THE CONTRIBUTIONOF SCOTTISHCOVENANT

THOUGHT
TO THE DISCUSSIONS

OF THE WESTMINSTER
ASSEMBLY(1643-1648) AND ITS CONTINUING

SIGNIFICANCE TO THE MARROW (1717-1723)

CONTROVERSY

BY
YOHAHNSU

BARCHELOROF ARTS - 1979

GENERALTHEOLOGICALCOLLEGE
PRESBYTERIAN
SEOULKOREA

MASTEROF DIVINITY - 1982

HAP-DONGPRESBYTERIANTHEOLOGICALSEMINARY
SEOULKOREA

LONDONTHEOLOGICALSEMINARY- 1987
LONDON

DIPLOMA IN THEOLOGY- 1988

FREE CHURCHOF SCOTLAND COLLEGE
EDINBURGH

MASTEROF THEOLOGY- 1990

KING'S COLLEGE,UNIVERSITYOF ABERDEEN
SCOTLAND

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTEDTO THE FACULTYOF PROFESSIONAL

STUDIES

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

OF DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY

PONTYPRIDD.SOUTHWALES

1993
 DEDICATION

To the Rev. William Still,

the Minister of the Gilcomston South Church, Aberdeen:
a true and orthodox minister, Bible teacher
and expositor,
a man of prayer, counsellor, a great leader and
a true Christian gentleman, above all, shepherd of souls,.
whose life has been devoted to the
ministry of the Lord.

I affectionately
dedicate this dissertation and
tender my deepest appreciation to him on the 50th
anniversary of his fruitful ministry at the Church; and for his
love,
encouragement and practical help as a spiritual father in
Christ to me, during my studies at E. T. C. W.,
in the University of Glamorgan,
Pontypridd, South Wales.

"I will
praise the Lord, who
counsels me; even at night my heart
instructs me. I have set the Lord always before
me. Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.
Therefore
my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will
rest secure... You have made known to me the path of life; you will
fill me with joy in your presence, with
eternal pleasures at your
right hand. "

(Psalm 16: 7-9,11)

-1-
 DECLARATION

I declare that (i) this entitled, "The Contribution

dissertation of
Scottish Covenant Thought to the Discussions of the Westminster Assembly
(1643-1648) and its Continuing Significance to the Marrow Controversy
(1717-1723)", was composed by me; (ii) it has not been accepted in any
previous application for a degree; (iii) the work of which it is a
record has been done by me; (iv) all verbatim extracts have been
distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information have
been specifically acknowledged by means of footnotes.

University of Glamorgan L&Ull (Z

July 1993. Signed by
Yohahn Su

This dissertation has been approved by the Faculty of Professional

Studies in the University of Glamorgan upon the recommendation of the
undersigned examiners:

Director of Studies:
Rev. Dr. Noel Gibbard

Internal Examiner:
Rev. J. Hefin Elias

Internal Examiner:
Mr. Alan. J. Hill

External Examiner:
Rev. Prof. Dr. R. Buick Knox

Date: August 9.1993.

University of Glamorgan

- 11 -
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Christian faith

depends absolutely on God who has made a
covenant with His chosen people. The Covenant theology should become the
centre of faith in the Christian life, emphasising the sovereignty of
God and His grace. In view of this, these studies are presented with the
prayer that
as we hear the witness of the Scottish Covenanters, the
voice they heard may call us anew into the obedience of Christian faith.
I firmly believe that "Slavery to Christ alone is the true and only
freedom of the human soul", 1 and this liberty of the sons of God is the
root out of which every other freedom grows.
The inspiration for this study can be traced back to my time in the
Free Church College, Edinburgh, in 1987-1988. When I was there, I was

greatly impressed by the Professors in the College, and their truly

Reformed and Calvinistic theology, both in teaching and practical
ministry. And yet, to study for me was beyond my ability and it was a
great venture to seek to climb to summits. It was a time of hard work,
at times almost despairing. My life in the wilderness, so to speak,
started with wandering in a strange country on British soil. However,
the Covenanters' loving spirit and great zeal for the glory of God and
His will greatly encouraged me during my research work. I thought that
it was a great opportunity for me to know the richness of the Reformed

and Calvinistic Theology of the Scottish Covenanters in Scotland. My

interest in this theme often stimulated me and made me feel the presence

of God through the readings of the testimonies of the Covenanters, and I

became more and more delighted to pursue God and His will. In the end it
became a time of joy and delight.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge those
my who helped me during
research work. I benefited from conversations
with a number of faculty
members who were most accommodating toward my entire programme. I am
indebted to my supervisors, to the Rev. Dr. Noel Gibbard, Director of
Theological Studies
and lecturer in Systematic Theology and Church
History at the Evangelical Theological College of Wales; to, the
Rev. Dr. Eryl Davies, Principal of E. T. C. W, Bridgend, South Wales; to the
Rev. Dr. A. T. B. McGowan, a good friend and Christian gentlemen, and the
minister of Trinity Possil and Henry Drummond, and at the same time
lecturer in Glasgow Bible College (formerly B. T. I), Glasgow; to the

- iii -
Rev. J. Hefin Elias, Senior lecturer in Church History in the University

of Glamorgan; to Dr. T. Tudur Jones,of Church History

Professor and
Principal at the University College of North Wales, Bangor.
Among other persons who have been especially helpful, thanks are
due to my former professors who taught me how to serve the Lord Jesus
Christ; the late Rev. Dr. Yune Sun Park, former Professor of Biblical
Exegesis in the Hapdong Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea;
to Rev. Dr. Bock Eyun Shin, Professor of Systematic Theology in the
Hapdong Presbyterian Theological Seminary; to the Rev. Dr. Myung Hyuk Kim,
Professor of Church History in the Hapdong Presbyterian Theological
Seminary; to the Rev. Young Tark Youn, Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Theology in the Hapdong Presbyterian Theological Seminary; to
the Rev. Dr. Hyung Yong Park, Professor of Greek and New Testament
Theology in the Hapdong Presbyterian Theological Seminary; to the
Rev. Dr. Jin Tae Lee, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Theology in
the Reformed Theological Seminary, Seoul, Korea.
Thanks are also due to: the Rev. Donald Macleod, Professor of
Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Edinburgh; to the late
Rev. Douglas MacMillan, former Professor of Church History and Church
Discipline of the Free"Church College, who first encouraged me to

undertake this subject; to the Rev. Dr. Henry R. Sefton, my former

supervisor, the Head of Department of Church History in King's College,

Aberdeen; to the Rev. Dr. W.P. Stephens, Professor of Church History at
King's College, Aberdeen; to Dr. David Stevenson, Professor of Church
History at St. Mary's College, St. Andrews; to Dr. Ian B. Cowan, the late
Professor of Scottish History in the of Glasgow; Dr. W.Ian
University
Hazlett, Professor of Church History in the University of Glasgow; to
the Rev. Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson, Professor of Systematic Theology in the
Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, USA; to Dr. David
F. Wright, the Dean of the Faculty of the New College and Professor in
Church History, the University of Edinburgh; to the Rev. Dr. David Cook,
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics in the University

of Oxford (Green College) and also Director of Whitefield Institute in

Oxford; to Dr. Alister E. McGrath, lecturer in Historical and Systematic
Theology at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford; to Dr. Carl R. Trueman, Professor of
Systematic Theology and Reformation Studies in the University of
Nottingham. Each of these men gave me the benefit of their encouragement

- iv -
and advice, insights, and in some instances enabled me to correct
serious errors in my interpretation of theology.
Also, I should like to express my appreciation to the staff of the
following institutions: the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh; the
Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh; Edinburgh University Library,
Edinburgh; New College Library, Edinburgh; Glasgow University Library,
Glasgow; King's College Library, Aberdeen; St. Andrews University
Library, St. Andrews; the Library of the University
of Glamorgan,
Pontypridd; the Library
of the British Museum, London; Dr. William's
Library, London; the National of Wales, Aberystwyth; University
Library
College Library, Cardiff; Cambridge University Library, Cambridge; the
Bodleian Library, Oxford; the Whitefield Institute, Oxford.
I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks: to the
Rev. Dr. Hywel R. Jones, my former lecturer and the Principal of the London
Theological Seminary; to the Rev. A. Sinclair Horne, the General Secretary
of the Scottish Reformation Society in Edinburgh; to the Rev. Clemert
Roberts, the former vice president of the University of Glamorgan and
now minister of the Mount Preasant Baptist Church in Swansea.
A number of readers have commented on the study both before and
after its acceptance as a thesis, and I wish to record my thanks to all
who have done so. Some of their suggestions have been incorporated, to
the improvement of the final
Some of my. friends who proof-read
draft.
this dissertation cannot be excluded; thanks are due to Mr. John Lewis,
for his comments on an earlier draft of my thesis; to the Rev. Edmund
T. Owen, and the Rev. Stephen Hodgetts, assistant to the Rev. P. Mallard of
Ladyfield Evangelical Church, many friends
Chippenham. Also,
who have
supported and helped me in various ways should be acknowledged: to the
members of the Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen; to the Rev. Jong-Tae
Lee, whose untiring encouragement and prayers were my chief source of
inspiration, to persevere in my studies and to introduce me
especially
into academic circles; Philip S. Ross of ETCW, Scottish highlander, who
helped and typed setting and presentation of this thesis.
In a different way, I express my very special gratitude to my
spiritual father, the Rev. William Still, minister of Gilcomston South
Church, Aberdeen, whose constant care, imaginative interest, and
sacrificial love during my studies both in Aberdeen and Wales, have made
it possible for me to devote myself to this work. Without his support
this work could not have been completed. I dedicate this dissertation to

-v-
him with affection and esteem, in partial repayment for a debt which can
never be cancelled.
My littlechildren, Eden, Aaron and Sharon, were remarkably patient
and uncomplaining during my studies both in Aberdeen and Wales, although
they did not understand what was going on at the time, but I hope will
understand in the future! Most of all comes my debt to my parents,
whose years of sacrifice on their family's behalf is I hope rewarded in
some small measure by this work, and to Eun-Soon, my wife, "true
yokefellow", for years of patiently enduring a husband who was at times
under heavy pressure and wandered off into his small study room. Her
love and patience as a constant supporter have sustained and motivated
me to persevere in all the hours spent on this work. They deserve many
thanks in countless ways which cannot be itemized. There can be no
higher devotion than this.
Finally, itwas God who has upheld and kept me throughout. It is
necessary to acknowledge, therefore, the sustaining strength granted by
the Lord, whose faithfulness to his servant is reflected in any merit
this thesis may display.

"What is-man,

that you are mindful of him,

and the son of man that you visit him? "
(Psalm 8: 4).

"Through the
Lord's
mercies we are not concumed,
because his compassions fail not. They are new
every morning: great is your faithfulness. The Lord is my
portion, says my soul, therefore I hope
in him. " (Lamentations
3: 22-24)

University of Glamorgan Yohahn Su

Pontypridd, South Wales
July 1993

- vi -
1. William Childs Robinson, The Reformation: A Rediscovery of Grace,
Grand Raphid. Michigan, 1962, p. x.

- vii -
 (C) Yohahn Su, 1993

All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the author Yohahn Su.
 ABSTRACT

The Contribution of Scottish Covenant Thought to the Discussions

of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648) and its Continuing

Significance to the Marrow Controversy (1717-1723)

by Yohahn Su

University of Glamorgan, 1993

This dissertation aims to examine the development and significance

of covenant doctrine in the Scottish Church during the struggles of the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This development is examined in

its political, historical, social, theological and ecclesiastical

context.

The idea of covenant is central in both the Old and New Testaments;

it mostly denotes God's relationship with his people as distinct from

his relationship to the world. For the Covenanters, it became the

central hermeneutical key for interpreting Scripture. Covenant theology

had been familiar to the Church of Scotland for some time; the Scottish

Covenanters adopted and applied it rigorously to their lives and

situation they confronted. They believed on the basis of covenant that

Scotland should be free in matters both religious and political; church

leaders sought to place the whole nation under a covenant relationship

to God. The covenant concept was the central concern of Scottish

theology from 1643 to 1723 and was a theme zealously preached during the

century after John Knox's Reformation of Scotland in 1560. It had a

powerful impact in promoting and consolidating the Protestant cause.

Unfortunately, covenant thought also gave rise to conflict within the

Church of Scotland.

- viii -
 The period from 1643 to 1723 was the main period of controversy and

can be divided into three parts. The first part from 1643 to 1648 was

concerned with the nature of the doctrines of grace and part of covenant
theology. During this period also the Covenanters insisted that

Presbyterian church government alone had Scriptural warrant and could

rightly administer Christ's authority within the church. They held that

any deviation from covenant theology brought with it serious

implications for salvation of sinners, the doctrine of Christ's headship

and church government as well as other related doctrines, including the

Church-State relationship.

One aim of the Scottish divines at the Westminster Assembly was to

emphasise the importance of God's people being in this divine covenant

of grace. The covenant had two significant elements, namely, grace, and

works; they concerned man's response to the manifest grace which God had
lavished upon him. After their battle for supremacy over the English

Puritans, the Scotsmen were able to return from the Assembly and

strengthen Presbyterianism in their own country.

The second part was from 1649 to 1688 and included times of

persecution and death. The Covenanters approved formal documents for

worship and discipline, but were cast out of their churches and homes

because of their convictions concerning the covenant. Despite the

Conventicle Acts, they met and worshipped secretly in remote places,

making several declarations concerning the covenant during this period.

Through these declarations they expounded their views of the covenant,
including its implications for Christian political action. The

Covenanters were radical in the application of the term "covenant" to

political principles concerning lawful resistance to the king and

employed it still more radically in their situation of confrontation.

The covenant term was used also to describe personal and church

- ix -
covenants with God and the covenant pertaining between ruler and people.
The term was applied were extensively in this period with regard to

Church-State questions and assured a greater political significance.

During the third period from 1689 to 1723 problems arose which

accentuated the effects of the diversion of the Church's attention from

the doctrines of grace to those relating to the Church's framework and

the relationship with State. The Simpson affair and the disputes over
Natural Theology exposed the need for a return to a firmer hold of the
doctrines of grace. This was the burden of the work of the Marrow Men

who called for return to the early emphasis on personal faith and

commitment and the spiritual life. Despite their being few in number,

unlike their opponents, the Marrow men retained covenant thought

throughout this period and developed it for years to come in their

ministries. They contended against their opponents concerning the free

grace of God and God's salvation of His people from sin. They boldly

emphasised the authority of God, His offer of the gospel, and the

necessity of an assurance of saving faith in Christ. These ideas were

decisive as covenant thought moved from Church-State problems and church

polity towards the doctrine of soteriology. The main features of the

divine covenant of grace were now being re-emphasised by the Marrow men.

In conclusion, there is a appraisal of the theology of the Scottish

Covenanters, their beliefs and how they influenced the Scottish church

and nation. Mistakes were made by the Covenanters and they seem at
times have confused the terms covenant and contract. Nevertheless, the

contribution of the Covenanters to Scottish religious history was

profound and far-reaching; their zeal for the Gospel of covenant grace

was exemplary. Far from being a were theology they gave assent to,

covenant theology was so precious to the Covenanters that they were

prepared to suffer and die rather than compromise or deny it in any way.

-x-
The Marrow men considered they were calling the Church and the nation to

a new awarness and commitment to the doctrines of grace which form the
basis and justification of covenant theology.

- xi -
 ABBREVIATIONS

AGACS: The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

APC: The Acts of the Privy Council.
APGA: The Acts and Procedings of the General Assemblies.
APS: The Acts of the Parliament of Scotland.
BFER: The British & Foreign Evangelical Review.
BIHR: The Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research.
BRPR: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review.
BSTR: Bibliotheca Sacra & Theologicall Review.
BTT: The Banner of Truth Trust.
CH: American Society of Church History.
CP: Catholic Presbyterian.
CTJ: Calvin Theological Journal.
EMW: Evangelical Magazine of Wales.
EQ: The Evangelical Quarterly.
FD: Foundation.
HI: Historian.
HTR: Harvard Theological Review.
JBS: Journal of British Studies.
JEH: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History.
JHI: Journal of the History of Ideas.
NBD: The New Bible Dictionary.
ODCC: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
PR: Presbyterian Review.
PRTJ: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal.
RTJ: Reformed Theological Journal.
RSCHS: Record of the Scottish Church History Society.
SBET: Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology.
SCHS: The Scottish Church History Society.
SCJ: Sixteenth Century Journal.
SHR: Scottish Historical Review.
SJT: Scottish Journal
of Theology.
THB: The Tyndale House Bulletin.
TSPRC: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
WCP: The Westminster Conference Paper.
WTJ: The Westminster Theological Journal.

- xii -
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Dedication i
................................................................
Declaration ii
..............................................................
Acknowledgments *............. iii
............................................
Abstract of dissertation ............................................... viii

Abbreviations xii
...........................................................
Table of contents xiii
......................................................

Introduction 1
..............................................................
0.1/ Title, Aim and Structure of the Dissertation 1
...................
0.1.1/ Title and Area of Research...... 1
......................
0.1.2/ Aim and Purpose of the Dissertation 4
.....................
0.1.3/ Structure of the Dissertation 6
...........................
0.2/ General Background of this Period 7
..............................
0.2.1/ General Background of this Period in Europe 8
.............
0.2.2/ General Background of this Period in Scotland 12
..........

CONCEPT
OF THE COVENANT
PART ONE: THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

Chapter One: The Scottish Covenant - Its Background and Historical

Development 22
.................................................
1.1/ The Importance of the Covenant Concept ........................ 22

1.1.1/ The Biblical Concept of the Covenant.. ...............

