanting in Ulster with the Ulster Covenant? Multiple ancestors of mine were signatories to it, what duty does that apply to me? Was it established in error? Or is the landscape it took place in too fundamentally altered?

The Ulster Solemn League and Covenant of 1912 was limited to only the "threatened calamity" in their day, which meant the Third Home Rule crisis. I read somewhere that the PCI moderator demanded that any reference to it binding future generations be omitted.

 

[Northern Crofter]

These are not strictly parallel cases. Saul’s massacre of the Gibeonites was a direct breach of a sworn oath between two peoples. Israel remained a theocratic nation under the same covenant law from Joshua to David. The Solemn League and Covenant was both a civil league and a religious covenant. The UK underwent fundamental constitutional shifts with the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Union of 1707, making the original parties and terms unrecognisable in the modern state.

This is a straw-man argument. No one is claiming these are "strictly parallel cases." Anyone who has studied the document and the writings of the Covenanters would know that the Gibeonite example is frequently referenced as a parallel example. The English translations of Scripture the Covenanters were using were the Geneva and the KJV/AV. Both use the term "league" repeatedly in Joshua 9 vv. 6,7,15,16, and the Hebrew term used in v.20 (which the Geneva and KJV/AV both translate "the oath which we swore") is elsewhere translated "made a covenant" (Deuteronomy 8.18, for example; see Strong's discussion: "The Hebrew verb שָׁבַע occurs roughly 187 times, stretching from Genesis to Malachi. Its basic sense is “to swear” or “to take an oath,” and the contexts cluster around covenant ratification," etc. "The first occurrences are in Genesis, where oaths protect life and property and anchor covenant relationships....Failure to honor political oaths becomes not merely treason but covenant infidelity toward God....").

But the purpose of a vow or a covenant is to make a superadded obligation on the person making it. Therefore the superadded obligation of the vow or covenant rests on the original parties, which do not exist.

Another straw-man. A vow is not the same as a covenant. A vow is accurately and Biblically defined in the WCF as always voluntary and always to God alone ("It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily" 22.6). A covenant can be made between people or groups of people as well as with God, and they can be made without the full, voluntary participation of both parties (the covenant of works and the Noahic covenant, for examples: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity" WCF 19.1 - neither Adam or Noah were required to give consent to their respective covenants).

The term "vow" is not used in the SL&C, and for good reason. It was sworn as an oath: "...we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High GOD, do swear..." (Preface ¶2). You can hear the echo of the SL&C in the subsequent WCF: "Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority." (WCF 22.3). An oath, which is a solemn act, can be imposed, which the SL&C was (everyone in the 3 kingdoms was required to sign it).

Returning to the case of the Gibeonites and the Covenanter appeal to it, it was an oath, not a vow (Joshua 9.20: "...because of the oath which we swore unto them..." - note further that part of the prooftext in the WCF for 22.4 is "Josh 9:18-19 with 2 Sam 21:1.") as was the SL&C. The Act of the General Assembly and the Act of Parliament are prefaced by 4 verses, 2 of which contain the term "oath" - 2 Chronicles 15.15 ("And all Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart.") and Galatians 3.15 ("Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed by an oath, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.")

But the purpose of a vow or a covenant is to make a superadded obligation on the person making it. Therefore the superadded obligation of the vow or covenant rests on the original parties, which do not exist.

The duty is necessary; the vow is voluntary. I can voluntarily enter into a vow, but my vowing cannot bind another person. The other person must enter voluntarily into it the way that I did.

