George Paxton II.5

SECT. V.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, FROM THE CHARACTER AND RULING PRINCIPLES OF OUR ANCESTORS.

---

TO disprove the lawfulness and obligation of our covenants, the principal actors, in the covenanting of the last century, are charged with being actuated only by carnal and political motives. The English Commissioners, it is said, had no other intention in agreeing to the proposal of a covenant for the reformation of religion, than to flatter a

[Page 93]

religious people whose friendship was then become necessary to the English Parliament.

To this objection we cannot reply with greater propriety than in the words of Mr Anderson. “However we may judge of the characters of particular persons by the views and motives (so far as we know them) with which they perform any duty, the nature of the duty itself must be discovered by other means. A wicked man will sometimes do an action which is materially good and commendable. Here we judge the matter of the action to be good in opposition to the general character of the man who does it, on account of its conformity to the law of God, the only rule of duty. In like manner we are to examine how far the covenanting of our ancestors was conformable to the word of God; how far it was a public acknowledgment of the Lord as our God; how far it was an engagement to cleave to his truths and ways; how far, in fine, it tended to the glory of God and the good of the church: so far, and no farther, ought we to approve of it; so far should we consider ourselves as having covenanted in the loins of our fathers; so far in the account of God’s word, the vow of our fathers is ours, and we are as much bound as they were to pay that vow to the Lord. If our fathers went about public covenanting as a religious duty in a manner agreeable to the word of God, it is absurd, in that case, to suppose that the political views of any that joined in it, would change its whole nature, and render it a merely political transaction. After all, it is not remembered that there is any proof of the charge implied in the objection, to hinder us from considering it as a base aspersion on the memory of our ancestors.”

“That the Scots were more ready to assist the English when they saw them engaged in the same covenant of religion and reformation with themselves, is true: but it does not follow the covenanting of the English was “a mere political stratagem.” We cannot always judge, with any degree of certainty, of the nature or moral quality of actions from the occasions or consequences of them. Suppose a very wicked person, having occasion for the friendship of a good man, forsakes his vices and engages in a virtuous course of life; from the circumstance alone of his needing at such a time the friendship of the good man, we could not certainly conclude all his reformation to be a mere pretence.”

“Why should we blame either the English or the Scots for what they did in this matter? What did the Scots do to deserve our censure? Why, when the English desired their assistance, they put the English in mind of their obligations to the God of heaven, and ad-

[Page 94]

vised them to perform a scriptural duty; a duty which was peculiarly calculated to promote zeal and unanimity in the cause wherein they were then engaged. And what did the English Parliament do to deserve our censure? They did what was plainly their duty: they complied with the Christian admonitions of the Scots: a compliance which, far from being blameable, was worthy of great commendation; for a society, as well as an individual, that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.”

“We may farther observe, that in subordination to the glory of God and the good of the church, it was by no means unlawful, in framing such a league, to have regard to the political welfare of both nations. The scripture proposes our temporal welfare as an encouragement to religious duties. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth†. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep‡. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit§. For he that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile||. Our temporal welfare then may well be a subordinate motive to the practice of a religious duty: and our ancestors were by no means blameable for having an eye, in their covenanting, to the preservation of their civil rights and liberties.”

2. It is objected “that our fathers were of intolerant principles, as appears from the disputes between the Presbyterians and the Independents in the long Parliament, and in the Westminster Assembly.”

The Covenanters certainly did not understand the liberal and rational principle of negative Toleration, which allows every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without interruption, or loss of personal rights, while he holds no opinion, and teaches no doctrine, which, in its own nature and necessary tendency, is plainly destructive of common order in society, and while he demeans himself as a good and peaceable citizen¶. But, they “counted themselves obliged

_____

* Prov. xii. 15.

† Mat. v. 5.

‡ 1 Cor. xi. 30.

§ Ja. v. 14,—18.

|| 1 Pet. iii. 10.

¶ The Power of the civil Magistrate in matters of religion, according to the principles of the Secession from the beginning, “Is cut out by, and lies within the compass of natural principles.” Therefore, when he acts in character, it is only as a civil head. Though it is his duty to judge for himself, he has no right to controul the

[Page 95]

obliged in conscience to give the King, ever in church matters, an inspection, a vindication, a sanction, by way of law, a compelling by way of force, churchmen to their duties, a calling of councils, a chief place

