As we begin, if you would turn with me in your copies of God's Word to the prose translation of the 80th Psalm. That's the 80th Psalm in the prose translation. And we'll commence our reading here at the 14th verse. Psalm 80 and verse 14. Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts. Look down from heaven and behold and visit this vine. and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. It is burned with fire, it is cut down, they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. So will not we go back from thee? Quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts. Cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved. Amen. that portion of God's word we will return to, God willing, at the end of our time together this afternoon. As Colin had mentioned before, the first lecture was really devoted to providing something of the timeline to answer questions that were principally of a historical character. This evening, or this afternoon rather, we turn now to the question of application. The question is, how do these themes that we've encountered, how do the people and the causes which they espoused, how do they have or do they have any bearing on the present? It's obviously a crucial question. Historical theology, church history, these things are not meant to be only abstract academic discussions. These things certainly are to be improved for the present generation. So the question is, how do all of those themes that we've considered in passing before apply to the present? And what I want to do this afternoon to answer that question is I really want, really to set before you a historical theology. I want to set before you the reason why the Covenanters did what they did. I don't want to waste your time this afternoon. The Covenanters, I believe, do need to be appreciated for their principles. We can appreciate steadfastness, doggedness, and transience in the face of oppression. But ultimately, I think for us really to grasp and to appreciate the Covenanters, we need to consider what were their distinctive principles. Otherwise, our praise of their steadfastness is perhaps the praise of folly or the praise of superstition. The question really before us that I'd like to raise with you, though I won't pretend to answer it in full, is the question, was theirs the cause of God? Was theirs the cause of God? And this afternoon, what I want to set before you is really just the data, the biblical data that the Covenanters themselves used at various occasions and various works to argue that their cause, in fact, was the cause of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so I want to set that data before you this evening, and then I want you to evaluate it. This is not where the bulk of the work ought to be done. It was Donald Cargill himself, actually, while he was waiting execution. You remember, Cargill was one of the Covenanter preachers who was martyred. In fact, the Covenanter preacher who was martyred, and whose martyrdom was an occasion for Renwick's conversion. In the prison cell, he wrote to those who were not Covenanters, and in the letter, he put it thus, he said this, he says, I desire none, if they themselves judge it not to be truth, to adhere to anything that I have either preached, written, or done, to any hazard, much more to the loss of life." In other words, he says, don't just take my word for it. You are to be Berean-like, is the point of Cargill. You do need to go and search these things out yourself. What all that I want to do this evening, is I want to set before you the data, so that you can do so. I want to begin though with just two disclaimers. First of all, the first disclaimer is really that we can only in our time just consider first principles. There are so many applications and there are so many other doctrines that are related to the themes that we take up this evening that we just simply do not have time to cover. But I do trust that as we look at what was the foundation of their distinctive principles, you and I, we are well on our way to being able to answer the question, how might a Covenanter think about one issue or another? The second disclaimer that I want to say is that it's very difficult to argue for a consensus position in anything historical. And so I'm not going to make an argument at all that the Covenanters were monolithic, that they all held to the same thing in the same way, from the same logical flows, from the same arguments. I'm not going to claim that at all. this afternoon. Obviously, there are nuances to positions, and men are different. People are messy. And the Covenanters, of course, they had their own debates among themselves. So what I want to do, instead of presenting to you a consensus picture, is I want to set before you the most basic fundamental principles that animated the leaders of the Covenanting movement from really the Presbyterian diaspora of the Jacobean age, so what we talked about before the signing of the National Covenant, and all the way on to the Williamite Revolution and their response to everything between. What I want to talk about then, first of all, is the subject of national conversion. National conversion. The Covenanters were convinced, on an existential level, that Scotland was a converted nation, a nation won to the Lord Jesus Christ. And it's important for us to begin by saying that they believed that that was the case of the nation. The nation, where might they get that? Well, the Covenanters, of course, themselves were of the opinion that nations arose from the institution of the family. And as such, they were God's institution. And as they were God's institution as a body, they were accountable to God as a nation. There are various texts that they would turn to, to make this case. Take just from Deuteronomy 6 as an example. Thou, God says to Israel, using, mind you, the singular pronoun, thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with thee, again, the singular pronoun, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord swear unto thy fathers. Why is that interesting? Why is the pronoun interesting? The pronoun is interesting because he is speaking to an entire body but addressing them as one and setting before them the idea that as one they share in the single obligation. I also want you to notice, as you work throughout the scriptures, you see this even in terms of perpetuity. There's one body that not only exists in a single time, but this corporate body, it actually carries with it longevity. So you have this, of course, in the life of Joseph. Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. Fast forward just a few hundred years. Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had straightly sworn the children of Israel. That text also is quite striking, isn't it? Because not only did Joseph take an oath of a body as a body, meaning that he saw the body as a moral agent, a single entity that was accountable, such that they could take a vow. Then we're told in the book of Exodus that the reason why they took up Joseph's bones was because they were under that obligation as a body, notwithstanding the fact that centuries had elapsed. A single body. the children of Israel, under one moral obligation, and that moral obligation possessing perpetuity. Just hold on to that for a moment. You see this again recurring in Deuteronomy 4. The Lord spake unto you, says Moses to the congregation, out of the midst of the fire. Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that he might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it." All of that seems quite straightforward, except you remember that as that is taken from Deuteronomy, this is Moses at the end of his ministry, and the people whom he's just referred to were not with him at Sinai, excepting Joshua and Caleb. And yet, what does he say? You, the Lord spoke to you. You heard the voice of the words. You heard a voice and he commanded you. Even though they themselves individually were not at Horeb, they were under the selfsame obligation as though they had been. It's a biblical principle from the start. There was one, as we look at these texts, you see a single nation that as a nation is treated as a moral agent. And that that identity and that obligation does possess perpetuity. It continues through the running centuries. But we can go even further than that. This idea of a nation being accountable to God certainly also pertains to its activity, doesn't it? So in the scriptures, you talk about nations doing things that are either morally right or sinful. The pride of Moab, he is very proud, says the prophet. Even his haughtiness and his pride and his wrath, but his lies shall not be so, that's Isaiah 15. And what there is the prophet referring to, he's referring not to a single individual, though he's using the singular pronoun. Instead, what he's saying before us is the idea that as a nation, As a nation, they've been engaged in this activity, in this case, pride. Babylon, Jeremiah says, hath caused the slain of Israel to fall. Note, he didn't say Babylonians. It's very important here. Something we shouldn't miss. Babylon, as a moral agent, is taken in the text as a single moral agent before God. Babylon is accountable. So they have corporate identity and corporate responsibility before God. Nations as nations are morally responsible before the Lord as a body. But I suppose the next question is, well, what makes a corporate act? What makes an act of the body a corporate act? Well, there are three answers to that that the Covenanters do give in various ways. One, a corporate act is so if the generality of the people are engaged in that act. In other words, if you're taking a poll and somebody is doing something and you find that that person is doing the same thing that over 50% of the body is doing, you might say that that is, in fact, a corporate act. The majority or the generality of the body is participating in a single activity. And so you can say in that sense that it is the corporate body that is acting. But that's not the only way. The body acts also through representatives, just to give you one biblical example of this, and this is quite crucial to the covenanting movement. Working through representatives, the body can act and is morally responsible before God. We see this in the life of David. There was a famine in the days of David, three years, we read from 2 Samuel, year after year. David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord answered. It is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites. There's backstory to that that we could go into, but really I want you to look at that text just for a moment to see that all of Israel was before God, so held accountable as to be under judgment for three years. But why? It was not the sins of the generality of the people, it was the sins of her representative and the person of Saul. And why? Because he slew the Gibeonites. He broke the covenant that was made in the days of Joshua, centuries before. But God held the body so accountable That one, that covenant obligation possessed perpetuity. And two, even if committed by just a representative of the body, judgment fell upon the whole body. The third way in which a corporate act becomes, in fact, corporate is through the consent of the majority. So perhaps the majority is not engaged in the same act, Perhaps, perhaps, not all of the representatives or the majority of the representatives of that body are engaged in the act, but if there is consent to the act generally, then it is also considered a corporate act. You see this in two ways throughout the scriptures. Rulers consenting to what the people are doing. The company of priests murder in the way by consent, Hosea 6, 9. Then you see this with regard to the people, consenting to the rulers. The prophets prophesy falsely, and their priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so. Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? And so what does the scriptures teach? They teach that a corporate act becomes such even if either the rulers consent to the sins of the people, or the people consent to the sins of the rulers. Either way, it's a matter of consent for the body, and so an act, corporate. It's intriguing as well, that fifth of Jeremiah from which I just quoted. Note the general maxim. The prophet, he doesn't refer to a particular instance there, does he? He grounds the coming judgment in a principle that is not exclusive to Israel. Let me just read that again for you. If you're looking in your Bibles, it's Jeremiah 5, 29. There, the scriptures read, shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord. Just pausing right there, you and I, we might think, well, yes, he will, because Israel's a covenanted nation. Of course, they have broken the covenant as God's peculiar heritage, ergo, they must undergo judgment. But note the next line. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? The implication, in fact, if you go back to the works of John Knox, he draws this out actually quite thoroughly in a few of his letters, especially the English congregation. What you see in Jeremiah 5 is a general principle. A nation that does what, in this case, Judah has been engaged in, falls under this general rule that God will avenge himself upon them. In other words, this is not a threat only to Israel or Judah. It's a threat to any nation. And when you look at that text in Jeremiah 5, friend, and this was Knox's point, it's a threat to a nation that is in covenant with God, that has apostatized. Shall I not be avenged on a nation such as this? Now, I recognize some of that is perhaps on the weightier side. And if you're like me, after having the lunch that we've had, perhaps that was a bit much. But what I want to do is I want to move now rather speedily, having laid the foundation, and talk about why the Covenanters then took these principles to speak about a corporate or a national reformation. So first of all, knowing that nations are, they are God's institution arising from the institution of the family, that as a nation they are bound to God as a single moral agent, that corporate acts are in fact possible, and that there are really three ways in which an act can be called a corporate act. Now we come to the idea that a nation as a nation is morally responsible to God so as to reform itself. And so it's a corporate act that is required here. You can't talk about national reformation without what we've covered thus far. So if we're talking about national or corporate reformation, what is required? Well, you can talk about national or corporate reformation only if, of course, that is an exercise of either the generality of the people, her representatives, or those people who are consenting to the work at hand. In the Scriptures, you see this really clearly. The work of Reformation ideally will, in fact, incorporate all three. Looking at Joel 2, The prophet sets it thus, he says, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach. Why is that important? Why go through the litany that he does in terms of giving out almost every sphere of ruling society in the day? The answer is really straightforward, isn't it? The Lord God is calling for national repentance. And so is it not fitting, is it not fitting that he would urge then the people, the generality to come together, that then he would call their elders to assemble, their representatives and rulers. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep before the porch and the altar. Let them say, spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach. Why are the priests leading in prayer? Because they are to be leading the congregation in the work as well. So what do you find here? In fact, you find here a reformation that incorporates all three aspects that make an act a corporate act. This is why the covenanters were concerned. This is why they were concerned that their covenants would incorporate every sphere of society. In fact, I mean, we already saw it as well, but that's something that dates, of course, back to the First Reformation, 1567, the Edinburgh Covenant. This is something that is ingrained in the idea of covenanting, that corporate reformation must incorporate the body as a body. And so unsurprisingly, not only in Scotland, but obviously in England as well, especially the Puritan fast sermons that were preached throughout the 1640s, you find many of these preachers referring back to the Reformations of Hezekiah and Josiah as the paradigm. They form the exemplars for which the archipelago would make their own pattern. And what do you find in the Hezekiah and Josiah reforms? What you find there is exactly what Josiah calls for. You find fasting and humiliation in which the generality of the people are called, their representatives are engaged, and that the people are being led into repentance. So this is why you have the form of the Scottish Reformation in the 17th century that you do. They saw that scripture mandated such a national reform. But secondly, again, I want to emphasize the national characteristic of this. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33 and the 12th verse. Again, I want you to notice, friend, we're back to generalities, aren't we? We are not dealing just with Israel as such, but the psalmist is careful to set before us a maxim, something that is, as it were, a general rule. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. In the new covenant, does that happen? Is that true in the new covenant? Friend, that's an important question. In fact, it's probably one of the most important questions I could raise to you from the subject this afternoon. Because the age in which you and I live, the evangelicalism in which you and I have grown up, answer that question with an emphatic no. That only belonged for a time, and only to Israel. It's at that moment that suddenly there's a wide variance between some fundamental principles that undergird the Covenant of Reformation and what you and I know today. The Covenanters were of a mind that that, in fact, is something that still applies. that even in the new covenant, nations can have the Lord as their God, and that as such, they would know his blessing. Nations as nations would have, could have the Lord as their God. I suppose that's the first question I have to pose to you. Do you believe that? As we move forward, friend, I want you to see as well that even the book of Revelation does answer, I believe, that question for us. In Revelation 11, you have there, of course, the two witnesses of the Lord, and after the ordeal of their martyrdom and their resurrection, the elders say, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Now, I want you to notice in the Greek, first of all, that the second kingdom, you probably have this in italicized letters in your copies of God's word. The second instance of the word kingdoms is actually not in the Greek text. You could read it thus, that these things, these kingdoms, have simply become those of Christ. The kingdoms of the world, the kingdom of Christ. Now, it's important that I make a statement here regarding the difference between a kingdom and a nation. We use those words interchangeably, but a nation is a people, an aggregate of peoples that are held together as a single body. A kingdom refers to a political entity. Here we're told that the political entity that is the kingdom, has now become the kingdom of Christ. Now what is the kingdom of Christ? The Westminster Confession of Faith is very clear that Christ's visible kingdom on earth is the visible church. To this, the Covenanters turned very explicitly when they described the need for a national reform. James Durham, actually commenting on this very text, he puts it thus. He says, so a people's being the Lord's is becoming a church. And therefore, when a nation is said to be the Lord's, it is equivalent to say that nation, that nation is a church. to the Lord. I want you to hold that thought as we continue. We will come back to it toward the end of our time together. So there is a national conversion. That's one of the principle, really what you might argue, the most fundamental of their principles that the Covenanters espoused as they sought to reform Kirk and state. But what about the form? The form in which the Reformation took? Now, the form you could look to is the idea of covenanting. If national conversion is the matter or the substance, covenant would be something like the form, or the expression of that relation of the nation to God. What is covenanting? Well, covenanting, you could put it thus, it's just to invoke God as their God, and so they vow obedience to his commands through Christ. You can look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession, chapter 20, 23, paragraphs 1 to 3, and there you'll find the treatment on religious oaths and vows. Those paragraphs underlie, in principle, what national covenanting was to the Scottish covenanters themselves. But the question is, of course, does this apply to nations? Or is this something that belongs only to one nation, and only to Israel in the Old Covenant? I want to answer that question with two texts, and as you read through the Covenanter literature, you'll notice that these two texts often resurface in sermons, not only in the period from the 1638 to 1660, but well into the field preachings as well. The Covenanters answered that question emphatically and to the affirmative. The two texts to which you might refer would be first of all, the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 19. Isaiah 19, starting there at verse 21. The Lord shall be known to Egypt and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and shall do sacrifice and oblation. "'Yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it.'" And then, if you would, come down to verse 25. "'Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, "'Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria the work of my hands, "'and Israel mine inheritance.'" Now what might you glean just from those verses this evening? Well, the first question I have to ask you, of course, is, well, when was this fulfilled? And the answer is, is that it wasn't fulfilled in the Old Covenant at all, of course. So, this is why this text, for instance, the covenanters turned to to demonstrate that, in fact, it was God's plan in the New Covenant, that nations like Israel of old would actually have God as the Lord. that even places, nations like Egypt, would be called the people of God, or Assyria would be called the work of God's hands, just as Israel is called the Lord's inheritance. And in fact, all of those descriptions of either Egypt or Assyria are elsewhere attributed to Israel, so there is no distinction in the prophet there. That there would come a day when these nations, as nations, would vow to God and would become the people of God, as nations, in the way that Israel had before. in terms of substance, not, of course, in terms of form, being in the new covenant. In fact, friend, as you turn even to Jeremiah 50, you have the idea that there is the promise that even Israel, after her apostasy, that she would once again join herself to the Lord in covenant, something we also have yet to see in our day. Jeremiah 50 in verse 5. The prophet there says, they shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward saying, come and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. If you read, folks, if you read commentaries, of course, especially on Romans 11 at this time, the impression not only of the Scottish Covenanters, but of course the English Puritans as well, was that this very thing is what Paul is talking about when he says Israel shall turn once again. So the idea behind all of this is that national covenanting was something for nations in the new covenant. And even as you look at the National Covenant or the Solemn Leaguing Covenant, you see these kinds of things very much running through the whole document. You find a nation, as a nation, saying that they are resolving resolving as a body to faithfulness. The National Covenant puts it thus. It says, we agree and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the foresaid true religion. 