Again and again, you are using the terms "vow" and "covenant" as if they are the same thing. The SL&C was not a vow. It was taken as an oath. Some may see this as a quibble, but these are 2 very distinct ideas in Scripture as the Covenanters and Assembly members were very aware (and thus dedicated an entire chapter in the WCF to very specifically distinguish the two). In fact, the only time the WCF uses a proof text referring to a covenant in the chapter on "Lawful Oaths and Vows" is when discussing an oath (22.4) - and when it does the accompanying prooftexts are those referring to the Gibeonites:

 

[MW]

This is a straw-man argument. No one is claiming these are "strictly parallel cases." Anyone who has studied the document and the writings of the Covenanters would know that the Gibeonite example is frequently referenced as a parallel example. The English translations of Scripture the Covenanters were using were the Geneva and the KJV/AV. Both use the term "league" repeatedly in Joshua 9 vv. 6,7,15,16, and the Hebrew term used in v.20 (which the Geneva and KJV/AV both translate "the oath which we swore") is elsewhere translated "made a covenant" (Deuteronomy 8.18, for example; see Strong's discussion: "The Hebrew verb שָׁבַע occurs roughly 187 times, stretching from Genesis to Malachi. Its basic sense is “to swear” or “to take an oath,” and the contexts cluster around covenant ratification," etc. "The first occurrences are in Genesis, where oaths protect life and property and anchor covenant relationships....Failure to honor political oaths becomes not merely treason but covenant infidelity toward God....").

I will gladly grant your textual points; they are not in dispute; but this does not address the point of disagreement. Dismissing my argument as a straw man sidesteps the substantive issue: the moral identity of a nation under its constitution. Israel’s constitution as a nation (the Mosaic covenant) remained unchanged despite shifts from judges to monarchy. By contrast, Britain's constitution does not have a fixed divine standard. It is a mutable human construct which evolves over time. The point that must be established in order to maintain "moral identity" is how Britain's constitutional changes align with biblical covenantalism.

Another straw-man. A vow is not the same as a covenant. A vow is accurately and Biblically defined in the WCF as always voluntary and always to God alone ("It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily" 22.6). A covenant can be made between people or groups of people as well as with God, and they can be made without the full, voluntary participation of both parties (the covenant of works and the Noahic covenant, for examples: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity" WCF 19.1 - neither Adam or Noah were required to give consent to their respective covenants).

Covenanter literature consistently argues that the covenant contains both an oath and vows. The vows concern specific obligations which one promises to undertake. My argument addresses the claim respecting the "obligations," which pertains specifically to the vows.

The term "vow" is not used in the SL&C, and for good reason. It was sworn as an oath: "...we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High GOD, do swear..." (Preface ¶2). You can hear the echo of the SL&C in the subsequent WCF: "Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority." (WCF 22.3). An oath, which is a solemn act, can be imposed, which the SL&C was (everyone in the 3 kingdoms was required to sign it).

Yes, it contains an oath. But it also contains vows. The problem with the Covenanter position is that "lawful authority" does not impose these oaths and vows, or whatever you want to call them. You must reject lawful authority and go back to a previous constitution to establish an authority we do not live under.

On the matter of oaths and vows, here is William Symington, The Nature and Obligation of Public Vows:

From all this it must appear that a covenant, while differing essentially in its own nature from a law a vow and an oath, nevertheless at once supposes the existence of a law and includes both an oath and a vow. It proceeds on the supposition of something being obligatory; and here is the idea of law. It implies an engagement to perform what is admitted to possess obligation; and here is the idea of a vow. It supposes the covenanter to appeal to God with regard to the sincerity of his intentions; and here is the idea of an oath. According as one or another of these ideas is designed to be brought distinctly out, the same deed may be spoken of by one or another of these terms; that is to say, it may be spoken of as a covenant or an oath or a vow -- the words being used interchangeably to designate the same transaction, although each in itself when strictly interpreted exhibits the transaction under one feature only.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Rev. Winzer,

I do truly appreciate your thoughtful engagement on this topic and found your #39 response helpful in dissecting the disagreement.

I will gladly grant your textual points; they are not in dispute; but this does not address the point of disagreement. Dismissing my argument as a straw man sidesteps the substantive issue: the moral identity of a nation under its constitution. Israel’s constitution as a nation (the Mosaic covenant) remained unchanged despite shifts from judges to monarchy.

You must reject lawful authority and go back to a previous constitution to establish an authority we do not live under.