_____

[continued from page 94] Rulers of the Church, in the discharge of their respective duties. While they are amenable to him in civil matters, in things of a heavenly and spiritual nature, they are accountable to Christ alone. He has a right to review the proceedings of civil courts; but not the spiritual deeds of ecclesiastical. Supernatural religion is not entrusted to his care; though the liberty of professing it, which is a natural and unalienable privilege, certainly is. It belongs to his office to defend the members of the church, in the free and public exercise of the gospel, against all who would interrupt them: and, in this manner, Kings are nursing fathers, and Queens nursing mothers to the Church. But those religions which are contrary to the light of nature, hostile to that obedience to the civil Magistrate which reason demands, and incompatible with the free exercise of the personal right of others to worship God according to their conscience, it is his duty to destroy by all the means in his power. For no person has a right to profess a religion which destroys the rights of others. To him belongs the right of removing every obstruction to the free and uncontrouled exercise of every personal right, whether it relates to civil or religious matters. While he defends the personal rights, the life, liberty, and property of peaceable and good subjects, so far from giving any positive encouragement to those teachers whom he believes to be erroneous and corrupt, and to the errors and corruptions which they disseminate, it is his duty to discourage them as much as possible, consistently with the preservation of their natural rights; for it would be absurd and wicked to encourage as a Magistrate, what he cannot in conscience believe and practice as a Christian. While he leaves those who dissent from the church, of which he is a member, in the full enjoyment of their personal rights, he may justly refuse to employ them in places of power and trust, and is entitled to bestow such favours upon those whose sentiments, in every respect, are most congenial with his own. For, as all men cannot be born to rule, no person has a natural claim to be employed in places of power and trust in the civil community. He may not only refuse to employ them, but he has a right, and it is his duty, to cast them out of those employments, when there is just ground to suspect that they would employ the power and emoluments of office to destroy the liberties of their country. It is a duty which he owes to society, to restrain, by positive-laws, every open transgression of the Second Table of the Moral Law: and as many violations of the First Table, as Atheism, blasphemy, the denial of a future state of rewards and punishments, perjury, cursing, swearing, and open vexatious breaches of Sabbath, not only disturb the peace, but, many of them, sap the very foundations of civil society, he has a right to enact laws against these crimes, and put them in vigorous execution.

[]

[Page 96]

in them, and a great respect to their voice*.” They believed that it was the duty of the supreme Magistrate, with the assistance of the Church and her censures, by his coactive power, to force and oblige all his subjects to embrace the Reformation, and conform to the true worship and sound doctrine and discipline of the church; and maintained, that, “though it be the sinful practice of the church of Rome to force men and women to be of their religion; which is superstitious and idolatrous; yet it is not so to others, who have the true religion among them†.” Upon these principles they too frequently acted. For, in the year 1560 the Scottish Parliament passed an

_____

[continued from page 95] a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. All this is competent to the civil Powers, and incumbent upon them as the guardians of the natural rights belonging to themselves and others, without overstepping the bounds of their civil office, encroaching upon the peculiar business of the church, or infringing the liberty of any man’s conscience. Laws of this kind may, with perfect propriety, be enforced with civil pains and punishments, as a transgression of them would be a palpable breach of the peace. Nor can the due execution of such penalties offer any injury to liberty of conscience; for no man can pretend conscience for injuring his neighbour. The civil Magistrate may also grant the church as a society, in common with other societies, the privilege of being viewed and acknowledged in law as an individual. And, in fine, the Magistrate, as every other man, is bound to exercise his office in subordination to the glory of God, and the interests of religion. As the Rulers of the Church have no right to interfere in civil affairs, but only as they respect conscience; Magistrates have no right to interpose in spiritual matters, but as they respect the peace and safety of the commonwealth.

But he is to be considered as a Christian as well as a Magistrate. The Christian who holds the reins of Government in the civil community, has a right, as well as the other members of the Church, to require the meeting of Synods, to be present at them, and exert his utmost care; that whatsoever is transacted in them, be according to the mind of God, and may advise with them as often as he finds it necessary. It is his duty to exhibit, in his own person and family, an example of sobriety, righteousness, and godliness, bright as the civil station he holds is conspicuous. Instead of honouring, with his familiarity or friendship, the avowed adversaries of religion; his delights should be placed with the tried friends of Truth and Reformation. To the Rulers of the Church he ought to yield the same meek and cheerful submission in religious matters, as he expects and requires from them in civil affairs; and to excite and animate her members to be stedfast and immoveable in the faith of Christ. All this power is fully consistent with liberty of conscience. It leaves the Church, of which the Magistrate is a member, in full possession of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and Dissenters, of all their natural rights. See more largely Morison and Graham.

* Baillie’s Lett. Vol. I. p. 115.

† D. Dickson’s Truth’s Vict. And this he gives as the very sense of those passages in the Confession of Faith, which treat of the Magistrate’s power in matters of religion: and he was surely better qualified to give the real meaning of the compilers than any in our times.

[Page 97]

an act “for punishment of the sayers and hearers of mass, with imprisonment for the first transgression, banishment for the second, and death for the third. It would seem that the pains of this last named transgression, have been thought somewhat too severe; for though there have been many instances of persons punished for idolatry, with imprisonment, and banishment, we know of none who were put to death on that account*.” It was proposed to punish those who preached, wrote, or published, against the Confession of Faith, for the third offence, with the loss of all their goods, and perpetual imprisonment. Of this intolerance Mr Samuel Rutherford, one of the greatest and best men of his time, feelingly complains. “Our work in public,” says that distinguished covenanter, “was too much in sequestration of estates, in fining and imprisoning, more than in a compassionate mournfulness of spirit toward those whom we saw oppose the work of God.” Such unrighteous laws and proceedings we will by no means defend.

