This is track six of A Refutation of Religious Pluralism by John Brown of Haddington. This work is published by Gospel Covenant Publications. Gospel Covenant Publications' website is www.gcpublications.com. They may be reached by email at info at gcpublications.com and by phone, area code 208-553-5296. In covenants with men, a proper and timely dissent may frequently be well founded, and may effectually divert this obligation from the dissenters. But how there could be a lawful dissent from an engagement carefully to keep all the commandments of God and nothing else, I know not. Had the whole or even the body of the Hebrew nation timely and regularly dissented from the treaty made by their princes with the Gibeonites, it might have diverted its obligation from them. Instead of this, they appear to have agreed to the final stating of it without a single murmur, Joshua 9. But if these princes had by covenant devoted themselves and their tribes to a careful keeping of God's commandments, I know not how the people's dissent could have diverted the obligation from themselves. In covenants with men, the non-fulfillment of some condition or some dispensation or remission may weaken, if not perfectly annul, the obligation. But none can dispense with or grant remissions in the matters of God. Covenants made with God are more absolute, and less clogged with conditions, and so more obliging. The covenants of which we now treat, being about indispensable duties of morality, upon which depends the glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of magistrates, and the public liberty, safety and peace of the nation, and the good of posterity in all time coming, ought to have their obligation allowed to fix, whenever any ground can be found, while Christ has a kingdom and the covenant is a posterity, particularly in Scotland. 4. 1. Our civil representatives by these covenants devoted themselves in their station and their subjects, insofar as under their power, to the service of God. In 1581 and 1590, King James and his privy council took the national covenant and required their subjects to follow their example. In 1638, the Privy Council again took it, as it stood in 1581. In 1640, the Members of Parliament took it, as explained by the Assembly 1638, to abjure Prelacy and the Five Articles of Perth, and appointed it to be sworn by all the Members of every future Parliament. It was sworn by the Members of Parliament 1644. In 1649, the National Covenant and the Solemn League, which was materially the same, were renewed by the members of Parliament with solemn fasting and humiliation. The oath framed in 1641 to be sworn by members of Parliament at taking their seats expressly approved the National Covenant. King Charles I gave a solemn approbation of it. Charles II and other magistrates took the covenants in 1650 and 1651. Now if a covenant made by the princes of Israel with the representatives of the Gibeonites in a matter which concerned the Lord's land and the remote service of His altar, extended its obligation to the whole nation of Israel who consented to it, no otherwise than by silence at the final stating of it, and to their posterity for many generations, that four hundred years after they were punished with a famine on account of Saul's breach of it, Joshua 9, 2 Samuel 21, and to the Gibeonites and their posterity, Why not allow the covenanting deed of our princes to extend its obligation in like manner? If magistrates be the ministers of God for good to men, why should they not be capable to surrender themselves and their subjects to the special care and service of God, their common and beneficent superior? If they possess the powers assigned them in our excellent standards, why may they not, as nursing fathers of the Church, devote themselves and their subjects of the same true to the enjoyment of God Himself in His oracles and ordinances, and to serve Him regularly in Christ. If Joshua could bind himself and his family to serve the Lord, why may not magistrates bind themselves and their subjects of the same true religion, to receive and hold fast the like honour and happiness? If, for the benefit of their subjects, magistrates may, in a time of need, subject themselves and their people to some powerful monarch whose fury is terrible, but his favour extremely profitable, or may approve and ratify some former grant of that kind, why may they not, for the same end, devote themselves and subjects to the great God our Saviour and Prince of the kings of the earth? Why may they not bring their glory into the church and as judges kiss the Son of God, solemnly approving and in their station ratifying that grant which His Father made to Him of the outermost ends of the earth? Revelation 21-24, 11-15, Proverbs 8, 15 and 16, Psalm 2, 8-12 In these covenants, our representatives in the Church, in their station, devoted themselves and their people to the faith, profession, and obedience of Christ. In April 1581, the General Assembly unanimously approved the National Covenant, and then in October ensuing, in the name of Christ, appointed it to be subscribed by all Protestants. In 1588 and 1590, they made further acts for promoting this subscription. the General Assemblies of 1596, 1638, 1639, and the Commissions or Assemblies of 1643, 1644, 1648, 1649, and joined the swearing of the Covenant by all adult Church members. I do not know of one Presbyterian minister or ruling elder in Scotland who, in any of the Covenanting periods of 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1643, 1648, declined taking it. Now if civil representatives may bind their subjects and their posterity by civil contracts, why ought not the harmonious dedication of themselves and people to God by church rulers to have a like binding force? If in public prayers ministers may devote themselves and congregations to Christ, why may not they and ruling elders conjunctly do it by public covenant? But we do not chiefly rest the matter on these grounds, for, three, it is beyond all contradiction that the lawful and public covenants, civil or religious, which are made by parents, do bind their posterity. The oath of Esau, in which he resigned his birthright to Jacob, bound his posterity never to attempt recovering the privileges of it from Jacob or his descendants. Hence Esau and his family, after the death of Isaac, removed entirely from Canaan, Genesis 25-33, 36-6. Even the public curse which the Jews took upon themselves and their children has been manifestly binding on them these 1700 years past, Matthew 27-25. The vow of parents in the ancient circumcision, or the Christian baptism of their infants, extends to these children, nay, according to the extent of God's covenant and promise, to all their future seed, Genesis 17-7, Acts 2, 38 and 39. Hence, whatever any of them do contrary to that vow must at once be perfidy and rebellion against God. Nor will their willful or slothful ignorance of that obligation, or their non-consent to it when grown up, free them from that guilt any more than ignorance of Adam's covenant, or of the breach of it, can free his posterity from the guilt of his first sin, or from perfidy in their personal violations of that covenant of works. In Deuteronomy 5, 2 and 3, God, by Moses, declares that the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai was not made with them only, but with all that new generation of their children and grandchildren who survived them, Numbers 26, 64. In Deuteronomy 29, 14 and 15, He declares that the covenant taken by that new generation in the plains of Moab did not only bind them who were alive and present at the entrance into but also others, even their posterity. Their covenant with the Gibeonites did not only bind the immediate engagers and consenters, but also their posterity many ages afterward. Joshua 9, 15, and 19, with 2 Samuel 21, 1. Now, these covenants of allegiance to God and duty to men, of which we are treating, were sworn and subscribed by our own natural, though now immediate, parents, and when it is considered how frequently that covenant, the same in substance in the several bonds, was sworn or subscribed, and how generally, and how readily some covenanted on one occasion, whose ancestors had not on a preceding, and how families have been since intermixed, it will scarce remain probable that there is a Scotchman, at least on the continent of Britain or Ireland, who is not descended from some covenanter. If any to his own disgrace will contend that in all these and different periods of covenanting, 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1639, 1643, 1648, and so forth, all his progenitors were such mere neutrals, or malignant opposers of the true religion and liberties of the country, that none of them took the covenant, let him take heed lest after all God his creditor find him a perjured transgressor of the covenant of his fathers, or at least of the covenant made by his church and nation, and their respective representatives. 