23
1.1.2/ Socio-Political Concept of the Covenant ................ 25

1.2/ Historical Development of the Covenant Concept ................ 26

1.2.1/ Pre-Reformation Period: Overview.... .................

27
1.2.2/ Reformation and Post-Reformation Period 31
................
1.2.2.1/ The Concept of the Covenant in the Theology
of the Continental Reformers 32
.................
1.2.2.2/ Reformers in England and the England and
New England Puritans 42
..........................
1.3/ Importance of the Covenant Concept in the Scottish Church..... 44

1.4/ Summary 53
.......................................................

- xiii -
Chapter Two: Conflict between Church and State: Major Contributory
Factors and the Covenanters' Theological Manifesto.......... 68

2.1/ The Conflict between Church and State: Major Contributory

Factors 69
.......................................................
2.1.1/ Divine Right of Kings or Divine Right of Christ........ 69
2.1.2/ Theodore Beza and Presbyterianism.. 77
................ 79
2.1.3/ John Knox and the Reformation Principle
................
2.2/ The Reigns of the Scottish Sovereigns in this Peried.......... 85

2.2.1/ The Reign of King Charles I............................ 86

2.2.2/ The Reigns of King Charles II and James VII 93
............
2.2.3/ The Reigns of King William III and Queen Anne.......... 97

2.3/ The Covenanters' Theological Manifesto on Covenant Thought... 101

2.3.1/ True Religion and Christian Liberty...... 103

..........
2.3.2/ The Covenanters' Views on Church Government........... 111

2.3.2.1/ Its Brief History and Principles for

Practice 111
2.3.2.2/ .....................................
The Covenanters' Vindication of Presbyterian
Church Government 116
............................
2.3.3/ The Covenanters' Views on Tradition 120
....................
2.4/ Summary 121
......................................................

PART TWO: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

AND THE CHANGINGTHEOLOGICAL
EMPHASISFROM1643 TO 1723

Chapter Three: The Solemn League and Covenant of 1638 and the
Westminster Assembly from 1643 to 1648 136
...................
3.1/ The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 ....................... 138

3.1.1/ Its Historical Background 138

.............................
3.1.2/ Its Relationship to the National Covenant of 1638..... 140
3.1.3/ Its Content and Theology 141
..............................
3.2/ The Westminster Assembly from 1643 to 1648 147
...................
3.2.1/ A Brief History of the Westminster Assembly........... 147

3.2.1.1/ Its Ecclesiastical and Political Outlook..... 147

3.2.1.2/ Its Organization and Membership .............. 148
3.2.1.3/ Its Important Theological Issues 150
.............
3.2.2/ Theological Controversy in the Westminster Assembly... 151

3.2.2.1/ The Directory for the Public Worship of God.. 151

3.2.2.2/ The Form of Church Government
and the Ordination of Ministers .............. 153
3.2.2.3/ The Westminster Confession of Faith 160
..........
- xiv -
 3.2.3/ The Westminster Confession of Faith
and its Concept of Covenant ........................... 175

3.3/ Summary 183

......................................................
Chapter Four: The Covenanters' Controversy and their Declarations on
Covenant Thought from 1648 to the Revolution of 1688...... 198

4.1/ Development of Covenant Thought during the Controversy

between the Covenanters and the State from 1648 to 1688...... 199

4.1.1/ The Controversy surrounding the "Engagement"

of 1647-1648.............. .... .......................
199
4.1.2/ The Acts of Classes of 1649-1650 201
4.1.3/ The Controversy between the Resolutioners ............. ...
(the Kirk
Party) and the Remonstrants (the Protestors)
of 1651-1653.......................................... 204
4.1.4/ The Development of the Covenanters' Thought during
the Reigns of Charles II and James VII (1660-1688).... 206

4.2/ Development of Covenant Thought in the Historical Documents.. 209

4.2.1/ The Rutherglen Declaration (May 29th 1679)............ 209

4.2.2/ The Queensferry Paper and the Sanquhar Declaration
of 1680. ........... ..... .... .....................
210
4.2.3/ The Act and Apologetic Declaration of the True
Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland,
on January 1682....................................... 217
4.2.4/ The Apologetical Declaration and Admonitory
Vindication of the True Presbyterians of the Church
of Scotland, against Intelligencers and Informers,
November 1684 219
.........................................
4.3/ Covenant Thought in Popular Literature and its Relation
to the Doctrine of Just Rebellion 222
............................
4.3.1/ Samuel Rutherford 222
.....................................
4.3.2/ Donald Cargil 233
.........................................
4.3.3/ Richard Cameron 242
.......................................
4.3.4/ James Renwick 246
.........................................
4.4/ Summary 255
......................................................
Chapter Five: Revolution of 1688 to the Marrow Controversy
of 1717-1723 .............................................. 270

5.1/ Changing Historical Situation and the Development of

Covenant Thought from 1688 to 1723 270
...........................
5.1.1/ Documents in the Settlement of Presbyterianism 273
........
5.1.1.1/ Claim of Right in April 1690.. 273
5.1.1.2/ The Articles ..... ......
of Grievances in April 1690..... 275
5.1.1.3/ The Settlement of the Presbyterian
Settlement in June 1690 and the Subsequent
Declarations of Church Government ............ 275

- xv -
 5.1.2/ Development of Covenant Thought
under Queen Anne's Reign (1702-1714) .................. 277

5.1.2.1/ The Renewal of the Covenant....... 279

. .......
5.1.2.2/ Covenanters' doctrine of Church and State ..... 287

5.2/ The Marrow Controversy of 1717-1723 and Covenant Theology.... 295

5.2.1/ Origin and Background of the Marrow Controversy....... 295

5.2.1.1/ Prof. Simson and his Natural Theology 295

5.2.1.2/ .........
The Presbytery of Auchterarder and its Creed. 298
5.2.2/ The Controversy on the "Marrow of Modern Divinity".... 299

5.2.2.1/ The Origin of the Marrow and its Significance

totheScottishDjvjnes. 299
5.2.2.2/ Edward Fisher's .... ... ....
"Marrow of ModernDivinity".. 300
5.2.2.3/ Thomas Boston and the "Marrow of Modem
Divinity.. 310
....................................
5.2.2.4/ Development of the Marrow Controversy 311
........
5.2.3/ The Marrow Controversy and its Doctrinal Issues....... 315

5.2.3.1/ The Doctrine of Atonement 316

5.2.3.2/ The Nature of Saving Faith.. ....................
319
5.2.3.3/ Holiness not Necessary to Salvation ...........
323
5.2.3.4/ ..........
Fear of Punishment and Hope of Reward........ 324
5.2.3.5/ The Believer is not under the Law as a Rule
of Life ...................................... 325

5.3/ Summary 328

......................................................

PART THREE: CONCLUSIONAND EVALUATION

Chapter Six: Conclusion 350

.................................................
6.1/ "For Christ's Crown and Covenant".. 354
....................
6.2/ Some Points of Application and Appraisal 363
.....................

Selected Bibliography 374

...................................................

-xvi -
INTRODUCTION
 INTRODUCTION

0.1/ Title. Aim and Structure of the Dissertation.

0.1.1/ Title and Area of Research.

Before indicating in more detail the aims and purpose of this

dissertation, I want to justify both the title and the area of research

adopted in order (i). to anticipate possible objections or questions

and, also, (ii). more positively, to express my own reasons for pursuing

this particular research.

Since the time of the Reformation in Scotland, 1560, there have

been extensive studies undertaken on various aspects of the Reformation

in Scotland and, of course, on earlier as well as on subsequent periods

of Scottish Church History. Yet there is still an area of research

remaining which deals with the nature and significance of covenant

thought in the history of the Scottish Church. To be more precise, one

crucial area of covenant thought which still requires further research

is that of the relationship of covenant thought to the Scottish

-1-
Reformed, Protestant church and nation. While research and writing on

this subject hitherto has been helpful, l it has not dealt sufficiently

with the subject as a whole or made a detailed investigation of covenant

thought in this period.

As I indicate in the dissertation, I discuss and examine various

newt and additional sources3 which relate to covenant theology

throughout this period; these sources throw further light on the nature

of covenant thought and its implication for church and nation in

Scotland. In the light of these facts, there is need to examine further

the contribution of Scottish covenant thought to the discussions of the

Westminster Assembly (1643-1648); but, in addition, to trace and assess

the continuing significance of Scottish covenant theology on church /

nation to the Marrow Controversy (1717-1723). The period of eighty years

from 1643-1723 is chosen for the following reasons:

(a). There is considerable value in tracing the development and

influence of one particular theology such as covenant theology over a

period of time such as 80 years. Over such a period, one is better able

to trace the development, variations and differing applications of

covenant theology.

(b). No extensive attempt has been made to trace the application of

covenant theology to Church government and State throughout this

significant and formative eighty-year period.

(c). As I intend to establish later, there are important links as

well as differences in covenant theology in Scotland between 1643 and

1723. What are these links and similarities? How differently was

covenant theology conceived and applied throughout this period? How was

the term "covenant" used in this period and how did its usage develop?
To what extent did different political / social circumstances affect the

understanding and application of covenant theology in Scotland? One

-2-
requires a reasonably lengthy period of time in which to be able to

consider these questions adequately.

(d). Another factor is that in the history of the Scottish Reformed

Churches the three events of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1648, the

Killing Times 1685-1688 and the Marrow Controversy 1717-1723 were events

of major theological and practical significance. Furthermore, between

these three events important changes occurred at regular intervals

affecting Church, State and individuals. It is reasonable, therefore, to

consider this eighty year period in Scotland for an assessment of

covenant theology, especially because covenant theology influenced the

major events of the period.

(e). The covenant thought of the period played a significant role

in effecting the settlement of Presbyterianism in Scotland. The Scottish

Covenanters4 and the Marrow men5 deliberately used and applied covenant
theology in their particular situations. It is not an exaggeration to

say that both groups of men held and developed the covenant as the

centre and foundation of their respective theologies. For these two

groups of men, whether Covenanters or Marrow, covenant theology provided

the basis and stimulus both for political involvement by the Church and

for individual, Christian discipleship. Here is a further justification

for researching the eighty year period between the Covenanters and-the
Marrow Controversy.

(f). There is general agreement that both the Scottish Covenanters

and the Marrow men were influenced theologically and spiritually by

sixteenth century Protestant Reformers, 6 such as Martin Luther, Huldrich

Zwingli, John Calvin, Theodore Beza and John Knox whose views we will

examine later. The Scottish Covenanters and Evangelical Presbyterians

from the early seventeenth century through to the early eighteenth

century owed allegiance to some form of Reformation theology. However,

-3-
 this theology was developed and applied practically and contextually

within their own particular situations. This period of eighty years,

therefore, enables me to trace the development of covenant theology and
its application to different problems and situations.
The Scottish Covenanters' theology of the covenant also deserves

to be examined because of the considerable influence it exerted on

future generations. The role that the Covenanters played in the

overthrow of Episcopalianism in church polity, rejecting the absolutism

held by the Stuart sovereigns and the controversy regarding legalism in

the Marrow of Modern divinity, including the English Independents and

the establishment of the Reformed faith, was formative and powerful.
This theme, therefore, is a valuable subject for study, and one which
throws further light upon various figures in Scottish Church History, as

well as upon the history of the progressive struggles for reform in

Scotland.

0.1.2/ Aim of the Dissertation.

The aim of this study is four-fold: (i). First of all, I aim to

trace the development of Scottish covenant theology and show the

emergence, and development of differences during the formative period

between the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648) and the Marrow Controversy

of 1717-1723. (ii). Secondly, and more particularly, my aim is to

examine the APPLICATION of covenant theology both to church government

AND national life in Scotland. It is this area of covenant theology
3 relating to Scottish Church History has been
which not adequately

researched as yet. (iii). Thirdly, in tracing the development

and application of covenant thought in this way, I aim to compare the

different ways and degrees in which covenant theology was applied

-4-
politically in the vexed area of Church-State relationships during this

eighty year period. A brief diagram below indicates these differences.

Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643-1648

With the threat of Episcopalianism in Scotland under Charles I and

Archbishop Laud involving limited persecution, 7 many Scottish
Presbyterians were constrained to work out the implications of
covenant theology in securing their preferred form of church
government and Church-State relationship. This Confession not only
expressed their beliefs but it also became the subordinate standard
for them in all areas of faith and practice.

The Killing Times: 1685-1688

This was the climax to the covenantal thinking and application of

previous decades. It was brought about largely by pressures from
the State. Covenanters were radically involved in politics in order
to resist and correct State interference and an alternative form of
Church government. They fought for the settling of the theocracy,
and pursued the independence of the Church against the tyranny of
the Stuart kings, many of them sealing their testimony with their
blood. I examine later some of the historical documents and the
writings of four of these leaders.

Marrow Controversy: 1717-1723

The political situation was different after the year of 1689-90

Presbyterian settlement, but divisions occurred among the Scottish
Presbyterians. The General Assembly became more moderate8 and
liberal, more tolerant of the State and preferred the status quo in
order to keep their security. The Marrow men were expelled by
General Assembly for doctrinal reasons. Queen Anne, too, was an
Episcopalian who supported the General Assembly. This later led to
the Seceders (1733) and it still remains an issue in Scotland with
the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 9 While the application of the
covenant in this period was more doctrinal, the basic practical
issues remained. The Marrow men endeavoured, however, to return to
a more spiritual, biblical and experimental understanding of the
covenant.

(iv). Finally, my aim is to examine the application of covenant theology

-5-
 (1643-1723) within the historical context of: (a). the sixteenth century
Reformers on the Continent. This is important as the Scottish

Covenanters, for example, trained under some of these Reformers and were

considerably influenced by them. As men of reform in Scotland, the

Scottish Covenanters adopted fully the doctrine of the Word of God,

Spiritual Liberty in Worship, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's

Supper as well as Presbyterian Church Government on the basis of the

Reformed Calvinistic tradition. (b). the political-religious situation

in seventeenth and eighteenth century Scotland and (c). within this

historical situation in Scotland, I will discuss the main factors

contributing to the conflict between Church and State under the

sovereigns of this period together with the influence of covenant

theology. The Covenanters extensively employed the doctrine of covenant

thought throughout their theological writings, yet, in a practical way
it also coloured much of their thinking and involvement in politics.
(d). it will also be necessary to indicate briefly the biblical and

theological background to the concept of covenant.

0.1.3/ Structure of the Dissertation.

As will be seen from the outline of the contents, I have approached

the subject, "The Contribution of Scottish Covenant Thought to the

Discussions of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1648 and its Continuing

Significance to the Marrow Controversy 1717-1723", in three parts.

(1). The first of these three parts sets out the origins and
}
development of the covenant concept; this focuses briefly on the way the
term has developed from Biblical times to the Post-Reformation days

among the reformers, including Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich

Bullinger, John Calvin, John Knox and his followers in Scotland. In this

-6-
historical context, we will examine the main reasons for the struggle

between Church and State under the Sovereigns of this period, 1643-1723.

We shall also consider the Covenanters' theological manifesto on

Covenant thought concerning Christian polity and theology.

(2). The second part examines the covenant as a theological concept

which developed throughout this period, with particular reference to

(a). some documents from the Westminster Assembly of 1643-1648, (b).

some of the Covenanters' historical documents from the killing times of

1661 to 1688, (c). material from the Revolution of 1688-1689 and (d).

the Marrow Controversy of 1717-1723. The Covenanters were radical in

their application of the term "Covenant" to politics, particularly

concerning legitimate resistance to the State's interference in church

life; they employed covenant thought radically in their own situation of

confrontation. On the other hand, in the Marrow Controversy covenant

thought was more related to individual salvation and the central place

of soteriological doctrine. As a' whole, it can be said that the

Covenanters' religious thinking had several applications as is widely

recognized.

(3). Part three forms the conclusion in which I summarize and

evaluate the Scottish Covenanters' theological thought in relation to

their own doctrinal beliefs and the extent to which these beliefs

influenced the Scottish church and nation. The evaluation takes into

account the fact that for the Kingdom and glory of God as well as for
their church and nation, the Scottish Covenanters fought their enemies,

suffered and were prepared to die. Before we examine the concept of

covenant, it is necessary to look at the general background of the

period in Europe and in Scotland.

0.2/ General Background of this period.

-7-
0.2.1/ General Background of this Period in Europe.

The period from the early 17th to the 18th century was a period of

significant change in various ways. For example, throughout Western

Europe, there were signs of an emerging secular culture. Natural science

and history began to displace theology in the thinking of educated

people. Many, weary of theological strife and ecclesiastical pretension,

turned away from authority and sought to make reason the norm of all

truth, even religious truth.

In this movement, England took the lead with the Cambridge

Platonists, 10 soon followed by a larger group of Latitudinarians. 11 In

place of dogma, John Locke and Shaftesbury advocated natural religion or

the religion of reason, and in the eighteenth century more radical

thinkers expounded Deism and Unitarianism. 12 This ferment of thought had

repercussions in Scotland with the rise of Moderatism within the Church

in the eighteenth century. 13 However, it is interesting. to notice

briefly what happened in Europe during this time of turmoil.

Socially and economically, the period was quite similar to the 16th

century and, in particular, famine threatened the lives of most

Europeans. 14 Some landlords, the old as well as the newly established,

were making more productive use of their estates. The scale of industry

and trade had grown. The accumulation of capital was easier and more

secure. But increases in the amount of food and goods available had

rarely been spectacular. In many places, such as Spain, Italy and the

worst-damaged parts of central Europe, the general level of prosperity

was probably lower in 1700 than in 1600. Even in France the

improvements, never reliable, were confined to a few areas.