But why should intolerance be charged upon the Covenanters, as if it were their peculiar crime? Were the clamours of prejudice stilled, and the voice of reason and history allowed to be heard, our fathers will be found more indulgent to Dissenters, and more favourable to genuine liberty of conscience, than any of the great religious societies which disputed with them the palm of victory. While a deluge of innocent blood was shed by the churches of England and of Rome, not a single person lost his life by the sword of the Covenanters, for his religious profession. Even the Independents themselves, the great advocates of unbounded liberty, and the admiration of the modern adversaries to the covenanted reformation, were as great enemies to the rights of conscience, and guilty of as unjustifiable severities as any class of men. The leaders of that religious sect, in the Assembly at Westminster, held the opinion, that the excommunicated, if they continued impenitent, were to be delivered into the hands of the civil Magistrate to be punished according to their desert. This was not a speculative opinion, but a principle upon which they acted. At the very time they were pleading for unbounded liberty at home, they were treating the Presbyterians in New-England with the utmost rigour. Not a single dissenter was permitted to live there. Whoever presumed to worship God, in separate congregations, let their life and doctrine be ever so pure, were delivered up to the civil Magistrate to be punished with banishment, perpetual slavery, or death itself†. At home, before one law passed in favour of Presbytery, before the question of Toleration

_____

* Stev. Hist. Vol. I. p. 107.

† Baillie’s Lett. Vol. I. p. 439. Vol. II. p. 4, 17, 18.

[Page 98]

was debated either in the Assembly or Parliament, and consequently, before they could know what degree of liberty was to be granted to those who could not join with the Presbyterian church, they had actually formed and were endeavouring, by various methods, to execute the plan of dissolving the union of the three nations, of abolishing the house of Lords, of dividing the house of Commons, of filling the city and the provinces with intestine wars, and of setting up themselves and Cromwell their idol, upon the ruins of the laws and liberties of their country*. The religious sentiments of many Independents were as wild as their political principles were despotic and cruel. Mr Williams and his followers maintained, “That there is no church, no sacraments, no pastors, no church-officers nor ordinances in the world, nor have been since a few years after the Apostles.” And, because the Presbyterians refused to grant a toleration, by act of Parliament, to the avowed enemies of their country, who were already conspiring to wreathe the yoke of unqualified despotism about the neck of their fellow-citizens, they are represented by many as the basest of men.

As the Toleration which the Independents demanded was inconsistent with the safety of civil and religious liberty, so it was both wicked and absurd. A positive Toleration, is no less contrary than persecution itself, to the liberal principle on which we plead for a negative toleration, the only one which is agreeable to right reason. The principle is this, That though the Magistrate is bound to consult, in all his proceedings, the glory of God and the interests of religion; yet, it does not belong to his office to judge in matters of revealed religion, nor to interfere with the right of private judgment, which is natural, common, unalienable, and sacred. But the positive Toleration of the Independents, supposes that the Magistrate, having established one Religion as the true, is to sit in judgment on other religions, and having pronounced them to be false and wrong, is, however, to tolerate, or rather to give them countenance, under the very consideration of their being false and wrong religions.

While they were employing the sword of the civil Magistrate, to punish Dissenters from their churches, in New-England, finding him in Britain less complying, they strenuously denied that he had any right to restrain the religious doctrines, profession, and life of any person, however erroneous and vile, if he did not disturb the public peace by seditious or wicked practices. According to this sentiment, the doctrine, profession, and life of the Atheist, of the Papist, and some others, which, in their very nature and necessary tendency, are destructive of common

_____

* Baillie’s Lett. Vol. II. p. 66, 76, 77.

[Page 99]

order in society, must not only be endured, contrary to the great law of self-defence, but be favoured with the countenance and encouragement of the civil Magistrate. But with this extravagant demand the Independents were not satisfied; they insisted that Dissenters of every description, be put upon the same footing with the other members of society, whose dearest rights and privileges, many of them were straining every nerve to destroy. Had the Covenanters yielded to these absurd and deceitful claims, they would have acted wickedly before God, in giving positive countenance to what they believed was morally wrong; they would have acted the part of children and fools to themselves and their posterity, in surrendering their civil and religious rights into the hands of their open and implacable foes. What had they to expect from Papists, after the bitter experience of more than a hundred years, and the recent instance of the Irish massacre, one of the most tragical scenes those enemies of God and man had ever exhibited? What had they to expect from Episcopalians who had joined the Papists in arms against their country, and were laying waste their possessions with fire and sword; were murdering their relations, ravishing their wives, and committing every excess*. Who, or where is he that will entrust his bloody and irreconcileable enemy with all that he reckons dear in this world? Where is the man that does not try to disarm the robber, and put it out of his power to do farther injury?

