National Covenanting in Scotland

[michael_topple]

Hello friends,

Please can someone point me to any theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland?

Most of my searches have led me to articles on the Covenants of Works and of Grace, both of which are of course very interesting, but not specifically what I'm after here.

My first try was the RPC Scotland and RPC Ireland websites, but I've not had much joy on there.

Many thanks for your help.

Michael

 

[a.k.pritchard]

@JP Wallace would be your best bet! Very knowledgeable.

 

[Jacques]

deep research via perplexity, in case it's helpful

"
# Theological Arguments for Continued Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland

## Historical Context of the Solemn League and Covenant

The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 emerged during a tumultuous period in British history, representing both a military alliance and a religious covenant between Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians during the First English Civil War[1]. While the English sought military assistance against King Charles I, the Scots desired a religious union that would establish Presbyterian church government throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[2]. Alexander Henderson, a prominent Scottish minister, drafted this document which was subsequently approved by the Church of Scotland on August 17, 1643, and by the English Parliament and Westminster Assembly on September 25, 1643[3][4].

The Covenant aimed to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland while reforming the churches of England and Ireland according to "the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches"[4][2]. It committed signatories to the extirpation of popery, prelacy (episcopal church government), and other beliefs deemed contrary to Reformed Protestantism[2]. This agreement led to Scottish military support for Parliament and significantly influenced the work of the Westminster Assembly, resulting in the production of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms[4][5].

## Theological Foundations for Continued Adherence

### Biblical Basis for Covenanting

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant rest primarily on the biblical concept of covenant-making with God[6]. Proponents argue that covenanting with God is fundamentally a response to God's covenant of grace, wherein individuals or peoples collectively declare "Thou art my God"[6]. Biblical examples of such covenanting are found throughout the Old Testament, particularly in times of national crisis, as seen in Joshua 24:16-25, 2 Chronicles 15:12-15, 2 Kings 11:17, 2 Kings 23:1-3, and Nehemiah 9:32-38[6].

The perpetual nature of such covenants is supported by Jeremiah 50:5, which speaks of joining oneself to the Lord in "a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten"[5][7][8]. This verse is prominently cited in the preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant itself, establishing the theological foundation for its enduring obligation[5][9][7].

### Christ's Headship Over Church and State

A central theological argument for continued adherence concerns Christ's exclusive lordship over both church and state[10][11]. The Covenanters maintained that Christ is the only head of His Church based on passages like Colossians 1:18, which declares Christ "is the head of the body, the church"[11]. This principle directly challenged the Stuart kings' assertion of royal supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs[12].

John Welsh, son-in-law of John Knox, articulated this position when he stated that his imprisonment in Blackness Castle was because "first... Christ is the Head of His Church; secondly, that she is free in her government from all jurisdictions except Christ's"[10]. This conviction that no earthly authority—including monarchs—could usurp Christ's headship over the church formed a cornerstone of Covenanter theology[11].

Similarly, Covenanters argued that civil rulers must acknowledge Christ as "the Prince of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5) and govern according to God's law[6]. Romans 13:4 describes the civil ruler as "a minister of God," implying accountability to divine authority[6][13]. Psalm 2:10-12 further admonishes rulers to "serve the Lord with fear" and "kiss the Son, lest he be angry"—a passage the Covenanters interpreted as requiring civil authorities to submit to Christ's kingship[6][11].

### Perpetual Obligation of Covenants

Perhaps the most distinctive theological argument for continued adherence concerns the perpetual obligation of covenants made with God[14][8]. Proponents argue that such covenants bind not only the original signatories but also:

1. The entire body of people represented by those who swore it, as demonstrated in Joshua 9:18-19 where all Israelites were bound by their leaders' oath to the Gibeonites[6].

2. Subsequent generations, as indicated in Deuteronomy 29:10-15, which explicitly extends covenant obligations to "those who are not here with us today"[6][8]. The Solemn League and Covenant itself expresses this intent, stating that the kingdoms should "remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity"[6].

3. Even those who took it rashly, insincerely, or under coercion, as illustrated by Joshua's binding oath to the Gibeonites despite their deception (Joshua 9) and King Zedekiah's obligation to honor his oath to Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 17:11-19)[6].

James Guthrie, before his martyrdom, declared that "no person or power on earth could loose or dispense the covenants, that they were still binding on the three kingdoms and would be forever hereafter"[6]. His dying words, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving," encapsulate this belief in their enduring validity[6].

## Theological Arguments Against Erastianism

### Divine Right of Church Government

The Covenanters strongly opposed Erastianism—the view that civil government has authority over the church in sacred matters[15]. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, wrote extensively against this position in his influential work "Aaron's Rod Blossoming"[16]. Gillespie argued that Christ alone possesses authority over His church, and that Presbyterian church government is divinely ordained rather than merely a human preference[16].

This theological position maintained that the church must be governed according to Christ's appointed manner as revealed in Scripture[6]. The Westminster Assembly's Form of Presbyterian Church Government was understood not as a pragmatic arrangement but as the biblical pattern for church order[4][6]. Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant thus represented fidelity to divine ordinance rather than mere human preference[6][11].

### Resistance to Tyrannical Authority

Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex" (The Law and the King) provided a theological framework for resistance to tyrannical authority that complemented the Covenanter position[17][13]. Rutherford argued that power which is "obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tie the people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and the subjects"[13].

This resistance theory was grounded in the conviction that rulers are bound by covenant to govern according to God's law[13][18]. When monarchs violate these terms—particularly by infringing on Christ's headship over the church—lesser magistrates and even the people have a duty to resist[18]. As Rutherford stated, "While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible"[18].

## Practical Theological Implications

### Unity in True Religion

The Solemn League and Covenant aimed at uniformity in confession of faith, church government, worship, and catechizing throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[6]. This goal was rooted in the theological conviction that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and that God's people should "strive together for the faith of the gospel"[6].

Proponents argue that this uniformity is not merely pragmatic but reflects the unity of divine truth—there is "one God, one Saviour, one head of the Church, one Bible, one appointed form of government, one appointed form of worship, one appointed discipline"[6]. Continued adherence to the Covenant thus represents commitment to this theological vision of unity in true religion[6][19].

### Covenant Succession

Reformed theology includes the concept of "covenant succession"—the idea that God's saving grace runs in generational lines and that children of believers are expected to succeed in their parents' faith[20]. This principle supports the notion that covenants made by previous generations continue to bind their descendants[20].

The doctrine draws from biblical passages like Genesis 17:7 ("I will be a God to you and to your descendants after you") and 1 Corinthians 7:14 (which describes the children of believers as "holy")[20]. This theological framework reinforces the argument that the Solemn League and Covenant continues to bind contemporary Scots as spiritual heirs of the original Covenanters[8][20].

## Contemporary Reformed Presbyterian Position

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland continues to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant as binding[21][22]. Their position maintains that the Revolution Settlement of 1688-1690, while bringing relief from persecution, fell short of the biblical standards established in the Covenant[6]. The settlement allowed unrepentant episcopalians to hold office in the Church of Scotland, granted the state rights of interference in church affairs, and permitted episcopacy in England—all contrary to Covenanter principles[6].