I would not agree that the moral identity of a nation = its constitution. Yes, Israel's moral identity was the Mosaic (and previous) covenant(-s), but its political constitution did change when going from judges to kings. When Israel asked Samuel for "a King to judge us like all nations" (I Samuel 8.5) God tells Samuel to "show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them" (v.9) because it will constitute a radical change. For example, Samuel warns them that "This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons....He will also take your daughters....And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Olive trees....And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards....And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and the chief of your young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out at that day, because of your king, whom ye have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you at that day." (vv.11-18). So there will be radical constitutional changes such as civil taxation (not in the Mosaic constitution), the kings will "reign in God’s wrath... over their brethren, contrary to the law, Deut. 17:20" (Geneva note on v.11), the land will be retributed (also not according to the Mosaic constitution), and standing armies will be introduced (something seemingly contrary to or at least not prescribed in the Mosaic law).

Britain's constitution does not have a fixed divine standard. It is a mutable human construct which evolves over time.

Apples to oranges - the SL&C was not a constitution. Thus the comparison to the Gibeonite situation that the Covenanters used. Joshua made a solemn "league" (Joshua 9.6,7,15,16) and by a sworn oath covenanted with the Gibeonites (vv.19-20, 2 Samuel 21.2). It mattered not that Israel later changed geographically when it expanded the physical bounds of its land, or that it later changed politically or constitutionally when it established kings over it, or even that the solemn league and covenant with the Gibeonites was predicated on a faulty decision (Joshua 9.14: "And the men accepted their tale concerning their victuals, and counseled not with the mouth of the Lord.") and was contrary to God's command to root out and destroy the Amorites and Hivites (Deuteronomy 20.17: "But shalt utterly destroy them, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee"). Both the solemn league and covenant between the Israelites and the Gibeonites, and the Solemn League and Covenant between Scotland, England, (and Ireland) were made voluntarily by representatives of the engaging parties but there was never a question that it applied involuntarily to all people in those lands and immutably to their posterity:

	solemn league and covenant between the Israelites and the Gibeonites	Solemn League and Covenant between Scotland, England, (and Ireland)
made voluntarily	"So they came unto Joshua into the host to Gilgal, and said unto him, and unto the men of Israel, We be come from a far country: now therefore make a league with us." "And the men accepted their tale concerning their victuals, and counseled not with the mouth of the Lord. So Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, that he would suffer them to live: also the Princes of the Congregation swore unto them." (Joshua 9.6,14-15)	"WE noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland.... 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...." (SL&C Preface ¶2)
by representatives	"Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, that he would suffer them to live: also the Princes of the Congregation swore unto them....because the Princes of the Congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: wherefore all the Congregation murmured against the Princes." (Joshua 9.15,18) "...the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho, and to Ai. And therefore they wrought craftily: for they went, and feigned themselves ambassadors....'Wherefore our Elders, and all the inhabitants of our country spake to us, saying...go to meet them.'" (Joshua 9.3-4,11)	"...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...." (SL&C Preface ¶1)
applied involuntarily to all	"Now therefore ye are accursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the house of my God....Even so did he unto them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel, that they slew them not." (Joshua 9.23, 26)	"... and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all ranks in Scotland and England the same year..." (SL&C Preface ¶1)
applied involuntarily to their posterity	"And Joshua appointed them that same day to be hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the Congregation, and for the altar of the Lord unto this day, in the place which he should choose." (Joshua 9.27)	"...having before our eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the king’s majesty and his posterity..." (SL&C Preface ¶2) "THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, 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, 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.... that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity...." (SL&C I,V)

Saul seemingly was seeking to fulfil the Deuteronomic mandate to slay the Amorites and Hivites - "Saul sought to slay them for his zeal toward the children of Israel and Judah" (II Samuel 21.2) - but this did not abrogate the solemn league and covenant made between Joshua and the Gibeonites 4 centuries prior: "Saul killed the Gibeonites out of zeale to the children of Israel: It is like the blinde ignorant zeale he had, thinking the Covenant that Joshua made with them, did not oblige the posterity, was the cause of his murthering of them, yet he suffered not in his sons that were hanged for that blinde zeale, as righteous, and following the rule of his conscience in that." (Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, p.133, emphasis added). "We read, 2 Sam. xxi., that because Saul had broken the covenant that Joshua made with the Gibeonites, God sent a famine in David’s time, of three years’ continuance, to teach us that, if we falsify our word and oath, God will avenge covenant-breaking, though it be forty [or 400] years after." (from "A Sermon at London On The Solemn League & Covenant" by Edmund Calamy (an English Presbyterian church leader and Assembly member, emphasis added)

Covenanter literature consistently argues that the covenant contains both an oath and vows.