While we do not plead that our fathers were never actuated by narrow and intolerant principles, never betrayed into acts of undue severity, this we will assert, that making reasonable allowance for their long and accumulated distresses, their fearful dangers, their severe losses, their immeasurable provocations†, and for the unavoidable infirmities of human nature, the diligent and candid inquirer will find them better acquainted with the rights of conscience, and greater enemies to persecution, than any of their opponents. But though their principles and conduct had been as violent and sanguinary as their enemies represent, this circumstance could by no means invalidate the obligation of their solemn vows to maintain and promote the religion of Christ.

3. The enemies of the Solemn League and Covenant represent the Reformers “as a set of wild enthusiasts;” which they endeavour to prove from the fervour and length of their devotional exercises, from the high spiritual attainments to which they laid claim, and from their inflexible perseverance in the cause of reformation.

_____

* Baillie’s Lett. Vol. II. p. 116.

† Ibid. p. 162.

[Page 100]

That there might be enthusiasts among the Covenanters is granted, and that the coolest and the best among them, might, at times, be under the partial influence of an enthusiastic spirit, none who attend to the infirmities of human nature, will deny. But where is the proof, that the great body, or any part of the nation in those days were habitual enthusiasts? Fervent devotions are, surely, no indication of enthusiasm; for, then, a greater enthusiast than David, the sweet singer of Israel, never existed. Where shall we find more fervent aspirations of soul than his? And yet, they have obtained the unequivocal seal of Heaven’s approbation, and are recorded in the Book of Psalms for our learning, by the direction of the Spirit. Neither is the length of religious exercises any infallible mark of enthusiasm; for our Lord spent his days in preaching to the people, and many of his nights in prayer to his Father. Our fathers laid claim to high religious attainments, but they were agreeable to scripture and the dictates of right reason. Their fellowship was with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. Their attainments were great; but not greater than those of the Prophets, Apostles, and holy men, whose intercourse with God is described, with approbation, in the unerring oracles of Heaven. The conduct of our fathers betrayed no symptom of an enthusiastic spirit. They believed that they contended for the cause of God and truth, and that they were favoured with his approbation and support. But this faith was not enthusiastic; for, instead of relaxing their diligence, or driving them into fanciful extremes, it stirred up persons of all ranks to unexampled purity of life, and activity in the service of God, according to the scriptures. These very things, indeed, have fixed the stigma of enthusiasm upon them; and no regard to scripture, nor the conduct of inspired or holy men will remove it, in the opinion of their adversaries. Let us try them, then, by a rule to which there can be no objection. It will be granted by all, that persons may be frantic enthusiasts in one cause, and in every other sober and reasonable. But if the Covenanters were enthusiasts, they were enthusiasts for civil as well as for religious liberty. If uncommon fervour of mind, if diligent application, if inflexible perseverance, and high pretensions be sufficient to prove them enthusiasts in religion, they must be equally sufficient to prove them enthusiasts in the cause of freedom. It is well known that religion and liberty were inseparably conjoined through the whole of their arduous struggle. But their contendings for civil liberty will be found perfectly agreeable to reason. They prepared the means of defence with foresight, intelligence, and vigour. Every precaution was taken to consolidate their union; large sums of money were raised; arms

[Page 101]

were provided in abundance; troops were levied and carefully trained to the use of arms; officers of tried valour and great experience were chosen to lead their armies; and the chief command was given to General Leslie, a man of consummate abilities in the art of war. So wise, firm, and just, were the measures of these hair-brained enthusiasts, that Charles was completely foiled, and obliged to grant them all their demands. Was this the conduct of wild enthusiasts? Are not these the means which the wise and brave, in all ages, have employed for their defence. What other could their enemies rationally propose;—and yet, these are the men who must be branded with the odious epithet of gloomy and frantic enthusiasts!

4. Their proceedings have been represented as “unconstitutional, illegal, and rebellious.”

This is the common cant of Tyrants. The Samaritans insisted that the covenanters in the days of Nehemiah, were rebels against the king of Persia. Nero and Trajan, Roman emperors, however opposite in character, agreed in finding the covenanting Christians enemies to the state. Under the same hackneyed pretence, the bloody house of Savoy, with unparalleled barbarity, rooted out the Evangelical churches in the vallies of Piedmont. This weapon of Antichrist, the friends of passive obedience and non-resistance, have turned against our ancestors and their religious covenants. But to this charge of ignorance and malice, the royal cares of Charles I. have provided us with a triumphant reply. In the year 1638, his Majesty gave orders to his Council to consult the most eminent and least suspected of the Scots lawyers concerning the legality of the Covenanters’ proceedings, in assembling without his authority, protesting against the proclamation of his royal will and pleasure, and entering into covenant without his command and concurrence. Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate, with —— Nicolson and Sir Lewis Stewart of Blackhall, being accordingly consulted, gave their opinion, “That the most part of the Covenanters’ proceedings were warranted by law: and that, though in some things they seemed to have exceeded, yet there was no express law against them*.”