4. That lawful covenants made by the greater part of a society bind the whole and every future exceder to it, at least unless the minority or exceders have, by a proper descent, diverted the obligation from themselves, and that If remarkably calculated to promote the common advantage, they bind the members of it, while it continues to society, common sense will not allow us to doubt. That the exact fulfillment of our covenants with God is remarkably calculated to promote the honor of Christ and His Father, and the welfare of both church and state, has been formerly hinted. No person therefore could or can, by any lawful descent, divert their binding force from himself. nor do I remember of any who regularly attempted it in Scotland. Without doubt, the majority, nay, body of the Scotch nation entered into their solemn covenant with God. In 1581, both the Privy Council and the General Assembly, in their respective acts, enjoined the taking of the National Covenant. Quote, In this year and the month of March, was the National Covenant solemnly taken by the King, his Council and Court, and afterwards by the inhabitants of the kingdom." That's from Brown's Apologetical Relation. The National Covenant was subscribed by the king, his court and council, and afterwards by all ranks of people in the land. He gives several references. Please see the printed edition. That good order of the Church was three years ago approved, sealed, and confirmed with profession of mouth, subscription of hand, and religion of oath. by the king and every subject of every estate." In 1590 the National Covenant was again subscribed by all sorts of persons. In March 1590 the bond for religion was again ratified in council and about 96 ministers in different parts of the kingdom were appointed to convene before them the godly of all ranks and minister unto them the National Covenant and to take their subscriptions. and a hundred and thirty of the nobility and gentry to assist them as should be necessary. In consequence hereof, copies of the covenant and general bond were dispersed through the whole kingdom, and the covenant subscribed." Their confession of faith and solemnly in covenant was subscribed by the whole Scotch nation. It was subscribed by all sorts of persons, the whole land rejoicing at the oath of God. It was attended by many choice blessings from the Lord. About this time the General Assembly appointed this covenant to be renewed in universities every year. In 1596 the covenant was renewed in the General Assembly by about 400 ministers, besides elders and others, with great solemnity, and attended by a remarkable effusion of the Holy Ghost and bitter mourning for sin, and earnest reformation from it. It was afterwards renewed in synods, presbyteries, and parishes, but in many parishes, particularly in Edinburgh, where the court had much influence, it was delayed and neglected. In 1604 the covenant was subscribed by all the members in the Presbytery of St. Andrews and Synod of Lothian. And again he gives numerous references, please see the printed edition. The renovation of the covenant in 1638 was still more universal and harmonious. This covenant, like an alarm bell, brought together all the Scots who were dissatisfied with the government, that is, almost the whole nation. It was subscribed by the great men in the people, except the privy councillors, the judges and the bishops, and such ministers as were dignitaries in the Church. By the publication of this covenant, the Royalists were not above one to a thousand. The covenant was the sole law the people would follow with respect to religion." All ranks and conditions, all ages and sexes, flocked to the subscription of this covenant. Few in their judgment disapproved it, and still fewer dared openly to condemn it. The king's ministers and counselors were, most of them, seized by the general contagion. The covenanters found themselves seconded by the zeal of the whole nation." In the several counties and shires, it was received by the common people as a sacred oracle and subscribed by all such as were thought to have any zeal for the Protestant religion and the liberties of their country. The privy councillors, the judges, the bishops, and the friends of arbitrary power were the principal who refused it." These rightly judging that the procuring cause of all the calamities of the nation was the violation of their national covenant, unanimously resolved to renew the same. The town of Aberdeen was the only place of any note in the kingdom that declined joining in the covenant, yet even there several of special note cheerfully put their hands to the covenant, which was sworn by the generality of all ranks through the nation before the end of April." They resolved upon renewing the national covenant, which had been almost buried for forty years before, Being read in churches, it was heartily embraced, sworn, and subscribed by all ranks with many tears and great joy, so that the whole land, great and small, a very few accepted, without any compulsion from church or state, did in a few months cheerfully return to their ancient principles and subject themselves to the oath of God for reformation. Both the court and prelates were enraged against them for it, but the Lord remarkably countenanced them with the extraordinary manifestation of His presence and downpouring of His Spirit." The whole body of the people of Scotland were engaged to God by solemn covenants and vows, frequently renewed, to own and endeavour the preservation of the reformed religion and so forth. Not only did the body of the commonality, that is, the common people, swear these covenants, but the magistrates themselves did take on the same vows and engagements, solemnly promised to prosecute the ends of this covenant. All the lovers of God and friends to the liberties of the nation did solemnly renew the national covenant wherein they were signally countenanced of the Lord." So much for the testimony of foes and friends who lived at some distance of time. Let us now hear eye and ear witness of that work. Quote, Upon the first of March, 1638, the covenant was publicly read and subscribed by them all, with much joy and shouting. Afterward, the covenant was subscribed everywhere in parishes with joy, except in the North. Within not many months almost the whole land did subject themselves to the oath of God which was attended with more than ordinary influences of the Spirit. The Lord did let forth much of His Spirit on His people in 1638 when this nation did solemnly enter into covenant. Then did the nation visibly own the Lord and was visibly owned by Him. A remarkable gale of providence did attend the actings of His people which did astonish their adversaries and force many of them to own subjection." Except one day at the Kirk of Shots, I never saw such motions from the Spirit of God, all the people generally and most willingly concurring in swearing the covenant, through the whole land except the professed Papists and some few who, for base ends, adhered to the prelates, the people universally entered into the covenant of God." When the covenanting work of that year was still unfinished, Dixon, Henderson, and Kant affirmed that almost the whole Kirken Kingdom had joined in the late covenant and that they had been sent to Aberdeen from almost the whole Kirken Kingdom, and this the Prolatic doctors there grant to be true. Quote, the covenant being drawn up was subscribed by all present at Edinburgh, and copies thereof sent to such as were absent, and being read in the churches it was heartily embraced, sworn and subscribed, with tears and joy. Great was that day of the Lord's power, for much willingness and cheerfulness was among the people, so as in a short time few in all the land did refuse, except some papists, some aspiring courtiers, some who were addicted to the English ceremonies, and some few who had sworn the oath of supremacy and canonical obedience at their entry." This covenant was subscribed by almost every asserter of liberty who was present at Edinburgh. Copies of it were sent to such as were absent to be communicated to all the inhabitants of the kingdom that everyone who had religion at heart might swear this covenant. The non-covenanters were first all the Papists, the number of whom scarce exceeded six hundred, some court parasites who had lately been advanced to dignities, or eagerly grasped at them, or who were more addicted to the English rites and canons. as the doctors and magistrates of Aberdeen. Some others, for a time, declined subscribing from a regard to the oath of supremacy and canonical obedience, which they had taken, and because the king had not enjoined this covenant, and because it bound them to assist one another in this cause." The national covenant having been agreed to with so great harmony amidst a world of difficulties, upon the first of March was subscribed by several thousands consisting of all the nobles who were then in Scotland, except the Lords of Privy Council, and four or five more, and of commissioners from all the shires within Scotland, and from every borough, except Aberdeen, St. Andrews, and Crail, and of other gentlemen and ministers. Before the end of April, every parish through Scotland, where the minister was friendly to the Reformation then sought, having observed a fast, to humble themselves for the former defection and breach of covenant, did renew the same with great solemnity. Scarce a person opposing himself, but every one, women as well as men, concurring and publicly avouching the Lord to be their God, with their hands lifted up, except 1. Papists, to whom it was not offered, the number of whom in all Scotland was not reckoned above six hundred persons. 