The earlier idea that this was a century of marked, even

revolutionary, progress in economic affairs has given way to the clear

-8-
evidence that there was greater and steadier production of food and

goods in some places, stagnation and depression in others. Power and

wealth remained in the hands of a minority, but great territorial lords

had become both less eager and less able to challenge or ignore the

control of the State. Though their authority often seemed as extensive

as ever, it was usually exercised through, and not against, the monarch.

Their. private armies of tenants and dependants had largely disappeared.

Many had lost their exemption from taxes. Nearly everywhere large

estates were still a main feature of the countryside, but they were less

likely to be a source of secure wealth for their owners. Cities, some

greatly enlarged, offered better and more varied prospects of enrichment

than before.

There had been some movement towards the separation of landed

property from power in the community. This had been the great age of the

buying of office and the age when kings had some success in imposing the

principle that status should be linked with service to the Crown. For

those not born into the highest circles, the quickest way to get there

might well be to acquire a position in government, local or central.

Even so, the governing class had changed far less than seemed likely

during the great conflicts of the century.

Inherited wealth, family connection and patronage were still the

essential means to success. Under this changing situation, men of

leisure and culture were avid for news of scientific theory and

progress, of travel in remote countries and, of course, of economic

progress. The churches had lost some of their zeal for persecution and

their hopes of further conquests in Europe. Nobles and princes demanded

the best imitations of Versailles that were within their means. Opera

was the fashionable entertainment.

In contrast, marriage was delayed and infant mortality rose because

-9-
of food shortages. D. H. Pennington has described it "in bleak statistical

terms, a rise in food prices was regularly followed by an equivalent

rise in the death rate". 15 Yet, the establishment of national languages

also encouraged the independence of nations. 16 Also, in each country

people were moving from the country-side to live in urban areas.

Politically and geographically, most of Europe belonged to one or

other of three huge territorial units, each of which extended far beyond

the continent. One of these units, the Ottoman Empire, was seen as

anti-European and anti-Christian. Thirty kingdoms, it was claimed,

acknowledged the Sultan as their overlord. Moreover, the Thirty Years

War from 1618 to 1648 in Europe made for far more complicated

relationships between Roman Catholics and Protestants. After the war

many countries tried to become independent. In this situation, attempts

to reform politics and religious allegiance failed. The Counter-

Reformation for example did not succeed in reclaiming Europe, yet the

Roman Empire'was not taken over by Protestantism. Nor did the Turks

overrun central Europe yet their own empire survived. Similarly, the

English monarchy was not permanently overthrown, even though there were

several crises, with a cluster of rebellions, concerning the relation of

the state to society.

Despite the victory of an outsider like Oliver Cromwell (1599-

1658). the normal ruling circle continued and the civil war did not

establish a decisive and permanent change in the distribution of

political or of economic power. Of the many other rebellions only the

one that made Portugal a kingdom independent of Spain had any lasting

success. Sweden did not extend her territory round the whole Baltic

coastline; France gained only minor improvements on her eastern

frontier. Russia, in the face of repeated and massive threats from

inside and outside, did not disintegrate.

-10-
 More, recently it has been suggested that there was a general

European crisis in the years 1680 to 1715. In this period, nearly

everywhere in Europe the monarchs and their immediate dependants were as

firmly in control of central governments as before, although in two of

the great states of the west, Germany and Spain, the power of hereditary

monarchs had been resisted with some success. During the reign of the

Stuart Kings, James VI, Charles I and II, and James VII, Scotland never

had a time of peace; there were always conflicts between royalists and

their opponents.

A large part of the history of seventeenth century Europe consisted

of violent resistance to authority bearing upon the covenant

relationship between Church and State. Rebellion at every level of

society was as much a part of church life as were famine, plague, and

war. The word "rebellion" can be applied to events ranging from a local

riot to a civil war and efforts to define rigid categories have, as with

many such words, led to forceful arguments but no agreed conclusions.

The simplest classification of any rebellion depends on the people

originally or chiefly involved. Religion was naturally one of the most

effective stimulants for revolt and everyone from the duke to the beggar

could unite round it in impassioned resistance. French Huguenots,

Russian Old Believers (1648-1650,1667), English Puritans, and Bohemian

Protestants (1618) showed the same capacity for linking the claims of

the religious minority with a great variety of aspirations and

grievances. Regional loyalties could be as deeply felt as religious

ones. It was not only places under alien rule that could rise in

assertion of local privileges or separatist aims. During this period,

covenant thought was one of the fundamental issues and it was occupying
the central place in theology. '?

-11-
0.2.2/ General Background of this period in Scotland.

The conditions in Scotland in 1560 bore little resemblance to those

in England, and the two countries, independent of one another

politically, reorganised their spiritual life on different models and

under different influences. The national Church of Scotland followed

Geneva, while the national Church of England developed on lines so

distinctive that the result could only be described as Anglicanism.
After the Union of the Crowns in 1603 Scotland was governed from London,

but it struggled hard to maintain its spiritual independence, and it

accepted the Union of the Parliament in 1707 on the express condition

that there was to be no interference with its established
Presbyterianism.

It has been widely recognised that there were intellectual,

ethical, social, political and economic factors influencing the

covenanting period from 1643-1648 down to 1717-1723 in Scotland.

Religious issues, however, were also dominant, formative and divisive.

According to Henry F. Henderson, "Scotland has been a home and

battlefield of theology". 18 This situation continued even down to the

19th century, when issues such as the relationship between Church and

State and the nature of Church government continued to be debated.

However, throughout these internal conflicts in Scotland there were two

sides; on the one side, there were Royalists and the members of the

Assembly, on the other side, there were the Covenanters and Marrow men.
These had been interwoven by rivalries and alliances as well as the

practise of theology in religion and politics. Each had been bitterly

divided between centralizing and decentralizing forces, i. e. between

versions of Protestant Christianity that served to rouse emotion and

hostility.

-12-
 There were struggles between those who sought episcopacy and those

who sought presbytery, between those who sought a liturgy and those who

sought a freer form of worship and church government. For Covenanters,

the thought was far more important than any other issue so they
covenant

it as a response to State interference. They treated the

emphasised

whole problem as fundamentally theological; their religious aim was the

freedom of the people and reform of the nation.

Concerning covenant thought in the period, there were different

opinions among the various groups and parties in the Scottish church.

The interpretation of the term "Covenant" was far more important than

anything else, political or religious, hence the complexity of Scottish

history. The understanding of the term "Covenant" or "Covenant thought",

throughout history, especially after the Reformation of 16th and 17th

centuries, was unmistakably complex. It is necessary to understand both

the biblical and historical background of the term.

Influences from the Continent and from England were also making

inroads into Scotland. The Age of Reason and the intellectual inquiry

of the scientific movement were bringing a new stimulus that had little

respect for tradition. Although significant, these "contaminations"

which flowed into the cities and universities from outside Scotland were

not entirely responsible for the Church's ills. Ministers in small towns

and rural parishes relatively free from such external influence began to

understand that there was a deeper problem. Something was wrong with the

theological orthodoxy of the early 18th century.

It is true that there has been some disagreement among scholars

concerning the covenant theme; one disagreement concerns the question of

how the covenant theology applied in the time of turmoil in Scotland.

There is clear evidence, indicating that the Covenanters employed the

theme of the Covenant doctrinally and practically in their writings,

-13-
thus influencing their political responses and involvement. For example,

in some of their writings they employed the concept of covenant both as

the basis and application of their theology and for the establishing of

the powerful covenant tradition in Scotland. By the mid-eighteenth

century, the mood had changed. The Erastianism against which the

Covenanters had directed much of their energy was approved by the

dominant Moderate party and the ideals of the covenant consequently

found little favour. With the triumph of the Evangelicals and the

emergence of the Free Church in the mid-nineteenth century, opinion

again swung in favour of the Covenanters. 19

On the whole, nothing illustrates this better than the controversy

between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, and the controversy surrounding

the Marrow of Modern Divinity which fundamentally centred upon the

nature and significance of covenant thought. This controversy lasted

mainly from the late sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century;
in some places and denominations in Scotland the controversy continues
to the present day.

-14-
 ENDNOTESTO INTRODUCTION

1. Here I classify three groups; namely books, dissertations and

articles.
(a). Books. I mention only the more significant standard and helpful
books. Gordon Donaldson, Scotland: Church and Nation Through Sixteen
Centuries, London: SCM Press, 1960; J. D. Douglas, Light in the North,
The Paternoster Press, 1964; Andrew L. Drummond, The Kirk and the
Continent, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1959; Richard L.
Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies
in the Thought of John Knox, Michigan: Grand Rapids, Christian
University Press, 1980; David Stevenson, The Covenanters: The
National Covenant and Scotland, The Saltire Society, 1988; The
Scottish Revolution 1637-1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters, David
& Charles: Newton Abbot, 1973; Revolution and Counter-Reformation, in
Scotland 1644-1651, London: Royal Historical Society, 1977; I. B.
Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor Gollancz
LTD., 1976; Walter R. Foster, The Church before the Covenants,
Edinburgh, 1975; G. D. Henderson, Religious Life in 17th Century
Scotland, Cambridge, 1937; Hector Macpherson, The Covenanters Under
Persecution, Edinburgh, 1923; Scotland's Battles for Spititual
Independence, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905; Walter Makey, The
Church of the Covenant - 1637-1651, John Donald Publishers Ltd.,
Edinburgh, 1979; Norman Macdougall (ed. ), Church. Politics and
Society: Scotland 1408-1929, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD.,
1983; G. Marchall, Presbyteries and Profits: Calvinism and the
Development of Capitalism in Scotland 1560-1707, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1980; William Law Mathieson, Politics and Religion: A Study in
Scottish History from the Reformation to the Revolution, Glasgow:
James Maclehose and Sons, 2 Vols., 1902; C. G. M'Crie, Scotland and the
Revolution 1688, Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1888; John Morrill (ed. ),
The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context 1638-51,
Edinburgh University Press, 1990; T. M. Parker, Christianity and the
State in the Light of History, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1955;
Duncan Shaw (ed. ), Reformation and Revolution, Edinburgh: The Saint
Andrew Press, 1967; Hugh Watt, Recalling the Scottish Covenants,
Thomas Nelson and Sons Limited, London, 1946. The most recent studies
on the Westminster Assembly are as follows: R. S. Paul, The Assembly of
the Lord: 'Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the
"Grand Debate"', Edinburgh, 1985; J. B. Rogers, Scripture and the
Westminster Confession, Kampen, 1966; J. H. Leith, Assembly at
Westminster: Reformed Theology in the Making, Atlanta, 1978;
G. S. Hendry, The Westminster Confession for Today, London, 1960.

(b). Dissertations: David Stewart, The "Aberdeen Doctors" and the

Covenanters, Th. M., Aberdeen University, 1978; David Alexander Weir,
Foedus Naturale: The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth Century
Reformation Thought, Ph. D. St. Andrews University, 1984; Andrew
A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the
Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Ph. D. Glasgow
University, 1988; Douglas H. Worthington, Anti-Erastian Aspects of
Scottish Covenanter Political Thought 1637 to 1647, Ph. D. University
of Akron, 1978. Concerning the Marrow Controversy: David C. Lachman,
The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723: An Historical and Theological
Analysis, Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988; Andrew A. B. McGowan, The
-15-
 Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, Ph. D. thesis, Aberdeen University,
1990.

(c). Articles. Apart from these and a number of articles and essays
from time to time, reliance must be placed on older works.

2. By "new original sources", I mean books, MSS, dissertations and

articles. The books, for example, have been (i). preserved and are
available in libraries but (ii). have not been used significantly for
elucidating and detailing the application of covenant theology to
church government and Church-State relationship in the period 1643-
1723. Whenever possible, I have worked from original sources. For
example, I found the original works of Donald Cargill and James
Renwick in New College Library, Edinburgh, but I have not discovered
anyone who has worked from these original writings. Similarly with
regard to the Erskine brothers and Auchinsaugh Declaration of 1712, I
have used original sources and no extensive work has been undertaken
on them with regard to my theme. Robert Baillie, A Dissuasive from
the Errours of the Time: wherein the Tenets of the Principall Sects,
especially of the Independents, are drawn together in one Map, for
the most part, in the words of their ownAuthours, and their main
principles are examined by the Touch-Stone of the Holy Scriptures.
Authority, London, November, 1645; An Historical Vindication of the
Government of Church of Scotland: From the manifold base calumnies
which the most Malignant of the Prelats did invent of old, and now
lately have been published withgreat industry in two Pamphlets at
London, Samuel Gellibrand, London, 1646; Henry Bullinger, The Decades
of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding, Cambridge: The Parker
Society, 4 Vols., 1848-1851; Sermons of the Sacraments, Cambridge
University Press, 1840; Richard Cameron, Some Remarkable Passages of
the Life and Death of these three famous Worthies. Signal for Piety
and Zeal. whom the Lord helped and honour'd to be faithful unto the
Death, viz Mr. John Semple. John Welwood. Mr. Richard Cameron,
Ministers of the Gospel. according as they were taken off the Stage:
who were all shining Lights in this Land, and gave Light to many. in
which they rejoiced for a Season, Edinburgh, 1727; An Essay to
Discover who are the true Fools and Fanaticks in the World, 1708;
Donald Cargill, A few of the many remarkable Passages of the Long
life (being past sixty years) and at his bloody Death. of Mr. Daniel
Cargill. a Man greatly beloved indeed. who was born in the North. and
was eldest son of a Singular Godly Gentleman, and Heritor in the
Parish of Rattrav, some miles from Dunkeld. He was commonly called
Donald, but his baptized Name was Daniel, May 1660; The Last Word of
Mr. Donald Cargill, when on the Scaffold July 27 1681, Einburgh, 1719;
Lectures and Sermons Preached at Different Times by Mr. D. C.,
concerning Jehosaphat, his Association with Achab, and Difficulty
where to make Recourse, when staged before the Tribunal of God,
Edinburgh, 1681; A Letter... to his Parish of the Barony-Kirk in
Glasgow, to which are added two Letters by Mr. John Dickson,
Edinburgh, 1734; Passages in the Life and Death of Donald Cargill,
...
Edinburgh, 1732; Being the Lecture and Discourse going before. and
the afternoon sermon following: which the Action of Excommunication
itself, pronounced at Torwood September 1680 upon king Charles II,
Edinburgh, 1741; A Collection of Lectures and Sermons. Preached upon
Several Subjects, mostly in the time of the Persecution, wherein a
Faithful and Doctrinal Testimony is Transmitted to Posterity for the
Doctrine. Worship. Discipline and Government of the Church of
Scotland. against popery, Erastianism,, Kilmarnock, 1809; Some
-16-
Remarkable Passages in the Life and Death of that Singular Exemplary
holy life. zealous and faithful unto the death. Mr. Daniel Cargill,
Edinburgh, 1732; Ebenezer Erskine, Being the Substance of three
Sermons Preached in the New Church of Bristow. at Edinburgh, at. and
after, the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there,
October 10.11 and 17 1742., Glasgow, 1743; The Whole Works of the
late Rev. Mr. Ebenezer Erskine Minister of the Gospel at Stirling
consisting of Sermons and Discourses on the most important and
interesting subjects, Edinburgh, 3 Vols., 1798; Ralph Erskine, The
Sermons and Other Practical Works of the Late Rev. Ralph Erskine,
Aberdeen 7 Vols., reprinted 1991; Beauties of the Rev. Ralph Erskine,
ed. Samuel M'millan, Glasgow, 2 Vols., 1840; E. Fisher, The Marrow of
Moderne Divinity: Touching both the Covenant of Works and the
Covenant of Grace... In a Dialogue, London, 1645; George Gillespie,
Presbyterian's Armoury, Vol. I., 1844; "A Dispute Against the English
Popish Ceremonies", The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert
Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, Vol. I., 1846; "A Brotherly Examination",
Presbyterian's Armoury, Robert Ogle, and Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh,
Vol. I., 1844; "Nihil Respondes", Presbyterian's Armoury, Robert
Ogle, and Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1844; "The Ordinance
of Parliament Calling the Assembly which met at Westminster". Notes
of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and other
Commissioners at Westminster, The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh,
Vol. II., 1846; Notes of the Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly
of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster, February 1644 to
January 1645, ed. David Meek, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and
Boyd, 1846; "Aaron's Rod Blossoming", The Presbyterian's Armoury,
Edinburgh, Vol. II., 1846; James Hadow, The Antinomianism of the
Marrow of Modern Divinity Detected, Edinburgh, 1721; Alexander
Henderson, The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland,
London, 1641; The Covenant: with a Narrative of the Proceedings and
Solemn manner of Taking it by the Honourable House of Commons. and
Reverent Assembly of Divines the 25th day of September. at Saint
Margaret in Westminster, London, 1643; A Solemn League for
Reformation. and defence of Religion, London, 1643; Reformation of
Church Government in Scotland, cleared from some mistakes and
prejudices,, by the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, London, 1644; Sermons. Prayers, and Pulpit
Addresses. 1638, Edinburgh: John Maclaren, ed. R. Thomson, Martin,
1867; James Hog, Abstract of Discourses on Psalm XLI. 4., Edinburgh,
1716; The Memoirs of the Public Life of Mr. James Hog, and of the
Ecclesiastical Proceedings of his Time; Previous to his Settlement at
Carnock, Edinburgh, 1798; John Howie, A Collection of Lectures and
Sermons, Glasgow, 1779; James Kerr, Sermons delivered by Times of
Persecution in Scotland, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and company,
1880; The Covenants and The Covenanters: Covenant. Sermons. and
Documents of the Covenanted Reformation, Edinburgh, 1895; The
National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant with the A Solemn
Acknowledgement of Publick Sins, and Breaches of the Covenant and A
Solemn Engagement to all the Duties contained therein, namely these
which do in a more special way relate unto the dangers of these
times. March. 1689; The National Covenant. and Solemn League and
Covenant: with the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to Duties:
as they were Renewed at Auchinsaugh, Near Douglas, 24th July, 1712;
Alexander Peden, Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and Death,
of Mr. Alexander Peden, Glasgow: James Duncan, 1734; James Renwick, &
Prophecy Concerning the Lord's return to Scotland. by a plentiful
out-pouring of the Spirit upon his Church and Land. in these
-17-
 Prophetical Sermons, Edinburgh: W.Gray, 1746; An Informatory
Vindication of a poor. wasted. misrepresented Remnant of the
suffering... Presbyterian Church of Christ in Scotland, 1687; The
Church's choice. or. a sermon on Canticles. ch. l., Glasgow, 1743; A
Choice Collection of Very Valuable Prefaces, Lectures, and Sermons.
preached upon the mountains and muirs of Scotland. in the hottest
time of the late persecution, Glasgow, 1776; The Last Speech and
Testimony of the Reverend Mr. James Renwick. Minister of the Gospel,
who suffered in the Glass-Market of Edinburgh. February 17th 1688.
emitted from his own hand the day before his suffering, printed from
the Original Secession May, 1888, ed. D. Hay Fleming, Glasgow, 1888;
Antipas: or. the Dying Testimony of Mr. J. R., Edinburgh, 1715; The
Saint's Duty in evil times, in two sermons preached from Isaiah
XXVI. 20., Edinburgh: D. Duncan, 1745; Some notes or heads of a preface
and sermon at Lintoch - Steps in the Parish of Stenous in Clydsdale
by that great man of God, and now glorified Martyr Mr. James Renwick,
General Assembly Library, September, 1687; A Sermon Concerning the
Lord's return to Scotland, General Assembly Library, 1729; Some notes
or heads of a sermon preached in Fyfe. Psalm 45: 10, Jan. 24.1688;
The Testimony, of some persecuted Presbyterian Ministers of the
Gospel. unto the Covenanted Reformation of the Church of Scotland,
and to the present experiences of containing to preach the Gospel in
the Fields. and against the present Antichristian Toleration in its
nature of design, Edinburgh, Jan. 17.1688; Alexander Shield, Some
Notes or Heads of a Preface and of a lecture, preached at
Distinckorn-Hill in the Parish of Glasgow by Mr. Alexander Shields,
preacher of Gospel, April, 1688; The History of Scotch-Presbytery:
Being an Epitome of the Hind let loose, London, 1642; An elegy upon
the death of Mr. James Renwick, 1688 (reprin. 1723); An iniquity into
Church-Communion. or. a treatise against seperation from the
Revolution-Settlement of this national church as it was settled anno
1689 and 1690, Edinburgh, 1747; A History of the Scotch-Presbyterians
from the Year 1570 to the Year 1692, London; A Letter Concerning the
due boundaries of Christian fellowship... written to the prisoners for
Conscience. in Dunnottar-Castle. who then were many. in Summer 1685,
Edinburgh, 1726; The Scots Inquisition: brief description of the
persecution of the Presbyterians in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1745; A hind
let loose. or an historical representation of the Testimonies of the
Church of Scotland for the interest of Christ with the true State
thereof in all its Periods, Glasgow, 1770; The Life and Death of that
eminently pious, free, and faithful minister and martyr of Jesus
Christ, Mr. James Renwick: with a vindication of the heads of his
dying testimony, Glasgow, 1806; Some Considerations Contributing
unto the Discovery of Dangers that threaten Religion, and the Work
of Reformation in the Church of Scotland, Glasgow: William Duncan,
1738; A solemn League and Covenant For Reformation and Defence of
Religion, The Honoured and Happinesse of the King Peace and
Safety the Three Kinndomes England. Scotland -and
of of and Ireland,
London, 1643; (ed. ), A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of
Scotland, Edinburgh: Robert Buchanan, 1830; A Testimony to the Truths
of Christ. agreeably to the Westminster Standards. as Received by the
Reformed Church of Scotland. and in Opposition to Defections from the
Reformation Sworn to in Britain and Ireland: together with an Act for
Renewing the Covenants. and a Formula, Paisley: J. and R. Parlane,
1877.