Yes, it contains an oath. But it also contains vows.

Examples?

On the matter of oaths and vows, here is William Symington, The Nature and Obligation of Public Vows:

From all this it must appear that a covenant, while differing essentially in its own nature from a law a vow and an oath, nevertheless at once supposes the existence of a law and includes both an oath and a vow. It proceeds on the supposition of something being obligatory; and here is the idea of law. It implies an engagement to perform what is admitted to possess obligation; and here is the idea of a vow. It supposes the covenanter to appeal to God with regard to the sincerity of his intentions; and here is the idea of an oath. According as one or another of these ideas is designed to be brought distinctly out, the same deed may be spoken of by one or another of these terms; that is to say, it may be spoken of as a covenant or an oath or a vow -- the words being used interchangeably to designate the same transaction, although each in itself when strictly interpreted exhibits the transaction under one feature only.

Sure, Rev. Symington admits that the words are used loosely and interchangeably but he does say at the end "each in itself when strictly interpreted exhibits the transaction under one feature only," just as he said at the beginning "a covenant, while differing essentially in its own nature from a law a vow and an oath." I'm not sure what that proves, but I do commend reading the brief work this quote is taken from - THE NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC VOWS; WITH AN EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE OF THE BRITISH COVENANTS - to @michael_topple and others interested in his OP.

I think the question requires distinction between the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 and the National Covenant of 1638.

Rev. Alexander Henderson was one of the most eminent ministers of the Church of Scotland and had a large part in drafting both the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. I don't believe Rev. Henderson would concur with your distinction. Here are excerpts from some of his sermons aimed at convincing the Scots to adopt the SL&C as a renewal of the National Covenant rather than something distinct from it:

"...in the [keeping.?] of a Covenant we are not bound 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." (Sermons, Prayers and Pulpit Addresses
by Henderson, Alexander, 1583-1646. p.21)

"...this same is the covenant of truth whilk ye are to swear to ; for as our Covenant is renewed, so also it is exponed (explained) according as the exigencies of the time requires, and it is applied to the present purpose." (Ibid. p.27)

"There has been great business about our Covenant, and we cannot get men satisfied concerning it. First of all, they would had it destroyed, and no subscribed copies thereof to be keeped. Then when they could not get that done, they would had some special clauses put out of it. Then when that could not prevail, they would had us making a declaration close against the meaning thereof. And then, last of all, the enemies brought in another Covenant among us, as their last and deepest policy, to see whom they can draw away thereby from it. And therefore, however others deal with this Covenant of God, I would exhort you to take heed that ye deal not wickedly with it." (Ibid. p.88)

"We have lately renewed the Confession of our faith, and that in a solemn manner ; before the eyes of many witnesses we have entered in a Covenant with God. And surely if now we take not heed unto ourselves, and labour not to understand what it is to renew our Covenant with God, and endeavour not by all means possible to observe that, in every point whilk we have sworn to ; but if we do again bring upon ourselves the guiltiness of the breach of this Covenant, and so of open and fearful perjury before the world, then did we never all our time dishonour God so far, nor did we ever bring upon ourselves so fearful a destruction." (Ibid. p.90)

"We should also rejoice into the rich and great mercy of God, that has put it into the hearts of so many into this land to renew a solemn and public covenant with the Lord their God" (Ibid. p.139)

 

[MW]

God tells Samuel to "show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them" (v.9) because it will constitute a radical change.

That change is not radical because it was provided for in the constitution in Deuteronomy and bound the king to it. Deut 17:14-15, "When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." V. 18, "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites."

The changes you have mentioned are administrative, and all in keeping with natural law, as we see in Romans 13.

