George Paxton II.3

SECT. III.

OBJECTIONS TO THE NATIONAL COVENANT CONSIDERED.

---

1. “THESE covenants are only of men’s making, and therefore cannot be binding on posterity.” The objector allows that the covenant at Horeb embraced all the generations of Israel; but it was the “Covenant which the Lord God made with their fathers.” There is not the least mention of any covenant of their fathers which they broke. “Surely, there is a great difference between God making a covenant with, or covenant-grant to his church, when he gives them his laws, statutes, and ordinances, and including posterity therein, and men’s covenants, including posterity in like manner, under the New Testament.”

And is it indeed true that the covenanting under the Old Testament, consisted only in “God’s making a covenant with his people?” It consisted also in their entering into covenant with him. They did so in the very same manner that Christians do now. For, when Moses came and called for the elders of Israel, and laid before them all the words which the Lord commanded him, all the people answered together and said, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” Their reply is entirely equivalent to the church’s entering into covenant, according to his commandment under the New Testament. When this covenant was renewed at Jordan, the agency of the church is expressed in the strongest terms: “Ye stand this day all of you, before the Lord your God, that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day.—Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God†.” They are not simply received, nor is there a law simply issued; but God makes a covenant with his chosen Israel, and they enter into covenant with him. The same language is used in describing the future renovations of that covenant. In the reign of Asa, “they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers.” At the accession of Joash to the throne of David, “Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people‡.” In the days of Nehemiah, they “en-

_____

† Deut. xxvi.

‡ 2 Kings xi. 17.

[Page 82]

tered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law.” These instances clearly shew, that, if God was pleased to receive, Israel were active in making a covenant with him. Though God does not appear to us in the same visible manner, and issue his commandments with an audible voice, his call to enter into covenant with him, which is recorded in his word, is still more sure: and when the church, in obedience to his call, take hold of his covenant, according to the pattern shewed in the scriptures, it is as much the covenant he makes with us, as that of Horeb was the covenant he made with Israel.

But it will not serve the objector’s purpose, though it were admitted, that our covenants were only of men’s making. For a man’s covenant, which has been duly ratified, cannot be annulled by man. “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*.” It is insinuated that the covenants of our fathers are merely human. It is true, that the Forms which they used were composed by uninspired men; but, for the making and swearing of them too, they had the command of God. The Form which was used by Nehemiah was not given by inspiration, though it is recorded by the Spirit of God for our imitation; for we know of no Prophet who flourished at that time, nor of any special revelation, directing them to that duty. They were directed by the Book of the Law, and the expositions of Ezra the scribe: and yet the conduct of Israel in making and swearing that Form is commended by the God of heaven, and recorded to their everlasting honour. But the covenants of our Fathers were not human deeds in the sense of the objection. For no man, who reads them, can deny that the greater part of the matter is religious; their principal end and design was to promote religion, by binding the swearer to the performance of every duty he owes to God or man; and they were sworn to God, not by his name, like contracts merely human. But, if they had been no more than human contracts, are they, for this reason, to be set aside at the pleasure of men? The oath which Zedekiah, king of Judah, swore to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, was unquestionably as much of man’s making, as any person can pretend the oath of our covenants can be. Besides, it was extorted from him by the necessity of his circumstances. It subjected him and his people to a foreign yoke, which might seem contrary to the liberty that God had granted to his people. Zedekiah thinking, with the objector, that it was but a man’s covenant, and urged by many other plausible pretences, violated his engagements. But the treachery cost him dear. The Avenger of broken co-

_____

* Gal. iii. 15.

[Page 83]

venants declared his hot displeasure, in these terms, which every covenant despiser would do well to remember. “The king of Babylon hath taken of the king’s seed, and made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him.—But he rebelled against him, in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people: shall he prosper? shall he escape that doth such things? or, shall he break the covenant and be delivered? As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he brake, even with him in the midst of Babylon, he shall die. Seeing he despised the oath, by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things he shall not escape. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, as I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head*.” Those human covenants which were sworn only by God, and contained nothing but matters of an indifferent and secular nature, the Most High owns as his covenant, and swears that the perfidious monarch who dared to break it should not escape the deserved punishment; and will God disregard an oath which was sworn to him as the great Party, and contains matters of the highest and most indispensible necessity? Those who wish to sport with such engagements may read their doom in the sentence of a faithless people: “And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy†.”