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 will defend the same and resist all the contrary errors, corruptions, according to our vocation and to the uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands all the days of our life." Of course, where was the pattern of this? They drew the pattern for this covenant from the scriptures and upon the basis of texts like those that we've considered already this evening. So that is national covenanting. But the question, of course, perhaps for us in our generation is, well, what of their ecclesiastical politics? How would they see their own understanding of church-state relations in the scriptures? Well, first of all, I think, friend, we need to go back to a very basic idea. And they would urge us to look at texts like Proverbs 14, 34. Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. I want you to notice, friend, that one of the characteristics of the Scottish Reformation is that they were not concerned only to reform the church as an institution. Their reform was holistic. It was to engage all spheres of society. And why was that? The simple reason for that is that they saw that the scriptures taught that for a nation, for a nation to know the blessing of God, they cannot expect to do so unless, as a nation, they are engaged in righteousness. Every institution, every sphere of life touched by the law of God and indeed seeking faithfulness to him in it. In every station of life, the aim was reformation. My friend, the scriptures give this to us in various ways. Again, a text that was a commonplace for our preachers, both on either side of the tweed in the 17th century, was the end of Psalm 2. There you have nations not only exhorted to pursue second table duties, that is pursuing perhaps what you might call civic righteousness or just justice and peace between man and man. No, the reformers pointed a text like what you have at the end of Psalm 2. Be wise now therefore O ye kings. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way." It's not just second table duties, duties to our fellow man, but really submission to the son, fealty to the son, to the king of Zion. And that means, friend, that that is an exhortation to acknowledge the king who is Zion's only king. But that acknowledgment can't be superficial. I think, especially in the 19th century and especially in America, a superficial acknowledgment seemed to suffice for many Christians. But friend, it's hypocrisy if it's not also an acknowledgment that is joined with one's pursuit of the interests of Christ. If we acknowledge his authority verbally, but in our practice we deny it, then our profession is but hypocrisy. So this is a call, a clarion call, that the kings of the earth, as kings, as kings would pursue the interests of Christ. What does that look like? Isaiah 49. The prophet there tells us that, to the church, he tells the church, kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers. By the way, this is a locus classicus for covenanting preaching in terms of how one would justify the relationship between church and state as they had it in 17th century Scotland. The civil power was to use its co-active powers, its supportive powers, to be exactly as the prophet describes, to be a nursing father, a nursing mother to her, to support her. And that was the way in which kings would be submitted to Christ. In the support of the church, kings would be engaged in seeking Christ's interests on the earth as they're commanded. Now, the covenants were very clear. There are distinct jurisdictions though. There is the civil jurisdiction and then the ecclesiastical. The church and the state are distinct institutions established by God. But what they saw here is that while distinct, they were ideally to be working harmoniously. Again, the civil powers were to be co-active, they were to be supportive, but they were not to be invasive. And really that becomes the principal issue of the 17th century. The Kirk urged in her various instruments, various deeds and conferences, both with the Committee of Estates and the full parliament, that the state would in fact engage to support fiscally the work of the church. As well, the state would labor to oppose her enemies within the realm as well. This is certainly one of those elements that I think strikes against us in the 21st century. But to preserve the church, to be a nursing father and nursing mother to the church meant that they believed the state was to keep up the support, fiscal support of the church as well as keep at bay her enemies. Where might they have gotten that idea from the scriptures? Well, a negative example, and one again to which there were often many allusions, was that of Uzziah. He was a king of Judah at the time. of the prophet Isaiah, and perhaps you remember well that he took upon himself the work of a priest. He intended to burn incense upon the altar, but obviously the law of God was very clear. That was not something that was to be left to the kings of the earth. That was something that belonged only to God's ministers, whom he himself has appointed. Uzziah, notwithstanding the protests of the Levites and the priests, he bursts into the temple to do that work, and you know the rest. God, in his judgment, he strikes Uzziah with leprosy, and Uzziah, for the rest of his life, is cast out of the temple, a leper. And what is that telling us? That is telling us that there's a clear distinction