2. Courtiers, who had no will to displease the King. 3. Some of the clergy, who had sworn the oath for conformity to Prelacy. or were dignitaries in the Church, the chief of whom were the Doctors of Aberdeen. The most of the Hamiltons, Douglasses, and all the Gordons who were under the influence of Sutherland and Kenmure, all the Campbells, Forbesses, Frasers, Grants, Mackenzies, Mackays, Macintoshes, Macleans, McDonalds, Irvines, and Inneses, subscribed the Covenant. Many in Aberdeen and Glasgow, who for a time refused, subscribed. Not a Burgess in St. Andrews refused. In Edinburgh, Dr. Eliot, a minister, and Robert Rankin and John Brown, regents of the College, were the only persons of note who declined subscription." Add to all these the 28,000 who, at King Charles' command, subscribed the Covenant as it stood in 1581, declared to be the same in substance with the other bond, and it will appear that few, very few, then neglected to swear or subscribe the Covenant. What numbers took the covenant from 1639 to 1643, in obedience to the peremptory acts of church and state in joining it, I know not. In 1643 and 1644, the swearing of the solemn legion covenant by all adult persons was very peremptorily required by both church and state. From a copy of it before me, I have reason to think that the subscription of it was pretty universal. The takers of it in Scotland are affirmed to have been seven to one of their opposers. It was solemnly sworn and subscribed almost in all parts of the nation." With a marvellous unanimity was this everywhere received. In God's great mercy, all that I have yet heard of have taken this oath. Our land now, I hope, in a happy time, has entered into a league with England." In their speech to the Council of London after their return, Henry Vane and Stephen Marshall affirmed that they believed the solemn league had been universally taken by the whole Scotch nation. The exhortation of the English Assembly and Parliament affirms that, quote, the whole body of Scotland had willingly sworn it with rejoicing, close quote. Rutherford and his 16 faithful brethren affirmed that, quote, the solemn league was actually sworn and taken by the whole body of Scotland from the highest to the lowest by the whole body of the land, close quote. Sir James Stewart and Mr. Stirling, who perhaps both covenanted that year, affirmed that, quote, in 1648, in the month of December, The Solemn League was, for the second time, sworn in all the congregations of Scotland upon the same day, except where a vacancy or the ministers being under scandal did occasion a delay till another day, with great solemnity and such mixture of joy and sorrow as became people entering into covenant with the Lord. There was at that time a great zeal for God, from clear knowledge and sad experience, generally and solemnly professed before God and all men in our public acknowledgment 1648. In consequence whereof, the League and Covenant was also, by the whole Kingdom, renewed that same year. And in answer thereto, the Lord did mightily save us. He did highly advance His blessed work." That the body of the English nation also swore the solemn League and Covenant is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament affirm, The Honourable Houses of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned City of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will doubtless stand by all those who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an everlasting covenant with the Lord." Rutherford and his sixteen faithful brethren affirm that, quote, this solemn league was actually sworn and taken by the whole body of Scotland, also by the Honorable Houses of the Parliament of England, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned City of London, and multitudes not only of the people, but of persons of eminent rank and quality throughout that nation, and the nation of Ireland, and all this by the authority of the powers, civil and ecclesiastic. Who can have forgot how deliberately it was resolved, and how unanimously it was concluded? The respective authorities of both church and state in Scotland did, all with one voice, approve and embrace the same, as the most powerful means by the blessing of God for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion. with perfect peace in these nations, and propagating the same to other nations, did ordain it to be, with humiliation and all religious solemnities, received, sworn, and subscribed by all ministers and professors within this kirk, and subjects within this kingdom, which was accordingly done by the whole body of the land, and in many congregations attended with the feelings of that joy and comfortable influence of the Spirit of God, which they did find in so great a measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant in 1638. And this solemn oath of God being taken by the honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, by the renowned City of London, by the revered Assembly of Divines, the Lords and Commons, upon the account of its being thought a fit and excellent means to acquire the favour of God towards the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and to establish and propagate the true reformed religion, peace and prosperity of these Kingdoms, did ordain that the same covenant be solemnly taken throughout the Kingdom of England And upon these grounds, and according to these instructions and exhortations of the Assembly and Parliament, was that solemn covenant taken by multitudes of all ranks and sorts, many of which did rejoice at the oath of God. A little thereafter it was ordered by the House of Commons that the solemn legion covenant be, on every day of humiliation, that is, once every month, publicly read in every church and congregation within the kingdom, and that every congregation have one of the said covenants fairly printed on a fair letter, in a table to hang up in some place of the church to be read, where many copies continued hanging till the Restoration. No power on earth can absolve either themselves or others from the bond and tie of this sacred oath of the Most High." An apologetical declaration of the conscientious Presbyterians of the province of London, and of many thousands of other faithful and covenant-keeping citizens and inhabitants, which was subscribed by these many thousands in January 1649, at the hazard of everything dear to them, has these words, quote, calling to mind our solemn league and covenant which was so religiously and unanimously sworn, close quote. Quote, the sacred oath was first taken by the lords and commons legally assembled in Parliament and then by the generality of the people in England. They, the Parliament, no sinner met in 1649 but they ordered it to be hung up before their eyes as a constant monitor to them, close quote. If all tables were as legible as those of the Lords and Commons, I believe there, that is, subscribers of the Covenant, number would be found more than a fourth part of the nation, in 1660 notwithstanding the death of perhaps more than one-half of them from 1644 to 1660. Can any considerate observer take notice that the Covenant in England was imposed on and submitted to by all sorts and degrees of men in all counties, cities, and towns, tendered and since testified by their public subscriptions, by the most of ministers in their several counties, and to their individual congregations, and yet, without the supposal of a very great mortality, imagine not a fourth part of the nation, now living in 1660, to have taken it? Nor shall I insist on the universal alacrity, that is, willingness, joy, and content, that is, contentment, of the most serious in England and that accompanied the first making of the Covenant, and the solemnities and order in which it was taken in the City of London, and the several counties and congregations of England, than which no Act ever passed among the people of England, more solemnly or more religiously. The Solemn League and Covenant is really public and national in England. 