Apples to oranges - the SL&C was not a constitution. Thus the comparison to the Gibeonite situation that the Covenanters used.

You are missing the point of contrast. I did not say it was a constitution, but it does reflect the constitution of the time. Scotland and England were separate kingdoms. These are now one. There are specific Acts of Parliament, which I have already alluded to, which alter their identity.

Everything you say would indeed apply if the cases were equal, but they are not. One is a divine immutable constitution. It cannot change. The other is a mutable human constitution. It did change.

One needs to prove moral identity, not assume it as a part of one's argument.

Sure, Rev. Symington admits that the words are used loosely and interchangeably but he does say at the end "each in itself when strictly interpreted exhibits the transaction under one feature only," just as he said at the beginning "a covenant, while differing essentially in its own nature from a law a vow and an oath." I'm not sure what that proves, but I do commend reading the brief work this quote is taken from - THE NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC VOWS; WITH AN EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE OF THE BRITISH COVENANTS - to @michael_topple and others interested in his OP.

Yes. And I am dealing with one feature only -- the vows. I have not set up a straw man. The obligations pertain to the vows. This is what I am dealing with. Referring me to the oath does not negate what I am saying about the vows.

Now, again, I agree with the substance of the vows. They are moral and binding in their own nature. The whole question comes down to the "added" obligation that is created by making the vow. That added obligation is voluntary.

I am perfectly content with everything the original covenanters did in this matter. Henderson's position is biblical and right. I would happily "swear an oath" and vow to maintain what is promised in the covenants. But who imposes the oath upon me? I have no lawful authority calling me to do it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Everything you say would indeed apply if the cases were equal, but they are not.

No one is claiming they are equal, but they are parallel.

Scotland and England were separate kingdoms. These are now one.

Moses and Joshua had a unified nation, as did Saul. And then it divided when David became king of just Judah (+ Benjamin) (II Samuel 2.4). And then it reunited (II Samuel 5). And then it separated again during/after Absalom's rebellion, and then it became one again (II Samuel 19). At no time did that alter the solemn league and covenant with the Gibeonites (II Samuel 21).

Scotland and England (+ Wales) were separate kingdoms, but the SL&C made them united kingdoms: "We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and Covenant" (IV). Note that it describes them as "his people" which are elsewhere described as "living under one king" (Preface ¶2). Yes, they had separate parliaments until 1707. But after 1998-99 they are back to having separate parliaments. So are all of the treaties and moral obligations from 1707 to 1999 now void?

I would happily "swear an oath" and vow to maintain what is promised in the covenants. But who imposes the oath upon me? I have no lawful authority calling me to do it.

Do you think the successive generations over the 400 hundred years between Joshua and David did or had to (re-)swear the oath made with the Gibeonites mentioned in Joshua 9.20? Is such a thing necessary if the original oath that was sworn included the posterity of the parties making the oath?

 

[MW]

Scotland and England (+ Wales) were separate kingdoms, but the SL&C made them united kingdoms: "We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and Covenant" (IV). Note that it describes them as "his people" which are elsewhere described as "living under one king" (Preface ¶2). Yes, they had separate parliaments until 1707. But after 1998-99 they are back to having separate parliaments. So are all of the treaties and moral obligations from 1707 to 1999 now void?

What constituted the nation of Israel? It was Jehovah. This was a theocracy. It did not change until God voided it with the making of the new covenant. What constitutes modern Britain? It is man under the providence of God. It is a "human ordinance" to which we must be subject according to God's own Word. If you want to speak of "personal union," then this was done under the crown in 1603 when the King of Scotland also became the King of England and Ireland. But this was not a political union of the two kingdoms into one. There was a revolution in 1688 and then a Settlement, followed by an actual Union in 1707. Before 1707, Scotland and England were sovereign states with fully independent parliaments. In 1707 both parliaments dissolved and created a new supreme Parliament of Great Britain, which held ultimate legal authority. In contrast, the modern Scottish Parliament is a devolved legislature created by an act of the UK Parliament (1998). It derives its powers from Westminster and remains subordinate to it. The UK Parliament retains the legal power to amend, suspend, or even abolish the Scottish Parliament (as was done in 1707). The Union’s treaties were not voided by devolution but were adapted by it. The UK Parliament explicitly preserved the Union while delegating certain powers.

