“So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.”
Josh. 24:25
“And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people.”
2 Kings 11:17
“They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.”
Jer. 50:5
.
The preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), a godly example of social covenanting made between the Long Parliament of England and Scotland, in order to
“endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion… in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government… according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour 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; that… the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.”
.
.
Subsections
Westminster Divines on
Against Separatism
Defenses of Scottish Covenanting & the Indulgence & Occasional Hearing
. Controversies, 1661-1688
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles
History of the SL&C
Quote 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Rouse, Francis – ‘That this Obedience to the Present Government [of Cromwell] is Not Contrary to, but Consistent with our Solemn League & Covenant’ being part 2 of The Bounds & Bonds of Public Obedience… (1649), pp. 38-66
Rouse was a Westminster divine and argues that while the SL&C was still binding in its moral principles, yet it formally ceased in England as a civil ‘league’, with its original circumstances, when Oliver Cromwell (who was not in the line of kings) took over in 1649.
“The debate was initiated by Francis Rous who published a brief pamphlet in April 1649 [The Lawfulness of Obeying the Present Government] in which he argued that allegiance could be given to the Commonwealth [of Cromwell] even though it were acknowledged to be an illegal power.” – Wiki on Anthony Ascham
Crofton, Zachary
This was written at the Restoration of Charles II (1660) who civilly rescinded the SL&C, and other puritan legislation, in England. Dr. Gauden, a reformed Anglican, strangely, had argued that the SL&C was consistent with Episcopacy. Crofton refutes this notion.
Crofton (1626-1672) was reformed, a presbyterian and a puritan who was born and raised in Ireland. He came to England in 1646. He was ejected from the Church of England at the Restoration.
Dr. Gauden had responded to Croften’s Analepsis above with Anti Baal-Berith; or The Binding of the Covenant & All Covenanters to Their Good Behaviors, by a Just Vindication of Dr. Gauden’s Analysis. Crofton responds to this work.
.
1700’s
Boston, Thomas – Doctrine 2, ‘That Professors Ought to Beware of Schism & Division’ in ‘The Evil, Nature & Danger of Schism, a Sermon’ on 1 Cor. 1:10 (1708) in Works (1848), vol. 7, pp. 602-10
Boston argues against those in the United Societies who remained separate from the Church and State of Scotland in his own day upon pretense of the Solemn League & Covenant and other impurities in the Church and State, post-1690.
Boston argues (rightly) three points: (1) that the separatists are not the strictest party according to Scriptural principles, (2) that there is not just grounds for separation from the post-1690 Church of Scotland, and (3) that their principles are not the principles of ‘our covenanted Reformation’.
Moncrieff, Alexander – The Duty of National Covenanting Explained, Some Sermons Preached at the Renovation of our Covenants, National & Solemn League, in the Bond Adapted to our Present Situation & Circumstances in this Period, by the Associate Presbytery… 1744 (Edinburgh, 1747)
Moncrieff was a Scottish Seceder minister, or the Associate Presbytery.
Gib, Adam – ‘Concerning the Presbytery’s Manner of Renewing our Covenants’ in The Present Truth, a Display of the Secession Testimony (1774), vol. 1, pp. 259-74
The Scottish Seceders held that the Scottish national covenants’ moral and spiritual principles bound perpetually, though historical circumstances change. Hence in the mid-1700’s, the covenants could not be taken in their original form, but were renewed by the Presbytery as adapted to their situation, still affirming all of the moral and spiritual principles of them.
A minister who had recently joined the Secession, Thomas Nairn (1680-1764), objected to this, reflecting the influence of the United Societies. He insisted the covenants be renewed as to their original form and words, and to do otherwise was not to be faithful to them. He was, after 3 years of instruction and admonition, deposed from the Seceders. He then joined John Macmillan and shortly formed the Reformed Presbytery, though he would secede from them as well.
Gib demonstrates from Scripture that it is proper for women to personally vow to public covenants in vol. 1, p. 256.
Brown, John, of Haddington – Letter 2 in The Absurdity & Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy… in Two Letters to a Friend, in which… the Nature, Origin, Ends & Obligation of the National Covenant [1638] & Solemn League [1643] are Candidly Represented & Defended Buy (1780), pp. 95-157
Brown (1722-1787) was the grandfather of John Brown of Edinburgh and was a professor and leading minister in the Scottish Secession Church.
.
1800’s
M’Crie, the elder, Thomas – Section 9: Of the Difference with Respect to Religious Covenants in Statement of the Difference… Particularly on the Power of Civil Magistrates Respecting Religion, National Reformation, National Churches & National Covenants (1807)
M’Crie, ‘The Defender of the Covenanters’, describes the difference between the new constitutional documents of the Scottish Seceders moving in a New Light (and diluted) direction versus the older position of the Scottish Seceders, which he held to. The first half of the article analyzes the inadequacy of the New Light definition of covenanting. The second half touches on the Solemn League and Covenant, holding that it continues to bind Scotland in its moral principles, though circumstances have changed from some of its original wording.
