Debate: How the Solemn League & Covenant Binds the Usa, Canada, Australia, etc., Today (2/3) — Greg Barrow

This is tape 2 of Covenanted Uniformity, the Protestant Remedy for Disunity, being chapter 3 of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics, narrated by Larry Berger.

Please note that this entire book is free on Stillwaters Revival Books website, www .swrb .com. It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters, along with a treasure trove of the finest Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in the world today.

Stillwaters can be reached at 780 -450 -3730 or by email at swrb at swrb .com. These tapes are not copyrighted, and we therefore encourage you to copy and distribute them to any and all you believe would be benefited.

We continue our reading. John Guthrie, faithful minister of Christ, one of the 400 ministers banished by the king in 1660, explains the importance of recognizing that God is a party in the psalm-leading covenant.

God as a Party to the Solemn Covenant

Quote, but these lands are one party, and the God of heaven is the other party. Therefore, though England should break, should Scotland also break the covenant? It is not after this tenor we will endeavor reformation in these lands, but if you break, we will break also.

No, it is each man swearing for himself that he shall, in his place and station, endeavor reformation, so that if it were left all to one man, he must endeavor reformation. For consider the last words of the article.

Each of them for himself did lift up his hands to the Most High, and so these three lands are one party, and the other party is the God of heaven. Consider seriously upon it, for it is the thing that you must either suffer for or sin, ere it be long, without remedy.

Whatever England and Ireland have done in breaking the covenants, we say they justly must smart for it, according to the word of God, if God in mercy prevent it not. Nevertheless, as long as there are in these lands any who keep the covenant, we are bound to keep it, and suppose there are many who had rather suffer for it than sin, as witnessed the many scattered flocks and shepherds in these lands, and supposing this were not, though both England and Ireland should quit it, yet Scotland is bound to it.

And that's from John Howey, Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland, page 668. Further on in the same sermon, Guthrie continues,. Now a word to that which I mentioned before. What shall we do, since these lands have broken covenant with God?

I tell you that Scotland is bound to keep it, although England and Ireland have broken it, and although Scotland break it, yet Ireland and England are bound to stand to it. Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend.

That is to say, as for you at this present time, though England and Ireland have broken, yet let not Scotland do so too. Suppose there were but one family in these lands that would stand to it, and if all that family should turn their back upon it, except one person, truly that person is bound to stand to it.

Choose you whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Here is but a family, so that if all the kingdom should forswear the covenant, yet so long as I am master of a family, I must serve the Lord.

I must not serve other gods, that is to say, we should not serve popes nor prelates and so forth. But what if it comes to this, that there be no man to bide by it at all, but one man? That man is bound to keep it according to the scripture.

I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts, because the children of Israel have forsaken my covenant, thrown down mine altars, and slain my prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left.

From these words I conclude, though England has forsaken, yet Scotland is bound, and though Scotland should forsake, yet England is bound, and though both forsake, yet one family is bound to stand to it.

Covenantal Obligations Across Generations

Therefore study to know your duty, lest the wrath of God come upon you and your posterity. Believe these things, for our king and princes, nobles and ministers, and all the people, and our posterity are bound to it.

So I leave it to you with this, happy is that man that shall be steadfast in the covenant, though all the rest should forsake it. But as to the persons who shall continue steadfast, God has reserved that to himself as a piece of his sovereignty.

Again, we hear not tell of a public covenant ever sworn and broken, but God visibly plagued the breakers thereof. And that's from sermons delivered in times of persecution pages 673 and 674. What could extend and transmit an obligation to posterity if swearing an everlasting covenant with God on behalf of posterity fails to accomplish the task?

The evidence already presented must forcibly lead the reader to understand that the obligations of the covenants are extended far beyond the original covenanters. Mr. Bacon disputes with Thomas McCree.

On December 18, 1996, Mr. Bacon wrote to Pastor Price,. Are you seriously suggesting that not aligning ourselves with a 17th century document is sinful? That seems to be what I've read thus far in both your overture and your posts.