Do you think the successive generations over the 400 hundred years between Joshua and David did or had to (re-)swear the oath made with the Gibeonites mentioned in Joshua 9.20? Is such a thing necessary if the original oath that was sworn included the posterity of the parties making the oath?

No and no. Hence my original statement in this thread casting doubt on "renewing" the covenants. One would have to make void the authority of the present constitution to do so. An historical testimony, as is done by the Free Church, is sufficient.

 

[EvanF]

You're entitled to believe that if you wish. However I'm pretty confident that a number of denominations are not being dishonest, unfaithful, or derogating their duty in relation to their covenant obligations, mind you their obligations as churches.

So even in relation to your previous comment I can say that there are churches and denominations who still seek these things, and still promote these things where we can with the civil magistrate.

Furthermore in your last comment to me in answer to my question you said "I don't expect that." but your previous comment clearly shows that you do:


It was never the role of the church under the SL&C to prosecute the enemies of the reformation and the SL&C in any way other than via church discipline, yet you call the church to do so.

So which is it? Are you criticising the church for failure to adhere to the SL&C because they are failing to do what they were never meant to do under the SL&C i.e. they are being blamed on being inconsistent because they aren't doing what the monarch and state were meant to do? Hardly seems fair, or legitimate.

Furthermore you seem to be confident that any application of the SL&C is impossible because it is anachronistic. Really? Is there still churches who hold to the established principle in the British Isles? Yes! Is there a parliament? Yes! Is there a monarch? Yes! Is there still a reformed faith to be adhered to and promoted? Yes! Is there still popery and a hundred other false doctrines to be extirpated? Yes! Is there still peace to be promoted - remember I come from Northern Ireland? Yes! Where is the anachronism? For sure some things have changed - but the fundamental needs are the same, and a covenanted reformed revival of God's grace would still be an excellent cure for all these ills.

And one more thing, you still seem unable to grasp the most basic aspect of the covenanting movement which I mentioned earlier - like it or not we are in covenant with God, we may be totally unable to work it out completely - well at least we will pray and try our best as reformed covenanting churches - the state and monarchy will answer to God for their failures, as will we - but we do not have a mind to neglect our responsibilities.

I wasn't criticizing anyone. I don't think the Solemn League and Covenant can be considered to bind anyone today because it relates to parties and institutions that are either defunct or which no longer have the authority to perform the obligations. I'm not aware of anyone endeavoring to enforce its articles to the letter or calling for others to enforce them. If there is anyone, then I stand corrected, but I do ask who and how exactly? The point I'm trying to make is that there are no actual arguments of the sort the OP seeks because no one actually argues that it is literally binding, or if they do, they do so in a way that discharges themselves of any meaningful obligation under it.

The fact that you recognize few if any defined obligations for the church today in the articles is evidence that the denominations today are not the same type of institution as the national church that originated the content of the Solemn League and Covenant - a church which drafted and subscribed national treaties touching both ecclesial and civil affairs and gave them to national legislatures for ratification, whose sessions indicted and referred heretics and the contumacious to civil courts for trial on specifications of civil-religious laws.

Alexander Henderson was one of the most eminent ministers of the Church of Scotland and had a large part in drafting both the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. I don't believe Rev. Henderson would concur with your distinction. Here are excerpts from some of his sermons aimed at convincing the Scots to adopt the SL&C as a renewal of the National Covenant rather than something distinct from it:

"...in the [keeping.?] of a Covenant we are not bound 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." (Sermons, Prayers and Pulpit Addresses
by Henderson, Alexander, 1583-1646. p.21)

"...this same is the covenant of truth whilk ye are to swear to ; for as our Covenant is renewed, so also it is exponed (explained) according as the exigencies of the time requires, and it is applied to the present purpose." (Ibid. p.27)