Their proceedings were as loyal, as they were constitutional, legal, and dutiful. In their Covenants, they renounced, in the most solemn manner, all disloyal intentions, and all desire to attempt the least diminution of the King’s just and lawful authority. To defend the King’s person and maintain his rights, was one of the reasons that they entered into their oath and covenant. In the forms which they used on these occasions, they expressed their detestation of all rebellion; they swore

_____

* Stev. Hist.

[Page 102]

to be examples of godliness, righteousness, and of every duty which they owed to God or man. They engaged to maintain religion according to the tenor of the larger confession, which was approven by all the Scottish Parliaments since the Reformation. The 29th article of that confession relates to the magistrate, and affirms, “that all who would take away, or trouble the state of our civil policy, now established, to be no less than enemies of mankind, and fighters against the manifest word of God; that all who are in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in the highest estimation, because they are God’s vicegerents; God sits in their thrones; and to Princes God himself has given the sword; and that all who resist authority, resist the authority of God, and so cannot be innocent before God.” By this covenant they considered themselves bound to maintain their King in all cases which scripture, reason, and the laws and customs of the kingdom required*. Their obligation to mutual defence in promoting religion and liberty, against all persons whatsoever, by no means convicts them of disloyalty; for this article is perfectly agreeable to the Scottish laws. The forty-seventh act of the third Parliament of James VI. ordains, That all faithful subjects promise to maintain to the uttermost of their power, all the preachers and professors of the gospel, “against all gainstanders whatsoever.” This mutual defence, commanded in our standing laws, is more absolute than the defence expressed in our covenants; for in the latter, to prevent mistakes, two limitations are inserted; one of which is, that the protection promised to the professors of the gospel is not only in maintaining the true religion, but also his Majesty’s just and legal authority†.

From these sentiments they never departed. While like men, and like Christians, they insisted upon full security for their civil and religious rights, they defended the unhappy Charles, against Cromwell and the Independents, to the utmost of their power. All their thoughts and endeavours were directed to peace with the Court; and they neglected no opportunity of obtaining it, and left no proper means untried. After the King had fled to the Scots army and was fully in their power, they still treated him with the affection and respect which were due to his rank. The General Assembly replied to his letter in the dignified but cordial language of genuine loyalty. The Scottish nobles, on their knees, entreated his assent to the propositions for peace, presented by the English Parliament. They were prepared, upon his giving them this necessary and reasonable satisfaction, to have exposed their lives, and all that was dear to them in this world, for the preserva-

_____

* Stev. Hist. Vol. II. p. 280.

† Ibid. p. 291.

[Page 103]

tion of his person, honour, and happiness, against all opposition. When he determined to leave them, and put himself into the hands of the English, the Scottish Parliament again sent Commissioners, praying him, with all earnestness and humility, to grant them peace and security, and promising, on that condition, to support his throne to the last extremity. Disappointed in their just demands, they consented to his desire and the vote of the English Parliament, for his going to London, on the express condition that there should “be no harm, prejudice, injury, or violence, done to his person, authority, and family.” After many other testimonies of loyalty from the General Assembly, from their Commission, and from the Parliament of Scotland, both church and state, still panting for a reconciliation with the King, and shocked at the violent and illegal conduct of the Independents, in bringing him to the Tower, and appointing him to be tried for his life, instructed their Commissioners to use their utmost endeavours to save him. In the mean time, the whole body of the English Presbyterians who remained faithful to their covenant, ministers, and people, appeared in his favour, by a petition and representation to the Junto of the English Parliament, and then by a bold remonstrance to his Judges. The Scots Commissioners, according to their instructions, did, on the 6th of January 1649, in name of the kingdom of Scotland, present an energetic remonstrance to the Junto against their proceedings. Finding their remonstrance ineffectual, they sent to the Speaker of the house of Commons, in the name of the people of Scotland, their solemn protest against the King’s prosecution. Not content with this, they wrote to General Fairfax, in hopes that he would interpose to save his Sovereign from the impending stroke. When the Parliament of Scotland received the certain intelligence of his execution, they proclaimed his son Charles II. and sent a copy of their Act and Proclamation to their Commissioners at London, with a remonstrance to the Junto against the King’s death. This statement demonstrates the loyalty, integrity, and uprightness of the Scottish and English covenanters: and when their inviolable attachment is contrasted with the insolent despotism, the puerile frowardness, and stupid infatuation of Charles, it will not be easy to find a parallel either in ancient or modern times. In fine, to those who are still disposed to reproach them with rebellion, we reply, that they were just such rebels as placed William III. and afterwards the house of Hanover on the throne of these kingdoms: and if they were rebellious and disloyal, the present family, whom this nation chose to fill the vacant throne, must be usurpers, and obedience to them, continued rebellion.