2. The National Covenant is rejected by many, because it carries in its bosom the notion of a national church. It must be acknowledged that our fathers did not consider a national church as inconsistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the New Testament dispensation. But, it is obvious from their proceedings, that, though they believed it necessary to the prosperity of the Church to be enclosed and supported by civil laws, and that her members should exclusively enjoy all ecclesiastical and civil privileges; yet they by no means reckoned these essential. They did not, as some do now, suspend the performance of any one religious duty, upon the countenance and concurrence of the civil power. For they entered into covenant with God, long before they were a national church in any respect. They held more than thirty General Assemblies, before the King attended either in person or by his Commissioner. After the Reformation had obtained all the stability which human laws could give it, and when the countenance of

_____

* Ezek. xvii. 12, &c.

† Lev. xxvi. 19, 25.

[Page 84]

the civil power was eagerly sought, and greatly valued, our fathers often asserted the intrinsic power of the Church to regulate her own affairs; and, on many occasions, acted independent of the Court, and in direct opposition to its measures. Every one, acquainted with the history of our church knows, that, in the year 1596, the Assembly, having taken the state of the nation into consideration, appointed a day of public fasting, and renewed their covenant with the Lord, without any mandate from the King or Parliament. In the year 1638, the Assembly continued its sittings, after the Lord Commissioner had, in his Majesty’s name, dissolved it, and discharged its proceedings under pain of treason. But their sentiments will be best understood from the speech of the Moderator on this trying occasion. “All who are present,” said the great and good Mr. Henderson, “know how this assembly was indicted, and what power we allow to our Sovereign, in matters ecclesiastic: but though we have acknowledged the power of Christian kings for convening assemblies, and their power in them, yet that must not derogate from Christ’s right, for he hath given warrant to convocate assemblies, whether magistrates consent or not: therefore, seeing we perceive his Grace my Lord Commissioner to be zealous of his royal master’s commands, have not we as good reason to be zealous toward our Lord, and to maintain the liberties and privileges of his kingdom? You all know that the work in hand hath had many difficulties, and yet hitherto the Lord hath helped and born us through them all; therefore it becometh not us to be discouraged at our being deprived of human authority, but rather that ought to be a powerful motive to us to double our courage in answering the end for which we are convened*.” This address of the Moderator was followed by several others to the same purpose. Thus, they reckoned the countenance of civil authority useful, but not necessary. They desired it; but by no means depended upon it: and rather than suffer the least encroachment upon the kingdom of their Lord, they boldly encountered the greatest dangers. From this it appears, that the idea of a national church had a very slight hold of their belief and practice. But, allowing to the objection all its force, it can never cancel the obligation of their religious vows. For the church of Christ was still existing in the mixed and incorporated society, and in a state of such activity as to accomplish the purposes of its erection, the conversion and spiritual improvement of the chosen seed. This is granted by the ablest adversary that has appeared against incorporated churches in our times, or perhaps in any other. “We readily premise

_____

* Stev. Hist. p. 562. Vol. II.

[Page 85]

one concession,—That the kingdom of Christ hath always subsisted in national churches, ever since the age of the first incorporation. Mean while, by this concession it is only meant, that the church of Christ hath subsisted in these political churches, as a mass of oil remains in water, altogether unmixed and unincorporated with their mixed constitutions. The gospel of Christ hath been successfully preached, and the sacraments, with other institutions, have been edifyingly dispensed, in national churches*.” The same masterly writer adds, with great justice, in the same page; “These ordinances are blessed, and made the vehicles of heavenly influence, not as they are dispensed in incorporated churches, in virtue of a political appointment, by civil legislature; but in consequence of their being viewed by Christians as the institutions of Christ, claiming the attention of their minds, the subjection of their consciences, and the affection of their hearts, on the ground of divine authority alone.” If the institutions of Christ be still valid and beneficial in national churches, as Mr Graham allows and pleads for, and as no intelligent person can refuse; religious covenants must, for the same reason, be so too, and therefore their obligation is binding.