"There has been great business about our Covenant, and we cannot get men satisfied concerning it. First of all, they would had it destroyed, and no subscribed copies thereof to be keeped. Then when they could not get that done, they would had some special clauses put out of it. Then when that could not prevail, they would had us making a declaration close against the meaning thereof. And then, last of all, the enemies brought in another Covenant among us, as their last and deepest policy, to see whom they can draw away thereby from it. And therefore, however others deal with this Covenant of God, I would exhort you to take heed that ye deal not wickedly with it." (Ibid. p.88)

"We have lately renewed the Confession of our faith, and that in a solemn manner ; before the eyes of many witnesses we have entered in a Covenant with God. And surely if now we take not heed unto ourselves, and labour not to understand what it is to renew our Covenant with God, and endeavour not by all means possible to observe that, in every point whilk we have sworn to ; but if we do again bring upon ourselves the guiltiness of the breach of this Covenant, and so of open and fearful perjury before the world, then did we never all our time dishonour God so far, nor did we ever bring upon ourselves so fearful a destruction." (Ibid. p.90)

"We should also rejoice into the rich and great mercy of God, that has put it into the hearts of so many into this land to renew a solemn and public covenant with the Lord their God" (Ibid. p.139)

I see that he essentially argues Covenanters ought to support the Solemn League and Covenant if they were serious about the National Covenant, but I fail to see how the content of the former is implicit in or necessarily persuant to the content of the latter except for the preservation of reformed religion in Scotland. If it were so, there would be no need for Covenanters to subscribe the Solemn League and Covenant as they were already bound by the National Covenant. I can understand how the National Covenant might still be binding, but even if the Covenanters were justified in supporting the Solemn League and Covenant at the time because of the National Covenant, I don't see how the National League now could obligate them to adhere to something that is no longer in their power to perform.

 

[Sam Jer]

I fail to see how the act of union and similar cganges annul the covenant (which, were that the case, would make the act of union itself an act of covenant breaking).

You have three cups, all filled with water. You put half a tablespoon of salt in each. Then after a while you pour two and a half of the cups into a bowl, without adding salt. Would the water in the bowl still be salty?

 

[Northern Crofter]

What constituted the nation of Israel? It was Jehovah. This was a theocracy. It did not change until God voided it with the making of the new covenant.

I've come to see that this is one point of disagreement that influences our separate conclusions - the definition of "theocracy." I would define a theocracy as a form of government that is directly controlled by religious leaders. The Oxford definition is interesting as it, too, does not define Israel as a theocracy once Saul is made king:

I think it could be argued that even during the time of the judges Israel was not a theocracy - there was no government ("In those days there was no King in Israel - every man did that which was good in his own eyes." Judges 17.6 cf. 21.25) and the priesthood is not mentioned in Judges (save the curious case of the Levite and his irregular priesthood in ch.s 17-18). Prophets and prophetess and direct divine appearances raised up judges, but it looked nothing like a theocracy. But certainly during the years of the Israelite monarchy the priests were not ruling politically or sovereignly, and there is a clear distinction and separation of powers and duties between the king and the priesthood, even though both were empowered by Divine appointment.

One would have to make void the authority of the present constitution to do so. An historical testimony, as is done by the Free Church, is sufficient.

I won't belabor the point - I wouldn't expect folk from traditions like the FC or CREC to ever agree with the Covenanter position*, so I find these discussions, while hopefully somewhat fruitful (short or long term), end up with each side running around in its own circle. Setting all of the history and nuances of constitutional change aside, I maintain the Covenanter position (including its application to the American colonies and other domains held by the covenanted kingdoms) that the descendants (personal and political) of those who subscribed to the SL&C are still bound to its obligations. It may be that the SL&C is no longer binding in certain specifics (governments and the inter-relationships of the 3 kingdoms may have changed - in the same way that parts of the Directory for Publick Worship no longer apply to the letter [like praying for the Assembly or the Queen of Bohemia]) - but in the sense that it still calls for reformation of Church and State back to pre-Revolution/Settlement unity ("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" SL&C §1 and to mutually support each other in that endeavour), it will forever be valid.