Contemporary adherents argue that the goals of the Solemn League and Covenant remain valid theological aspirations: Christ's lordship over church and state, biblical church government, pure worship according to Scripture, and unity among Reformed churches[6][21]. They maintain that unless the Covenant's requirements can be shown to be sinful, it continues to bind this generation[6].

## Conclusion

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland center on several interconnected principles: the perpetual nature of covenants made with God, Christ's exclusive headship over both church and state, the divine right of Presbyterian church government, and the obligation of rulers to govern according to God's law[6][8]. For adherents, the Covenant represents not merely a historical document but a binding oath that continues to obligate Scotland to pursue reformation according to Scripture[6][14].

As James Guthrie prophetically declared before his martyrdom, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving"—a sentiment that continues to resonate with those who maintain the theological validity of this historic covenant[6]. The enduring legacy of the Solemn League and Covenant thus represents a theological vision of church and state submitted to Christ's lordship, a vision that proponents argue remains as relevant today as it was in 1643[6][11].

Sources
[1] Solemn League and Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[2] Signing of the Solemn League and Covenant from The Gazetteer for Scotland https://www.scottish-places.info/events/eventfirst115.html
[3] Solemn League and Covenant | Scotland, Union, Religion - Britannica https://www.britannica.com/event/Solemn-League-and-Covenant-England-Scotland-1643
[4] Solemn League and Covenant (1643) - Reformation History https://reformationhistory.org/solemnleagueandcovenant.html
[5] The Solemn League and Covenant - The Westminster Standard https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[6] What the Solemn League and Covenant means for today https://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
[7] Solemn League http://www.covenanter.org.uk/solemn_league.html
[8] The History and Theology of the Solemn League and Covenant https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...-league-and-covenant-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
[9] The Solemn League and Covenant - A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/the-solemn-league-covenant/
[10] Microsoft Word - For Christ's Crown & Covenant https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/81fb15b2/files/uploaded/For_Christ's_Crown_&_Covenant.pdf
[11] What Can We Learn from the Forgotten Revival of the Scottish Covenanters? - Christian Publishing House Blog https://christianpublishinghouse.co...orgotten-revival-of-the-scottish-covenanters/
[12] Who Were the Covenanters? http://www.covenanter.org.uk/whowere.html
[13] Lex Rex | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/samuel-rutherford/329-2/
[14] The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Pref&Bib.htm
[15] Erastianism - Reformed Books Online https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...overnment/church-state-relations/erastianism/
[16] FREE BOOKS & MP3s: GEORGE GILLESPIE (Covenanter, Westminster Divine & Theologian Par Excellence) https://legacy.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=12468
[17] An Introduction to Lex Rex - Christ Over All https://christoverall.com/article/concise/an-introduction-to-lex-rex/
[18] Samuel Rutherford and Resistance Theory - CultureWatch https://billmuehlenberg.com/2022/01/12/samuel-rutherford-and-resistance-theory/
[19] Confessions, Covenants and Continuous Reformation in Early ... https://journals.openedition.org/episteme/1836?lang=en
[20] Covenant succession - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_succession
[21] Reformation Tours: Solemn League and Covenant https://www.rpcscotland.org/2019/11/27/reformation-tours-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[22] The Solemn League And Covenant https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/4/1/the-solemn-league-and-covenant
[23] Solemn League and Covenant – Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[24] Solemn League and Covenant 2024 https://reformedsynod.com/solemn-league-and-covenant-2024/
[25] Lessons In Christian Nationalism From The Scottish Covenanters https://heidelblog.net/2023/12/lessons-in-christian-nationalism-from-the-scottish-covenanters/
[26] Covenanters - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanters
[27] The Scottish Covenanters and Catholic Political Thought - JHI Blog https://www.jhiblog.org/2019/11/20/the-scottish-covenanters-and-catholic-political-thought/
[28] Microsoft Word - Thesis Correct Formatting.docx http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:626148/FULLTEXT01.pdf
[29] About the Covenanter Church; or, Who are ... - TrueCovenanter.com https://www.truecovenanter.com/editor/about_the_covenanter_church.html
[30] Covenanters | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/covenanters
[31] Sermon 1: On The Solemn League & Covenant - by Rev. Thomas Case https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...on-the-solemn-league-covenant-by-thomas-case/
[32] Romans 13 in Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex - American Reformer https://americanreformer.org/2024/07/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[33] Lex, Rex (eBook) - Monergism | https://www.monergism.com/lex-rex-ebook
[34] Romans 13: In Samuel Rutherfords Lex Rex https://theaquilareport.com/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[35] The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) https://www.rpcscotland.org/what-we-believe/the-solemn-league-and-covenant-1643/
[36] Solemn League and Covenant | EBSCO Research Starters https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/solemn-league-and-covenant
[37] 11 Arguments for the Covenant of Redemption | Samuel Rutherford https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017...the-covenant-of-redemption-samuel-rutherford/
[38] Colquhoun: The Moral Law Is A Perpetual Obligation | The Heidelblog https://heidelblog.net/2024/10/colquhoun-the-moral-law-is-a-perpetual-obligation/
[39] National Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Covenant
[40] Natural law and the covenant - ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/openvie...feab9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
[41] The Solemn League & Covenant - Still Waters Revival Books https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTSol.htm
"
[automerge]1750692986[/automerge]
I've been exploring this area of doctrine "Mediatory Kingship" - and just started the book Messiah the Prince by Symington (available in high-quality eBooks via Monergism)

I'm quite intrigued! Not agreed at this point, but I'll be reading..

 

[a.k.pritchard]

deep research via perplexity, in case it's helpful

"
# Theological Arguments for Continued Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland

## Historical Context of the Solemn League and Covenant

The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 emerged during a tumultuous period in British history, representing both a military alliance and a religious covenant between Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians during the First English Civil War[1]. While the English sought military assistance against King Charles I, the Scots desired a religious union that would establish Presbyterian church government throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[2]. Alexander Henderson, a prominent Scottish minister, drafted this document which was subsequently approved by the Church of Scotland on August 17, 1643, and by the English Parliament and Westminster Assembly on September 25, 1643[3][4].

The Covenant aimed to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland while reforming the churches of England and Ireland according to "the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches"[4][2]. It committed signatories to the extirpation of popery, prelacy (episcopal church government), and other beliefs deemed contrary to Reformed Protestantism[2]. This agreement led to Scottish military support for Parliament and significantly influenced the work of the Westminster Assembly, resulting in the production of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms[4][5].

## Theological Foundations for Continued Adherence

### Biblical Basis for Covenanting

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant rest primarily on the biblical concept of covenant-making with God[6]. Proponents argue that covenanting with God is fundamentally a response to God's covenant of grace, wherein individuals or peoples collectively declare "Thou art my God"[6]. Biblical examples of such covenanting are found throughout the Old Testament, particularly in times of national crisis, as seen in Joshua 24:16-25, 2 Chronicles 15:12-15, 2 Kings 11:17, 2 Kings 23:1-3, and Nehemiah 9:32-38[6].

The perpetual nature of such covenants is supported by Jeremiah 50:5, which speaks of joining oneself to the Lord in "a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten"[5][7][8]. This verse is prominently cited in the preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant itself, establishing the theological foundation for its enduring obligation[5][9][7].