3. “In the National Covenant our fathers had respect to acts of Parliament.” This objection is nearly allied to the one we have just considered; and admits of nearly the same reply. The conduct of our fathers proved, that they did not consider these as essential, more than the presence of the King, or his Commissioner; but only additional securities. They were compelled to shelter themselves under these evanescent gourds, and to refer to them in their covenants, by the howlings of disloyalty, sedition, and treason, which their enemies raised against them on every side. But for this accustomed rant of tyrants, it is very probable such references had never sullied their solemn vows. Even in their circumstances, it would certainly have been more congenial to the New Testament dispensation to have declined the mention of human laws in their religious Forms; and to have taken some other method of vindicating the innocence of their intentions and proceedings.

But neither the idea of a national church, nor the reference to human laws, can vitiate or annul these covenants, even though they had been accounted absolutely necessary. To promote the reformation of religion, by every scriptural method, was their grand design; and is a duty enjoined in the Moral Law. The obligation of this summary duty never can cease, whatever erroneous, improper, or unnecessary articles were adopted, or mistaken views were entertained by the covenanter;

_____

* Graham on Civ. Est. p. 81.

[Page 86]

for it depends upon the obligation of the Moral Law, which is eternal and unchangeable.

4. Some are dissatisfied with this covenant, “because it contains an oath of allegiance to the government.” It is readily granted, that matters purely political ought not to be admitted into a religious covenant. But allegiance is a duty commanded in the word of God. “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work*.” All the duties of the second table, of which this is one, may, with perfect propriety, enter into the matter of a religious covenant; for a relative duty, rightly discharged, is an act of religion performed. When Nehemiah and his people renewed their covenant with the God of their fathers, they entered into a curse, and into an oath, to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord their God. After this general obligation, they proceed to enumerate some of the duties which their peculiar circumstances more loudly called them to observe†. This laudable and authorised example our fathers followed. The allegiance which they swore, does not stand in their Form as a co-ordinate article. They vowed obedience to the civil magistrate, chiefly, for the sake of religion; which is obvious from the words of the oath itself.

“And, because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our religion and kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King’s Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God’s mercy granted to this country, for the maintenance of his Kirk, and ministration of justice among us, we protest and promise with our hearts,—that we shall defend his person and authority—in the defence of Christ’s evangel,” &c. This oath of allegiance is properly limited, and agreeable to the dictates of scripture and right reason; and, therefore, such as any man might lawfully swear. It was necessary, at that time, to vindicate their designs and conduct from the foul aspersions of rebellion against the lawful authority of their Sovereign, with which their enemies were continually loading them.

This example was followed by the Independent Church of Salem, in New-England, in the year 1629, who inserted an oath of allegiance in their church-covenant, in these words; “We do promise to carry ourselves in all lawful obedience to those that are over us in church or commonwealth.” This clause in the New-England covenant, approaching nearer to the simplicity of the Apostle’s commandment to Titus, is more proper for a religious vow than the long detailed paragraph in the National Covenant. For, though we can see no reasonable objec-

_____

* Tit. iii. 1.

† Neh. x. 30, 31.

[Page 87]

tion to the principle, the latter is more proper for a civil oath than a religious covenant. It would have been exceedingly proper in a separate contract between the King and his subjects; and this, it is humbly conceived, would have answered the same purpose, and been, certainly, liable to fewer objections.

This idea of separate oaths seems to be countenanced in scripture. The civil affairs of Israel were long managed by the special direction of Heaven. To this extraordinary state of things the Mosaic institutions were confined. Therefore, when the people demanded a king, a new civil constitution was framed and ratified: Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord*. Israel were a covenanted people, and on many occasions renewed their religious vows; yet, at this important era, they contented themselves with settling the kingdom, according to its nature, by a civil contract. But, the most decisive instance occurs at the restoration of the monarchy, when Judah shook off the degrading yoke of Athaliah, the usurper of David’s throne, and recovered their freedom. 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†. Here there are plainly two distinct and separate covenants. In the first, the king and the people made a covenant with the Lord, that they should be the Lord’s people. In this covenant the king stood upon the same level with his subjects of every rank. He enters into covenant, but not as a king; for he does not engage to be Jehovah’s king, over his chosen Israel, but to be one of the Lord’s people. The purpose of the king and the people in entering into covenant is the same; and, therefore, they must have sustained the same character. As professing Christians they entered into covenant together, to be the Lord’s people.

But, besides this religious covenant, Jehoiada made a civil contract also, between the king and the people. In this, Joash acts as a king, the first magistrate of Israel; and they as his subjects. He engages to govern by law, for the good of his people; they promise to obey, to bear faithful and true allegiance to him, while he discharged his trust.