*I am reminded of what Rev. Symington, a Covenanter, said when asked why he did not then join the Free Kirk (after publicly sympathizing with its cause and marching alongside its ministers): "With a great sum they purchased their freedom, but I was free-born." (as quoted by D.D. Ormond in A Kirk and a College in the Craigs of Stirling, p.77).

I fail to see how the content of the former is implicit in or necessarily persuant to the content of the latter except for the preservation of reformed religion in Scotland. If it were so, there would be no need for Covenanters to subscribe the Solemn League and Covenant as they were already bound by the National Covenant. I can understand how the National Covenant might still be binding, but even if the Covenanters were justified in supporting the Solemn League and Covenant at the time because of the National Covenant, I don't see how the National League now could obligate them to adhere to something that is no longer in their power to perform.

The National Covenant was just that - national (for Scotland and binding only upon them). The SL&C was binding on all 3 kingdoms - binding them to join together for "the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies" to use it as well as "the example of the best reformed Churches" (SL&C §1 presumably a reference to the Dutch Church - there was a historical outreach to get them to also subscribe to the SL&C) to reform the Churches in England and Ireland. The goal was never to have one united Church in the British Isles - it was to rally around (primarily) the Scots' attainments and then mutually support one another both ecclesiastically and militarily (if need be). How is any of that "no longer in their power to perform"?

At then end of the day, the key issue in our current discussion seems to revolve around the question of whether or not God covenants with nations as a moral person (a group of people) or as a constituted political entity. I would hold the former position, whereas those from non-Covenanter traditions seem to be arguing the latter. The former is more elastic in its application whereas the latter is more rigid, seeing it as only applying (and limited) to the original circumstances. So, again, I do not expect agreement with anything after this, however much I respect the reasoning beyond it.

 

[MW]

I've come to see that this is one point of disagreement that influences our separate conclusions - the definition of "theocracy." I would define a theocracy as a form of government that is directly controlled by religious leaders.

That is how it is used today. But when dealing with the Scriptures it refers to the fact Israel was ruled by God, at least as an ideal. Likewise the church is a Christocracy because it is ruled by Christ. At least that what is Presbyterians believe.

I won't belabor the point - I wouldn't expect folk from traditions like the FC or CREC to ever agree with the Covenanter position*,

I have no idea why you have placed these two groups together.

 

[WithinThePale]

At then end of the day, the key issue in our current discussion seems to revolve around the question of whether or not God covenants with nations as a moral person (a group of people) or as a constituted political entity.

I think I need to study up on the notion of 'nation', as to whether or not it's a viable category practically or theologically. I might be a bit too individual-oriented.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have no idea why you have placed these two groups together.

I was responding to you and EvanF so I mentioned both of your denomination - sorry for the confusion.

I think I need to study up on the notion of 'nation', as to whether or not it's a viable category practically or theologically. I might be a bit too individual-oriented.

Very true. Nations are a Biblical concept, but the definition is one of great debate even now (see the current "Christian nationalism" movement). There are various words in Scripture for the concept - the first I know of is גּוֹי (goy) in Genesis 10.5: "Of these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every man after his tongue, and after their families in their nations." The word here seems to be distinguishing the Jews from other people groups but it comes from the same root word that would describe a massing together (which could be used for locusts as well as people). So a distinct group of people, speaking a common language, and originally occupying a particular place seems to be a working definition (consider that the Jews, for example, were scattered throughout the world several times and yet were still a nation, so the "place" aspect is not always concrete). Here is a link to Strong's coverage of the word.

 

[EvanF]

I was responding to you and EvanF so I mentioned both of your denomination - sorry for the confusion.

For clarification, while I am currently a member of a CREC congregation and accordingly declare that in my profile for accountability purposes, my membership in this congregation is not based upon alignment with CREC distinctives or prevailing non-distinctive positions, and I do not carry water for such distinctives and positions here on Puritanboard. That being said, someone who did hold common CREC positions would actually tend to agree with the idea that God's covenant relationship with his people has a national aspect and that national covenants are binding on successive generations.

 

[MW]

I was responding to you and EvanF so I mentioned both of your denomination - sorry for the confusion.

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.