If so, then you have made that 17th century document the rule of faith and practice. Necessity is not laid upon me to hold the traditions of men, else God shares the throne of my conscience with mortals.

Thomas McCree replies, If there is any truth in the statements that have now been made, the question respecting the obligation of the British covenants is deeply interesting to the present generation.

The identity of a nation as existing through different ages is, in all moral respects, as real as the identity of an individual through the whole period of his life. The individuals that compose it, like the particles of matter in the human body, pass away and are succeeded by others, but the body politic continues essentially the same.

If Britain contracted a moral obligation in virtue of a solemn national covenant for religion and reformation, that obligation must attach to her until it has been discharged. Have the pledges given by the nation been yet redeemed?

Do not the principal stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled to this day? Are we not as a people still bound by that engagement to see these things done? Has the lapse of time canceled the bond, or will a change of sentiments and views set us free from its tie?

Is it not the duty of all friends of reformation to endeavor to keep alive a sense of this obligation on the public mind? But although all ranks and classes in the nation should lose impressions of it, and although there should not be a single religious denomination, nor even a single individual in the land to remind them of it, will it not be held in remembrance by one with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years?

That's from Thomas McCree's Unity of the Church, page 200. Yes, Mr. Bacon, I am seriously suggesting that you align yourself with these 17th century covenants, and you do not have to bind your conscience to the rules of men to do it.

You only have to keep a promise and own an obligation intended for your good, made by those who represented you in an everlasting covenant with God. This promise is one that God will require of you, even if 354 years have passed since it was sworn.

Saul, the Gibeonites, and the Continuing Force of Covenants

Have you forgotten Saul and the Gibeonite oath? And Joshua made peace with them, that is, the Gibeonites, and made a league, or covenant, with them to let them live. And the princes of the congregation swear unto them, Joshua 9 .15.

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year, and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

And the king called the Gibeonites and said unto them, Now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites. And the children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, 2 Samuel 21, verses 1 and 2.

Scripture says that Saul, in his zeal and with the best of intentions, broke an approximately 400-year-old covenant made between Joshua and the Gibeonites. God was far more than seriously suggesting.

Rather, he was definitely requiring that Saul keep a 400-year-old promise made by his forefather, Joshua. God sorely punished Israel, and the whole nation had to endure a three-years famine for Saul's covenant-breaking zeal.

Is the PRCE seriously suggesting that God will hold us to a 350-year-old covenant made by our forefathers? Yes. What will Mr. Bacon and his children have to suffer before he admits his sin and repents?

Will his whole house have to suffer before he realizes his error? What will this covenant-breaking nation have to suffer before they mend their perfidious ways? God has not changed, and he will require us to pay our vows whether they were made in the 17th century or in 1997.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Galatians 3 .15 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord by God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exodus 20 verse 7 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord by God, thou shalt not slack to pay it. For the Lord by God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

Deuteronomy 23 verses 21 and 22 D. Who are the posterity referred to in the covenants? Since Mr. Bacon claims that he is not intrinsically bound by these everlasting covenants, it is very important to answer this question.

Who were the posterity to whom the covenanters intended this everlasting covenant to apply? Are we in Canada and the United States included in these everlasting covenants with God? This is settled beyond all doubt when the General Assembly says that they originally intended to swear an everlasting covenant for settling and preserving peace in all His Majesty's dominions.

Obviously, this raises yet another question. Who were included among the dominions of Charles I or Charles II at the time this covenant was sworn? Canada and the United States were part of His Majesty's dominions when the covenant was sworn, and consequently, we are morally and formally bound to own, renew, and adopt these everlasting covenants.

The Covenants and Britain's American Dominions

I would like to thank Pastor Greg Price for allowing me to use the following draft from his forthcoming book entitled, A Peaceable Plea for Worldwide Protestant Unity, in response to this particular question.