### Christ's Headship Over Church and State

A central theological argument for continued adherence concerns Christ's exclusive lordship over both church and state[10][11]. The Covenanters maintained that Christ is the only head of His Church based on passages like Colossians 1:18, which declares Christ "is the head of the body, the church"[11]. This principle directly challenged the Stuart kings' assertion of royal supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs[12].

John Welsh, son-in-law of John Knox, articulated this position when he stated that his imprisonment in Blackness Castle was because "first... Christ is the Head of His Church; secondly, that she is free in her government from all jurisdictions except Christ's"[10]. This conviction that no earthly authority—including monarchs—could usurp Christ's headship over the church formed a cornerstone of Covenanter theology[11].

Similarly, Covenanters argued that civil rulers must acknowledge Christ as "the Prince of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5) and govern according to God's law[6]. Romans 13:4 describes the civil ruler as "a minister of God," implying accountability to divine authority[6][13]. Psalm 2:10-12 further admonishes rulers to "serve the Lord with fear" and "kiss the Son, lest he be angry"—a passage the Covenanters interpreted as requiring civil authorities to submit to Christ's kingship[6][11].

### Perpetual Obligation of Covenants

Perhaps the most distinctive theological argument for continued adherence concerns the perpetual obligation of covenants made with God[14][8]. Proponents argue that such covenants bind not only the original signatories but also:

1. The entire body of people represented by those who swore it, as demonstrated in Joshua 9:18-19 where all Israelites were bound by their leaders' oath to the Gibeonites[6].

2. Subsequent generations, as indicated in Deuteronomy 29:10-15, which explicitly extends covenant obligations to "those who are not here with us today"[6][8]. The Solemn League and Covenant itself expresses this intent, stating that the kingdoms should "remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity"[6].

3. Even those who took it rashly, insincerely, or under coercion, as illustrated by Joshua's binding oath to the Gibeonites despite their deception (Joshua 9) and King Zedekiah's obligation to honor his oath to Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 17:11-19)[6].

James Guthrie, before his martyrdom, declared that "no person or power on earth could loose or dispense the covenants, that they were still binding on the three kingdoms and would be forever hereafter"[6]. His dying words, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving," encapsulate this belief in their enduring validity[6].

## Theological Arguments Against Erastianism

### Divine Right of Church Government

The Covenanters strongly opposed Erastianism—the view that civil government has authority over the church in sacred matters[15]. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, wrote extensively against this position in his influential work "Aaron's Rod Blossoming"[16]. Gillespie argued that Christ alone possesses authority over His church, and that Presbyterian church government is divinely ordained rather than merely a human preference[16].

This theological position maintained that the church must be governed according to Christ's appointed manner as revealed in Scripture[6]. The Westminster Assembly's Form of Presbyterian Church Government was understood not as a pragmatic arrangement but as the biblical pattern for church order[4][6]. Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant thus represented fidelity to divine ordinance rather than mere human preference[6][11].

### Resistance to Tyrannical Authority

Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex" (The Law and the King) provided a theological framework for resistance to tyrannical authority that complemented the Covenanter position[17][13]. Rutherford argued that power which is "obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tie the people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and the subjects"[13].

This resistance theory was grounded in the conviction that rulers are bound by covenant to govern according to God's law[13][18]. When monarchs violate these terms—particularly by infringing on Christ's headship over the church—lesser magistrates and even the people have a duty to resist[18]. As Rutherford stated, "While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible"[18].

## Practical Theological Implications

### Unity in True Religion

The Solemn League and Covenant aimed at uniformity in confession of faith, church government, worship, and catechizing throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[6]. This goal was rooted in the theological conviction that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and that God's people should "strive together for the faith of the gospel"[6].

Proponents argue that this uniformity is not merely pragmatic but reflects the unity of divine truth—there is "one God, one Saviour, one head of the Church, one Bible, one appointed form of government, one appointed form of worship, one appointed discipline"[6]. Continued adherence to the Covenant thus represents commitment to this theological vision of unity in true religion[6][19].

### Covenant Succession

Reformed theology includes the concept of "covenant succession"—the idea that God's saving grace runs in generational lines and that children of believers are expected to succeed in their parents' faith[20]. This principle supports the notion that covenants made by previous generations continue to bind their descendants[20].

The doctrine draws from biblical passages like Genesis 17:7 ("I will be a God to you and to your descendants after you") and 1 Corinthians 7:14 (which describes the children of believers as "holy")[20]. This theological framework reinforces the argument that the Solemn League and Covenant continues to bind contemporary Scots as spiritual heirs of the original Covenanters[8][20].

## Contemporary Reformed Presbyterian Position

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland continues to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant as binding[21][22]. Their position maintains that the Revolution Settlement of 1688-1690, while bringing relief from persecution, fell short of the biblical standards established in the Covenant[6]. The settlement allowed unrepentant episcopalians to hold office in the Church of Scotland, granted the state rights of interference in church affairs, and permitted episcopacy in England—all contrary to Covenanter principles[6].

Contemporary adherents argue that the goals of the Solemn League and Covenant remain valid theological aspirations: Christ's lordship over church and state, biblical church government, pure worship according to Scripture, and unity among Reformed churches[6][21]. They maintain that unless the Covenant's requirements can be shown to be sinful, it continues to bind this generation[6].

## Conclusion

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland center on several interconnected principles: the perpetual nature of covenants made with God, Christ's exclusive headship over both church and state, the divine right of Presbyterian church government, and the obligation of rulers to govern according to God's law[6][8]. For adherents, the Covenant represents not merely a historical document but a binding oath that continues to obligate Scotland to pursue reformation according to Scripture[6][14].

As James Guthrie prophetically declared before his martyrdom, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving"—a sentiment that continues to resonate with those who maintain the theological validity of this historic covenant[6]. The enduring legacy of the Solemn League and Covenant thus represents a theological vision of church and state submitted to Christ's lordship, a vision that proponents argue remains as relevant today as it was in 1643[6][11].