1. Its matter is public and national relating to the Kingdom under its civil, religious, and reformed capacity, being the reformation and defence of religion under a national profession and the honour and happiness of the King, privileges of the Parliament, and liberties of the subjects. 2. These matters were consulted, debated, and agreed to by two distinct nations in their most public capacities. 3. The end of it was public and national, the true liberty, peace, and safety of the Kingdom, wherein everyone's private condition is included, and that the Lord may be one and His name one in the three Kingdoms, and the Kingdoms of England and Scotland may remain conjoined in a firm peace to all posterity, in a case that concerned the good of these kingdoms. 4. The Covenant was sworn by the nation, one, collectively, in the most full and complete body that could or ever did represent the same, the Parliament consisting of Lords and Commons, and that in their public capacity, and with the greatest solemnity imaginable, did, as the representative body of the Kingdom, swear the Covenant, which as a further testimony that it was a national covenant, they cause to be printed with their names subscribed and to be hung up in all churches and in their own Parliament House, as a compass whereby to steer their debates, and to dictate unto all that should succeed them in that place and capacity, what obligations before God lie upon the body of this nation. 2. It was universally sworn by the people of this Kingdom, England, solemnly testified in their particular places of convention, all over the Kingdom, and by all manner of persons, from eighteen years and upwards, and that at the command of and by the authority of the Parliament, who, in their place and in behalf of this nation, did order it to be universally sworn. Certainly, whoever will but weigh the directions given and duly executed in the tendering of the covenant in all counties and parishes, and taken by all persons, religious, military, or civil, if the several roles within the several parishes and precincts of this kingdom in which the several names of such, as did swear the solemn league and covenant, were engrossed be viewed, it will be found that it was sworn by the universality of the nation. And I hope we, who are a free people, tied by no bounds but such as we lay upon ourselves, may be allowed to bind ourselves by an oath. 3. His Majesty Charles II did swear the solemn league and covenant in behalf of himself and his successors, and that as King of Great Britain and Ireland. More than 600 ministers of England in 13 different counties in their testimonies, 1648, to the truths of Christ and to the Solemn League and Covenant, attested as national. The Yorkshire ministers say, quote, it cannot but be known to the churches abroad that all the three kingdoms stand engaged by virtue of the Solemn League and Covenant, close quote. The London ministers say, quote, we shall never forget how solemnly and cheerfully the Sacred League was sworn wherein the three kingdoms stand engaged jointly and severally. The Parliament have not only enjoined it to be taken by all men above eighteen years of age, throughout the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, but the Commons have also required it to be published on every monthly fast day, for the better remembrance and observation of it, and that every congregation have one of the said covenants fairly printed in a fair letter, in a table, fitted to hang up in some public place of the Church, to be read." In Ireland, Rutherford and his sixteen faithful brethren, who had full access to know the truth, affirm that multitudes swore the solemn league. In Cox's History of Ireland, Ormond, then Lord Lieutenant there, says, quote, The covenant has been imposed by ordinance of English Parliament, which has the supreme power over Ireland as a dependent kingdom. The covenant was imposed on all that were under the power of Parliament, close quote. In a subsequent page it is affirmed that all the province of Ulster, in which the Protestants chiefly reside, and a considerable part of Munster, were under the power of Parliament, and that in 1649 the Puritans and Presbyterians professed that their regard to their covenant made them side with Charles II against the sectarians headed by Cromwell. In the Christian loyalty of the Presbyterians, particularly in Ulster, since their settlement there, by King James, the most of which is verified by original papers inserted, we have the following and like hints. Quote, The petition of many thousand Protestant inhabitants of Ulster, presented to the English Parliament 1640, avows their approbation of the Scotch National Covenant, and complained that the Irish prelates had exclaimed against it, and concurred with Lord Lieutenant Stratford in imposing an oath, renouncing it. The Scots, who were generally dissenters, that is, Presbyterians, took arms against the Popish massacres, and were the first that appeared in Ulster against the common enemy, who were then exercising unheard-of cruelty. With the Scotch Army of 6,000, under General Alexander Leslie, which were sent to check the ravage of the murderous Papists, ministers were sent to attend the several regiments, who, associating themselves with some formerly in Ireland, formed themselves into a presbytery, in which Leslie and several other officers of the Army sat as ruling elders. They preached both in camp and country. At this time, those who had fled from Ireland on account of the oath imposed by Stratford before the massacre began, returned in great numbers and joined with the Scotch Army and Sir John Clotworthy, a zealous Puritan, so that he with his party scoured the whole country of Antrim from massacring Papists. When the established, that is, the Episcopalian clergy, were generally destroyed by the massacre, or had fled, the work of the ministry was mostly in the hands of the Presbyterians, who, with indefatigable industry, attended both camp and country, not without comfortable success. In 1642 the Irish Protestants petitioned the Scotch General Assembly that some ministers of the Gospel might be sent to comfort them in their great calamity, when, by the massacre, left as without shepherds, and particularly that their own ministers, who had been formerly banished by Archbishop Laud's partisans, might be restored to them. Six ministers were sent to concur with those of the Scotch army sent thither by authority of King and Parliament, and as they came very seasonably to encourage the army and their friends, God mightily blessed their endeavors with success." Upon a request of very great numbers, the Assembly, 1643, sent them further supply of ministers. A petition of the distressed Christians in the north of Ireland, subscribed by very many hands to the assembly in 1644, says, quote, Your reward is with your God for your zeal and care to have your reformation spread in sending hither that blessed league and covenant which we much desired and longed for, which has had a wished and gracious success by the blessing of God accompanying the pains of those to whom the tendering of it was entrusted by you. When the said covenant was presented to the regiments of your army, we made bold to lay hold on the opportunity, and cheerfully and unanimously joined ourselves thereto, that, if we die by the hand of the Popish murderers, we may die a covenanted people, and they beg a supply of ministers for twenty-four desolate congregations. Much about the same time, the English Parliament, by an ordinance enjoined, that covenant to be taken in Ireland, And accordingly it was sworn by almost all the Protestants in Ulster, who acknowledged the authority of the Parliament, the greatest part of the Protestants in Ireland all concurred in it, and their posterity enjoy large estates from that English Parliament which enjoined the taking of the Covenant. It is known that the Irish army under the Lord of Ards were all Presbyterian Covenanters. Many of the Irish Protestants renewed the solemn league about 1649. And hence the presbytery of Bangor, in their declaration that year, affirm, quote, that they and others had renewed their covenant, and warn that none who had renewed covenant should join the army of Ards, who, after he and they had lately renewed the covenant, had turned over to assist the malignants, and foretell that the quarrel of the covenant should pursue them, as it soon did in their rune and of Orman's army which they assisted. The Irish Presbyterians, in their representation against the procedure of the sectarians with King Charles I, publicly read in their several congregations a vow of the Solemn League as their covenant, and warned the well-affected to that covenant to avoid all compliance with the sectaries. The Presbyterian ministers, in their narrative to government of their steadfast loyalty and