And Mr. Price's quotation begins here, and it extends for several pages. Since we acknowledge that we are the individual, ecclesiastical, and national posterity of the covenanted kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, we confess it to be our solemn duty not only to own the obligation of the national covenant and the solemn legion covenant, but also to renew as a public testimony our sworn duty to these covenants as God's people.

For the sake of any who would question that those individuals and families of British descent, or those churches that have descended from the Presbyterian churches of the Second Reformation in Great Britain, or those nations, colonies, or territories that have directly descended from Great Britain, are morally and formally bound by these solemn covenants, we offer the following brief testimony.

1. The Westminster Assembly, the Church of Scotland, and the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland swore the solemn legion covenant on behalf of not only their living posterity, but also on behalf of all their individual, ecclesiastical, and national posterity for all ages to come.

Quote, we noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the gospel, and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of God, living under one king, and being of one reformed religion, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn legion covenant, whereby we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the Most High God, do swear, we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavor that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace of union to all posterity.

That's from the solemn legion covenant. A. Notice who the all posterity, as mentioned in the solemn legion covenant, includes in a letter written by the Westminster Assembly and sent to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1644.

Quote,. Those winds which for a while do trouble the air, do with all purge and refine it, and our trust is that through the most wise providence and blessing of God, the truth by our so long continued agitations will be better cleared among us, and so our service will prove more acceptable to all the churches of Christ, but more especially to you, while we have an intentive eye to our peculiar protestation, and to that public sacred covenant, that is the solemn legion covenant, entered into by both the kingdoms, and Mr. Price notes, Ireland is not formally omitted here, but is omitted only because this English Assembly is addressing the Scottish General Assembly.

That is entered into both kingdoms, both the kingdoms, for uniformity in all his majesty's dominions. That's taken from the Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, pages 231 and 232.

B. Not only did the Westminster Assembly understand the all posterity bound by the solemn legion covenant to be all his majesty's dominions, but the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland also officially declared the same to be true in their letter, 1648, to Charles I.

Quote,. As we do not oppose the restitution of your majesty to the exercise of your royal power, so we must needs desire that that which is God's be given unto him in the first place, and that religion may be secured before the settling of any human interest, being confident that this way is not only most for the honor of God, but also for your majesty's honor and safety.

And therefore, as it was one of our desires to the High and Honorable Court of Parliament that they would solicit your majesty for securing of religion and establishing the solemn legion covenant in all your dominions, and Mr. Price notes, the solemn legion covenant having been sworn and made law by the Parliaments of England and Scotland, it was required that Charles I swear to establish it and to enforce it in all his dominions before he would be allowed to exercise his royal authority.

And again, that's from the Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, page 439. C. Fondly, observe that not only did these ecclesiastical bodies, namely the Westminster Assembly and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, interpret the all-posterity bound by the solemn legion covenant to be those who lived within the bounds of all his majesty's dominions, but it was likewise interpreted to be the case by the Parliament of Scotland, February 17, 1649.

Furthermore, this Parliament identifies the national covenant and the solemn legion covenant to be laws that constitute the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, which cannot be made null and void.

Quote,. As likewise the manifold Acts of Parliament, the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, anent or concerning the king's oath at his coronation, which, judging it necessary that the prince and people be of one perfect religion, appointeth that all kings and princes, at the receipt of their princely authority, solemnly swear to observe in their own persons and to preserve the religion as it is presently established and professed, and rule the people committed to their charge according to the will of God revealed in his word and the lovable constitutions received within this kingdom, and do sundry other things which are more fully expressed therein, and withal pondering their manifold solemn obligations to endeavor the securing of religion and the covenant before and above all worldly interests.

Therefore they do enact, ordain, and declare that before the king's majesty, who now is, that is, Charles II, or any of his successors shall be admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall buy and attour the foresaid oath, that is, the coronation oath, assure and declare by his solemn oath under his hand and seal his allowance of the national covenant and of the solemn legion covenant and obligations to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling, and that he shall consent and agree to acts of Parliament establishing Presbyterian church government, the directory for worship, confession of faith, and catechisms, as they are approved by the General Assembly of this Kirk and Parliament of this kingdom, in all his majesty's dominions, and that he shall observe these in his own practice and family, and that he shall never make opposition to any of these or endeavor any change thereof, and that's from John Thorburn's Vindiciae Magistratis, or the Divine Institute, excuse me, Institution and Rite of the Civil Magistrate Vindicated, page 67.