Sources
[1] Solemn League and Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[2] Signing of the Solemn League and Covenant from The Gazetteer for Scotland https://www.scottish-places.info/events/eventfirst115.html
[3] Solemn League and Covenant | Scotland, Union, Religion - Britannica https://www.britannica.com/event/Solemn-League-and-Covenant-England-Scotland-1643
[4] Solemn League and Covenant (1643) - Reformation History https://reformationhistory.org/solemnleagueandcovenant.html
[5] The Solemn League and Covenant - The Westminster Standard https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[6] What the Solemn League and Covenant means for today https://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
[7] Solemn League http://www.covenanter.org.uk/solemn_league.html
[8] The History and Theology of the Solemn League and Covenant https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...-league-and-covenant-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
[9] The Solemn League and Covenant - A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/the-solemn-league-covenant/
[10] Microsoft Word - For Christ's Crown & Covenant https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/81fb15b2/files/uploaded/For_Christ's_Crown_&_Covenant.pdf
[11] What Can We Learn from the Forgotten Revival of the Scottish Covenanters? - Christian Publishing House Blog https://christianpublishinghouse.co...orgotten-revival-of-the-scottish-covenanters/
[12] Who Were the Covenanters? http://www.covenanter.org.uk/whowere.html
[13] Lex Rex | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/samuel-rutherford/329-2/
[14] The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Pref&Bib.htm
[15] Erastianism - Reformed Books Online https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...overnment/church-state-relations/erastianism/
[16] FREE BOOKS & MP3s: GEORGE GILLESPIE (Covenanter, Westminster Divine & Theologian Par Excellence) https://legacy.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=12468
[17] An Introduction to Lex Rex - Christ Over All https://christoverall.com/article/concise/an-introduction-to-lex-rex/
[18] Samuel Rutherford and Resistance Theory - CultureWatch https://billmuehlenberg.com/2022/01/12/samuel-rutherford-and-resistance-theory/
[19] Confessions, Covenants and Continuous Reformation in Early ... https://journals.openedition.org/episteme/1836?lang=en
[20] Covenant succession - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_succession
[21] Reformation Tours: Solemn League and Covenant https://www.rpcscotland.org/2019/11/27/reformation-tours-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[22] The Solemn League And Covenant https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/4/1/the-solemn-league-and-covenant
[23] Solemn League and Covenant – Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[24] Solemn League and Covenant 2024 https://reformedsynod.com/solemn-league-and-covenant-2024/
[25] Lessons In Christian Nationalism From The Scottish Covenanters https://heidelblog.net/2023/12/lessons-in-christian-nationalism-from-the-scottish-covenanters/
[26] Covenanters - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanters
[27] The Scottish Covenanters and Catholic Political Thought - JHI Blog https://www.jhiblog.org/2019/11/20/the-scottish-covenanters-and-catholic-political-thought/
[28] Microsoft Word - Thesis Correct Formatting.docx http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:626148/FULLTEXT01.pdf
[29] About the Covenanter Church; or, Who are ... - TrueCovenanter.com https://www.truecovenanter.com/editor/about_the_covenanter_church.html
[30] Covenanters | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/covenanters
[31] Sermon 1: On The Solemn League & Covenant - by Rev. Thomas Case https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...on-the-solemn-league-covenant-by-thomas-case/
[32] Romans 13 in Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex - American Reformer https://americanreformer.org/2024/07/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[33] Lex, Rex (eBook) - Monergism | https://www.monergism.com/lex-rex-ebook
[34] Romans 13: In Samuel Rutherfords Lex Rex https://theaquilareport.com/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[35] The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) https://www.rpcscotland.org/what-we-believe/the-solemn-league-and-covenant-1643/
[36] Solemn League and Covenant | EBSCO Research Starters https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/solemn-league-and-covenant
[37] 11 Arguments for the Covenant of Redemption | Samuel Rutherford https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017...the-covenant-of-redemption-samuel-rutherford/
[38] Colquhoun: The Moral Law Is A Perpetual Obligation | The Heidelblog https://heidelblog.net/2024/10/colquhoun-the-moral-law-is-a-perpetual-obligation/
[39] National Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Covenant
[40] Natural law and the covenant - ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/openvie...feab9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
[41] The Solemn League & Covenant - Still Waters Revival Books https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTSol.htm
"
[automerge]1750692986[/automerge]
I've been exploring this area of doctrine "Mediatory Kingship" - and just started the book Messiah the Prince by Symington (available in high-quality eBooks via Monergism)

I'm quite intrigued! Not agreed at this point, but I'll be reading..

This is brilliant! Thanks for this.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

This is the opposite case as you are looking for, but I believe it is valuable.

“That Glorious Marriage Day”

The National Covenant as Social Contract and Responsive Covenant A. Introduction. Wednesday the 28th of February 1638 was “that glorious marriage day of the Kingdom with God.”[1] So confided Archibald Johnston of Warriston to his diary on the day that the National Covenant[2] was first...

idgebbie.wixsite.com

 

[michael_topple]

deep research via perplexity, in case it's helpful

"
# Theological Arguments for Continued Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland

## Historical Context of the Solemn League and Covenant

The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 emerged during a tumultuous period in British history, representing both a military alliance and a religious covenant between Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians during the First English Civil War[1]. While the English sought military assistance against King Charles I, the Scots desired a religious union that would establish Presbyterian church government throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[2]. Alexander Henderson, a prominent Scottish minister, drafted this document which was subsequently approved by the Church of Scotland on August 17, 1643, and by the English Parliament and Westminster Assembly on September 25, 1643[3][4].

The Covenant aimed to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland while reforming the churches of England and Ireland according to "the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches"[4][2]. It committed signatories to the extirpation of popery, prelacy (episcopal church government), and other beliefs deemed contrary to Reformed Protestantism[2]. This agreement led to Scottish military support for Parliament and significantly influenced the work of the Westminster Assembly, resulting in the production of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church Government, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms[4][5].

## Theological Foundations for Continued Adherence

### Biblical Basis for Covenanting

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant rest primarily on the biblical concept of covenant-making with God[6]. Proponents argue that covenanting with God is fundamentally a response to God's covenant of grace, wherein individuals or peoples collectively declare "Thou art my God"[6]. Biblical examples of such covenanting are found throughout the Old Testament, particularly in times of national crisis, as seen in Joshua 24:16-25, 2 Chronicles 15:12-15, 2 Kings 11:17, 2 Kings 23:1-3, and Nehemiah 9:32-38[6].

The perpetual nature of such covenants is supported by Jeremiah 50:5, which speaks of joining oneself to the Lord in "a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten"[5][7][8]. This verse is prominently cited in the preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant itself, establishing the theological foundation for its enduring obligation[5][9][7].

### Christ's Headship Over Church and State

A central theological argument for continued adherence concerns Christ's exclusive lordship over both church and state[10][11]. The Covenanters maintained that Christ is the only head of His Church based on passages like Colossians 1:18, which declares Christ "is the head of the body, the church"[11]. This principle directly challenged the Stuart kings' assertion of royal supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs[12].

John Welsh, son-in-law of John Knox, articulated this position when he stated that his imprisonment in Blackness Castle was because "first... Christ is the Head of His Church; secondly, that she is free in her government from all jurisdictions except Christ's"[10]. This conviction that no earthly authority—including monarchs—could usurp Christ's headship over the church formed a cornerstone of Covenanter theology[11].

Similarly, Covenanters argued that civil rulers must acknowledge Christ as "the Prince of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5) and govern according to God's law[6]. Romans 13:4 describes the civil ruler as "a minister of God," implying accountability to divine authority[6][13]. Psalm 2:10-12 further admonishes rulers to "serve the Lord with fear" and "kiss the Son, lest he be angry"—a passage the Covenanters interpreted as requiring civil authorities to submit to Christ's kingship[6][11].

### Perpetual Obligation of Covenants

Perhaps the most distinctive theological argument for continued adherence concerns the perpetual obligation of covenants made with God[14][8]. Proponents argue that such covenants bind not only the original signatories but also:

1. The entire body of people represented by those who swore it, as demonstrated in Joshua 9:18-19 where all Israelites were bound by their leaders' oath to the Gibeonites[6].

