Vincent Alsop on the danger of covenant-refusing to a nation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Let’s examine whether we are a people in Covenant with God. I know special care has been taken that these Nations should not be God’s people in Covenant; Men are afraid of an Association, but it will do them no harm if God be not the bond of it, and his honour, and interest the great end of it: But this we may assure our selves, that if we send away our God we may as wisely disband our Forces, and lay up our Ships; we must be God’s vineyard if we expect his special protection. Isa. 27. 2, 3. In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine: I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment; left any hurt it, I will keep it night and day: That is, I will neither slumber nor sleep.

For the reference, see:

 
Ezekiel 12:7 - "So I did as I was commanded. I brought out my belongings by day, as though going into captivity, and at evening I dug through the wall with my hand."

That's a stone wall Ezekiel dug through, as a sign that Jerusalem's judgment for unfaithfulness was certain, and they would be captives. If God is against the nation, nothing else a nation does to preserve itself--stone walls, forces, ships--will make any difference.
 
What does "Association" with the capital A refer to?

Based on the broader context of Alsop's work, I would presume it to mean something like The Solemn League and Covenant, which characterized itself as an "association and covenant."
 
Based on the broader context of Alsop's work, I would presume it to mean something like The Solemn League and Covenant, which characterized itself as an "association and covenant."
Thank you...so, then why would entering into a solemn association or covenant "do them no harm if God be not the bond of it, and his honour, and interest the great end of it"? It seems like it would be harmful if "God be not the bond of it...".
 
Last edited:
The grammar does make things a bit uncertain, something not all that uncommon from that era to the modern ear... My take, paraphrasing, would be,

"Men are afraid of a [godly] Association, but [think] it will do them no harm [to enter an association] if God be not the bond of it, and his honour, and interest the great end of it"

Of course, I could be entirely wrong...
 
So...these men would be afraid to enter into a national covenant with each other and God (such as the Scottish Covenanters did) for religious purposes (e.g. the establishment/defense of the crown rights of Christ and the Reformed faith), but they would have no fear entering into associations/covenants with other men (leaving God out of it) for secular purposes? Is that the gist of it?
 
So...these men would be afraid to enter into a national covenant with each other and God (such as the Scottish Covenanters did) for religious purposes (e.g. the establishment/defense of the crown rights of Christ and the Reformed faith), but they would have no fear entering into associations/covenants with other men (leaving God out of it) for secular purposes? Is that the gist of it?
Something like that makes the most sense to me...
 
Thank you for helping me work through it. I find the first half of the quote to be a bit confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top