5. The celerity with which the National Covenant was subscribed, has exposed the Reformers to the charge of inconsiderate rashness. Religion and liberty, indeed, were dearer to them than life. In the preservation of these great blessings, they felt a lively interest, and were animated by an ardent and invincible zeal. Their public measures

_____

* 1 Sam. x. 26.

† 2 Kings xi. 17.

[Page 88]

were rapid and decisive, as their hearts were warm and energetic. But it will not follow, that they were, in general, ignorant and rash. The articles of their covenants were the constant theme of discourse, both in public and private life. The people listened to their ministers, they conversed with one another, they perused the writings of the day, with an avidity of which our languid minds can form but a very imperfect idea. By these means, the greater part, were ever in a state of actual preparation for the solemn duty of religious vowing. Daily experience proves, how soon even the mass of the people acquire a competent knowledge of any subject which interests them deeply, and is hourly discussed in their hearing. The accurate and extensive information in civil and religious matters, which enlightened the public mind, in those days, is acknowledged by Bishop Burnet himself*. But, though the ignorance and rashness of many among our covenanting fathers were as great as their enemies pretend, the obligation of their religious covenants remains unimpaired. If the matter of an oath be lawful, the swearer is bound to fulfil his engagements: the sinfulness of the manner cannot annul the obligation. Neither the deceit of the Gibeonites, nor the ignorance and rashness of the rulers of Israel, could excuse the violation of the league into which the congregation had been surprised. That inconsiderate engagement was binding upon Israel to the latest generation.

But, whatever blemishes may be found in this Form, we insist that there is a part of it, which is binding on us, and from which no authority nor circumstance whatever, can release these nations. The following articles may be specified.

“We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers and Commons under subscribing; Do hereby profess, and before God, his angels, and the world, solemnly declare, That with our whole heart we agree, and resolve, all the days of our life, constantly to adhere unto and to defend the foresaid true religion;—To labour by all lawful means to recover the purity and liberty of the gospel;—We promise and swear, by the great name of the Lord our God to continue in the profession and obedience of the foresaid religion: and that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation; and to the uttermost of that power which God hath put into our hands, all the days of our lives.”

“And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription we join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant with God: We therefore, faithfully promise, for ourselves,

_____

* Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times, Vol. I. p. 226.

[Page 89]

our followers, and all others under us, both in public, and in our particular families, and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian liberty; and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God and man.”

These articles are purely moral, and applicable to the church in all circumstances; and must meet the approbation of every person, who is not a decided enemy to the duty of covenanting. But some insist, that we must take the Form as it stands, and either adopt or reject it wholly. The principle of this strange assertion seems to be, That, if any part of an oath be wrong, the whole is unlawful. But this is not the doctrine of scripture. In the fifth chapter of Matthew, our Lord forbids the use of improper forms of swearing: “But I say unto you, swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his foot-stool.” But, in the twenty-third chapter, he severely rebukes the Pharisees for teaching that such oaths did not bind the conscience. “Wo unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple it is nothing,” it is not binding. Therefore, though we swear by a form which is expressly forbidden by God himself; yet, the Saviour declares that man guilty of perjury who fails to perform his oaths. God gave a commandment to the people of Israel utterly to extirpate the nations of Canaan: “I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into thine hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee: thou shalt make no covenant with them*.” Yet, they made peace with the Gibeonites, and promised, upon oath, to spare their lives: and the violation of this oath, after many ages, the God of truth avenged by signal judgments. These instances incontrovertibly prove, that both the form and the matter may be wrong, and yet the obligation of an oath may bind the conscience of the swearer, and descend with unabated force to his latest posterity. When the articles of an oath contradict the precepts of the Moral Law it is of no force; to take such an oath is sinful, and still more sinful to observe it. But when part of them are originally indifferent, simply improper, or duties clearly enjoined in the law of God, it is worse than absurd, to alledge, as some do, that such an oath can ever be annulled. That which is sinful can never vitiate what is eternally holy, just, and good. Therefore, when we grant that there were some things exceptionable both in the matter and manner of the National Covenant; they will by no means dissolve the obligation to perform those articles which are agreeable to scripture, and the dictates of right reason.

_____

* Exod. xxiii. 31, 32.