[Page 104]

5. Our Covenants were enjoined “under civil penalties.” It is granted, that the Covenants, in a religious view, could not be enforced by civil pains; for the weapons of the Church’s warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. But there are some duties in these obligations, as subjection to magistrates, and mutual support in the free and peaceable enjoyment of their rights, which may be justly enforced in that manner. The invasion of these privileges is a palpable breach of the peace; and when gentle methods fail, every man will allow, that the public tranquillity must be maintained by force. The perilous circumstances in which our fathers were placed, imperiously required them to support one another, in defending their just rights against the violent and undisguised attacks of their enemies. Their All was at stake; the liberty and property of themselves and their children; and it was their duty, by their union, their vigilance, and activity, to save them or perish. To enforce this mutual defence, under all civil pains, was no imposition upon conscience, as some pretend; for there was no difference of opinion among the various denominations of Protestants, concerning the lawfulness of every article in these covenants. The enemies of civil and religious liberty disapproved of them, only because they opposed their arbitrary and tyrannical designs. As a proof of this, the malignant party were, every one, ready to swear the National Covenant; nay, even Charles I. positively required his subjects to swear it. And he objected to the Bond, in which our ancestors renewed that covenant, because it was an application of it, to the evils which he was then attempting to force upon church and state. The only objection which the enemies of civil and religious liberty had against the Covenants was, that they would not allow them to impose upon their fellow-subjects;—and where was the harm in obliging them, under all civil pains, to swear that they would abstain from hurting their neighbour? Is it an imposition upon any man’s conscience to hinder him from imposing upon the consciences of others?

The Act, June 11. 1640, enjoining the Covenants, under all civil pains, seems to have been far more limited in its operation, agreeable to reason, and the established practice of free states, than many are willing to believe. Those who refused to take the Covenant were never punished, by this Act, with more than exclusion from places of power and trust. And this exclusion was, perhaps, the whole design of the Act. That the phrase, “all civil pains,” means only to prevent the recusants from imposing upon others, is evident from the Act itself; for when it comes to require the covenant to be sworn, particularly by all the Members of Parliament, the formidable expression, “all civil

[Page 105]

pains,” sinks into the recusants having “no place nor voice in Parliament.” Not a word of fines, confiscations, or imprisonments. But, can it be shown, or is it to be supposed, that those venerable patriots had one rule for Members of Parliament, and another for the rest of the nation? It seems, then, by all civil pains, they meant only to exclude those who refused, from places of power and trust.

But this exclusion is considered as an act teeming with “hypocrisy, rebellion, and persecution.” For, say the Covenanters, “We required peremptorily to stand to our former principles and covenant, to have religion settled first, and the King not restored, until he had given security by his oath, to consent to an act of Parliament for enjoining the Covenant in all his dominions, and settling religion according to the Covenant.” And again, “We were peremptory to have none in our army that would not take the Covenant.”

And, can any reasonable man blame them for keeping the sword out of the hands of those men who were well known to be eagerly waiting for the opportunity of turning it against them? Can they be blamed for taking effectual measures for securing their dearest rights, for the sake of which they had suffered so much, and struggled so long? Must they expose themselves to certain ruin, to prevent the voluntary wickedness of their adversaries, and to gratify them with the enjoyment of power which they had prostituted to the purposes of civil and religious tyranny, times without number? Would the modern enemies of Covenanters have done this? “But they would not permit the King to occupy the throne of his fathers unless he gave security;”—security for what? For the free and peaceable enjoyment of their civil and religious liberty, which he had spent his whole life and his utmost exertions, and brought the nation to the verge of ruin, to undermine and destroy. And does not every free people act in the same manner? In this country, is there a single person admitted to any place of power and trust, without giving that security to the nation which the law requires? Has not every one of the present family, at his coronation, sworn to preserve the liberties of his subjects; and could he be admitted to the throne of his ancestors but upon that condition?

“But not a soldier was to be admitted to serve in the army without taking the Covenant.” And is there a soldier in the British armies at this day, who has not been obliged to take the oaths to be faithful to his king and country? Let that free nation be named which does not require conditions of her Rulers, and of those who may employ the power, with which they are intrusted, to the public hurt? Every nation that desires to preserve its liberty, must, and will act as they did,