Naturally, since both of the kingdoms of England and Ireland in their national and ecclesiastical capacity also swore the solemn legion covenant in 1643, the solemn legion covenant legally became a necessary element of the fundamental constitution of those kingdoms in all his majesty's dominions as well.

The United States and Canada as Covenanted Posterity

Two, is it possible to know which nations were solemnly bound as the all-posterity by the solemn legion covenant and thus included in all his majesty's dominions? Clearly, it was all the subjects and the dominions under the crown of Great Britain, including the United States and Canada, both of which were then designated as the dominions in America.

The first colonial charter issued by the English crown, 1606, was for the settlement of Jamestown in Virginia. Here it is noted that the colony of Virginia is declared to be one of the king's dominions as much as any other royal dominion, and its members are considered by James I, I believe that should be James VI, to have the same rights as those living in the realm of England.

Quote, it provided that all persons being our subjects, that is subjects of the crown of England, which shall dwell and inhabit within any of the said colonies and plantations, and every one of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the limits and precincts of the said several colonies and plantations, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises, and immunities within any of our other dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within this our realm of England, or any other of our said dominions.

And that is cited by Clarence Carson in Basic American Government, page 126. B. In 1663, Charles II granted a charter to eight English gentlemen who had helped him regain the throne of England. The charter document contains the following description of the territory, then designated Carolina, which the eight Lord's proprietors were granted title to.

Quote, all that territory or tract of ground situate lying and being within our dominions in America. And that was cited on the worldwide web page entitled State Library of North Carolina. C. On November 11, 1743, at Middle Octorara, Pennsylvania, Reformed Presbyterians, under the leadership of Reverend Alexander Craighead, renewed the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant.

They did so because they realized the colonies in America were His Majesty's dominions, as referred to by the Westminster Assembly, the General Assembly, the Church of Scotland, and the Parliament of Scotland, see above.

And they also realized that they were a constituent part of the all-posterity included in the Solemn League and Covenant. Therefore, they were bound to own and to renew these covenants as God provided the occasion to do so in His wonderful providence.

Quote, There never was any nation, but the nation of the Jews and this realm. Note that these Reformed Presbyterians understood the colonies to be within the realm of Great Britain and therefore bound by the national covenants of Great Britain.

That's from Mr. Price. That were so highly honored as for the whole nation to enter into covenant with the Lord. And yet, alas, how little does the generality of this nation think of this unspeakable dignity?

How many slight it? Yea, how many look upon our national covenants as a yoke of bondage, as if it were a bondage to come under the most solemn vows imaginable, to appear for God and His cause and against His enemies?

That which our renowned forefathers gloried in as their greatest honor and happiness, we in this corrupt age do grievously despise, which discovers what base spirits we are of that delight more to be in league with the avowed enemies of God's glory than with himself.

And thus our holy covenants, National and Solemn League, discover themselves to be perpetual and of constant obligation upon this realm, including the colonies of America. Number one, by their being national in their nature as is plain from themselves, and so had the power of the nation to confirm them.

Two, by the terms of them, as appears from several sentences in the covenants. First, the national covenant towards the latter end of it, which is as follows. And finally, being convinced in our minds and confessing with our mouths that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable.

Again, we therefore faithfully promise for ourselves, our followers, and all under us, both in public and in our particular families and personal carriage, to endeavor to keep ourselves and so forth. Second, from the first paragraph in the Solemn League and Covenant, which is as follows.

That we and our posterity after us may as brethren live in faith and love and that the Lord may dwell, may delight to dwell in the midst of us. Third, that these covenants are perpetual and of a constant binding power over this realm is further evident by their agreeableness to the holy word of God.