2. Subsequent generations, as indicated in Deuteronomy 29:10-15, which explicitly extends covenant obligations to "those who are not here with us today"[6][8]. The Solemn League and Covenant itself expresses this intent, stating that the kingdoms should "remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity"[6].

3. Even those who took it rashly, insincerely, or under coercion, as illustrated by Joshua's binding oath to the Gibeonites despite their deception (Joshua 9) and King Zedekiah's obligation to honor his oath to Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 17:11-19)[6].

James Guthrie, before his martyrdom, declared that "no person or power on earth could loose or dispense the covenants, that they were still binding on the three kingdoms and would be forever hereafter"[6]. His dying words, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving," encapsulate this belief in their enduring validity[6].

## Theological Arguments Against Erastianism

### Divine Right of Church Government

The Covenanters strongly opposed Erastianism—the view that civil government has authority over the church in sacred matters[15]. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, wrote extensively against this position in his influential work "Aaron's Rod Blossoming"[16]. Gillespie argued that Christ alone possesses authority over His church, and that Presbyterian church government is divinely ordained rather than merely a human preference[16].

This theological position maintained that the church must be governed according to Christ's appointed manner as revealed in Scripture[6]. The Westminster Assembly's Form of Presbyterian Church Government was understood not as a pragmatic arrangement but as the biblical pattern for church order[4][6]. Adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant thus represented fidelity to divine ordinance rather than mere human preference[6][11].

### Resistance to Tyrannical Authority

Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex" (The Law and the King) provided a theological framework for resistance to tyrannical authority that complemented the Covenanter position[17][13]. Rutherford argued that power which is "obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tie the people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and the subjects"[13].

This resistance theory was grounded in the conviction that rulers are bound by covenant to govern according to God's law[13][18]. When monarchs violate these terms—particularly by infringing on Christ's headship over the church—lesser magistrates and even the people have a duty to resist[18]. As Rutherford stated, "While we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible"[18].

## Practical Theological Implications

### Unity in True Religion

The Solemn League and Covenant aimed at uniformity in confession of faith, church government, worship, and catechizing throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland[6]. This goal was rooted in the theological conviction that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and that God's people should "strive together for the faith of the gospel"[6].

Proponents argue that this uniformity is not merely pragmatic but reflects the unity of divine truth—there is "one God, one Saviour, one head of the Church, one Bible, one appointed form of government, one appointed form of worship, one appointed discipline"[6]. Continued adherence to the Covenant thus represents commitment to this theological vision of unity in true religion[6][19].

### Covenant Succession

Reformed theology includes the concept of "covenant succession"—the idea that God's saving grace runs in generational lines and that children of believers are expected to succeed in their parents' faith[20]. This principle supports the notion that covenants made by previous generations continue to bind their descendants[20].

The doctrine draws from biblical passages like Genesis 17:7 ("I will be a God to you and to your descendants after you") and 1 Corinthians 7:14 (which describes the children of believers as "holy")[20]. This theological framework reinforces the argument that the Solemn League and Covenant continues to bind contemporary Scots as spiritual heirs of the original Covenanters[8][20].

## Contemporary Reformed Presbyterian Position

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland continues to uphold the Solemn League and Covenant as binding[21][22]. Their position maintains that the Revolution Settlement of 1688-1690, while bringing relief from persecution, fell short of the biblical standards established in the Covenant[6]. The settlement allowed unrepentant episcopalians to hold office in the Church of Scotland, granted the state rights of interference in church affairs, and permitted episcopacy in England—all contrary to Covenanter principles[6].

Contemporary adherents argue that the goals of the Solemn League and Covenant remain valid theological aspirations: Christ's lordship over church and state, biblical church government, pure worship according to Scripture, and unity among Reformed churches[6][21]. They maintain that unless the Covenant's requirements can be shown to be sinful, it continues to bind this generation[6].

## Conclusion

The theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland center on several interconnected principles: the perpetual nature of covenants made with God, Christ's exclusive headship over both church and state, the divine right of Presbyterian church government, and the obligation of rulers to govern according to God's law[6][8]. For adherents, the Covenant represents not merely a historical document but a binding oath that continues to obligate Scotland to pursue reformation according to Scripture[6][14].

As James Guthrie prophetically declared before his martyrdom, "The covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's reviving"—a sentiment that continues to resonate with those who maintain the theological validity of this historic covenant[6]. The enduring legacy of the Solemn League and Covenant thus represents a theological vision of church and state submitted to Christ's lordship, a vision that proponents argue remains as relevant today as it was in 1643[6][11].

Sources
[1] Solemn League and Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[2] Signing of the Solemn League and Covenant from The Gazetteer for Scotland https://www.scottish-places.info/events/eventfirst115.html
[3] Solemn League and Covenant | Scotland, Union, Religion - Britannica https://www.britannica.com/event/Solemn-League-and-Covenant-England-Scotland-1643
[4] Solemn League and Covenant (1643) - Reformation History https://reformationhistory.org/solemnleagueandcovenant.html
[5] The Solemn League and Covenant - The Westminster Standard https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[6] What the Solemn League and Covenant means for today https://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/slc.shtml
[7] Solemn League http://www.covenanter.org.uk/solemn_league.html
[8] The History and Theology of the Solemn League and Covenant https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...-league-and-covenant-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
[9] The Solemn League and Covenant - A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/the-solemn-league-covenant/
[10] Microsoft Word - For Christ's Crown & Covenant https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/81fb15b2/files/uploaded/For_Christ's_Crown_&_Covenant.pdf
[11] What Can We Learn from the Forgotten Revival of the Scottish Covenanters? - Christian Publishing House Blog https://christianpublishinghouse.co...orgotten-revival-of-the-scottish-covenanters/
[12] Who Were the Covenanters? http://www.covenanter.org.uk/whowere.html
[13] Lex Rex | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/samuel-rutherford/329-2/
[14] The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Pref&Bib.htm
[15] Erastianism - Reformed Books Online https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...overnment/church-state-relations/erastianism/
[16] FREE BOOKS & MP3s: GEORGE GILLESPIE (Covenanter, Westminster Divine & Theologian Par Excellence) https://legacy.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=12468
[17] An Introduction to Lex Rex - Christ Over All https://christoverall.com/article/concise/an-introduction-to-lex-rex/
[18] Samuel Rutherford and Resistance Theory - CultureWatch https://billmuehlenberg.com/2022/01/12/samuel-rutherford-and-resistance-theory/
[19] Confessions, Covenants and Continuous Reformation in Early ... https://journals.openedition.org/episteme/1836?lang=en
[20] Covenant succession - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_succession
[21] Reformation Tours: Solemn League and Covenant https://www.rpcscotland.org/2019/11/27/reformation-tours-solemn-league-and-covenant/
[22] The Solemn League And Covenant https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/4/1/the-solemn-league-and-covenant
[23] Solemn League and Covenant – Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solemn_League_and_Covenant
[24] Solemn League and Covenant 2024 https://reformedsynod.com/solemn-league-and-covenant-2024/
[25] Lessons In Christian Nationalism From The Scottish Covenanters https://heidelblog.net/2023/12/lessons-in-christian-nationalism-from-the-scottish-covenanters/
[26] Covenanters - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanters
[27] The Scottish Covenanters and Catholic Political Thought - JHI Blog https://www.jhiblog.org/2019/11/20/the-scottish-covenanters-and-catholic-political-thought/
[28] Microsoft Word - Thesis Correct Formatting.docx http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:626148/FULLTEXT01.pdf
[29] About the Covenanter Church; or, Who are ... - TrueCovenanter.com https://www.truecovenanter.com/editor/about_the_covenanter_church.html
[30] Covenanters | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/covenanters
[31] Sermon 1: On The Solemn League & Covenant - by Rev. Thomas Case https://www.apuritansmind.com/westm...on-the-solemn-league-covenant-by-thomas-case/
[32] Romans 13 in Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex - American Reformer https://americanreformer.org/2024/07/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[33] Lex, Rex (eBook) - Monergism | https://www.monergism.com/lex-rex-ebook
[34] Romans 13: In Samuel Rutherfords Lex Rex https://theaquilareport.com/romans-13-in-samuel-rutherfords-lex-rex/
[35] The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) https://www.rpcscotland.org/what-we-believe/the-solemn-league-and-covenant-1643/
[36] Solemn League and Covenant | EBSCO Research Starters https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/solemn-league-and-covenant
[37] 11 Arguments for the Covenant of Redemption | Samuel Rutherford https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017...the-covenant-of-redemption-samuel-rutherford/
[38] Colquhoun: The Moral Law Is A Perpetual Obligation | The Heidelblog https://heidelblog.net/2024/10/colquhoun-the-moral-law-is-a-perpetual-obligation/
[39] National Covenant - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Covenant
[40] Natural law and the covenant - ProQuest https://search.proquest.com/openvie...feab9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
[41] The Solemn League & Covenant - Still Waters Revival Books https://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTSol.htm
"
[automerge]1750692986[/automerge]
I've been exploring this area of doctrine "Mediatory Kingship" - and just started the book Messiah the Prince by Symington (available in high-quality eBooks via Monergism)