“When the Associate Presbytery [the Seceders] engaged in the renovation of the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, they did this in a bond suited to their circumstances. And they did so with the greatest propriety…”
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis
A Brief Summary of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting, summarized in 13 concise points, 20 paragraphs
Here is the Biblically principled, majority historic view on the subject, with special reference to Scotland and her churches
A Defense of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting, 36 points, 135 paragraphs, with a select annotated bibliography
This is an extensive articulation and defense of the majority historic view on the Solemn League and Covenant, argued from scripture, history and the reformation in Scotland.
.
Quote
Alexander Henderson
The Declaration of Mr. Alexander Henderson… Made upon his Death-Bed (London, 1648), pp. 8-10
“…and I declare before God and the world that it was far from the intention of those that contrived it [the SL&C], to wrong the King and his posterity… and the foresaid supplication doth manifestly declare their intent being only to have settled a conformity in Kirk government throughout all his Majesty’s dominions…
I do further declare before God and the World that they [the English] are guilty of the breach of the Sacred Covenant, and that we have discharged our duty thereof (which is only promissory & conditional as all oaths de futuro [of the future] are) by endeavoring to effectuate it quantum in nobis erat [insofar as we are in it], and that we are absolved in foro poli & soli [in the sight of the city and self] of any oath or vow contained therein, insofar as concerns the settling of religion in the Kirk of England and Ireland, and that we are only bound thereby to preserve the Reformation of Religion
in our own Kirk and Kingdom [of Scotland]…
Therefore I exhort and conjure you, again and again, in the bowels of our Lord Christ, and words of a dying man, especially my brethren of the ministry… to stand fast and firm to this point of your Covenant, which you were bound to before by the Law of God and of this Land [of Scotland], and never suffer your selves by all the gilded allurement of this world, which will prove bitter and deceitful at last, to relinquish it.”
.
The History of the Solemn League & Covenant
Books
2000’s
MacKenzie, Kirsteen
Presbyterian Church Government & the ‘Covenanted Interest’ in the Three Kingdoms, 1649-1660 PhD thesis (Aberdeen University, 2008) When on the page, click on the top of the two links and then hit ‘continue’.
The Solemn League & Covenant of the Three Kingdoms & the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663 Pre (2017)
Frazier, Nathan – Maintaining the Covenant idea: the Preservation of Federal Theology’s Corporate Dimensions among Scotland’s Eighteenth-Century Evangelical Presbyterians PhD diss. (Edinburgh, 2010)
.
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), pp. 54-55
“Assertion 1 — There is an oath betwixt the king and his people, laying on by reciprocation of bands mutual civil obligation upon the king to the people and the people to the king; 2 Sam. 5:3, “So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.” 1 Chron. 11:3, “And David made a covenant with them before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.” 2 Chron. 23:2-3, ” And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. And all the congregation made a covenant with the king [Joash] in the house of God.” 2 Kings 11:17, “Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people.” Eccl. 8:2, “I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.”
Then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the king and the people. That was not a covenant that did tie the king to God only, and not to the people:
1. Because the covenant betwixt the king and the people is clearly differenced from the king’s covenant with the Lord, 2 Kings 11:17.
2. There was no necessity that this covenant should be made publicly before the people if the king did not in the covenant tie and oblige himself to the people; nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord in the house of God.
3. It is expressly a covenant that was between Joash the king and his people; and David made a covenant at his coronation with the princes and elders of Israel, therefore the people gave the crown to David covenant-wise, and upon condition that he should perform such and such duties to them.
And this is clear by all covenants in the Word of God: even the covenant between God and man is in like manner mutual — “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” The covenant is so mutual, that if the people break the covenant, God is loosed from his part of the covenant, Zech. 11:10. The covenant gives to the believer ‘a sort of action of law,’ and jus quoddam, to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that binds him by reason of his fidelity, Isa. 43:26; 63:16; Dan. 9:4-5; and far more a covenant gives ground of a civil action and claim to a people and the [Scottish] free estates against a king [Charles I] seduced by wicked counsel to make war against the land [Scotland], whereas he did swear by the most high God, that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God.
Assertion 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man, yea, all solemn promises bring the covenanters under a law and a claim before men, if the oath of God be broken, as the covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:27), Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 18:3). The spies profess to Rahab in the covenant that they made with her (Josh. 2:20), “And if thou utter this our business, we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear.” There be no mutual contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled, the party injured is loosed from the contract.
Barclay [a royalist] says, “That this covenant obliges the king to God, but not the king to the people.” — Answer: It is a vain thing [then] to say that the people and the king make a covenant, and that David made a covenant with the elders and princes of Israel; for if he be obliged to God only, and not to the people, by a covenant made with the people, it is not made with the people at all, nay, it is no more made with the people of Israel than with the Chaldeans, for it binds David no more to Israel than to Chaldea, as a covenant made with men.”
.
.
.
“And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and theLord gave them rest round about.”
2 Chron. 15:15
.
.
.
Related Pages