That they are so, few who call themselves Presbyterians deny. Yea, we know of none that ever did or can prove them to be otherwise. And that's from Reverend Alexander Craighead's Renewal of the Covenants, pages 12 and 13.

D, it is certainly worthy of note that the faithful body of Reformed Presbyterians designated as the Reformed Presbytery of Scotland issued a public testimony entitled the Act Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation, which testimony was originally emitted in 1761, of the fact that in one of the dominions of His Majesty, namely Canada, Great Britain had violated its covenant obligations by permitting potpourri to be established as a religion within Quebec.

Canada, Popery, and Violated Covenant Obligations

This Reformed Presbyterian body, the Scottish heirs to the Covenanted Reformation, as articulated by the Westminster Assembly, clearly understood Canada, a dominion of Great Britain, to be bound by the same covenant obligations as was Great Britain herself.

Quote,. There has of late been a very singular instance of the same kind occurred, that is an instance of the exercise of tyrannical civil power, in the course of administration, which the Presbytery cannot forbear to take notice of, but must embrace the present opportunity to declare their sense of and testify against, and especially as it is one that carries a more striking evidence than any of the former of our public national infidelity and licentiousness and of our being judicially infatuated in our national councils and given up of heaven to proceed from evil to worse in the course of apostasy from the cause and principle of the Reformation.

We particularly mean the instance of a late Bill or Act which has been agreed upon by both houses of Parliament and which also, June 1774, was sanctioned with the Royal Assent entitled, An Act for Making More Effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America.

By which Act not only is French despotism or arbitrary power settled as the form of civil government, but which is still worse, Popery, the religion of Antichrist, with all its idolatries and blasphemies, as such security and establishment granted it, has to be taken immediately under the legal protection of the supreme civil authority of these nations in that vast and extensive region of Canada lately added to the British dominions of North America.

How disgraceful and dishonorable is this public act in favor of Popery, even to the nation itself and its representatives who are the authors of it? How palpably inconsistent is it with our national character and profession as Protestant, and with our national establishments civil and ecclesiastical, both which are professedly built upon Reformation from Popery, to come and to take that idolatrous religion under our national protection and become defenders of the anti-christian faith?

Nay, were it competent for the presbytery as a spiritual court and spiritual watchman to view this act in a civil light, they might show at large that it is a violation of the fundamental national constitutions of the kingdom, and, Pastor Price notes, the Solemn League and Covenant became a legal and necessary element of the fundamental constitution of Great Britain in 1643, and reaches a blow to the credit of the legal security granted to the Protestant religion at home.

We need not here mention how contrary this act is to the fundamental laws and constitutions of the kingdom of Scotland, and again, Pastor Price notes, refers us to what is said by the Parliament of Scotland concerning the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant being enacted as a legal and necessary element of the fundamental laws and constitution of that kingdom, which are now set aside, but it is contrary to, and a manifest violation of, the Revolution and British Constitution itself, contrary to the claim of right, yea, to the oath solemnly sworn by every English and British sovereign upon their accession to the throne, as settled by an act of the English Parliament in the first year of William III, by which they are obliged to profess and to the utmost of their power maintain in all their dominions, and Pastor Price notes here again, the Reformed Presbytery notes that Canada is within the dominion of Great Britain, in all their dominions the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the true Reformed religion established by law.

But these things the Presbytery leaves is such whom it may more properly concern. Let it, however, be observed that the Presbytery are not here to be interpreted as approving of the aforesaid oath, as it designedly obliges to the maintenance of the abjured English hierarchy and Popish ceremonies, which might better be called a true Reformed lie than the true Reformed religion.

Nevertheless, this being the British Coronation oath, it clearly determines that all legal establishments behoove to be Protestant, and that without a violation of said oath, no other religion can be under protection of law, but what is called the Protestant religion only.

That's from the Act Declaration and Testimony, pages 82 and 84. E. In a document written by Thomas Jefferson entitled, A Summary of the Rights of British America, the following brief reference to an act from King George III demonstrates that even those living in America understood they were a Dominion of His Majesty.