of their sufferings under Cromwell, say, We could not own them, that is, Cromwell and his substitutes, as lawful magistrates, and could not pray for their success, and so forth, considering the strong obligation of the oath of God that lay still upon us to maintain His Majesty's power and greatness according to our covenant." Notwithstanding all the cruel banishment, imprisonment, and so forth which they had suffered under Cromwell for their attachment to King Charles, there remained so many staunch Covenanters in Ireland that in one synod of Bellominoch fifty-nine ministers in 1662 refused to conform to prelacy, which is more than were in some six synods in Scotland, nor in any synod here except in that of Glasgow, which consists of above 130 ministers, and in which the protesters chiefly resided, was that number of non-conformists succeeded. From these hints it appears that the body of Protestants in Ireland took the Solemn League in and that the number of covenanters there could not be less than fifty or sixty thousand if it was not double or triple that reckoning. If then, sir, the public engagements of representatives of church and state can bind those represented by them and their posterity, if the public engagements of parents can bind their descendants, if the public engagements of the greater part of a society can bind the whole and their successors, our public covenants with God must bind the Protestants in Ireland, the whole nation of England, and in a peculiar manner the Scots, who are so manifestly affected by all the four sources of obligation, that no, not our perjured prelatists, for their own vindication, ever dared, that I know of, to contest it. And answerable to this source, these fourfold vows must fix upon us a kind of fourfold solemn obligation to God, frequently repeated, renewed, or confirmed. How fearful, then, must be our guilt if we cast all the cords of God behind our back in favor of gross heresy, blasphemy, idolatry, and potpourri. 4. Our ancestors did not covenant with God as mere individuals, but as a body. Covenanting at the same time with each other, they made a joint surrender of themselves to God. In their bond of 1636, they call it a blessed and loyal conjunction. In their reasons against giving it up, they call it a bond of union and conjunction, a mutual union and conjunction among themselves. and in reasons of protestation they call it a bond of inviolable union among themselves. The Assembly, August 6, 1649, say, quote, Our engagement therein is not only national, but personal, close quote. The subject bound by the covenant being thus not merely particular persons, but a church and nation, the obligation of it must be as permanent as the society bound by it. Our ancestors did what they could to make their covenant as binding as possible. They expressed terms in which the different forms of it are conceived, manifested a promise, an oath, a vow, a covenant. If then there be any binding force in a promise from the truth of men which is therein pledged, if there be any religion in an oath because of the reverence we owe to the sacred name of God interposed in it, if any obligation results from a vow because of the fealty we thereby owe to God, If a man be obliged to keep his covenant from regard to truth or justice due to others who are parties in it, all these, transacted with the utmost solemnity, must concur in constituting the binding force of this public engagement. Hence the Commission 1651 in their warnings say, quote, The bonds and obligations that lie upon us to this duty by the law of God, the law of nature, and the National Covenant and Solemn League, and the pains therein contained, whereunto we have devoted ourselves, if we shall desert or fail." 6. Our ancestors plainly intended that their public covenant should bind all future generations. In 1638 they lamented their own sins as breaches of the covenant made or renewed in 1581, 1590, and 1596. In their reasons against giving up their sworn covenant, they affirm, quote, Our religious ancestors, by the like oath, have obliged us to the substance and tenor of this. This our oath, being a religious and perpetual obligation, should stand in vigor for the more firm establishment of religion in our own time and in the generations following. Although the innovations of religion were the occasion of the making of this covenant, yet our intention was against these and all other innovations and corruptions to establish religion by an everlasting covenant never to be forgotten." In their preamble to the covenant that year they say, quote, being convinced in our own minds and professing with our mouths that the present and succeeding generations are bound to keep the foresaid national oath and subscription of 1581, 1590, 1596 inviolable, close quote. In the solemn league they swear, quote, we shall endeavor that these kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity, close quote. The ends of these covenants, declared in their express words, are perpetual till the end of time. That is, to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom, for the common happiness of ourselves and our posterity, that religion and righteousness may flourish in the lands of the glory of God, and so forth. To promote the glory of God and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the honor and happiness of the King's majesty, and his posterity, and the public liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms, that we in our posterity may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord delight to dwell in the midst of us, that the Lord may be one in his name one in the three kingdoms, may turn away his wrath, and establish these churches and kingdoms in peace." If, then, the matter being moral duty, was proper for a covenant of perpetual obligation, if the covenanters had full power to bind the whole society in their posterity, if the subject upon which the obligation was laid be permanent, if the end of the covenanters and their covenant was to fix the obligation upon posterity as well as upon the immediate engagers, and if they did everything in their power to render that obligation solemn and permanent, What further evidence of the perpetuity of that obligation can any man demand who singly regards the honour of God or the welfare of this church and nation? May I therefore adopt the words of a truly great man, that is, Ralph Erskine, quote, It was the glory of Scotland that we were solemnly in covenant with God, wherein our forefathers for themselves engaged and swore against potpourri, prelacy, superstition, and everything contrary to the word of God. and to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Reformed Church of Scotland, and that as we should answer to Jesus Christ at the great day, and under the pain of His everlasting wrath, may not our hearts bleed to think on our defection from old covenanted principles, and our violation of our engagements, yea, of the burning and burial of our covenants, and the prevalence of abjured potpourri in this land. Covenant obligation to duty is what we still stand under, Though many be ashamed and refuse to own these obligations, the glory of our land let us go forward lamenting our sinful defection from a covenanted reformation and acknowledging our solemn covenant obligation. Never was a nation more solemnly bound to the Lord's binational covenants. Religious covenants in Scripture comprehend absent as well as present, and posterity to come as well as the covenanting forefathers, Deuteronomy 29, 14, 15, 22, and 24-25. Now, our solemn covenants, which our forefathers entered into, being nothing but a superadded and accumulative obligation to what we were previously bound to by the Word of God, they cannot but stand binding upon us their posterity. As Israel avouched the Lord to be their God by solemn covenants that were binding upon them and their posterity after them, so in this moral duty we and our forefathers followed the example, entering into a solemn covenant with Him, which He in many signal ways countenanced, attended with internal displays of His power and glory. To disparage these covenants is to cast dung upon our glory. I think it worse than the breaking, burning, and burying of them. To bespatter their reputation and deny their obligation is to render them odious to all generations. There is a super-added obligation lying on us by our covenants of gratitude and duty, which, though it bind us to nothing but what we were authoritatively bound to before, yet it strengthens the obligation. When God has manifested His covenant of grace to a people, receiving them to be His people, and they thereupon have entered into a covenant of duty with Him, avouching Him to be their God, and promising, through grace, subjection to Him, though it were four hundred, yea four thousand years, it stands, and they who succeed are bound by the covenant. A