I'm quite intrigued! Not agreed at this point, but I'll be reading..

Thanks so much for sharing this. What a great jumping off point.

 

[michael_topple]

This is the opposite case as you are looking for, but I believe it is valuable.

“That Glorious Marriage Day”

The National Covenant as Social Contract and Responsive Covenant A. Introduction. Wednesday the 28th of February 1638 was “that glorious marriage day of the Kingdom with God.”[1] So confided Archibald Johnston of Warriston to his diary on the day that the National Covenant[2] was first...

idgebbie.wixsite.com

This is very interesting. I can't say I agree with it's outcome, but it makes salient points.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[JP Wallace]

Since I was mentioned!.....I hate to admit it but that AI things did a pretty good job and certainly better than I could have given the time I have at the minute!

Another good source of material on this and related matters is the Testimony of the RPCS - especially the historical section.

Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland : historical and doctrinal : Reformed Presbyterian Church (Scotland) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Fourth thousand-- T.p

archive.org

 

[EvanF]

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

The Solemn League and Covenant was basically void after the congregationalists fell out with the presbyterians in the English parliament and the Covenanters sided with the royalists against Cromwell in the civil war, and it was formally abjured by the English parliament with the Sedition Act of 1661 and adherence to it declared unlawful until the repeal of the act in 1967. The AI answer is hampered by the fact that the question posed is about the Solemn League and Covenant, so it tries to find some conection, but it is the National Covenant of 1638 that various Scottish churches lay claim to as a symbol of their faith and values - this was the covenant of the Covenanters.

The National Covenant was a covenant of the signatories with eachother to affirm the Negative Confession and maintain the Scottish church in the form laid out in the covenant contra Charles I's and William Laud's efforts to influence the churches in the two kingdoms. In as much as any churches now claim to uphold the National Covenant, it is more an affirmation of the original values as they apply to various modern denominations than a covenant regarding the form of a national church.

 

[MW]

The original parties do not exist unless you contrive some kind of argument for "moral identity." Even if they exist, the most you have established is that they are binding, not that they should be renewed. How do you renew them when one half of the covenanting party does not come to the table -- the State? Then you have the problem that in the renewal of them the terms of the covenant have been altered to invalidate the lawfulness of the king. You could go the route of the Original Secession Church and renew them ecclesiastically, which is a formal recognition that the original terms are binding while recognising the legitimacy of rulers. The other option is to incorporate them into the church's testimony where there is recognition of their historical importance to the church's constitution, which was done by the Free Church. The reality is that by subscribing to the documents that were produced in the interests of "covenanted uniformity" you have bound yourself to the results envisaged by the terms of the covenant. The obligation remains upon you whether you vow to uphold it or not.

 

[GillespieWestminster]

The original parties do not exist unless you contrive some kind of argument for "moral identity." Even if they exist, the most you have established is that they are binding, not that they should be renewed. How do you renew them when one half of the covenanting party does not come to the table -- the State? Then you have the problem that in the renewal of them the terms of the covenant have been altered to invalidate the lawfulness of the king. You could go the route of the Original Secession Church and renew them ecclesiastically, which is a formal recognition that the original terms are binding while recognising the legitimacy of rulers. The other option is to incorporate them into the church's testimony where there is recognition of their historical importance to the church's constitution, which was done by the Free Church. The reality is that by subscribing to the documents that were produced in the interests of "covenanted uniformity" you have bound yourself to the results envisaged by the terms of the covenant. The obligation remains upon you whether you vow to uphold it or not.

They do not exist as natural persons, but rather as moral persons; the covenants were undertaken by the nation and the Church as entities responsible before God. Natural persons die, but moral persons transcend generations (Jeremiah 2:2-3). If the concept of a moral person were not biblical, the prophet would not have spoken to the Jews of his time as if they were the same [moral] person as the pious church of the past.

The renewal, as seen at Auchensaugh (1712), is made according to the capacity of the covenanters—not as nation and national church [de facto], but as a faithful minority in the face of general apostasy. This is not to invalidate the authority of the legitimate king, but to refuse obedience to a usurpation that violates the Crown of Christ and the terms which both the nation and the Church agreed would be required of those who hold positions of trust. A renewal does not create a new bond, but rather reaffirms the bond that has been forgotten and broken.

These covenants are not merely important to history; they are the very platform upon which the confessional documents are founded. The Westminster Standards are "Standards" because of the Solemn League and Covenant adopted by the Church of Scotland. If you remove the covenants, you are left with disconnected documents.

Bene docet, qui bene distinguit

 

[MW]

They do not exist as natural persons, but rather as moral persons; the covenants were undertaken by the nation and the Church as entities responsible before God.

Yes, that is what is meant by "moral identity."

Natural persons die, but moral persons transcend generations (Jeremiah 2:2-3). If the concept of a moral person were not biblical, the prophet would not have spoken to the Jews of his time as if they were the same [moral] person as the pious church of the past.

In the Covenanter argument the moral identity itself is different. The Parliament ousts the Stuarts. The Covenanter believes this was legitimate.

The renewal, as seen at Auchensaugh (1712), is made according to the capacity of the covenanters—not as nation and national church [de facto], but as a faithful minority in the face of general apostasy. This is not to invalidate the authority of the legitimate king, but to refuse obedience to a usurpation that violates the Crown of Christ and the terms which both the nation and the Church agreed would be required of those who hold positions of trust. A renewal does not create a new bond, but rather reaffirms the bond that has been forgotten and broken.