Quote,. One other act passed in the sixth year of his reign, that is George III's, entitled, An Act for the Better Securing Dependency of His Majesty's Dominions in America upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.

And that is from a worldwide web page. F. The following excerpts occur in the newspaper that Benjamin Franklin published in Philadelphia, that was the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, wherein reference is made to colonies in what is now Canada and the United States as being Dominions of the Crown.

Quote,. In considering of these questions, perhaps it may be of use to recollect that the colonies were planted in times when the powers of Parliament were not supposed so extensive as they are become since the Revolution.

That they were planted in lands and countries where the Parliament had not been the least jurisdiction. That, excepting the yet infant colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia, none of them were settled at the expense of any money granted by Parliament.

That the people went from hence by permission from the Crown, purchased or conquered the territory at the expense of their own private treasure and blood. That these territories thus became new Dominions of the Crown, settled under royal charters that formed their several governments and constitutions on which the Parliament was never consulted or had the least participation.

That's January 6, 1766, and again cited from the web page. Again, quoting Franklin, the colonies had from their first settlement been governed with more ease than perhaps can be equaled by any instance in history of Dominions so distant, February 1773.

National Descent and Individual Covenant Responsibility

We would further affirm that just as the lawful covenant of a father binds all his children presently living, as well as those yet to be born, why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother by profaning the covenant of our fathers, Malachi 2 .10?

Likewise, the lawful civil covenants of national parents bind their national progeny. For if one is willing to grant that the lawful covenant of a father can bind any of his descendants, he must be willing to grant that the same lawful covenant binds all of his descendants, for the same moral obligation that rests upon any one descendant rests upon all descendants.

Thus it follows that the United States and Canada, as nations, and all other national descendants of Great Britain, are children of Great Britain, and are bound by the lawful covenant, that is, the solemn legion covenant, of their national father solemnly sworn with uplifted hands to the living God in 1643, and renewed on various occasions in Scotland and the United States by Reformed Christians.

Samuel B. Wiley, 1773 -1852, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, noted the personal, ecclesiastical, and national obligations binding those living in America. He cogently responds to several objections raised concerning the formal obligations of covenants made by fathers on behalf of their posterity.

Objection 2. But these covenants, that is, the national covenant and the solemn legion covenant, for which you contend were only oaths of allegiance to Scotland and Britain, and consequently can have no obligation when you are removed to a foreign land.

Answer. It will be admitted that they were oaths of allegiance, but it was primarily to the governor of the universe and secondarily to the government. With respect to the first, let us examine whether any of those circumstances which can dissolve allegiance to God has actually taken place.

Allegiance may cease by any of the three following means. First, by the dissolution of the dynasty or government when things revert to an original state of nature. Second, by emigration, allegiance and protection being reciprocal when the latter is no longer necessary, the former, of consequence, ceases.

Third, by breach of the mutual compact on the part of the government. This compact, being necessarily involved in the relation between the governed and the governor, ceases to bind the former when violated and broken through the latter.

Has any of these things taken place to dissolve our allegiance to the supreme ruler? The oath of allegiance to the government of Britain, even were it morally constituted, however, ceases. And Pastor Price notes, because we have met the second condition mentioned above, namely that of emigration from Great Britain to another nation.

The conditions on which it was entered into no longer exist. Seeing we have emigrated from that country, the obligation, of course, is null and void. But our relation to God still remains the same. And even by that part of the covenant which respects allegiance to government, we hold ourselves still so far bound that, whenever we find legitimate rulers in the land where we live, we will consider the duty of subjection, for conscience' sake, not only as a moral duty required by the divine law, but also as a duty unto which we are bound by covenant.

Objection 3. But these covenants were local and required the performance only of local duties and consequently are not obligatory in other lands. Answer. The objection is virtually answered in removing the one immediately preceding, that is, Objection 2 just stated.