number of honest covenanters, when they avouched the Lord to be their God, and promised obedience to Him, did it in the faith of His avouching them to be His people, and trusting to His covenant of grace and promise, and not to their covenant or engagement. We in these lands have devoted ourselves to the Lord, in which we were warranted by many scripture precedents. Never was an action done more sedately and advisedly. The binding obligation upon us is plain. If we have the benefit of that religion to which our forefathers swore, we must be heirs of that oath they came under to the Most High. As Levi paid tithes in his father's loins, so we and our forefathers swore to this covenant. We are obliged to stand to it, though it were ever so many years after. Being partakers of the benefit, we are bound to do that which they promise to do for it. If a parent bind his children, are not their seed and heirs bound by his promise as well as they were? What continual changes and confusions would there be in the world if persons themselves were only to be tied by their own personal bonds? How much more impiety is it for men to deny that obligation by covenant to God made by their forefathers in their names? Our solemn covenants are one of the grounds of our claim to Him, and of His continuing His claim to us who own these covenants. How will God avenge the violation of a lawful oath made with Himself in this land? Unless these professed Presbyterians can now prove that Presbytery is sinful, they must acknowledge that our national covenants are binding on us in this matter. If a covenant in things lawful be not binding, then no covenant ever was." Objection 1. Many things were wrong in the imposing and taking of these covenants, and their words are ill chosen as to extirpate popery, prelacy, that is, to kill papists and prelatists. Answer 1. Let us allow no malignant enemy or perjured violator of these covenants to be held a sufficient witness against them, nor let us have the long ago refuted calumnies of such men revived upon their mere authority. 2. Though the covenant had had infirmities, even infirmities sufficient to have hindered the swearing of it, as the doctors of Aberdeen and Oxford pretended was the case, it may nevertheless bind when once it is sworn. Though its matter had been in part sinful and self-contradictory, it would bind to the part which was lawful. Though the authority which imposed it had been insufficient, and the manner of imposing it improper, it would bind when once sworn. Zedekiah was, in some respect, compelled to swear allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar, whose sovereignty over Judah was very disputable, yet his oath bound him, Ezekiel 17, 12-19, 2 Chronicles 36, 13. Though our covenant or Zends had been carnal or even sinful, the oath, as far as lawful in its matter, is binding when once it is sworn. Without allowing these things as fixed principles, no oaths or covenants could be any securities among mankind. 3. If potpourri and prelacy be plants which God has not planted, why may we not, as lawfully in our stations, endeavor to extirpate or root them out, as we may mortify the deeds of our body that we may live? The one includes no more violence against men's persons than the other." Romans 8.13. Do you imagine that the Covenanters swore to cut their own throats or tear out their own hearts when they engaged to endeavor in their station to extirpate everything contrary to the power of godliness? as indwelling sin, vain thoughts, and so forth, which adhere to believers in this life, certainly are. Objection 2. Many in England and Ireland never took the Solemn League or took it in a sense consistent with prelacy or independency. Answer 1. I did not expect that any hater of that covenant will ever be able to invalidate the proof which has been given of the number of the covenanters in both of these kingdoms. 2. The Covenanters declared, quote, that an oath is to be taken in the plain sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot bind to sin, but in anything not sinful being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt. Close quote. That's from the Confession of Faith, chapter 22, section 4. All the Jesuits profess the same principle. And indeed, if oaths, vows, or covenants bind not men according to the plain meaning of their words, they become quite useless. Men's prevarication, therefore, in favours of prolicy or independency, cannot free them from the obligation of an oath, which strikes against both. 3. As the Scots stood bound by their national covenant to every duty contained in the Solemn League, long before the English had a thought of covenanting along with them, and did also swear the Solemn League, no neglect or prevarication of either English or Irish can free us from our obligation. It was neither to the English nor to the Irish, but chiefly to the faithful and unchangeable God of all grace, that our fathers bound themselves in their seed. The Assembly, in their letter to the Council of London, justly observed, quote, It is not in the power of any human authority to absolve you from adhering to this so solemnly sworn leading covenant, close quote. And in another letter, quote, The covenant has been broken by many in both kingdoms. We do not doubt, but there are many seven thousands in England who have retained their integrity in that business." And in their warning, 1648, quote, The violation of the covenant by some in England does not set us free from the obligation of it. No laws nor authority on earth can absolve us from so solemn an obligation to the Most High. We are not acquitted from the obligation of our solemn covenants because of the troubles. In the worst of times, all those duties whereunto by covenant we oblige ourselves do still lie upon us. we have sworn and we must perform it." And in their warning 1649, quote, albeit the league and covenant be despised by that prevailing party in England, yet the obligation of that covenant is perpetual and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded and prosecuted by every one of us in our posterity according to their place and station. And in their letter to brethren in England, quote, Although there were none in the one kingdom who did adhere to the covenant, yet were not the other kingdom, nor any person in either of them, absolved from the bond thereof, since in it we have not only sworn by the Lord, but also covenanted with Him. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve others from their duty or tie to Him. Besides, the duties therein contain being in themselves lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereto moral. Though others forget their duty, yet does not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the covenants in our places and stations. The covenant being intended as one of the best means of steadfastness, it were strange to say that the backslidings of any should absolve others from the tie thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein as not only national, but personal. All these kingdoms joining together to abolish that oath by law could not dispense therewith Much less can any one of them, or any party in either, do the same. They are testimonies which the Lord Christ has entered as protestations to preserve His right in these ends of the earth, long ago given unto Him for His possession, and of late confirmed by solemn covenant." Objection 3. The influence of the Highland Chiefs and the gross ignorance of the Scotch Islands, together with the general dislike of the Covenant at the Restoration and Revolution, are internal evidences that but a part, perhaps a small part, of the Scots took the covenant. Answer 1. I boldly defy you to invalidate the proofs I have brought to the contrary. Nay, for aught I know you cannot produce one of these perjured prelatists that pretended that only the smaller part of the Scotch nation took the covenant, especially in 1590, 1638, and 1643. Were the highland chiefs and the gross ignorance of the islanders, occasioned by the negligence of the curates, a whit more able to withstand the enlightening and heart-bowing power of God so remarkably manifested on these occasions than King Charles and many others on the continent? Have we not produced evidence that multitudes of the highlanders entered into the Reformers' Covenant 1638, and were not Argyle, Marr, and many other highland chiefs zealous covenanters? Did not such as were otherwise minded take the covenant of 1581 as imposed by the Privy Council, according to its original meaning? Did not even the doctors and Prolatic inhabitants of Aberdeen take that bond, without approving the Council's limitation of it to its original meaning? 