[Page 106]

if it be not altogether infatuated. The history of that period clearly demonstrates the indispensible necessity of such precautions. When Charles II. ascended the throne, the malignants, or the enemies of liberty, gathered about him, complaining of the hardships they had endured by their exclusion, and boasting of their willingness and ability to serve him. The young King, pleased with their temper and principles, embraced their cause, and, without delay, took measures for their re-admission to places of power and trust. The critical situation of affairs furnished an argument for employing them in the army. The Commission of the Church, which Charles found it necessary to consult, having consented to wave the usual securities, the army was presently filled with them. The Court having gained this important point, proposed to the Commission, “Whether or not it be unlawful,—to admit such to be members of the Committee of Estates who were now debarred from the public trust; they being such as have satisfied the kirk for the offence, for which they were excluded, and are since admitted to enter into covenant with us*?” Then they pressed the Commission to declare, “If it be sinful to repeal the ACT OF CLASSES?” To this repeal also, the Commission yielded: upon which, says Mr Woodrow, “The Parliament rescinded the Act of Classes, in all its articles, by which, great numbers, formerly excluded, were brought into Parliament, and nominate as members of the Committee of Estates, and made capable of places of trust. And, in a little time, the malignant party, at least the bulk of them, were admitted to the chief places of trust, and got the management of all into their hand.” Thus, the enemies of liberty, who, from the year 1638, had been unweariedly plotting its ruin, accomplished their purpose. The beautiful fabric of national freedom, the fruit of so many prayers, of so many cares, of so much blood and treasure, was assailed from every side, and levelled with the ground.

_____

* A satisfying of the kirk, or a taking of the Covenant, could be no security to church or state; while it was visible they were willing to comply with any such measures; provided, they could thereby gain their own political ends,—and for these ends only. (Bishop Burnet in his history, calls it a “mock penitence,” which “was indeed a matter of great scandal.”) It was indeed visible, that any fair conditions proposed by the Commission, in their answer to the first question, were to be made no proper account of, or further than to catch at the general conclusion;—and that any fair conditions proposed in this second question, were only designed as specious pretences; all which the event soon put beyond all doubt. Morison. This question clearly proves that the act enjoining the Covenant, under all civil pains, meant to debar the refuser from the public trust and no more—They who refused were merely excluded; but their titles and estates, if they did not appear in arms against their country, remained untouched.

[Page 107]

Civil and religious tyranny succeeded; and a bloody persecution of twenty-eight years duration, closed the scene. This was the goodly recompence of Scotland’s unparalleled fidelity to the First and Second Charles, and of her fatal indulgence to the enemies of her prosperity. This is the work of the very men in whose favour such an outcry is raised by some pretended friends of the rights of man. “Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united! For in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.”

In excluding such men, and in guarding against such calamities, our ancestors did nothing but their duty. Every nation is bound in duty to themselves and their children, to require security of their magistrates, supreme and subordinate, for the preservation of their rights. And when a people are favoured with the true religion, the most precious of all blessings, it is their duty to guard the right of professing it freely and peaceably, by every possible security. Will any wise man appoint his avowed enemy to superintend his affairs? That the Presbyterians were the majority, and consequently had a right to exercise all national acts, appears from incontrovertible authority. The act of Parliament establishing Presbytery in Scotland, in the year 1689, asserts it, in these terms; “Whereas the Estates of this kingdom, in their claim of rights, declared, that Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church above Presbyters, is, and hath been a great and insupportable grievance to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people, ever since the Reformation.” Mr Baillie, in one of his letters from London, dated October 1645, asserts, that the body of the English nation were decidedly in favour of Presbytery. His words are—“The body of the Parliament, City, and Country, are for the Presbytery, and love us.” The Sectaries, then, could not reasonably complain, as some of their friends would have them, that the Presbyterians, by securing to themselves the free and undisturbed exercise of their rights, civil and religious, and excluding from places of power and trust, those who wanted to rob them of both, “were disturbers of civil society.” Upon these principles the kingdom of Scotland provided that the person who ruled over them, should be of the same religion with themselves; and excluded from any share in the management of public affairs, all who were disaffected to the Reformation, and friends to the arbitrary measures of the Court. Nor is the nature of

[Page 108]

this right of exclusion, nor the propriety and necessity of exercising it, affected by the unbecoming rigour which sullied the proceedings of both Church and State in the last years of the covenanting period.

In the Act enjoining the Covenants under all civil pains, our ancestors did nothing but what every other nation does, when it is in their power. There is not a people on earth, but wish to have magistrates of their own religious persuasion; none, but would wish to have magistrates disposed and obliged to protect and defend their civil rights and privileges; and who would not endeavour to deprive those who avowed themselves their enemies, determined to reduce them to slavery and wretchedness, of the power and capacity of accomplishing their designs? Though a man of no religion might manage the civil affairs of a nation with much success, he is but ill qualified for protecting men in the exercise of their religious rights: and though it is the duty of religious people to submit to the just and legal authority of such rulers, yet it is by no means their duty to choose them: much less is it proper to intrust the declared and bitter enemies of religion and liberty, with the protection of those precious privileges. No man can be justly deprived of his natural rights for non-conformity to the religion of his country. If he violate the personal rights of others, civil or religious, let him suffer according to the demerit of his crime; but it is an act of folly and injustice to compel him to embrace a religious profession, on pain of losing his privileges as a good and peaceable subject of the state. Property is not founded in grace; therefore, a man cannot be justly deprived of it for the want of this religious blessing. But a man may certainly be refused a place of power and trust, till he has given proper evidence of his fitness for the charge. The reason is, as a good subject, he is entitled to the protection of his natural privileges; to a place in the government he has no claim, but at the discretion of the society to which he belongs,—No man was ever born to rule.—Thus, it is true, the bitter and obstinate enemies of liberty, were refused places of power and trust, the nation judged them unfit to defend those privileges, which, it was known, they wanted to destroy. But by this exclusion, no injury was done them; no infringement made upon their civil privileges, life, liberty, and property*.