Yes, they have introduced a term that is not original to the covenant; they have therefore changed the covenant. It is not original.

These covenants are not merely important to history; they are the very platform upon which the confessional documents are founded. The Westminster Standards are "Standards" because of the Solemn League and Covenant adopted by the Church of Scotland. If you remove the covenants, you are left with disconnected documents.

But the covenants are only functioning as bookends. The same purpose is served by acknowledging this in a Testimony without having to alter them in any way.

 

[GillespieWestminster]

Yes, that is what is meant by "moral identity."



In the Covenanter argument the moral identity itself is different. The Parliament ousts the Stuarts. The Covenanter believes this was legitimate.



Yes, they have introduced a term that is not original to the covenant; they have therefore changed the covenant. It is not original.



But the covenants are only functioning as bookends. The same purpose is served by acknowledging this in a Testimony without having to alter them in any way.

In what part did Auchensaugh introduce new terms to the Covenants?

 

[MW]

In what part did Auchensaugh introduce new terms to the Covenants?

"Therefore, we can only bind ourselves to defend and preserve the honor, authority and majesty of lawful sovereigns, or supreme magistrates, having the qualifications aforesaid, when God shall be pleased to grant them to us. Where no judicious person will say that there is any substantial alteration as to the matter of the duty, but only as to the object to whom the duty is to be performed; there being none such in being as can justly claim, or to whom we may with a good conscience pay such an allegiance."

No such condition is to be found in the original covenant or covenanters. It is an added term. The original covenants recognise the legitimate authority of the king.

 

[GillespieWestminster]

"Therefore, we can only bind ourselves to defend and preserve the honor, authority and majesty of lawful sovereigns, or supreme magistrates, having the qualifications aforesaid, when God shall be pleased to grant them to us. Where no judicious person will say that there is any substantial alteration as to the matter of the duty, but only as to the object to whom the duty is to be performed; there being none such in being as can justly claim, or to whom we may with a good conscience pay such an allegiance."

No such condition is to be found in the original covenant or covenanters. It is an added term. The original covenants recognise the legitimate authority of the king.

This is not found in the 'Solemn League as Renewed, 1712' itself, but in the historical introduction; to misunderstand this is to confuse the parts of the document. Furthermore, this historical observation is the true intention of the covenant—which, unfortunately, was not understood by the children of the Revolution Church:

"3. In the League and Covenant which hath been so solem∣ly sworne and renewed by this Kingdom, the Dutie of de∣fending and preserving the Kings Majesties Person and Au∣thoriy is joyned with, and subordinat unto the dutie of preserving and defending the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms: And therefore his Majestie standing in op∣position to the just and necessary publick desires concerning Religion and Liberties, it were a manifest Breach of Cove∣nant, and a preferring of the Kings interest to the interest of Jesus Christ, to bring him to the exercise of his Royal po∣wer, which he, walking in a contrary way, and being com∣passed about with Malignant Counsels, cannot but employ unto the prejudice and ruin of both." (27. July, 1649. Antemeridiem. Sess. 27. A seasonable and necessary VVarning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dan∣gers, and concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk, unto all the Members thereof.)

 

[MW]

This is not found in the 'Solemn League as Renewed, 1712' itself, but in the historical introduction; to misunderstand this is to confuse the parts of the document.

I'm not confusing them; I am using this to show what is overtly recognised in the Renovation.

Furthermore, this historical observation is the true intention of the covenant—which, unfortunately, was not understood by the children of the Revolution Church:

By your own expression you are drawing out a "true intention" in extra words. The whole point of a vow is to give the true intention in the very words in which the vow is made. The implicit is made explicit. The fact you have to add the "true intention" makes something extra explicit which is not in the original.

 

[JP Wallace]

The Solemn League and Covenant was basically void after the congregationalists fell out with the presbyterians in the English parliament and the Covenanters sided with the royalists against Cromwell in the civil war, and it was formally abjured by the English parliament with the Sedition Act of 1661 and adherence to it declared unlawful until the repeal of the act in 1967.

I don't disagree with the overall content of this paragraph - however I think it is important to stress in connection with the original post's question that this matter is at the very heart of the continuing obligations of the covenants as a principle - that the covenant lawfully made could not legitimately be "voided" by the parties thereto without sin - i.e. the Church and State as "moral persons/identities."

So in answer to the original post - this really is the foundation of continued obligation to the covenants. We are obligated to them whether we like it or not essentially!

 

[JP Wallace]

Here is an extract from our Testimony:

COVENANT-RESPONSE TODAY

Since apostolic times, formal covenanting has occurred either in times of crisis or during revival. The Waldensians ratified their testimony by solemn oath and the Pilgrim Fathers renewed their solemn covenant on several occasions. During the time of the Reformation, there were covenants in Geneva, Hungary, Holland and France. Bands or covenants occurred in Scotland at intervals from 1556, the most famous being the National Covenant of Scotland (1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant of England, Scotland and Ireland (1643). Godly men and women died because of their acceptance of Christ's royal prerogatives as stated in those covenants, their motto being "For Christ's Crown and Covenant."

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland inherits the convictions and insights of the Scottish Covenanters and upholds the great principles of the Scottish Covenants, covenants which, like those of Old Testament times, were a response to God's Covenant of Grace. The question immediately arises as to whether such a covenant can bind posterity. There is clear Biblical proof that it can and does. From the stand-point of God's initiative, this is beyond question. Moses could say with God's authority "I am making this covenant, with this oath, not only with you who are standing here with us today, in the presence of the Lord our God, but also with those who are not here today." Much earlier God declared to Abram, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you." Abram's descendants were perpetually obligated to covenant obedience primarily by what God had done.

Some of the Old Testament covenant-responses were patently relevant to posterity. Jeremiah charged the Jewish nation with breaking the covenant made with their fathers and gave this as the reason why the land suffered from the Chaldean invasion (Jer.11:1 - 11; 34:13f.). This implied the continuing identity of a people and society and of continuing obligation. So strong is this continuing identity with its consequent inescapable responsibility that God could say to the Israelites almost a millennium after the Exodus, "I covenanted with YOU when YOU came out of Egypt." Later, Peter was to remind the Jews "You are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers."

The State, as a divine institution (Rom.13:1) distinct from the Church, is equally under obligation to recognise the Lordship of Christ and in covenant obedience to honour and uphold His laws and protect His Church (Ps.2:8-12; Isa.49:23). God repeatedly asserts His authority over the nations and warns the apostate State of judgment (Ps.9:17; Isa.60:12). He blesses the nations that own Him (Ps.33:12) and breaks in pieces the nations that reject Him. This is the whole tenor of Scripture.

Christ is the "King of kings and Lord of lords." His mediatorial dominion is a fact, whether the world recognises it or not. The Biblical principle of covenanting can be applied in any country. The total lordship of Christ should be acknowledged in every area of human activity - politics, business, science, hygiene, medicine, legislation etc. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland regards the principles of the Scottish Covenants as still binding, unreservedly accepts the obligation imposed by them, and grieves because they have been repudiated by the nation to its incalculable loss. It is imperative that, in the present day, Christians should recognise the duty of covenant-response in the light of God's ever-abiding Covenant of Grace within which they are confronted with the claims of Christ, their rightful King."