3. You can produce no evidence that the covenanting work was not carried on in the Scotch Islands, but such as we have, that never a Hebrew child was circumcised on the eighth day from Isaac to John Baptist. or that never a weekly Sabbath was observed from the creation till the manna fell around the Hebrew camp, that is, want of positive evidence to the contrary, and that, too, in places of which, to this moment, we have little account except what relates to their situation, soil, product, or the like. 4. It is highly absurd to pretend that the so general disregard of the covenants, twelve or forty years after the last taking of them, is internal evidence that few had taken them. Will it irrefutably prove that Adam was never made after the image of God or taken into covenant with Him because within a few days or hours he had become a sinner, hating both God and His covenant? Or that devils were never created holy and happy because within a few days they had left their first estate? Will the general concurrence of the Hebrews in worshiping the golden calf prove that they had not entered into solemn covenant with God about forty days before? Will their subsequent apostasies prove that but a few of them had covenanted with God under Joshua, Asa, Joash, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah? Will Peter's fearfully heinous and repeated denial of Christ prove that he had not a few hours before solemnly engaged against it? Objection 4. Force or fear caused many to covenant. Answer 1. Though force or fear should have rendered the manner of covenanting unacceptable to God, They cannot render void an oath which is sworn. 2. I will never contend that the penalty annexed by law to the refusal of the Covenant in 1643, or even on some other occasions, was proper. But after laborious search I find no proper evidence that any force was ever used in Scotland to make any take the Covenant, except in 1639 by Montrose and Monroe, two military men, without any warrant from either church or state. the former, if not both of whom afterward, turned out a malignant murderer of his covenanting brethren. Never, sir, pick up or retail the mere inventions of perjured violators of these covenants, who were glad to say anything to conceal or excuse their own wickedness. 3. In 1638, when the covenanting was most universal, the bishops and some other anti-covenanters, afraid of prosecution for their enormous debts or for their oppressive and other wicked deeds, and perhaps chiefly to columniate the Covenanters at court, did flee their country, but none were obliged to do so for refusing the covenant. Fear of danger probably restrained some from reviling a bond which the nation highly esteemed, but none that I know of were thereby constrained to swear it. Some mobs happened, occasioned by the king's suspension of the common exercise of the civil law and the sitting of its courts. But these were detested by the zealous Covenanters, and not one of them appears either to have been intended or to have issued in favor of the Covenant. If the influences of God's Spirit and the affecting appearances of His Providence as at Sinai or in the Apostolic Age awed or allured numbers to take the Covenant whose hearts were not sincere before Him, should we quarrel with the Almighty on that account? But, sir, Henderson, Dixon, and Kant who being the principal leaders of the covenanting work that year affirmed to the doctors of Aberdeen who were eager to have detected them a falsehood if it had been possible quote no pastors in our knowledge have been either forced to flee or have been threatened with the want that is lack of their stipends for refusing their subscription but some have of their own accord gone to court for procuring protection against their creditors and have made lies between the king and his people Others have willfully refused to abide with their flocks for no reason but because the people have subscribed. Arguments have been taken from, promised, augmentation of stipends to hinder subscription. Fear of worldly loss rather hinders men to subscribe than scruples of conscience. The prelate's flight seems rather to have proceeded from inward furies of accusing consciences, and so forth. In this day of the Lord's power His people have most willingly offered themselves in multitudes like the dew of the morning. Others, of no small note, have offered their subscriptions, and have been refused till time should try their sincerity, from love to the cause, and not from the fear of men. No threatenings have been used, except of the deserved judgments of God, nor force except the force of reason, from the high respects which we owe to religion, to our King, to our native country, to ourselves, and to our posterity. This is from the Answers to the Doctors of Aberdeen, pages 42 and 44. The General Assembly, 1649, and their Act, section 19, appear so far from forcing men into their covenant that they earnestly enjoin and appoint the utmost caution to be used for preventing such persons taking of it as did not sincerely approve it, and resolve to prosecute the ends of it. Since the covenanting work was so remarkably countenanced by the Holy Ghost, attended with perhaps more sincere mourning for sin, more serious repentance and solid conversion to God, than has within an equal space of time and place happened anywhere in the world since the apostolic ages, and since the covenanters in their vow deponed, that is, testified under oath, that they covenanted without any worldly respect or inducement, as far as human infirmity would allow, Take heed, sir, lest after your objection has manifested the carnality, selfishness, and dissimulation of your own religious appearances. God, at last, should publicly expose you as a blasphemer of His great work, and a malicious slanderer of His people, as willfully perjured. Objection 5. It is impossible our covenanters could understand their bonds, particularly in that which relates to popery in the National Covenant, or to prelacy in the Solemn League. Answer 1. Ignorance, indeed, hinders a right and acceptable swearing of oaths or covenants, but cannot invalidate their binding force if once they be sworn. Otherwise millions in Britain would, through ignorance, be freed from all their solemn engagements in baptism and the Lord's Supper, and thousands freed from all obligation of their oaths of allegiance or fidelity to magistrates, or even their oaths to declare the truth and nothing else in witness-bearing. Candidates for the ministry needed but keep themselves in a great measure ignorant of the doctrines of the confession of faith and duties of the ministerial office in order to render their ordination vows or subscriptions altogether non-obligatory. 2. Being trained up in the abominations of potpourri or prelacy, or having frequent access to witness them, our covenanting ancestors, who had common sense, might have more knowledge of them than most clergymen in Scotland now have. even as a common sailor, who has served twenty years in the man-of-war, may have more knowledge of her tackling and other pertinence, that is, related matters, than all the learned doctors of six British universities. Objection 6. If nothing be engaged to in these covenants but what God has declared or required in His word, they never could lay any obligation upon the covenanters, much less a perpetual obligation upon their posterity. It is absolutely inconsistent with sound philosophy, Christianity, or common sense to imagine that any human deed can bind to anything declared in the word or required by the law of God. Answer 1. Then it seems the common Protestant doctrine of our confession of faith, which in your ordination vows you solemnly declared to be founded on the word of God, that is, that a man binds himself by an oath to what is good and just, that in anything not sinful it binds to performance, that by a vow we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties and so forth, must be grossly erroneous. 