3. By "additional sources", I mean standard works which have not

concentrated on, or pursued in depth, the practical application of
-18-
covenant theology to church government and politics. Robert Baillie,
Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, ed. David Laing, Edinburgh:
Bannatyne Club, 3 Vols., 1841-1842; Thomas Boston, The Works of
Thomas Boston, 12 vols., ed. Samuel McMillan, Aberdeen, 1848-1853,
reprinted by Richard Owen Roberts Wheaton 1980; A View of the
Covenant of Grace from the Sacred Records wherein the Parties in that
Covenant. the making of it, its parts, conditionary and promissory.
and the administration thereof are distinctly considered together
with the trial of a Saving Personal Inbeing in it. and the way of
instating sinners therein, unto their eternal salvation, Focus
Christian Ministeries Trust, 1990; The Marrow of Modern Divinity,
with notes by Thomas Boston, Still Waters Revival Books, 1991; Robert
Browne and Robert Harrison., The Writings of Robert Harrison and
Robert Browne, Peel, Albert and Carlson, Leland H (eds. ), London:
George Allen and Unwin LTD., John Calvin, John Calvin on God and
Political Duty, ed. John T. McNeill, New York: The Liberal Arts Press,
1950; The Institute of the Christian Religion, Edinburgh, 4 Vols.,
1865; Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid,
London: James Clarke & Co. LTD., 1961; John Foxe, The Acts and
Monuments of the Church: Containing the History and Sufferings of the
Martyrs: Wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of
the Church, from the primitive age to these later times, with a
preliminary dissertation. on the difference between the church of
Rome that now is. and the ancient church of Rome that then was., ed.
M. Hobart Seymour, London: printed for Scott, Webster, and Geary,
(revised), M. Hobart Seymour, 12 Vols in one., 1838; John Howie, The
Scots Worthies. containing a brief historical account of the most
eminent noblemen. gentlemen. ministers and others, who testified or
suffered for the cause of reformation in Scotland. from the beginning
of the sixteenth century. to the year 1688, Glasgow and London, 1858;
John Jumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, Paisley: Alexander Gardner,
1914; John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 Vols.,
Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1846-1848; John Lightfoot, The Journal of
the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines. from January 1st, to
December 31.1644, and letters to and from Dr. Lightfoot, ed. John
Roberts Pitman, London: J. F. Dove, 1824; The Whole Works of Lightfoot,
13 Vols, ed. J. R. Pitman, London, 1822-1825; The Martyrs and
Wrestlers: their Testimony and declarations at Rutherglen. Sanguhar
and Lanak. together with the bond of mutual defence which was found
upon Mr. Cameron at Airdsmoss after he was killed also the Queensferrv
Paper, for the Truth and royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ King of
Saints and Nations, Glasgow, 1770; Martin Luther, The Works of
Martin Luther, eds. J. Pelikanand, H. T. Lehman, St. Louis and
Philadelphia, Vol. 25 and 35., 1963; Thomas M'Crie, Life of Andrew
Melville, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons., 1855; Alex. F.
Mitchell and John Struthers (co-eds. ), Minutes of the Sessions of the
Westminster Assembly of Divines, while engaged in writing their
Directory for Church Government. Confession of Faith. and Catechisms,
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874; Robert Pitcairn (ed. ),
The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melville, Edinburgh: The
Wodrow Society, 1842; Samuel Rutherford, The Presbyterian's Armoury,
Edinburgh, Vol. III., 1846; "Lex Rex", or "The Law and the Prince";
The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, Oliver and Boyd,
Vol. III., 1846; The Due Right of Presbyteries or a Peaceable Plea
for the Government of the Church of Scotland, 1644; Summary of the
Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Glasgow:
James Hedderwick & Sons, LTD., 1932; John H. Thomson, A Cloud of
Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ: Being the Last
-19-
 Speeches and Testimonies of those who have suffered for the Truth in
Scotland since the Year 1680, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and
Company, 1871; Walker, Patrick., Six Saints of the Covenant, London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 2 Vols., 1901; Herman Witsius, The Economy of
the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of
Divinity, Utrecht, 1693, Translated from the Latin and carefully
revised by William Crookshank, London, 2 Vols., 1822; Robert Wodrow,
Wodrow's Correspondence, Wodrow Society, 3 Vols., 1841; The History
of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to
the Revolution, Glasgow, 4 Vols., 1841; Huldrych Zwingli, Zwingli and
Bullinger, Selected Translations with Introductions and Notes by
G. W.Bromiley, The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XXIV., London:
SCM Press LTD., 1953; Writings, 2 Vols., trs. E. T. Furcha and
H. W. Pipkin, Allison Park, Pa, 1984.

4. Using terminology of signatories and supporters of the National

Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. But the
description is particularly used to refer to those who found the
Restoration Settlement of 1660 unacceptable. The Covenanters'
objections against the King concentrated on the revival of
episcopacy, State control of the Church and the rejection of the
former covenants. The idea of covenant deliberately affected the
lives of the Scottish people, and this theme was developed throughout
the covenanting period 1661-1688. This idea was retained in the
theology of the Marrow men who established the covenant theology.
Therefore, I use this theme as a distinctive of followers who
believed in, signed and accepted the covenanting documents according
to their faith from 1638 to 1690, and afterwards, known as the Marrow
men - Evangelical Presbyterians who adapted the covenant theology in
their beliefs and expressed these in the Westminster Confession of
Faith. It is apparent that there is common ground and clear links
between the Scottish Covenanters and Evangelical Presbyterians on
covenant theology, based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Therefore, under the great theme of the covenant thought, we shall
examine the patterns of the Scottish thinking. Ian Donnachie and
George Hewitt, A Companion to Scottish History: from the Reformation
to the Present, B. T. Batsford Ltd. London, 1989, pp. 51-52; Julia
Buckroyd, Church and State in Scotland, 1660-1681, Edinburgh: John
Donald Publishers Ltd, 1980; Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters,
1660-1688, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1976; Gordon Donaldson,
Scotland: James V to James VII, Mercat Press, 1987; David C. Lachman,
The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723, Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988,
p. 1; Gordon Donaldson and Robert S. Morpeth, A Dictionary of Scottish
History, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1988; John L. Carson,
The Doctrine of the Church in the Secession, Ph. D. thesis, Aberdeen
University, 1987, pp. 13-63.

S. Desiring to return the Church of Scotland to its Reformation

heritage, the twelve ministers of the Church of Scotland began to
emphasize the doctrine of the free grace of God (sola gratia). These
evangelicals became known as Marrowmen because of the stimulation
given to their theology by Edward Fisher's "The Marrow of Modern
Divinity". They saw the Marrow as providing a corrective to the
"legal preaching" of their day. These themes were realized by "The
Committee of the Doctrine of Purity" as modern, because the Marrow,
according to the Purity men, contained modern theology, opposite to
the Westminster Confession of Faith, therefore, not acceptable.
Further details see chapter five in the dissertation.
-20-
6. For example, James Kirk, "The Calvinist Contribution to the Scottish
Reformation, " Patterns of Reform, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989, pp.
70-95; G. Donaldson, "'The Example of Denmark" in the Scottish
Reformation', Scottish Historical Review, vol. xxvii, pp. 57-64;
B. A. Gerrish, "The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Confession", Theology
Today, Vol. XXIII (1966), pp. 224-243.

7. W.M.Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,

Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1843, p. 67.

8. The Moderate movement of the 18th century was characterised by the

exaltation of reason and common sense in religion. The natural
displaced the supernatural and ethical teaching superseded doctrinal.
"The Moderates... yearned for a social order in which reigned common-
sense, good breeding, good fellowship, culture and intellectual
pursuit of truth". Hector Macpherson, Scotland's Battles for
Spiritual Independence, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905, p. 138.

9. Matthew Hutchison, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland.

1680-1876, Paisley, 1893; Gordon J. Keddie, "The Reformed
Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Disruption", Scottish
Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 11. No. 1., 1993, pp. 31-49.

10. H. R. McADOO,The Spirit of Anglicanism, Charles Scribner's Sons: New

York, 1965, pp. 1-155.

11. Ibid., pp. 156-315.

12. J. H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Hope Trust,

1983, p. 287.

13. Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1986, p. 16.

14. D. H. Pennington, Europe in the Seventheenth Century, London: Longman,

1989 (second ed. ), p. 28; Henry Kamen, European Society 1500-1700,
Routledge: London, 1992, pp. 35-40.

15. Ibid., pp. 24-25.

16. Heiko A. Oberman, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

17. D. H. Pennington, op. cit., pp. 26-27.

18. Henry F. Henderson, The Religious Controversies of Scotland,

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905, pp. 2-3.

19. Ian B. Cowan, "The Covenanters", The Scottish Historical Review,

Aberdeen University, 1968, Vol. 47., p. 36.

-21 -
PART ONE: THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE COVENANT
CONCEPT
 c1APTER ONE

THE SCOTTISHCOVENANT
- ITS BACKGROUND
AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1.1/ The Importance of the Covenant Concept.

The covenant concept is an important biblical concept. Clearly and

vividly, it shows Christians their absolute dependence upon God for

salvation and the certainty of this God-given salvation. The term,

deeply rooted in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, is used pre-

eminently as an expression of God's saving activity among men. 1 The

covenant concept is the basis both for the individual Christian life and

that of the whole community of believers. In other words, the concept

has social, legal, religious, and political aspects. This concept was

not fully developed, or, systematized in the early period of Church

history.

The systematic development of this scheme of covenant doctrine

belongs to the two centuries after the sixteenth-century Protestant

Reformation. Covenant theology forms the basis of the theology of the

Continental Reformers, like, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, 'John

Calvin, Ursinus and Cocceius. For them the concept of the covenant is a

-22-
term that is central for both exegetical and theological reflection.

Calvin, like Zwingli, for example, used the covenant concept throughout

his writings, particularly in his Institutes and it had a central place

for him especially in relation to the sovereignty of God. For Ursinus

and Cocceius, a similar emphasis on covenant is found and understood as

a soteriological aspects. Yet, these were fundamentally one in

principle. As a consequence, the Reformers greatly influenced the

development of subsequent Protestant theology. The Scottish Covenanters

and their successors embraced the covenant concept as a pivotal part of

their theological and political thought.

Before looking at the covenant concept in the theology of the

Scottish Covenanters, we shall consider briefly the main biblical

features of the covenant concept together with socio-political aspects

as well as the development of these ideas in the history of both

mainland Europe and Scotland.

1.1.1/ The Biblical concept of Covenant.

"Covenant" is a central theme in the Bible and holds a similar

place there to love, wrath and sacrifice. It has a long history which

can be traced back to the ancient Israelites in the Old Testament.

Although the term and idea of the covenant have been diligently

investigated recently in connection with Hittite and other diplomatic

treaties, the attention has generally remained focused on the Old

Testament. 2

The Hebrew word "berith" (O. T: covenant), and the corresponding

term in the New Testament, are founed over 300 times in the two
Testaments. The word signifies a solemn bond or a mutual voluntary
agreement; it is used not only of the divine-human covenant, but also of

-23-
covenants between people. From a study of these biblical references, it

is clear that the idea of treaties between God and man has a significant

place in Christian as well as Jewish theology. The covenant entered upon

may be for a temporary, specified period or for all time.

The Hebrew word "berith" was translated into Greek as either,

"suntheke" or "diatheke". The former is the common word for compact,

convention or treaty in which the parties are equal and bargain with one

another; they eventually bind themselves together on mutual conditions

in order to effect some future action and result. The obligations to

each other are conditional.

The Septuagint, on the other hand, consistently uses "diatheke" to

translate the Hebrew "berith"; in everyday usage the word bore the

general sense of statute or ordinance, but in a specialised sense it was

the term for a last will and testament. The term emphasises the divine

initiative in the covenant, and the sovereign, gracious and authorita-

tive nature of God's provision. 3 It is an unconditional divine gift to a

person or group of people; it rests clearly on God's promise and lies at

the heart of biblical history. The "diatheke", used in relation to the

new covenant, is usually the equivalent of the covenant in the ancient

Greek translation, and contains not only promises but requirements.

, While the etymology of'"berith" is uncertain it is important to

notice that it refers to two different conceptions of God's relationship

with His people, almost contradictory in their intentions. Not

surprisingly it is sometimes claimed that covenant theology reduces the

relation between God and man to the level of a mere commercial contract.

But the divine covenant was not like a human agreement in which the two

contracting parties are equal.

In the divine covenant God always remained sovereign, and he freely

made the covenant as an act of grace. This means that His covenant with

-24-
man is a free promise on His part but generally dependent upon the

fulfilment of certain conditions by man. In other words, a covenant

contains the responsibilities of a mutual relationship. For example, God

made a promise of continued life and favour to man on condition of

obedience, coupled with a penalty for disobedience (Gen. 2: 16-17). 4 On

the other hand, the covenant idea was used historically before God made

any formal use of it in Scripture. To understand the nature of the

covenant concept further, it is necessary to understand its Old

Testament background; the concept is grounded in the Old Testament and

the Covenanters justified their covenant doctrine largely from the Old

rather than the New Testament.

1.1.2/ Socio-Political aspects of the Covenant.

The covenant of God as found in the Old Testament had important

socio-political aspects to it so the covenant was an important way of

regulating behaviour between individuals, groups, and nations,

especially in the area of international relations, as an effective

treaty or contract. 5 As Dr. E. C. Lucas has suggested, the covenant

relationship influenced by the form of ancient Near Eastern law codes or

treaties was common in the life of the people of Israel. 6

This emphasis on a mutual relationship between God and man

(Deuteronomy 12: 24-31,24: 14-15,25: 13-16), and man and man (Hosea 4:
1-2,6,6: 3,8: 12,10: 4) can be described as obligation law. Here God

undertook no specific obligation, but the human partners swore to abide

by certain stipulations, the penalty for disobedience being calamitous

curses on the community and, ultimately, its exile. This concept of the

religious covenant, which was at times a social and political reality, 7

not just an idea, called for allegiance to a single God and observance

-25-
of important mutual obligations in the society: respect for life,

property, and justice, etc. It was thus a powerful force for national

organisation, an operative principle rather than a theological

abstraction.