It is admitted there are local peculiarities connected with the substance of these covenants. For these local peculiarities we do not contend. In our terms of communion, adapted to existing circumstances in the United States, when recognizing the obligations of these covenants, we declare that, This obligation is not to be considered as extending to those things which are peculiar to and practicable only in the British Isles, but only to such moral duties as are substantially the same in all lands.

Whatever things in these bonds were of a circumstantial nature, as we have hinted above, may vary with the change of circumstances. But our relation to God is not a circumstantial or local thing. Love to God and our neighbor will still continue obligatory, though some circumstances connected with the expression and exercise of it may and often do vary.

Objection 5. These covenants were national and so have no obligation on individuals when they cease to be members of the national community who entered into them. Answer. Had the duties contained in these covenants been only of a temporary local or circumstantial nature, this objection would be relevant.

But we have endeavored above to show that these bonds contemplated the duties of the moral law which is obligatory upon all men. But here we might inquire, Of what is a nation composed? Is it not of individuals?

Can a nation be nationally bound and the individuals not be individually bound? To what is the nation nationally bound? Is it not to yield a cheerful obedience to all God's holy and divine commandments in their national character?

Is not the individual individually bound to do the same in his individual character? If he is thus bound in Britain, does the soil of Columbia loose him of all obligation to and make him independent of the moral governor?

In as far as this moral obligation is concerned, between national and personal covenanting, there is only a numerical difference. In the latter, one individual is personally bound. In the former, three, four, or five millions of individuals are personally bound.

If individuals are not personally bound, they are not bound at all. To talk of an individual being only nationally bound would be a solicism, that is an error, worthy of the greatest blunderer. And that's from Samuel B. Wiley's Sermon on Covenanting, pages 109 to 112.

Presbyterian Testimony to Perpetual Covenant Obligation

Reverend John Cunningham, a Reformed Presbyterian minister from Scotland, also drew attention to the perpetual obligation of the solemn league and covenant upon the nations and churches descending from Scotland, England, and Ireland.

Quote, being scriptural in its matter, and not yet implemented, and besides having been acquiesced in by the civil power, it, the solemn league and covenant, is to this day binding on the nations. To this day it binds the churches in the three kingdoms, the Church of Scotland, and all those who have seceded from it as an establishment, as well as those Presbyterians who never were connected with that church since the Revolution, and that's referring to the Revolution of 1689, in which William and Mary came to the throne of Britain.

That's from Cunningham's Ordinance of Covenanting, pages 374 and 375. The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, at its meeting in 1855, clearly elaborated the binding obligation of the national covenant and the solemn league and covenant upon the posterity in the United States.

Although the Reformed Presbyterian Church had, by this time, defected from some of the testimony of its forefathers, the Arkansas Renovation and the Act Declaration and Testimony as terms of communion, nevertheless it yet maintained at this point in time a faithful testimony to the binding obligation of these covenants.

Quote, these federal deeds, that is, the national covenant of Scotland and the solemn league and covenant of the three kingdoms, we hold to be moral in their nature and scriptural in their character, and that they descend with unabated obligation from the original covenanters to their posterity who were represented in the taking of them.

And whilst we abjure any fealty or subjection to the government of that nation with which they were originally connected, that is, Great Britain, we now joyfully own and take for ourselves the God-honoring and God-honored place for which such obligations impose as the priceless legacy of our pious ancestors whose faith we would follow and whose noble example we would imitate.

We approve, moreover, the devotion and faithfulness of our pious predecessors who, amidst weakness and reproach, from time to time renewed these sacred bonds and so contributed to perpetuate and transmit them to us, their posterity.

Deploying, therefore, the sin of the profane rejection of these covenants with subsequent widespread neglect, desiring to be free from any participation in its guilt, seeking to confirm our own souls in a godly purpose of devotion to the service of our God Most High, and to encourage all who shall follow us in our testimony to hold fast in His ways, we resolve to renew the national covenant and solemnly in covenant in all their obligations, not peculiar to the Church in the British Isles but applicable in all lands and essentially interwoven in the immutable law and word of our God.