2. Instructed by some papist or some ringleader in the perjurious violation of these covenants in the last century, You have indeed now hit upon a sentiment which, if proven, would effectually undermine the obligation of our covenants, and for aught I know all religion, all morality, all mutual trust and order among mankind along with it. If our promises, oaths, vows, or covenants can have no binding force except in things to which the revelation and law of God cannot reach, neither Adam, nor Christ as mediator, could bind themselves to fulfill God's law, And so there must be no proper, no real covenant of works or of grace, and so no religion among mankind. And, for the same reason, the promises of God, insofar as their matter corresponds to His natural excellencies, can have no binding force, and thus the foundation of our faith and hope is quite overturned. All engagements in baptism or the Lord's Supper to believe what God reveals, receive what He offers, and do what He commands must be absolutely null and void destitute of all binding force. Jesuitical equivocation and mental reservation are no more necessary in the making of promises, covenants, or vows, or in swearing promissory oaths of allegiance, fidelity, or witness-bearing, or in subscribing articles, creeds, or confessions of faith, calls to ministers, bonds or bills of service, or debt. If the law of God, which is exceeding broad, can but reach to the matter of them, and require the believing, maintaining, or practicing of what is therein engaged. That alone renders them null and void, and not binding to all intents and purposes. And so there can be no such thing as perjury, perfidy, or breach of promise, except it be with respect to such things as the law of God could not directly or indirectly reach, which, if it be as perfect and exceeding broad as the Bible affirms, must certainly be very few and very trifling. For where there is no law, no binding of a law, there can be no transgression. Men's promises, covenants, oaths, and vows, in word or writ, insofar as they respect things to which the law of God can reach, must be more villainous impositions, seeming to bind while they do not, in the smallest degree, and therefore ought to be detested instead of being required, made, or trusted. For the same reason, no commands of parents, masters, magistrates, or any other superiors, being human deeds, can have any binding force in anything relative to religion, equity, kindness, and so forth, to which the law of God can reach its requirements, and hence cannot be lawfully obeyed, or their authority regarded, except when they command what is absolutely indifferent and trifling. If human engagements and commands can only bind men to that which is absolutely indifferent, It is plain that we can only be answerable to men for such parts of our conduct as the law of God did not reach. But let men once firmly believe that their promises, covenants, oaths or vows and the commands of superiors have no binding force but in that which is left absolutely indifferent by the law of God, and that they are answerable to men only for such parts of their conduct as the law of God could not reach, how naturally they will rush headlong into all manner of profligacy every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, in everything important. 3. How absurd to pretend honoring of religion or of the law of God by making it the murderer of that deputed authority which God has, by it, granted to men, or of these covenants, oaths, or vows which he has therein appointed as means of his worship. Not only Scripture, but even common sense dictates that the authority of God and His law cannot be rightly regarded unless in a way of also regarding that authority which he has deputed to men, and all the commands are self-engagements which proceed from it, in due subordination to it. If I read my Bible daily, in obedience to the command of God as my God in Christ, in obedience to Christ as appointed by God to be my mediatorial prophet and king, and at the same time in due subordination hereto, in obedience to my civil ruler as the minister of God for good to men, in obedience to my pastor or church judicature, as the messenger of Christ to me, in obedience to my parents or masters as God's deputy governors over me, and in fulfillment of the vow which I, as God's deputy governor over myself, have laid myself under, according to his appointment, where is the inconsistency? Must I wickedly put asunder the immediate and deputed authority of God which he has so closely and delightfully joined together? God forbid! Objection 7. What have we to do with our father's engagements in religion, to which we never gave any personal consent, especially after we have become capable to judge and choose for ourselves, nay to do with engagements which I cannot prove my ancestors ever took? Answer 1. To rest obligation to pay debt or perform duty on the debtors proving the contraction of it, or engagement to it, is highly absurd in itself, and opens a wide door for breaking through almost every engagement. According to this scheme, you may hold your ancestors, who lived 130 years ago, unbaptized heathens, and perhaps yourself too, and so renounce your baptism, because you cannot prove that ever you received it. If God, who is our creditor in these covenants, can prove our ancestors' taking of them, He will hold us bound by their deed, and even though they did not take them, He will hold us bound by the deed of the society and its representatives. You know that Lord ____ about four hundred years ago granted your ancestor the valuable estate of ____ to be held under him and his heirs for a very small honorary service as an acknowledgment of vassalage, and that the celebrated farmer A.B. about six years ago took a ninety-nine years lease of one of your farms at a very high rent. Have you certified the present heirs of that lord and farmer that they are no wise bound by their progenitor's deeds? unless they have given their own personal consent, and that the one may recall your estate, and the other may keep your farm and refuse to pay you any rent? You have not, nor ever will. You allow such freedoms only to be used with God, not with yourself. Too strong a presumption that you more value your estate and rent than all you hold of God and religion, and all the honor you owe to Him. If our fathers bound us to anything in religion which is not warranted by the word of God, we have nothing to do with it but to bewail their sin in such engagement. But, if they bound us to what is commanded by the law of God, we must stand bound till we prove from Scripture that vows binding to duty are not lawful, or that fathers have no right to devote their children to God's service. No slothful or willful ignorance or withholding of personal consent can so much as excuse the non-performance of such engagements. Nothing can free from their binding force which would not annul our baptismal vows. 4. Once more, sir, be pleased to review these public covenants of our fathers in their principal contents and meaning. They were a solemn acquiescence in and confirmation of God's grant of the utmost ends of the earth to His Son Jesus Christ for His possession. They implied a solemn acceptance of God Himself in Christ as the God, Saviour, and portion of the Covenanters and their posterity freely granted to them in the Gospel, and of His oracles and ordinances as the means of familiar fellowship with Him, a resolution through His grace to retain Him and them as their inestimable privileges, and a solemn engagement, thankfully, to improve these privileges in unholy obedience to all His commandments, to promote His glory and the temporal, spiritual, and eternal advantage of these covenanters in their seed. Now, sir, do you so heartily envy our Redeemer, His Father's grant of the ends of the earth for His possessions, Psalm 2 8, that you would gladly renounce our ancestors' solemn acquiescence in it? Do you so heartily dislike the having of a reconciled God in Christ for you and your posterities, God, Savior, and portion, and His pure oracles and ordinances for your privileges? that you would fondly renounce the solemn acceptance of God's gracious grant of them, sealed and confirmed by the remarkable influences of His Spirit? Do you so undervalue these enjoyments, and hate a grateful and self-profiting obedience to all the commandments of God, that you would gladly renounce a solemn obligation to it? Or are you offended with the declared ends of these covenants, that is, the glorifying of God, the preservation and reformation of religion, and promoting the welfare of the nation, and that God may delight to dwell among us to the latest posterity? You will perhaps pretend that you love our reformed doctrine, worship, Presbyterian government and discipline, but hate to be bound to them, especially by others than yourself. But, sir, for the same reason you must renounce your baptismal engagements and state your quarrel with God Himself, who has appointed vows as His ordinances for hedging up men to their duty, and who has entered into covenants with parents for their posterity as well as for themselves. Moreover, it is scarce credible that you can love everything engaged to in a vow and yet hate to be bound by it after God has signally countenanced it. It is scarce possible that my wife can dearly love her husband and the order and enjoyments of my family if she hate and wish to renounce her marriage vow. You've reached the conclusion of A Refutation of Religious Pluralism by John Brown of Haddington. This work is published by Gospel Covenant Publications. Gospel Covenant Publications website is www.gcpublications.com. They may be reached by email at info at gcpublications.com and by phone area code 208-553-5296. Thank you for listening and be sure to look for forthcoming titles from Gospel Covenant Publications and to check their website for free articles and gospel resources. May God richly bless you in the Gospel of His Son.