In particular, this idea was well developed in marriage contracts

between exogamous tribes or bands, so that these groups stayed within

the required patterns of intermarriage. 8 This created solid

relationships both in family and political areas - there was a basic

agreement about the social and political order for the two societies.

For Israel, the covenant of obligation was central and pervaded

Israel's thought. By it, divine grace and moral obligation were set in

place, and loyalty to God and care' for one's neighbour were tied

together. The covenant idea then has been inherited by Christianity

from the Old Testament where the relationship between Yahweh and His

people is frequently described in terms of a covenant, entered into

either with individual Israelites or with the nation as a whole.

The important implications of the covenant further define it. 1).

The covenant demonstrated the continuity in the history of salvation of

man from his origin to the present time. 2). This covenant was used to

supplement and occasionally to supplant the Law. After the fall of man,

he was placed under the Law, but escape was offered through a covenant

of grace. The first aspect of the covenant, that of an agreement,

appeared with the second, that of its historical continuity, in Reformed

covenant theology. 9

1.2/ Historical Development of the Covenant Concept.

Although the Christian church retained the Old and New Testaments

as its sacred Scripture and thus assured continued acquaintance with

-26-
covenant ideas, the interests of its theologians and their various forms

of polity did not encourage any profound concern with the ancient

Israelite covenant; this in turn meant the covenant concept was not

prominent in subsequent Christian theology. This state of affairs

continued until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century

opened the door to a search for new forms of common life and a renewed

interest in both Testaments. This was true of the period after the

Reformation of the 16th century, especially on the part of John Calvin

and his followers, who subsequently influenced Christian Protestant

history with the covenant concept as one of the main controversial

issues in theology.

Since then, theologians have frequently used and defined the

covenant in a system known as Federal theology or Covenant theology. 10

Throughout history this has-had implications for social, cultural and

political affairs. It was an attempt to translate a timeless

predestination theory of the Christian religion into an historically

revealed and gradually accomplished plan of salvation, through emphasis

upon the covenant. We shall now review the period from the early church

to the Reformation in order to trace briefly the development and

understanding of the covenant concept as a central issue in theology.

1.2.1/ Pre-Reformation Period: Overview.

The source of the problems which characterized this period lay in

its understanding of the doctrines of God, man's nature, man's union

with God, Christ in the Church and the power of the Pope. During the

pre-Reformation years theology was formulated in three periods: namely,

Apostolic fathers, Apologists, and the Middle Ages. In the earlier part

of this period, Church Fathers and theologians made their defence of the

-27-
doctrines of the Church in direct opposition to heretics. They employed

all possible arguments and sought to compare Christianity favourably

with the best thinking and practice of the day. In their exposition of

Christianity, the Church Fathers exhibited their interest in the

intellectual implications of the gospel.

In philosophy and theology, the period of the Middle Ages was

characterized by "scholasticism" which came about through the

rediscovery of Aristotle. By this time, Christianity had long been

established as the majority religion in Europe but it was a time of

transition both politically and intellectually. Philosophy was regarded

as the handmaid of theology, the queen of the sciences. Scholastic ideas

influenced theology considerably during this period especially in

formulating new ideas of Christian communion combining philosophical and

theological ideas. In their exposition of Christianity, these

theologians expressed their deep interest in the intellectual

implications of the gospel.

However, the theological issues of the period concerned "the nature

of God", "the condition of man" and "union of man with God" etc. 11

Despite concentrating on these doctrines, Christian thinkers, who

succeeded Augustine in the medieval period, did not devote much

attention to the term "covenant" in their writings. This general

overview of the Pre-reformation period can be further illustrated with

reference to three important theologians, namely, Irenaeus, Augustine

and William of Ockham.

(i). Irenaeus (fl. c. 130-c. 200). Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in

southern Gaul, was a leading figure in the early patristic period. In

his writings he considered among other things the unity of God's purpose

and work as well as the reality of the incarnation in opposition to

-28-
Gnostic views. The covenant concept was used mainly by Irenaeus in

three contexts, namely, baptism, the biblical canon and the atonement.

Concerning the latter context, he regarded the covenant idea as being

integral to the doctrine of salvation. As men were corrupt and guilty

before God so the Lord redeems his people through the covenant of grace.

Salvation, therefore, is inseparably related to the work of redemption

by Christ's blood and by nourishment through the eucharistic bread and

wine as the central achievement of the covenant. 12

(ii). Augustine (354-430). As "one of the founders of the Middle

Ages", 13 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is an outstanding figure in the

history of the Church between the Apostle Paul and the Reformation.

"Covenant" is one of many theological terms used by him; it can be shown

that Augustine employed the term "covenant" doctrinally but also in a

political context. The term first appears in his "Confession", where he

speaks of his conversion and describes his sinful life and God's great

love for him. 14 It also emerges in the account of his conflict with

Pelagius where he argues about the imputation of Adam's sin to all his

posterity. Here he shows that he was no stranger to the doctrine of the

covenant. 15

Augustine also shows that the Christian sacraments come from Christ

himself, not from the clergy or from the church. Their value in no way

depends upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the officiating

minister. 16 He further maintains that the church as a covenantal

institution on earth consists of two main groups "visible" and
"invisible" under the predestinated covenant of God. One belongs to the

earthly sphere and the latter to the heavenly sphere. He insists that

only in the visible church can we find salvation through Christ.

-29-
 Augustine used the covenant idea more fully as a specific theme in

his work "De Civitate Dei" ("the City of God"). This work tells us about

the progressive line of divine history and prophecy moving through a

series of ages from the creation of light to the last judgment.

Augustine notes the conflict of two principles, 17 which are embodied in

what he calls two "cities, " "states", "societies". Ever since the first

rebellion against God, these two "cities" have existed, a heavenly one

and an earthly one, maintained respectively by the love of God and the

love of self. 18 The latter is the community of those who have lived an

earthly life from Cain down to the Empires of Babylon and Rome. The

heavenly society is represented by those who in all ages have confessed

themselves strangers and pilgrims on earth.

To Augustine, all history consists of the actions and reactions

between these two cities. The earthly city is not altogether evil, for

it represses evil and maintains civil order. Therefore, without a

certain amount of good it could never exist at all. But by its very

nature it is destined to be transitory. The essentials of permanence

belong to the divine, the heavenly city alone. For Augustine, the

covenant concept integrated the relationship between church and state.

God created and controlled the world and appointed leaders yet at the

same time builds and cares for his church. The covenant is applied by

Augustine to his own life and situation as a whole. 19

Furthermore, Augustine used the covenant idea in a moral context

claiming that all children have broken the covenant, in the same way as

Adam, from whom all came, sinned and broke the covenant. He asserts that

in human nature there is an order by which men can live, independently

of God by man's own freewill; this order of nature, however, is opposed

to God, and can only be restored by God Himself. In the process which
leads a man out of sin into life the initiative lies with God. All human

-30-
efforts to live a righteous life are due to the action of a covenant-

keeping God. Unless God gives His grace, human beings cannot receive

the grace of God. 20 This grace of God is in fact irresistible in a

person's life but its source is in divine covenant love.

(iii). William of Ockham (1280-1349). Ockham used the term

"covenant" as a political term in his booklet, "An Excerpt from Eight

Questions on the Power of the Pope". 21 His main concerns here were the

origin and extent of the Pope's authority. Concerning its origin, Ockham

had no doubt that the Pope's authority was derived from God; 22 this

authority, for Ockham, also extended to temporal and spiritual affairs

yet it did not include the authority to judge all mortals. 23 Ockham

introduced the concept of covenant to safeguard three pivotal points in

his theology, namely: (1). supreme lay authority comes from God but

always in the context of covenant, (2). this divine covenant ensured

that this supreme authority remained under God's own control, (3). a

distinction must be made between the secular and spiritual nature of the

imperium and the Pope's misuse of it.

1.2.2/ Reformation and Post-Reformation Period.

In the thousand years between Augustine and Luther, the main drift

of medieval theology was devoted to qualifying Augustine's doctrine: the

total corruption of man and the dualistic view of those predestinated to

life or those condemned to eternal death. By contrast. the Reformation

leaders were strongly influenced by Augustine. The reformers used the

term "covenant" in two main ways. First of all, they used it in relation

to salvation, particularly with regard to the personal justification

through faith of a sinner before a holy God; this justification was

-31-
grounded in the work of Christ and the free, covenant grace of God.

Secondly, the reformers employed the term "covenant" in regard to the

relationship between church and state with all its political

implications. However, the Reformers understanding of the covenant

differed significantly concerning the nature of the covenant,

particularly its application to baptism, the sacraments, and the vexed

Church-State relationship. I intend now to outline first the Reformers'

view of the covenant both on the Continent and in Britain in the early

16th century. I will then discuss the covenant concept of their

successors, both on the Continent and in Scotland from the late 16th

century to the 18th century.

1.2.2.1/ The Concept of the Covenant in the Continental Reformers.

(i). Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531). In the early 16th century the

idea of covenant unity and development was first presented by the Zurich

Reformer Huldrych Zwingli. 24 The term was mentioned in Zwingli's writing

"Reply to Hubmaier" of November 5,1525. On July 31,1527, Zwingli

published his "Refutation of the Tricks of the Anabaptists", usually

referred to as his "Elenchus", where he most clearly stated his ideas

about the covenant.

According to scholars, like Trinterud, Moller and Greaves the term

"covenant" as used by Zwingli related human obedience to God's grace.

There was, therefore, both a divine and human dimension to-the covenant

of grace. There was a parallel between circumcision and baptism in the

New Testament which extended back into the Old in terms of promise and
fulfillment thus expressing the unity between the people of the two

testaments. 25 Robert W. A. Letham, however, argues that Zwingli never

insisted upon "the covenant relationship in such a way that God's

-32-
blessings of salvation depend upon human fulfilment of certain

conditions". 26 There are no indications that the term covenant was used

by him as a mutual, bilateral agreement.

The covenant for Zwingli, therefore, is not conditional but rather

based solely on God's free, eternal election. However, Zwingli

maintained that our response to God's covenant love should be works of

obedience expressed by faith. Zwingli brings this out in his later

"Exposition of the Faith", mentioning that circumcision is a covenant

sign between God and the seed of Abraham. 27 The covenant as pledge

rests ultimately on the covenant as promise. 28 God expects obedience

from us as a covenantal response to his grace. For Zwingli, our loving

and fearing God are the result of his divine favour. In Zwingli's words,

such results are a visible "sign of election". 29

Within this covenant context, Zwingli employed the idea of covenant

primarily as (a) a defence of infant baptism and the sacraments as

external signs; these signs were known as "an inward and outward union

of Christian people"30 and functioned as means of grace to believers and

(b) the covenant stressed the responsibility of man before God. For him,

the baptismal covenant involved a pledge given both by God and man. 31

The ultimate basis of baptism is not that we are willing to accept God's

service, but rather that God is willing to accept us as His servants. 32

Zwingli asserted that it is nothing more than an initiatory ceremony or

pledging.

Therefore, the divine willingness has precedence over the human in

order that the sacrament to children within the covenant may be properly

administered. 33 Zwingli firmly believed in and argued for, infant

baptism because of the doctrine of election. Baptism could not be for

him the instrumental cause of regeneration since this had been

accomplished finally by Christ's atoning death on the cross. What

-33-
Zwingli insisted upon with regard to baptism was the immediacy of grace,

imparted directly by the Spirit. For him, baptism with the Spirit rather

than water baptism was the means by which individuals were drawn into

the orbit of divine salvation. 34 In this connection the baptism and

election of children centred in Christ who is the dynamic centre of

Zwingli's faith. Zwingli secured the objectivity of infant baptism in

the context of covenant unity.

(ii). Heinrich Bullinger (1505-1575). The covenant idea was

systematized by Bullinger. It occupied the foreground of his thought in

an exposition of the Christian faith known as the "Decades", a series of

sermons preached between 1549 to 1551.35 He believed that the covenant

concept described in the Scriptures was very clear. Unlike his

predecessor Zwingli, Bullinger believed that the covenant which was

largely written in the two tables (Ten Commandments)36 was conditional.

He saw the Old Testament as promise, the New as fulfilment. Christ was
the goal and mediator of the Old Testament as well as the New. Bullinger
linked both Testaments in the light of their soteriological unity and
this idea instinctively led him to covenant theology.

According to Bullinger, when God made a covenant with Adam after

the Fall, and subsequently with Abraham and Moses, He called us to be

partakers with them all, and offered us the covenants together with His

good and heavenly blessings (Gen. 17: 7; 22: 18) and "bound us unto
himself in faith and due obedience". 37 He insisted that human obligation

was set forth even more clearly in the Abrahamic covenant, where God

explicitly commandedus to walk before him and be blameless. 38 Even the

signs of the covenant of grace, whether circumcision, 'baptism, or the

Lord's Supper, all bear witness to a resolve on the part of the

-34-
contributors "to do their endeavour by pureness of living to win the

favour of God, their confederate". 39

Bullinger about the OT covenant saints that "the blessing

-remarks
and partaking of all good things pertaineth to the circumcised, if they

abide faithful to the Lord God who entered into the covenant with

men". 40 It shows our covenant obligation, to acknowledge and trust God

alone, to call upon him, honour him, worship him, remain faithful to

him, and obey him. Bullinger also maintained that the blessing of God

is dependent upon human response. 4' For him, the substance of the

covenant is the same in all ages. 42

Moreover, he insisted that while circumcision and baptism testify

to man's responsibility in the covenant, they also testify that it is

God who fulfils that responsibility in and through people. They are

signs that God, solely by His grace and goodness, bound Himself in a

covenant to justify and sanctify sinners through Christ, "who by his

Spirit cuts from us whatsoever things do hinder the mutual covenant and

amity betwixt God and us". He also gives and increases in us both hope

and charity in faith in order to knit and join us to God in life

everlasting. 43

Also, in his sermons on the Sacraments he argued about the

covenantal ceremony that the Lord commenced in the Sacraments.

Bullinger writes in the Second Helvetic Confession (16.2), "faith" is

purely a gift of God imparted to his elect". 44 It is "neither of our own

nature, not of our own merits, but is by the grace of God poured into us
through the Holy Spirit, which is given into our hearts". 45 And it is

that same Spirit resident within us who inspires in us a love for God's

law and a life of obedience patterned after the law. 46 Bullinger

affirmed, therefore, the inseparable relationship between faith and

obedience in response to God's law.

-35-
 Like Zwingli, he made use of the covenant to defend infant baptism

and expanded it into a much broader concept with respect to sacraments.

He maintained that "the infants should be baptized, not because of their

belief with the heart and confession with their mouth of the Lord, but

that God of His mere grace and mercy, in the blood of Jesus Christ, has

cleansed and adopted them and appointed them to be heirs of eternal

life". He says therefore that infants can believe. 47 Accordingly, this

should be exercised by the knowledge and judgment of Christian faith, in

the celebration of the sacraments. 48 But Bullinger did not hold that

the covenant was exclusively one-sided; it is rather bilateral: God's

promise to us and our obligation to respond to Him.

(iii). Martin Luther (1483-1546). Luther referred to, and discussed

the biblical covenants, but stressed the doctrine of justification by

faith as the cornerstone of his own theology. 49 Speaking about the

covenant in his lectures on Hebrews (1517-1518), Luther concerned

himself with little beyond the obvious distinction of the Old and New

Testaments, the Law and Gospel, and incidental references to Scripture

passages where covenants are mentioned. Luther recognized both the unity

and the diversity of the Bible. For him the unity was in God who

revealed himself in Christ and the diversity in the contrast between law

and gospel. It was the contrast, however, which was the dominant factor,

as is shown by the summary of his position in his "Preface to the Old

Testament" of 1523:

"The ground and proof of the New Testament is surely not to be

despised, and therefore the Old Testament is to be highly
regarded". 50 "The Old Testament is a book of laws, which teaches
what men are to do and not to do... just as the New Testament is
gospel or book of grace, and teaches where one is to get the power
to fulfil the law. Now in the New Testament there are also
given... many other teachings that are laws and commandments...
Similarly in the Old Testament too there are... certain promises and
-36-
 words of grace... Nevertheless just as the chief teaching of grace
and peace through the forgiveness of sins in Christ, so the chief
teaching of. the Old Testament is rally the teaching of laws, the
showing up of sin, and the demeaning of good". 51

Luther further asserts that there were two covenants: the old covenant

was a bilateral covenant of works and the new covenant was unilateral,

resting solely on God's mercy. 52 From Moses until Christ, this new

covenant existed side by side with the old covenant of the law.

Then Christ fulfilled the new covenant and abolished the old. The

Old Testament contained the promise of the new covenant, in sacramental

signs, in prophecies, and in types. The New Testament was a testament of

faith and grace. Luther's new covenant of faith was the principal idea

of his theology of the covenant, which is Augustinian in character.

Luther also discussed baptism as a covenant in which God promises the

non-imputation of sins, and man pledges to die to sin through the grace

of the Holy Spirit. This covenant for Luther is a cause for comfort for

the Christian because "God has there pledged himself to slay his sin for

him... 1153

In the Bondage of the Will and the lectures on Romans, Luther

further revealed his understanding of the role of covenant in the

doctrine of election and its close connection with the doctrine of

predestination. 54 To support this relationship, Luther opposes four

arguments. These arguments were (1). that man has a Free Will, therefore

he can choose to do good or evil; (2). that all men will be saved, which

is based on I Tim. 2: 4; (3). that man is not responsible for his sin,

therefore any punishment for sin is unjust; (4). it is God also who has

hardened the will of man therefore, man cannot be condemned.