 

[JP Wallace]

In the Covenanter argument the moral identity itself is different. The Parliament ousts the Stuarts. The Covenanter believes this was legitimate.

Matthew can you parse out what you mean by these three sentences. Especially the the last one. In the historical context of the original post the Covenanter's belief is the Covenant itself which stipulates in part 3:

"III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no other thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness."

The covenant expresses loyalty to three institiutions: Parliament, the liberty of the kingdoms and the King's Majesty's person and authority. However of course the issue was how those three institutions a) related to the Kingship of Christ, and b) how they related to each other. On the face of it it would seem that in terms of the covenant itself it would be hard to prove that the Covenanters believed that the ousting of the Stuarts was without qualification legitimate.

Hence my desire for you to explan a bit on what you mean? Thanks.

 

[GillespieWestminster]

I'm not confusing them; I am using this to show what is overtly recognised in the Renovation.

Yes, you are either confused or have not read the entire document.

By your own expression you are drawing out a "true intention" in extra words. The whole point of a vow is to give the true intention in the very words in which the vow is made. The implicit is made explicit. The fact you have to add the "true intention" makes something extra explicit which is not in the original.

The words themselves are clear, unless you disagree with the way the Church of Scotland (1649) itself has understood it.

 

[MW]

Yes, you are either confused or have not read the entire document.

Neither. I have studied the document. Are you claiming the historical introduction is incorrect in its assessment? If not, what is your point?

The words themselves are clear, unless you disagree with the way the Church of Scotland (1649) itself has understood it.

The words are indeed clear: the Covenant recognises the magistrate and the Renovation qualifies that to when he can be "obtained." An explicit addition that is not in the original.

 

[EvanF]

I don't disagree with the overall content of this paragraph - however I think it is important to stress in connection with the original post's question that this matter is at the very heart of the continuing obligations of the covenants as a principle - that the covenant lawfully made could not legitimately be "voided" by the parties thereto without sin - i.e. the Church and State as "moral persons/identities."

So in answer to the original post - this really is the foundation of continued obligation to the covenants. We are obligated to them whether we like it or not essentially!

But who is claiming a bond of adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant today? Even accepting that abandonment of that covenant constituted sin, in what meaningful way can any churches today be said to adhere to it unless they actually endeavor to re-enleague the three nations and national churches according to the covenant? The articles of the Solemn League and Covenant, in summary, were

1. endeavor to preserve reformed religion in Scotland, reform religion in England and Ireland, and bring the churches of all three nations into uniformity and conjunction

2. endeavor to extirpate popery, prelacy, heresy, and schism in the three nations

3. endeavor to preserve for the three nations liberty, the privilege of the parliaments, and the authority of the king

4. endeavor to prosecute the enemies of reformation and peace

5. endeavor to preserve peaceful union between the three nations

6. vow loyalty to the covenant and all covenantors

Are there truly any Scottish churches today endeavoring to reform and conjoin with the Churches of England and Ireland, extirpate popery and prelacy from England and Ireland, and prosecute enemies of the reformation and the Solemn League and Covenant?

 

[JP Wallace]

Are there truly any Scottish churches today endeavoring to reform and conjoin with the Churches of England and Ireland, extirpate popery and prelacy from England and Ireland, and prosecute enemies of the reformation and the Solemn League and Covenant?

Did the church ever take on all those roles? If not then why do you expect the church to take on all those roles today?

 

[Northern Crofter]

But who is claiming a bond of adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant today?

Does not the ending of the SL&C invite all Churches and nations to do so?

"...most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian Churches, groaning under, or in danger of the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths." (emphasis added)

So, returning to the original OP question of "theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland," would not promoting like associations in present Christian Churches and nations be a form of adherence to the SL&C, even inside of Scotland (and the other original subscribing bodies)?

 

[EvanF]

Did the church ever take on all those roles? If not then why do you expect the church to take on all those roles today?

I don’t expect that, although if I believed that Scottish churches were bound to adhere to the Solemn League and Covenant I would expect them at least to take some actions in their general assemblies toward the reformation and conjunction of national churches, which is the prerogative of elders not states, as well as motions toward the active condemnation of the parliaments and the King for their failure to perform their parts. As far as I know, no churches in Scotland do those things or advocate for them. So if they do really claim to adhere to the Solemn League and Covenant, then I don't think they have duly considered their obligations under it.

However, I think it's clear even to covenanting churches today that the matter of the Solemn League and Covenant is so specifically tied to a bygone state of world affairs that it makes no sense actually to endeavor to adhere to it as written even if they still agree to the spirit of it. This is why I don't believe anyone is really arguing theologically for continued literal adherence to it.

 

[EvanF]

So, returning to the original OP question of "theological arguments for continued adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland," would not promoting like associations in present Christian Churches and nations be a form of adherence to the SL&C, even inside of Scotland (and the other original subscribing bodies)?

Promoting like associations is not a form of adherence but a recognition that the written content of the original Solemn League and Covenant is applicable to the world today only in spirit as the letter itself is anachronistic.

But what sort of like associations do you mean? National church establishments? International? First estates in parliaments? Kings as supreme governors of national churches? What churches argue for such establishments?

 

[JP Wallace]

This is why I don't believe anyone is really arguing theologically for continued literal adherence to it.

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:

Are there truly any Scottish churches today endeavoring to reform and conjoin with the Churches of England and Ireland, extirpate popery and prelacy from England and Ireland, and prosecute enemies of the reformation and the Solemn League and Covenant?

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.

 

[MW]

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?

But they are not the same "parties" The UK Parliament is now a broader union than the previous Parliaments. And the monarchy itself has participated in a revolution so as to settle a new constitution. The "letter" of the thing is impossible to maintain. I agree fully with the "spirit" of it, but the purpose of a covenant or a vow is to bind oneself to the letter of it. As far as the letter is concerned they no longer function as covenants.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But what sort of like associations do you mean? National church establishments? International?

Yes.

First estates in parliaments? Kings as supreme governors of national churches? What churches argue for such establishments?

I don't know of any Covenanter who ever argued for such.

But they are not the same "parties" The UK Parliament is now a broader union than the previous Parliaments. And the monarchy itself has participated in a revolution so as to settle a new constitution. The "letter" of the thing is impossible to maintain. I agree fully with the "spirit" of it, but the purpose of a covenant or a vow is to bind oneself to the letter of it. As far as the letter is concerned they no longer function as covenants.

Joshua and the pre-monarchy Israelite nation who "made a league" with the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 was not the same party or same geopolitical situation as under King Saul/King David and yet God afflicted Israel with famine for three years during the days of King David "for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites... unto whom the children of Israel had sworn" (II Samuel 21.1-2).

 

[MW]

Joshua and the pre-monarchy Israelite nation who "made a league" with the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 was not the same party or same geopolitical situation as under King Saul/King David and yet God afflicted Israel with famine for three years during the days of King David "for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites... unto whom the children of Israel had sworn" (II Samuel 21.1-2).

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.