between, of course, the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres, and it was operative in the Old Testament. It was not something new. It's not something that we have created. But there are other examples that are actually positive. George Gillespie, for instance, pointed to the Reformation of Josiah. Josiah, you remember, just 60 years after Hezekiah, the laws found under Hilkiah the priest, or under Hilkiah the priest, rather, and immediately a work of Reformation begins to grip the kingdom of Judah. Now, as you read the text, and I'm referring there to 2 Kings 23, all 14 verses, we don't have time to read them this afternoon, but in 2 Kings 23, you hear of Josiah's work. As a king, he puts to death idolaters. He removes the monuments of idolatry that were in the kingdom, and you understand why he would do so. He was under command of God to do so. But perhaps you remember from your Old Testament history as well that those were not the only high places in Judah. There were the high places in the groves that belonged to the pagan deities. But then there were also the high places to which some of the Levites burned incense and sacrifice to Jehovah. What does Josiah do to Levites? who are worshipping Jehovah, but not in the right manner, not in the temple. Well, in 2 Kings 23, 1-14, he tells us, He tells us that he divides the Levitical priesthood between those who served on those rival altars to Jehovah from those who were faithful, that is, those who served in the temple. And then you note this, they both received the stipend, that is, they both eat from the table together, but only according to Josiah's rule, only those who were the faithful Levites were permitted to serve in the temple. That's 2 Kings 23, one to 14. In the English public ceremonies, one of the most important works on the subject of worship and church government produced before the great debates of the 1640s was published by, was written by George Gillespie. It's to this reformation Gillespie refers when he speaks about the need of the civil magistrate to put out any who were proletical priests, that is, those who were priests under bishops. He says the civil magistrate even has power thus far. So, the civil magistrate is to support the Church in these ways according to the Covenanters. But the doctrine, the discipline, and the government of the Church That was something determined by the church and the church alone. And that's why we refer to something called spiritual jurisdiction. However collective, however supportive the church might, sorry, the state might be to the church, still it was the church. that would determine the circumstances when, where, and how worship would be conducted. God is, of course, the one in his word who has determined its elements. The Puritans, the reformers urged that in terms of determining its place and time and so forth, as Rutherford articulated in various ways, even the building itself in which one worshiped, that too belonged to the spiritual jurisdiction of the church. You see this actually in several parts of the national documents themselves. We said before that there was an earnest desire that the Church would enjoy the full patrimony that was due to her, that is, that she would have full liberty, both in spiritual jurisdiction and that she would also receive the patrimony, that is, finances from the state. And as you read through the National and the Solemn League and Covenant, you'll see that over and over again, there is this obligation that is very clearly said in the pages, that the state has an obligation to support the church without intruding upon her prerogatives. But the last thing I want to speak to you about this afternoon is the issue of political dissent. And this too is a fundamental principle. And really, it's not a fundamental principle. Just after the restoration of 1660, it was, of course, a burning question that gripped the Covenanters really from 1637, when they really began to resist Charles I and his reforms. The question runs thus. Well, I'm sure everybody would agree that this is the ideal, this kind of relationship between church and state. But can we disobey the magistrate when he doesn't fulfill what we're saying is his obligation? Can we really decline his authority when he doesn't live up to these ideals? What about Romans 13, one to seven? And that was the principal debate. A book I'm sure you've heard of perhaps, Lex Rex, while not principally concerned with the exegesis of Romans 13, one to seven, he was very much targeting those kinds of arguments that were levied against covenanters. Can one really justify disobedience to the civil magistrate? There are a number of ways in which this is discussed. Sadly, most of these ways are actually in archives and only accessible in archives. Many of these arguments were, with the exception of Rutherford and Lex Rex, many of these arguments were only circulated through scribal copies. But one of the things that you do find is that Romans 13, in fact, was one of those texts that the Covenanters themselves made use of as they sought to defend why they could resist a magistrate who did not live up to the ideal. One of the things you notice about Romans 13 is, first of all, that what we have translated the word, their power, is in the Greek, exousia, not dunamis. Why is that important? Well, dunamis, of course, is where we get the word dynamite, sheer and brute force, right? That's the idea. What's exousia then? Exousia is right. legitimacy, authority. It's the difference between power and right, between might and legitimacy. And which, does Paul say, are the ministers of God? those who are lawful, those who are right rulers. In fact, the fact that he calls them thus is quite striking in the Greek text. And this is one of those discussions that not only goes through the covenanting movement, but especially at the time of the American Revolution, this text and that particular