Luther's response was based on the following texts: (1). the word

"purpose" in Romans 8: 28 stands for God's predestination; (2). the

-37-
stories of Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau in Romans 9 stands for God's

election; (3). Romans 9: 15,17-18 the apostle shows analogy from Ex.

33: 19; (4). John 10: 29 shows further evidence of God's sovereignty;

(5). John 13: 18 and 6: 44 re-emphasizes the same doctrine of election;

(6). Psalm 115: 3 and 2 Timothy 2: 19, these passages speak of God's

Omnisciency over and against man's wisdom. Luther's concern was to show

plainly that God's ordained purpose cannot be thwarted by any creature.

Concerning baptism, Luther was convinced that it was a covenant in

which God promised salvation. As Hegen has pointed out, the term

election is plainly taught here. 55 For Luther, despair of self leads to

trust in Christ.

(iv). John Calvin (1509-1564). The term "covenant" features

prominently in Calvin's writings. He devotes three chapters in his

"Institutes of the Christian Religion" to the development of the

covenant of grace. In The Institutes, 56 Calvin asserts that the majesty

of the sovereign God and His covenant are of greater significance than

the saving grace of God in Christ. 57 This demonstrates the important

place which the doctrine of predestination occupies in Calvinistic

theology with its emphasis on God's unconditional election through His

eternal covenant. 58 There is, however, a sense in which the covenant was

used in a conditional sense: "By their own defect and guilt, I admit,

Ishmael, Esau, and the like were cut off from adoption. For the

condition had been laid down that they should faithfully keep God's

covenant, which they faithlessly violated". 59

In this biblical context, grace was given to sinful man to enable

him to keep the covenant by the exercise of faith and works for

salvation. 60 Both faith and works of obedience are the fruit, not of our

own efforts, but of the renewing power of the Spirit within us. 61 We can

-38-
fulfil our obligations in the covenant only because the Holy Spirit

prompts us to do so. For Calvin this covenant was established with

Abraham. It contains divine promises including the promise of a redeemer

to come. As Calvin clearly stated, this involves both the ethical

conditions that men are required to fulfil and the implications of the

covenant along with the sovereignty of God in His covenant with man. 62

The old and new covenants are basically one and the same. Eternal

blessings are the goal of each one of them; the grace or mercy of God is

the common basis; the signs are the same and Christ is the common

mediator. 63

Calvin teaches clearly in his Institutes that the doctrine of the

covenant is the key to the unity of Scripture, and so the Old Testament

era is not completely different from that of the New Testament. 64 He

admited the differences in Scripture but in such a way as not to detract

from its established unity and all these pertain to the manner of

dispensation rather than to the substance. 65 Accordingly, he understood

the relationship of law and gospel as aspects of one covenant in

soteriological terms. He says that:

"Christ, although he was known to the Jews under the law, was at
length clearly revealed only in the Gospel"66... "The covenant made
with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and
reality that the two are actually one and the same... First, we hold
that carnal prosperity and happiness did not constitute the goal
set before the Jews to which they were to aspire. Rather, they were
adopted into the hope of immortality... Secondly, the covenant by
which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own
merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them.
Thirdly, they both had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom
they were joined to God and were to share in his promises". 67

In Calvin's opinion, the continuity of the covenant in the two

dispensations provides the basis for infant baptism. the sign of the

covenant being placed on the children of believers. He says, "what was

-39-
circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism". 68 Also the

concept of the covenant is emphasised as the key to the history of

salvation. Calvin sees that in the Scriptures it is God who takes the

initiative in establishing a covenant relationship with man (Gen. 6: 18,

9: 9-11,16).

So we find in Calvin these emphases on God's sovereign grace in the

covenant, particularly, in his sermon on Deuteronomy. 7: 7-10; "Let us

therefore keep this word in mind, and weigh it thoroughly, that Moses

declares that the entire covenant which God makes with us lies wholly in

his goodness and nowhere else, and that it is not for us to inflate

ourselves with foolish presumption as if we were worthy of such a

benefit". 69 Calvin stressed the unconditional nature of the covenant and

that it is a dispensation of grace. If a man is to become a Christian,

it is because of the covenant of God, the man is predestined and elected

to be a child of God according to His covenant.

Furthermore, Calvin renews interest in the Old as well as in the

New Testament. This idea of the covenant occupies a central place in the

teaching of his successors. It continues in such followers as the later

Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century, where its

further development is known as "Federal" theology from the Latin word

foedus for covenant. 70

(v). Among the covenant theologians of the continental Reformed

churches were Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) and Caspar Olevianus (1536-

1587), who were the principal authors of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Ursinus saw the covenantal relationship between God and man as the firm

foundation of his theological system. He was convinced that there is

only one covenant, the promise of grace in the New Testament. It is a

covenant with believers who have been saved by grace and receive faith

-40-
through the Holy Spirit. The sacraments are instituted as signs of the

covenant for them. Good works are acts of gratitude that give glory to

God and bear witness to men on earth. 71 Ursinus's doctrinal views are

arranged in his commentary according to the divisions of the Heidelberg

Catechism. 72

Olevianus also employed the covenant as a central theme of his

theology. Like Calvin, Olevianus also firmly believed that the covenant

of grace was unconditional, a gratuitous promise resting solely on the

mercy of God to the believer. 73 He understood the covenant as the

realization of the promise of reconciliation in the life of the believer

through a mutual coming to terms. God not only binds himself to us in an

oath that He will be our Father, but we also bind ourselves to Him in a

pledge of acceptance of His beneficence. For him, the salvation of

sinners completely depends on God's mercy toward men. Men cannot fulfil

the covenant condition; rather, it is God who fulfils it.

The best known, though not the earliest, continental covenant

theologian was Johannes Cocceius (John Koch: 1603-1669), whose teaching

of a sequence of divine covenants was especially appealing to Calvinists

as it grounded human salvation in a divine act. 74 In attacking the

scholasticism of his time, he found Scripture to be a complete and

harmonious whole. 75 According to Cocceius, the revelation of the Word of

God is centred upon the redemptive act in Christ; only through faith in

Him does Scripture become revelatory.

For him, fallen man as a covenant breaker cannot do anything to

achieve salvation. For man, therefore, the central point of theology is

that God loves the sinner and offers him redemption. It can be,

therefore, applied to those who believe in Him only through faith in

Christ. As God has revealed His redemptive will in Scripture, we can

approach Him only through the Scriptures. 76 This relationship between

-41-
God and man lies under the covenantal obligation. To become a party to

the covenant of grace we need the response of faith which is itself a

gift.. gift through which the covenant is disclosed. To be in

--the

covenant with God means to be in communion and at peace with Him, to be

in a relationship of friendship and love. The covenants of works and

grace are not different in this regard but are two different ways of

perceiving the love of God. 77

Herman Witsius (1636-1708), a Dutch professor, expounded his

covenant theology in "The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man:

Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity". 78 In his writings, Witsius

made four significant contributions which were a source of personal and

theological enrichment both to himself and to the Dutch Church as a

whole. His four books contained the following: the first on the covenant

of works, the second on the covenant of redemption, the third on the

covenant of grace and the fourth on the covenant ordinances at different

times. In his writings, Witsius agreed with those who take the position

that the covenant of grace has no conditions. He maintained that none

come to salvation except in the way of faith and holiness and that many

have for these reasons called faith and a new life the conditions of the

covenant. But, he continues, "they are not so much conditions of the

covenant, as of the assurance that we shall continue in God's covenant,

and that he shall be our God". 79 He appealed to the "testamentary

nature of the covenant" as consisting in God's immutable purpose,

founded on the unchangeable counsel of God, and ratified by the death of

the testator. 80

1.2.2.2/ Reformers in England and the England and New England Puritans.

In the forefront of this development in England was William Tyndale

-42-
(1494-1536) who emphasized the responsibility of Christians to make

extensive use of the covenant concept. According to Dr. R. T. Kendall,

Tyndale's covenant theology is a distinctive one, not one that speaks of

a covenant of works and a covenant of grace but one which parallels what

the Heidelberg divines put forward in their federal theology. 81

The covenant appears more frequently in Tyndale's writings after

1530. He used the term "covenant" to mean the intimate and ultimate
bond of union, linking God's grace to man's obligation -a bilateral

commitment of compelling force. Tyndale eventually adopts the language

of covenant in his "Parable of the Wicked Mammon" in 1527, in his

"Sermon on the Mount" published in 1532-1533 and in his opening preface

to his New Testament translation of the Bible in 1534 "W.T. unto the

reader". Tyndale believed that the covenant of God with his people was

everlasting and so every man must be disciplined in keeping the law. In

his writings, Tyndale defined God's promise as moral law and laid stress

on the conditional character of the covenant. 82 In the revised prologue

to the Gospel of St. Matthew he made the affirmation in an ethical sense:

"The general covenant, wherein all other are comprehended and

included, is this: If we meek ourselves to God, to keep all his
laws, after the example of Christ, then God hath bound himself unto
us, to keep and make good all the mercies promised in Christ
throughout all the scripture"... "on his condition and covenant on
our party, that we henceforth love the law of God, to walk therein
and to do it ... "83

In the 1534 preface to the New Testament, Tyndale claims that "the New

Testament has much to say as a new covenant... But the new testament is

an everlasting covenant made unto the children of God through faith in

Christ, upon the deservings of Christ". 84 He considered it as a matter

of relationship conditional upon God's covenant. He again referred to

this concept in his Prologue to the Pentateuch, saying that: "The key to

-43-
the Scriptures is to be found in that all of God's promises are

conditional. God's promises constitute a covenant or appointment by

which God promises certain blessings to men on condition that they keep

His laws. This covenant was first made with Adam after the fall. It is

now entered into by persons at baptism". 85 Lyle D. Bierma has suggested

that Tyndale, as the first English Puritan theologian, 86 was influenced

by the Zwinglian understanding of the covenant which was very much

related to contracts theology. 87

In the Elizabethan era, the Puritans devoted a great deal of their

attention to covenant doctrine in their theological writings. 88 They

adopted the concept of the covenant and refined it. They spoke of a

"covenant of nature", (also termed "the covenant of the law"), which

also formed the covenant of works. Puritan preachers, like William

Perkins (1558-1602), John Preston (1587-1628), William Ames (1576-1633),

John Owen (1616-1683), and John Ball (1585-1640), began to put it to

work among ordinary people to promote personal piety and public

morality. 89 They had long been concerned with the godly people in their

community; toward the end of the century, some pastors organized in

their parishes cell groups of saints pledged to the covenant of grace.

At the same time, ministers began to employ the term "covenant", in the

form of the covenant of works, in efforts to engage and impel the common

people to work. 90 It was accepted, as James T. Johnson has suggested, 91

that the covenant idea represented the relations of Christian marriage.
The covenant ideal is seen in the Mayflower Compact of 11 November

1620 (drawn up by the Pilgrims, who were separatists from the Church of

England). According to the compact, a "civil body politic" was formed

that would in turn enact laws and offices for the general good.

1.2.3/ Importance of the Covenant Concept in the Scottish Church.

-44-
 In 16th century Scotland, as elsewhere in Europe, we see the break

-up of feudalism, and the emergence of the late post Renaissance

doctrine of the divine right of kings and the resultant struggles for

liberty. In this situation, the Scots conceived of their Reformation as

being more thorough than that in other lands; also, they knew that

Scotland was the only country in which the state church became

Presbyterian, apart from some Swiss Cantons. Theirs was a covenanted

Reformation according to Scripture, representing God's dealings with man

in nature and grace under the designation of "covenants".

The word "band" or "bond" was used of a wide variety of agreements,

but in Scotland the word was particularly associated with written

agreements defining relationships between individuals, usually men in

the landowning classes. We read about men making "contracts", "bands",

"pacts", "covenants", "political leagues", "obligations", "protests",

"promises", "pledges" to defend their freedom, to preserve the rights of

a people vis-a-vis their sovereign and rights of sovereign vis-a-vis his

subjects. 92

While a clear connection between Scotland and the Continent cannot

always be made, the covenant ideas were similar, in that they were

firmly based on Scripture. This is particularly evident when we consider

three of the leading Scottish Reformers, at the dawn of the Reformation

in Scotland, three of whom were influenced by continental theology.

M. Patrick Hamilton (1503-1528). After learning Lutheran

doctrines as a student on the Continent, 93 he finally returned to

Scotland in 1527. From that time, his ministry and proclamation of the

gospel had a great impact on the Roman Church. He was then persecuted

because he proclaimed salvation by grace through faith alone, as opposed

to formal, outward ceremony and religious rituals. He was soon accused

-45-
at St. Andrews, by Archbishop James Beaton, primate of the Scottish

Church, of being a heretic for maintaining the articles he believed.

In his work entitled "Dyvers Frutful Gatheryngs of Scripture

concernying Fayth and Workes", he' says that everyone is totally

corrupted by sin and this is found even in the infant; therefore, man

cannot do anything by himself towards his salvation. 94 He insisted that

the true Christian may know himself to be in a state of grace before

God; a man is not justified by works but by faith alone. He asserts that

the grace of God is fundamental for salvation. 95

When he died at the stake in St. Andrews, he defended his views with

the following words: "Wicked man, thou knowest I am not an heretic, and

that it is the truth of God for which I now suffer... "96 Hamilton firmly

believed the covenant relationship between God and man in the whole

course of Christian theology. His faith meant relying on the promise and

covenant of the Lord. Knox spoke of "the bright beams of the true

light, which by God's grace, was planted in his heart" and which began

abundantly to burst forth, as well in public as in secret". 97

(ii). George Wishart (1513-1546). Following the declaration of

Henry VIII's so-called "Bloody Statute" or "The Whip with Six Cords"98

in June 1539, Wishart's unorthodox religious views forced him to live

abroad where he came into contact with the Swiss Reformers. As a result

of his stay on the Continent, Wishart rejected all beliefs and practices
lacking scriptural warrant, a doctrinal criterion that was later to be a

central feature among Scottish reformers. He spent some time at

Cambridge before returning to Scotland in 1543.

After returning home he began preaching his so-called heretical

opinions in areas such as Angus, Fife, Ayrshire and East Lothian

(Montrose and Dundee), where there were some signs of support for his

-46-
radical views. 99 He firmly believed in God's way of salvation for

sinners through the sole work of Jesus Christ. In 1543, he preached on

God's commandments, the twelve articles of the creed, the Lord's prayer

and the Epistle to the Romans. In Dundee, an accuser objected, "Thou

heretic, renegade, traitor, and thief, it was not for thee to preach.

Thou hast taken the power into thine own hand, without any authority of

the church". 10°

Condemning the abuses and corruptions of the Roman Church, Wishart

replied "We shall rather obey God than men" (Acts 5: 29). 101 He felt

that some of the sacraments in the Roman Church were superstitious, for

example, the mass and confession; they lacked biblical warrant. 102 He

held firmly to the belief that God was with him according to his

covenant mercies and promises. Early in 1546 he was arrested on the

instructions of Chancellor David Beaton (1494-1546) at Ormiston in East

Lothian, imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle and was martyred at St. Andrews

in 1546.

(iii). John Knox (1514-1570). After Wishart died, Knox also used

and developed the covenant concept from 1550 onwards. In a sermon on the

Sacraments, he alluded to the covenant as "a band of mutual love. "103 In

1553 he put forward the idea of a league against the accession of Mary

Tudor104 and the covenant idea served as a principal theological and

political force for Knox. In December 1557 and April 1560, "a godly

band or covenant" and "the Last Band at Leith", were both drafted by

Knox. 105 This "last band", whose main concern was the liberty of the

Evangel of Christ from the bondage of Roman Catholic dogma, seems to

have been frequently ratified in Scotland. As the expression implies it

developed gradually. This idea was widely practised during his ministry

in England, Scotland and even on the continent where he was exiled. In

-47-
particular, it greatly influenced English Puritan thinking as well as

the thinking of his successors in Scotland.

However, he developed the covenant concept largely within a

political context. 106 Knox, from demanding instant reformation of the

church, had gone directly on the claim for the church and its ministers

authority to call rulers to account under the law of God on the people's

behalf. According to his own report, he told Queen Mary in 1561 that:

"Subjects, having power, may resist their Princes", whenever

princes command that which God forbids. For it is with princes, he
said as it is with parents who would slay their own children. They
are as though mad, "and therefore to take the sword from them, to
binde their hands, and to cast them into prison... is no
disobedience against Princes, but just obedience, because that it
agreeth with the Word of God". 107

Knox was also prepared to adopt and use to good effect the Genevan Book

of CommonPrayer, Catechism and other reformed liturgy relating to the

covenants. 108 The covenants of 1557 and 1560 involved a solemn agreement

among certain gentlemen to renounce Romanism and to maintain the true

preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The covenant concept was

central to Knox's theology. Indeed, his whole theology as expressed in

his writings was based upon it.

(iv). Development of the Covenant Concept in the Scottish Church.

Two questions need to be addressed at this point, namely, how and why

was the covenant concept developed in Scotland. The historical context

here is, of course, crucial. In 1556,1557 and 1559, there was a public

acceptance of covenants by the Scottish nobles and people. 109 Underlying

this action was their fear of Roman Catholicism and the perceived threat

to Protestantism in Scotland. Their fears were heightened by the fact

that Queen Mary of Scotland was a strong Roman Catholic herself. Another

-48-
conviction on the part of those publicly accepting the covenant on these

three occasions was that all civil authority came from God but this

implied the rejection of certain hierarchies as found, for example, in

Roman Catholicism and Episcopalianism.