From these things, we think it is undeniable, that our fathers did no injustice, when they enjoined the Solemn League under all civil pains, as it contained the civil duties of allegiance and mutual support, which are lawful in their nature, and at that time indispensibly necessary. The Church, in this business, acted according to her constitution. She

_____

* Morison’s Serm. on Covenanting.

[Page 109]

enjoined the swearing of the Solemn League, under all ecclesiastical censures, leaving it to the State to secure the liberties of the subject by civil pains. To this it will be replied, that the Church addressed the civil powers to ratify and enjoin the Covenants under all civil pains, acting like the man of sin who delivers the irreclaimable heretic to the punishment of the secular arm. We answer, if the Church, in addressing the State to ratify the Covenants under all civil pains, meant no more than the exclusion of those men from places of power and trust, who were declared enemies to the unalienable rights of conscience, they did nothing but their duty. Every body of men have a right to petition the government of their country for those measures which are necessary to preserve their lawful privileges. But if they intended to deprive peaceable subjects of their personal rights, they offered an insult to the benign spirit of the gospel, and the dictates of right reason.

While a religious covenant is on no account whatever to be enforced by civil pains, the articles of allegiance and mutual support, in the Solemn League, viewed as necessary for the preservation of civil and religious liberty, may be enjoined, in this manner, with perfect justice. For no man will deny the lawfulness of self-defence. But, the writer cannot help being of opinion, that it is improper to admit articles into a religious covenant, however lawful and necessary, which require to be enforced under all civil pains. It must be confessed, that it is difficult, properly to understand the measures of others, unless when all circumstances are fairly and cautiously weighed. The lapse of time increases this difficulty every moment. At the end of a hundred and fifty years, and amid the violent clamour of contending parties, it is very difficult indeed, to form a determinate judgment. It certainly was not easy to separate those articles which might not, from those which might be enjoined under all civil pains. Their religion was ready to be swallowed up in the gulph of tyranny. The free and peaceable profession of the truth was infringed or denied. This naturally led them to secure their civil liberty for the sake of their religion. But, admitting all the arguments which various writers have advanced upon the singular and trying circumstances of our ancestors, it was certainly as easy for them, as men and citizens, to enter into a civil league for the defence of their natural rights, and, as members of the church, to renew their covenant with God, by a separate religious bond, as to frame and swear a covenant which is compounded of both. Besides, separate bonds would have prevented the plea which has cast so great an odium on their proceedings, that they enforced a religious covenant with civil pains and punishments. A civil and a religious bond would have

[Page 110]

answered the same purpose; and the former might have been enjoined under all civil pains, and the latter with ecclesiastical censures, according to their different natures. In combining them into one, they seem to have acted improperly; but by no means in contradiction to the duty which we owe to our neighbour, according to the Moral Law. But a defect of this nature cannot invalidate the obligation of an oath, which, in other respects, is lawful and proper. Though civil pains were altogether improper, they are only an external circumstance, which is not sufficient to take away the validity of a divine ordinance.

Though some might be compelled by the fear of punishment, which was too much employed, to embrace the covenanted cause, they were, nevertheless, bound to fulfil their vows. The congregation of Israel were forced to submit to the league which the princes had made with Gibeon; yet, God severely punished them for breaking it. It is a Protestant principle, that compulsory measures cannot excuse the covenant breaker. It is absurd to alledge, that, because these covenants were enjoined with civil penalties, the Covenanters could not be voluntary in swearing them; for, if this consequence were admitted, there could be no voluntary obedience to any law, human or divine. Many accounts of particular persons, parishes, and large assemblies, willingly and chearfully entering into covenant with God, have reached our times. An ardent zeal for religion was the ruling character of those days. The men of that generation were overawed by the fear of God, and constrained by the love of Christ; principles which shone with uncommon lustre in their proceedings. Candour and reason require us to believe, that the arguments of scripture which the ministers of the gospel used, made a much deeper impression upon minds of this temper, and communicated a stronger impulse to their conduct, than any fear of threatened confiscation.

6. It is contended “that this oath could not be sworn in truth, righteousness, and judgment, because it was taken on the Sabbath, immediately after that on which it was read and explained to the people.” But the orders of the Commission, according to Stevenson, were, not to cause all persons indiscriminately, but all of UNDERSTANDING, men and women, swear it on the Sabbath following; which entirely destroys this formidable objection. The same charge of ignorance and rashness is considered under the National Covenant.