emphasis was quite important. In other words, what we're talking about here in Romans 13 is a man who functions according to the deed of constitution of the body over which he rules. One who functions according to the contract of his rule. The scriptures say nothing of a despot. That was one of the most important points that the Covenanters harped upon over and over again. especially after the Restoration when Charles II repudiated the very covenants that brought him to power. According to the covenanters, Charles II fell well out without the remit of Romans 13. He was not an exousia, that is a lawful, rightful authority. He was a despot. Even in the Old Testament, you see this kind of thing emerge. Even in the practice of Elisha, you remember Jehoshaphat is there, there in Israel, and Elisha, he turns to Jehoshaphat, and he acknowledges his presence. But to the Israelite king, the great apostate, he says thus, he says, as the Lord of hosts liveth before whom I stand, Surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. Striking, actually, friend, as you think about that text, what Elisha is saying. Of the Israelite king, he says, I will give you no deference. A friend, if he is a lawful king, according to Romans 13, what does he do? Even for conscience sake, he is due all of the obedience and all of the honor of a magistrate. But Elisha, Elisha refuses to regard this one as such a magistrate. In fact, friend, he makes it an issue of piety. He says, I will not give you that deference before God, before whom I stand. This is a prophet disregarding a despot. He had the name of a king, he had the power of a king, but he was not due the respect or the recognition of a king. Secondly, friend, I also want you to notice that the covenanters were also very clear in this, that what we're talking about here belongs to lands that are enlightened. So, even the covenanters themselves distinguish their situation from lands that have never had the gospel. You'll have mention of other lands that are still in Popish darkness and so forth. And what they acknowledge here is that as nations, they have received the benefits and the privileges of the gospel. And in this case, they've even covenanted to be the lords in a unique way. And it is because those covenants have now been written into the constitution of that nation, that therefore, in these covenanted lands, only covenanted rulers were legitimate. George Gillespie is actually quite clear in his 111 aphorisms, and in other works as well, that a pagan can be a legitimate magistrate in a pagan land. He can. If he's functioning according to the Constitution, the deed of right that brought him into power, he should be regarded even as the magistrate of Romans 13. But in a Christian in a covenanted land, one that has brought that condition of power and to such a degree that they must themselves submit to the reformation of these islands. For such a one to disregard that contract of power is a despot." In other words, for a pagan to rule in a Christian covenanted land, it makes him an illegitimate ruler. This may not apply to China, Uruguay, other places like that, but they were very clear This was Britain's great obligation. For a legitimate magistrate to be here, they must be in fact submitted to the deed of constitution from which their authority arises, the covenants themselves. Well, friend, I am to close at this point, but I want to do so by citing once again something that was spoken by Donald Cargill. Addressing fellow sufferers, fellow covenanters, Cargill put it thus. He says, let never one think that he is in the right exercise of true religion that has not a zeal to God's public glory. Friend, I don't know how you feel about the Covenanters. My task was really just to set the data before you and for you to go home and to reflect. But I hope, friend, in our generation that what Cargill says there in relation to all that we've said up to this point does resonate with us. You and I, friend, we need to make conscience of the cause and interest of God in these lands in our generation. The Covenanters died. They bled and they died because they believed that the interest of God, namely the reformation of church and of state, that was something more precious than life. For your fidelity and mine to Christ will be determined on those terms. Do I have a zeal for God's public glory in my generation? Is that dearer to me than life itself? Amen. We'll close this evening by taking up our psalters and turning to that psalm that we read at the start, Psalm 80. That's the 80th psalm. And we sing there verses 14 to the end. Psalm 80, verses 14 to the end. O God of hosts, we thee beseech, return now unto thine. Look down from heaven in love, behold, and visit this thy vine, this vineyard which thine own right hand hath planted us among, and that same branch which for thyself thou hast made to be strong. Burnt up it is with flaming fire, it also is cut down. They utterly are perished when as thy face doth frown. O let thy hand be still upon the man of thy right hand, the son of man, whom for thyself thou madest strong to stand. So henceforth we will not go back nor turn from thee at all. O do thou quicken us, and we upon thy name will call. Turn us again, Lord God of hosts, and upon us vouchsafe to make thy countenance to shine. And so we shall be safe. Friend, as you look at verses 15 and 16, you have a description of the church. It's the church that was the vine of God's planting. And in our generation, can we not say, as does the psalmist here, are we not a scorched generation? Are we not a generation where the briars and the thorns have grown? Do we not need God to come, to cause his face to shine upon us, to revive us? Certainly, friend, that was the cry of our subjects this afternoon. May it be our own as we sing this in praise to God. Psalm 80, verses 14 to the end, we stand to sing. And afterwards, please also remain standing for prayer.