In 1581, not long after Knox's death, a covenant was declared by

King James VI who gave what he hoped would be a proof of his attachment

to the Protestant cause, by agreeing to a solemn deed, the Negative

Confession, which became the first national covenant of Scotland. This

was an imitation of the covenants of ancient Israel, when king, priests,

and people, swore common allegiance to the true God. The Negative

Confession was an abjuration of popery, and a solemn engagement,

ratified by a solemn oath, to support the Protestant religion. The

reasons for this first national covenant, therefore, concerned the

safeguarding and growth of Protestantism and a firm rejection of Roman

Catholicism as well as Episcopalianism.
In 1588, Robert Howie began to make the covenant- idea the

regulating principle of his theology; he did so because of his fear of

Roman Catholicism but also on account of James VI, the Scottish king,

who was changeable in his views of church polity but favoured

Episcopalianism, defending the notion at Herborn that the whole word of

God was to be related to it. 110 By 1591 he, too, was teaching that the

civil administration was covenantal. 111 This meant that all rulers were

ordained of God and were required to honour God both in church polity

and in civil administration.

At the General Assembly of March 1596, a new development in the

covenant concept appeared. ' John Davidson of Prestonpans called the

attention of "the Fathers and Brethren" to the necessity of reforming

the many prevalent corruptions of the Church and country. This overture

spoke to all present of the personal need to confess sin and repent. In

-49-
a solemn confession of sin and renewal of the covenant, members of the

Assembly agreed to "make solemn promise before the Majesty of God and

make a New Covenant with Him for a more reverent and careful discharge

of their ministry". 112 This new development in the covenant concept

progressed from national to private reformation.

After 1596, this developed use of Covenant became "... in popular

language not an elaboration of God's compact with the elect but the

justification for a special divine bond between God and the people of

Scotland". 113 In expounding this, men like David Black, minister at

St. Andrews, preached on the biblical doctrine of the covenant referring

to Ezekiel 13: 34 and Psalm 5: 12; he drew attention to self-

examination, confession, repentance, faith in God, earnest resolve to

reform, and sustained faithful endeavour thereafter as essential

features of the covenant. The Assembly, therefore, entered again into

the covenant with their God in Jesus Christ. Extremely practical

requirements were stated concerning individual, family and

congregational life, even such things as the regulation of begging and

the "repair of bridges", which means re-establishing the broken

relationship with God as a covenant nation, were touched upon. Although

renewal of the covenant was comparatively localised, wider questions

concerning the Church / State relationship and the progress of

Protestantism were also of concern to Assembly members.

A further development in the covenant concept occurred when the

Scots extended the covenant (i. e. the alliance of God with Israel)114 to
include the defence of true religion, which included foundational

biblical doctrines as well as Presbyterian system of Church government.

In essence the Scottish Covenants repeated what had taken place on three

occasions in 1581,1592 and 1596. The whole nation, people and rulers

alike, had covenanted not only with one another but with God to defend

-50-
the Reformed faith, including Presbyterian polity. The common conviction

was that Presbyterian polity was of Divine origin. Furthermore, this

polity was believed to be a special mark of God's covenant love for

Scotland.

Robert Rollock (1555? -1599), Rector of the University of Edinburgh

gave clear expression to the "covenant" or "federal" theology in

Scotland when he published his "Tractatus de Vocatione Efficaci" in

1597. His treatise was the first major Scottish exposition of covenant
theology and was significant for its mature treatment of the relatively

new notion of the "Foedus operum" - "The Covenant of works". Rollock

insisted that "all, the word of God appertains to some covenant, for God

speaks nothing to man without the covenant". 115

This work was widely read throughout the Reformed community in

Western Europe. 116 For Rollock, God's covenant consists of the covenants

of works and grace. He sees all God's dealings with man in terms of a

covenant. During the period between Rollock's death in 1599 and the

National Covenant of 1638, the belief in the distinctiveness of

Scotland's Reformation and the special nature of the country's

relationship to God was preached fervently by many ministers. 117 In

other words, the formal developments in the covenant concept were now

popularised throughout the land by preachers. The idea of the covenant

remained central to their theology.

Caution is needed in the interpretation of events and documents in

16-17th century Scotland, the era of Covenants. For example, the

Scottish bands were very active prior to the National Covenant of 1638.

Many of these bands were hostile to Roman Catholicism and, consequently,

to the Roman Catholic Queen Mary. The bands wanted Protestantism but a

Protestanism free of all state control and influence; they desired to be

more independent and free in their practice of the Christian Faith. Some

-S1 -
bands were more spiritual in their approach and used solemn oaths to

express loyalty to their convictions.

A further development in the covenant concept is, therefore,

discernable here. The use of the covenants and oaths by the bands

contributed significantly to the fusion of the religious and political

aspects of the covenant in Scotland. By 1638 the popular covenant

concept had become a combination of theological and political aspects

including national tradition, and the hope of reviving and furthering

the Scottish Reformation and Presbyterian polity.

The Scottish National Covenant of 1638 was of great importance in

Scottish history for the next half-century for it was the first public

document which explicitly included the word "covenant". The Solemn

League and Covenant of 1643 was drafted on behalf of both England and

Scotland for their mutual security. From 1643 to 1648 in London, the

Westminster Assembly had drafted its documents: "The Westminster

Confession of Faith", "The Directory for Public Worship", "The Form of

Presbyterial Church Government", and "The Larger and Shorter

Catechisms". This was a landmark not only for the Scottish, but also for

the Reformed churches worldwide.

The Confession was accepted by the State as the national religious

document. The Confession represented the dealings of God with man in

nature and in grace under the designation of the covenants. Immediately

after the chapter, 'Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin and of the Punishment

thereof', there follows an important chapter setting forth 'God's

Covenant with Man' where the divine covenants are regarded as two in

number. The first was 'a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to

Adam, and posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience';

in the second, 'commonly called the Covenant of Grace', God freely

-52-
offered to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring faith

in him for salvation. 118

At the Revolution settlement of 1690, the covenant idea became so

popular and revolutionary that it could have formed the catalyst and
basis for a general movement of dissent, protest, disobedience, and

eventual resistance. Also, the restored General Assembly ordained that:

"For retaining soundness and unity of doctrine, it is judged necessary

that all probationers licensed to preach, all entrants into the

ministry, and all other ministers and elders received into communion

with us in Church government, be obliged to subscribe their approbation

of the Confession of Faith". 119

In 1720 "the Marrow of Modern Divinity" was the other landmark in

the history of the covenants. 120 As its title page indicated, "the

Marrow of Modern Divinity" was an epoch-making work which purported to

be "Touching both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace: with

their use and end, both in the time of the Old Testament, and in the

time of the New". When the Scottish editors of the English book

distributed the contents of the first part into chapters they gave to

the first the title, "Of the Law or Covenant of Works", to the second

that of "The Law of Faith, or Covenant of Grace", and to the third "Of

the Law of Christ".

1.2.4/ Summary of this Chapter.

Having outlined the biblical concept of the covenant together with

its historical development, we have seen how the sixteenth century

reformers revived and adapted Augustinian and biblical theology with its

dominant emphasis on grace and covenant. A two-fold use of. the covenant

concept was made by the Reformers; firstly, in the context of salvation

-53-
and, secondly, in the context of the Church / State relationship.

Alongside this recovery of biblical, covenant theology in the sixteenth

century, there began a more systematic development of covenant theology.

The Scottish reformers claimed that Scotland was unique for, at

least, two reasons. Firstly, the Reformation was deemed to have been

more thorough in their land. Secondly, Scotland was the only country in

which the state church was Presbyterian in polity, that is, established

on covenant principles. How and why was the covenant doctrine developed

in Scotland?

As we have seen, there were direct and indirect. links between the

continental Reformers and leading Scottish Reformers like Patrick

Hamilton, George Wishart and John Knox. But the situation in Scotland

itself also encouraged the development and application of covenant

theology there. For example, there was a deep-seated fear of Roman

Catholicism and the threat which it posed for Protestantism. Queen Mary

of Scots was herself a Roman Catholic while king James VI had a

preference for episcopalianism. More positively, Scottish Protestants

were convinced that all civil and spiritual authority came from God.
However, they saw this principle as condemning both the Roman Catholic

hierarchy and the State interference in Church matters which

Episcopalianism tolerated.

A new stage in developing covenant theology was reached in Scotland

in March 1596 when personal reformation began to be urged upon all
Protestants; this was in addition to national and church reformation.
Soon the covenant concept was also used as justification for defending

true religion (that is Protestantism, but more especially Presbyterian-

ism) in Scotland; this gave rise to the popular view that a special

relationship obtained between the covenant-keeping God and the Scottish

people. All these views and interpretations of a developed covenant

-54-
theology were then popularised among the people by church ministers. By

1638 in Scotland, covenant doctrine had combined ardently theological

and political aspects in a strong resolve to further Reformation

principles and preserve Presbyterian polity. Covenant convictions also

undergirded the Revolution settlement of 1690.

At this point, it is necessary to indicate more precisely the

various ways in which the concept of covenant was used and developed

during this period. Its already indicated, the term "covenant" is a

biblical and theological concept yet it was used in different contexts

and for different, though related, purposes.

First of all, the primary meaning and use of the concept of

covenant relates to God, that is, the divine covenant. This in turn was

conceived of in a two fold manner, namely, the covenant of works/nature

and the covenant of grace/faith. Unquestionably, this use of the term

was foundational to the whole period, 1643-1723. The Westminster

Confession of Faith highlighted, undergirded and encouraged this

understanding of covenant; however, it was the Marrow men who reaffirmed

the importance of the covenant of grace for Christian experience and

church life after several decades where the emphasis had tended to fall

more on the covenant's relevance for church polity and national,

political affairs.

Secondly, the covenant concept was used in relation to a personal

covenant which aimed to promote personal piety and morality. Here was

the practical and serious application of the covenant of grace to

personal life. This new development in the use of covenant was apparent,

for example, in 1596 when General Assembly members responded to the call

for national reformation by covenanting individually to confess and

forsake sin in their own lives. Many such personal covenants were made

over subsequent decades.

-55-
 Thirdly, the term covenant was employed to describe the agreement

on the part of a church to honour God and fulfil its covenant

obligations. In 1596, for example, the Assembly of the Church of

Scotland agreed on a "new covenant" relating to a more faithful

fulfilment of its ministry in Scotland. Here is a specific church

covenant which was repeated many times later.

Fourthly, the covenant term was also used with a more distinctly

political, national but religious significance. Several examples of this

usage can be cited. Earlier, the Scots with their nobles publicly

accepted covenants in 1556,1557 and 1559 in order to protect

Protestantism in their country. The defence of the Protestant,

Presbyterian faith was a major reason for this type of covenant; the

culmination was the Scottish National Covenant of 1638 and also

Alexander Henderson's Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. The latter two

covenants perceived episcopalianism as a great threat due to the

sympathies of the monarch but these covenants were even more hostile
towards Roman Catholicism. One has to add that this usage of the

covenant concept is complex due to the overlap and interaction of the

national, political and religious concer ns of the people.

A fifth use of the covenant is also discernible, namely, those

covenants initiated and made by kings in order to allay the fear of the

Scottish people. Kings like James VI, Charles I and II, and William of

Orange endeavoured through these royal covenants to impress and reassure

the Scots of their fidelity not only to the Protestant religion but also

to Presbyterian polity. While acknowledging this five-fold use and

development of the term covenant, it is the primary usage with reference

to the divine covenant. which is foundational to this dissertation

together with church covenants and the influential political/religious

covenants within Scotland. It will be important to examine the

-56-
development of the covenant concept and to illustrate the above ways in

which the term was used.

In order to defend their covenant faith during a long period of
turmoil and danger, the Scottish Covenanters fought, suffered and even

died for their nation's Protestant faith. Reasons for the conflict

between Church and State and the significance of the Covenanters

theological manifesto on Covenant thought during this period in Scotland

will now be examined in the next chapter.

-57-
 TO CHAPTERONE
ENDNOTES

1. Jakob Jocz, The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny, Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Edrdmans P. C., 1968, pp. 9,40-41; Thomas Edward
McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A theology of the Old Testament
Covenants, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989, p. 179; Jaroslaw
Pelikan, "The History of the Covenant", The Christian Tradition:
History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4., Reformation of
Church & Dogma(1300-1700), The University of Chicago Press, 1984, p.
368; Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Geoffrey Chapman, London,
1973, pp. 93-98; Denis Sutherland, "The Interface between Theology
and Historical Geography, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology,
Vol. 11. No. 1., 1993, pp. 17-30.

2. C. van der Waal, The Covenantal Gospel, Alberta, Neerlandia:

Inheritance Publications, 1990, p. 1; Dale Patrick, "Law and
Covenant", Old Testament Law, SCM Press LTD., 1985, pp. 223-246.

3. Robert D. Brinsmead, "Covenant", Present Truth, California, Nov. 1976,

Vol. 5, No. 7., pp. 13-57, Vol. 5. No. 8., pp. 6-20; Leon Morris, The
Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 97; Thomas Edward McComiskey,
Ibid., pp. 62-63; G. H. Kerston, Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic
Treatment of Reformed Doctrine, Netherlands Reformed Book &
Publishing Committee, 1980, Vol. I., pp. 192-196. Cf. J. Guhrt,
"Covenant", The New International Dictionary of N. T Theology, ed.
Colin Brown, The Paternoster Press, 1975, Vol. I., pp. 367-368;
Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1987, pp. 20-36.

4. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old

Testament Covenants, New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p. 16,
33; New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 188-189; A. B. Van
Zandt, "The Doctrine of the Covenants considered as the Central
Principle of Theology", The Presbyterian Review, New York, 1882, Vol.
III., pp. 28-39.

5. Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance, I. V. P:

U. S. A, 1983, pp. 14-42; T. M.Lindsay, "The Covenant Theology", The
British & Foreign Evangelical Review, London, 1879, Vol. 28., pp-
524-525.

6. E. C. Lucas, "Covenant, Treaty, and Prophecy", Themelios, ed. David

Wenham, September 1982, Vol. 8., No. I., pp. 19-23. Cf. K. A. Kitchen,
Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: The Tyndale Press, 1966,
pp. 87-111.
7. Jakob Jocz, op. cit., p. 32; William J. Dumbrell, op. cit., p. 17; The
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1862, Vol. I.,
pp. 714.

8. Jakob Jocz, Ibid., p. 35; James T. Johnson, "The Covenant Idea and the
Puritan View of Marriage", Journal of the History of Ideas, 1971,
Vol. 32, pp. 107-116.

-58-
9. Peter E. Golding, "The Development of the Covenant": "An Introductory
Study in Biblical Theology", Reformed Theological Journal, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, 1993, Vol. 9,46-61.

10. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, New Jersey:

Presbyterian and Reformed P. CO, 1980, pp. 54-57. Cf. The Westminster
Confession of Faith, vii, 1-6; The Westminster Larger Catechism,
Questions 30-35; The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 20.

11. A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, Philadelphia: The

Westminster Press, 1956, p. 31.

12. Irenaeus, "Irenaeus Against Heresies", Vol. V., pp. 526-567; The
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers
down to A. D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,
Michigan, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

13. T. S. K. Scott-Craig, "On Christian Instruction", A Companion to the

Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W. Batternhouse, Michigan, Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 127; Colin Brown, Christianity
and Western Thought: From the Ancient World to the Age of
Enlightenment, Illinois: I. V. P., 1990, Vol. I., pp. 93-99.

14. "The Confessions of St. Augustine", A Select Library of the Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff,
Edinburgh: 1886 (Reprinted in 1988), T&T Clark, Vol., pp. 114-115,
129-141.

15. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the

Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh: 1886 (Reprinted in
1988), T&T Clark, Vol. III., pp. 175; Vol. IV., pp. 20-24,55-57,
69-76; St. Augustine's City of God, pp. 13: 14,14: 15; Gerald Bonner,
St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies, London: SCM Press,
1963, pp. 312-393; Larry D. Sharp, "The Doctrine of Grace in Calvin
and Augustine", The Evangelical Quarterly, ed. F. F. Bruce, 1980, Vol.
LII., pp. 84-96.

16. St. Augustine's De Baptismo, Vol. IV., p. 27, VI, p. 1, VII, p. 102;
Answer., II., pp. 5, III., 67-68; "Letters of St. Augustine", A
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Vol. I., 1886 (Reprinted in
1988), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp. 408-410,526-530,532:
"St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine", A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Vol. II., 1886 (Reprinted in 1988),
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp. 248,255,467,472-473; T. S. K. Scott-
Craig, Ibid., pp, 199-200.

17. St. AuRustine's De Baptismo, Vol. XVIII., p. 54; St. Augustine's City
of God, pp. 196,205,284-287,396,412,509-511; Gerald Bonner, op.
cit., pp. 257-283,270.
18. St. Augustine's City of God, pp. 282-283. St. Augustine writes: "two
cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of
self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by love of God, even
to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself,
the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from man; but the
the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience.
-59-
 The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its
God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. " In the
one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of
ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another
in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all.
The one delights in its own strength, represented in the persons of
its rulers; the other says to its God, "I will love Three, 0 Lard,
my strength. "

19. St. Augustine's City of God, pp. 409-411,413; Aeneid, Vol. VIII.,
pp. 175-279. Cf. Gerald Bray, Creeds. Councils and Christ, I. V. P.,
1984, pp. 128-144.

20. St. Augustine's City of God, pp. 278-279,285-286; G. H. Kerston,

Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine,
Netherlands Reformed Book & Publishing Committee, 1980, Vol. I., p.
192.

21. "An Excerpt from Eight Questions on the Power of the Pope", A
Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, ed. Eugene R. Fairweather,
The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, (First Published 1656), pp. 437-442.

22. Ibid., pp. 437-442. Cf. David Ogg, The Reformation, London: Ernest
Benn Ltd., 1927, p. 10.

23. Ibid., pp. 438,440.

24. J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other
Reformed Tradition, Ohio University Press, 1980, pp. xxiii.

25. Ibid., p. 2; W.P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrvch Zwingli, Oxford,

1986, p. 181.

26. Robert W.A. Letham, Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology:
Zwingli and the Synod of Dort, Ph. D. Thesis, Aberdeen University,
1979, pp. 17-29; Lyle D. Bierma, "Federal Theology in the Sixteenth
Century, WTJ. 45,1983, pp. 307-311; Kenneth Hagen, "From Testament
to Covenant in the Early Sixteenth Century", Sixteenth Century
Journal, 1972, Vol. III. No. 1., pp. 15-20.

27. Zwingli and Bullinger, Selected Translations with Introductions and

Notes by G. W.Bromiley, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24.,
London: SCMPress Ltd., 1953, p. 138; W.P. Stephens, The Theology of
Huldrvch Zwingli, Oxford, 1986, pp. 196-216;

28. W.P. Stephens, Ibid., p. 186; Geoffrey W.Bromiley, Historical

Theology, An Introduction, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1978, pp.
276-277.

29. Zwingli' Works, Vol. 8., p. 738.

30. W.P. Stephens, op. cit., p. 181.
31. Zwingli and Bullinger, op. cit., pp. 131,139. Cf. Mark W. Karlberg,
op. cit., pp. 7-8.

32. Ibid., pp. 127,141,145-146.

-60-
33. Zwingli's Works, Vol. VI., pp. 155-172. Cf. Mark W.Karlberg,
"Reformed Interpretaton of the Mosaic Covenant", Westminster
Theological Journal, 1980, Vol. 43, pp. 1-57.

34. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, England: Apollos, 1988,

pp. 138-144; Bernard M.G. Reardon, Religious Thought in the
Reformation, p. 99.
35. David Alexander Weir, Foedus Naturale: The Origins of Federal
Theology in Sixteenth Century Reformation Thought, Ph. D thesis,
St. Andrews University, 1984, pp. 12-14.

36. The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Vol. 2., p. 193; Mark W.Karlberg,
op. cit., pp. 9-10; Robert W.A. Letham, op. cit., pp. 45-47,57-64;
"The Foedus Operum: Some Factors According For Its Development", The
Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. XIV, 4,1983, pp. 462-463.
37. The Decades, ed. Thomas Harding, Cambridge: The Parker Society, 1850,
vol. 3., pp. 169; Henry Bullinger, Sermons on the Sacraments,
London: John William Parker, 1840, pp. 105-106,108,116,127-128

38. Bullinger's Sermons, op. cit., pp. 171-172.

39. The Decades, Vol. 5., pp. 321,399-330; Ibid., p. 178.

40. The Decades, Vol. 5., p. 321.

41. The Decades, Vol. 3., pp. 170.
42. Robert Letham, op. cit., pp. 460-461.
43. The Decades, Vol. 3., p. 174.
44. Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1878, Vol. 3., p. 268.

45. The Decades, Vol. 3., p. 251. Mark W.Karlberg, op. cit., pp. 1-57.
46. The Decades, Vol. 3., p. 251.
47. Bullinger's Sermons, pp. 96,132,180-181.

48. Bullinger's Sermons, pp. 99-102.

49. J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other
Reformed Tradition, Ohio University Press, 1980, p. 181.

50. Luther's Works, Vol. 35., ed. E. Theodore Bachmann, Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1989, p. 236.

51. Luther's Works, Vol. 35., pp. 236-237.

52. J. Wayne Baker, op. cit., pp. 182-183; Kenneth Hagen, op. cit., Vol.
III. No. 1., pp. 1-24; Kenneth Hagen, "The Problem of Testament in
Luther's Lectures on Hebrews", Harvard Theological Review, Vol.
LXIII., 1970, January, pp. 61-90.

53. Luther's Works, Vol. 35., pp. 33-37.

-61-
54. Luther's Works, Vol. 25., ed. Hilton C. Oswald, Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1972, pp. 362-389.

55. Luther's Works, Vol. 25., pp. 373-375. Cf. J. Wayne Baker, op. cit.,
pp. 181-182; Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young
Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews, Studies in Medieval and Reformation
Thought, Vol. 12. Leiden: E. J. Bill, pp. 5-10.

56. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. II., ch. 9-
11. Edinburgh. 1865. Cf. Willem VanGemeren, "Systems of Continuity",
Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on thee Relationship
Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg, Crossway
Books, Illinois, 1988, pp. 39-40; David Alexander Weir, op. cit.,
pp. 77,82,88; Robert W.A. Letham, Saving Faith and Assurance in
Reformed Theology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort, op. cit., Vol. I.,
pp. 44-47; Jens G. Moller, "The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant
Theology", The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1963, No. 13., pp.
46-54; Alan P. F. Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism. Arminianism and
Salvation. Studies in Christian Thought and Histor H. E. Walter
Ltd., 1982, p. 3; Wilhelm Niesel, ,
The Theology of Calvin, Translated
by Harold Knight, Lutterworth Library vol. xLvii., Lutterworth
Press, London, 1956, p. 159; Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Covenant of
Grace in Calvin's Teaching", Calvin Theological Journal, No. 2.,
1967, pp. 133-161.

57. Calvin's Institutes, 2.10.8-9; 3.15-18.

58. Calvin's Comm. Dan. 9.4., The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1966,
pp. 146-149.
59. Calvin's Comm. Gen. 17: 9., Vol. I., tran. John King, Edinburgh:
Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847, pp. 451-453;
J. Wayne Baker, "Covenant and Testament in Calvin's Thought", op
cit., 195; Everett H. Emerson, "Calvin and Covenant Theology", Church
History, 1956, Vol. 25., pp. 140-141.

60. Calvin's Comm. Ps. 103: 18., Vol. IV., Tran. James Anderson,
Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847.

61. Calvin's Institute, III. 17.6; Sermons upon Deuteronomie, 1175,32:

44-47. Cf. Everett H. Emerson, op. cit., p. 141; Paul Helm, "Calvin
and the Covenant: Unity and Continuity", The Evangelical Quarterly,
ed. I. Howard Marshall, 1983, Vol. LIV., pp. 65-81.

62. Calvin's Institute, IV. 2.11.

63. Calvin's Institute, II. 10,111.4.5.2; Geoffrey W.Bromiley,

Historical Theology, op. cit., pp. 248-253.
64. Calvin's Institute, II. 10. Cf. W.Stanford Reid, "Justification by
Faith according to John Calvin", WTJ, 1980, Vol. 42, pp. 290-307.

65. Calvin's Institute, II. 11.1.

66. Calvin's Institute, 11.9, title.

67. Calvin's Institute, 11.10.2.

-62-
68. Calvin's Institute, IV. 16.6. Cf. Willem VanGemeren, "Systems of
Continuity", op. cit., pp. 34-36.
69. John Calvin, The Sermons of M. Iohn Calvin upon the Fifth Booke of
Moses called Deuteronomy: Faithfully gathered word for word as he
preached there in open pulpit; together with a preface of the
Minister of the Church of Geneva, and an admonishment made by the
Deacons there, tran. by Arthur Golding, London: Henry Middleton,
1583, reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in Edinburgh, 1987, p.
317.

70. There are still doctrinal arguments on the covenant concept among
modem scholars as to whether Federal theology has been influenced
by Calvin in Geneva or Zwingli in Zurich. Many consider the covenant
to have been used bilaterally by Zwingli rather than unilaterally by
Calvin. Originally, there was no distiction. Lyle D. Bierma, "Federal
Theology in the Sixteenth Century", WTJ, 45,1983, pp. 304-321. Cf.
J. Wayne Baker, op. cit., p. 193.

71. Derk Visser, "The Covenant in Zucharias Ursinus", The Sixteenth

Century Journal, 1987, Vol. 18., No. 4., pp. 531-544.

72. Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the

Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W.Williard, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1954, p. 98. Cf. Mark W.Karlberg, op. cit., 17-18.

73. Caspar Olevianus, An Exposition of the Symbole of the Apostles,

trans. John Fielde, London, 1581, p. 122.

74. James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, T. & T. Clark,

Vol. IV., p. 221.

75. Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian", Scottish

Journal of Theology, 1963, Vol. 16., p. 360.

76. Ibid., p. 358; Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in

the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988, pp. 353-354.

77. Charles S. McCoy, Ibid., p. 363.

78. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man:
Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity. Utrecht, 1693. trans.
from the Latin and carefully revised by William Crookshank, London,
1822, Vols. 2. Cf. T. M.Lindsay, "The Covenant Theology", The British
and Foreign Evangelical Review, London, 1879, Vol. 28., pp. 521-538.
Cf. John Murray, "Covenant Theology", The Encyslopaedia of
Christianity, Vol. III., Marshallton, Delaware, U. S. A., 1972, pp.
199-216.

79. Ibid., Vol. I., p. 389.

80. Ibid., Vol. I., p. 386.
81. R. T. Kendal, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Oxford University
Press, 1981, p. 42.

-63-
82. Mark W.Karlberg, op. cit., pp. 20-22; L. J. Trinterud, "A Reappraisal
of William Tyndale's Debt to Martin Luther", Church History, 1962,
Vol. 39., p. 39; William A. Clebsch, England's Earliest Protestants
1520-1535, Yale University Press, 1964, pp. 154-195.

83. William Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different

Portions of the Holy Scriptures, ed., Henry Walter, Cambridge: The
Parker Society, 1848, Vol. I., p. 470, (403,469), Vol. II. Cf.
.
Michael McGiffert, "William Tyndale's Conception of Covenant",
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1981, Vol. 32., No. 2., pp. 167-
184.

84. Tyndale's Works, The Parable of the Wicked Mammon, Vol. I. p. 105.
Tyndale employed the term testament and promises more in his
writings. Table Expounding Certain Words in Genesis, Vol. I, pp.
409; Vol. II, 166,323. Cf. Robert Williams, "Patterns of
Reformation in the Theology of William Tyndale", in Christian
Spirituality Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks,
London: SCM Press Ltd., 1975, p. 133. Cf. Marvin W.Anderson,
"William Tyndale: A Martyr For All Seasons, " The Sixteenth Century
Journal, 1986, Vol. 17., pp. 338-340.

85. Ibid., p. 39.

86. Westminster Theological Journal, 1983, Vol. 45., pp. 304-321;

Leonard J. Trinterud "The Origins of Puritanism", Church History,
1951, Vol. 20., pp. 37-57; Jens Moller "The Beginnings of Puritan
Covenant Theology", JEH, 1963, Vol. 14., pp. 46-67.

87. Mark W.Karlberg, op. cit., pp. 20-22; Robert W.A. Letham, op. cit.,
pp. 240-242; Richard Greaves, "The Origins and Early Development of
English Covenant Thought", The Historian, 1968, Vol. 31., pp. 21-35;
J. C. Moller, "The beginnings of Puritan Covenant theology", Journal
of Ecclesiastical History, 1963, Vol. 14., pp. 51-52.

88. John Owen, Works, Vol. IV, The Everlasting Covenant the Believer's
Support under Distress"; and Salus Electorum, Sanguis Jesu: or, the
Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Goold's edition, Vol. X., p.
168; John Preston, Treatise on the New Covenant; or, the Saint's
Portion, London, 1629; John Ball, Treatise of the Covenant of Grace,
London, 1645; William Perkins, A Golden Chain or the Description of
Theology, ed. Ian Breward, Courtenay Library of Reformation
Classics, England: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1970, pp. 170-259;
Stephen Charnock, Discourse of God's being the author of
Reconciliation, Nichol's edition of the Puritans, Vol. III., p. 371.
89. Master Dering, "A Sermon Preached Before the Queen's Majesty",
M.Dering's Works, London, 1597, pp. 7,13,22-23,28; reprinted with
an introduction in Leonard J. Trinterud, (ed. ), Elizabethan
Puritanism, New York, 1971, pp. 131-161; Richard A. Muller, "Covenant
and Conscience in English Reformed Theology": "Three Variations on a
17th Century Theme", WTJ., 1980, Vol. XLII, No. 2., pp. 308-334;
Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, Berkeley, 1967, pp. 2,
17,31; M.M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chanter in the History of
Idealism, Chicago, 1936, pp. 219-240; A. F. Scott Pearson, Thomas
Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism, 1535-1603, Cambridge, 1925,
p. 115.

-64-
90. Theodore Dwight Bozeman, "Federal Theology and the 'National
Covenant': An Elizabethan Presbyterian Case Study", The American
Society of Church History, Vol. 61, No. 4., December 1992, pp. 394-
407; Michael McGiffert, "Covenant, Crown, and Commons in Elizabethan
Puritanism", Journal of British Studies, Chicago: University of
Illinois, 1980, Vol. 20., pp. 32-33.

91. James T. Johnson, "The Covenant Idea and the Puritan View of
Marriage", Journal of the History of Ideas, 1971, Vol. 32., pp. 107-
116.

92. J. B. Torrance, "The Covenant Concept in Scottish Theology and

Politics and its Legacy", The Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol.
34., 1981, pp. 1-4; "Covenant or Contract? ", The Scottish Journal of
Theology: A study of the theological background of Worship in
Seventeenth Century Scotland, 1970, Vol. 23., Number. 1., p. 53.

93. William Garden Blaikie, The Preachings of Scotland: From the Sixth
to the Nineteenth Century, Edinburgh: T&T Clack, 1888, p. 49.

94. John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of the Church: Containing the
History and Sufferings of the Martyrs: Wherein is set forth at large
the whole race and course of the Church, from the primitive age to
these later times with a preliminary dissertation, on the difference
between the church of Rome that now is, and the ancient church of
Rome that then was, London: Printed for Scott, Webster, and Geary,
(revised). M.Hobart Seymour, 1838, Vol. 8., pp. 500-501. Cf. James
Edward McGoldrick, "Patrick Hamilton, Luther's Disciple", The
Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 18., No. 1., 1987, pp. 84-88.

95. John Spottiswood, History of the Church of Scotland: Beginning the

year of our Lord 203, and continued to the end of the reign of King
James the VI, Edinburgh: Printed for the Spottiswoode Society, 1847,
Vol. I., pp. 124-127; Alexander F. Mitchell, The Scottish Reformation:
Its Epochs. Episodes. Leaders and Distinctive Characteristics,
ed. D. Hay Fleming, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1899, p.
31.

96. Ibid., pp. 126-127.

97. Knox's Works, Vol. I., p. 15; John Knox's History of the Reformation
in Scotland, ed. William Croft Dickinson, London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons Ltd., 1949, Vol. I., p. 12.

98. D. P. Thomson, George Wishart: The Man who roused Scotland, Edinburgh,
p. 8.

99. Ian Donnachie and George Hewitt, A Companion to Scottish History:

From the Reformation to the Present, B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1989, p.
207; William Garden Blaikie, op. cit., p. 51.

100. Foxe's Acts and Monuments, Vol. 8., p. 624.

101. Ibid., pp. 624; Quoted in Thomson's, p. 14.
102. Foxe's Acts and monuments, Vol. 8., p. 625.

-65-
103. Knox's Works, Vol. III., p. 74; Richard L. Greaves, "John Knox and
the Covenant Tradition", Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol.
24., No. I., January 1973, p. 23.

104. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

105. John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh:
Andrew Elliot, 1887, p. 27; Thomas M'crie, Life of John Knox:
Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in
Scotland, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1855, p. 88.

106. Richard L. Greaves, op. cit., pp. 26-27. Cf. J. W.Allen, A History of
Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, London: Methuen & Co.
Ltd., 1941, pp. 103-120.

107. William Haller, Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution,

Columbia University Press, 1963p. S.

108. Knox's Works, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 86; III., pp. 190-197; IV.,
pp. 123-125,434,489,500,505-506; VI., 234,239,307,487.

109. J. Lamsden insisted in his book that there were many religious
covenants or bonds during this period for about eighty years. Some
writers have shown that around 31 covenants or bonds were drawn up
during the years 1556 to 1638. The Covenants of Scotland, Paisley:
Alexander Gardner, 1914, pp. 11-12; John C. Johnston, Treasury of
the Scottish Covenant, op. cit., pp. 23-26; Thomas M'crie, Sketches
of Scottish Church History, Edinburgh, 1846, Vol. I., p. 105; David
C. A. Agnew, "Presbyterian Covenanting", Catholic Presbyterian, June,
1881, pp. 445-451; G. D. Henderson, "The Covenanters", Religious Life
in Seventeenth Century Scotland, Cambridge University Press, 1937,
pp. 158-189.
110. J. K. Cameron, ed., Letters of John Johnston and Robert Howie,
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963, pp. xxiv-xxv.

111. Robert Letham, "The Foedus Operum: Some factors according for its
Development", The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. XIV., 4,1983, p.
464.

112. D. Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. T. Thomson,

Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842-1849, Vol. V., pp. 404-407; The
Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, 1560-1618, ed.
A. Peterkin, Edinburgh, 1839, pp. 426-429; Robert Pitcairn, The
Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill, Edinburgh: The Worow
Society, 1842, pp. 350-368; Thomas M'crie, Life of Andrew Melville,
pp. 176-178. Cf. David Stevenson, The Covenanters: The National
Covenant and Scotland, The Saltire Society, 1988, pp. 32-33;
G. D. Henderson, "The Idea of the Covenant in Scotland", The Burning
Bush, The Saint Andrew Press, 1957, p. 62; G. D. Henderson, Religious
life in 17th Century Scotland, Cambridge, 1937, p. 162.

113. D. Calderwood, Ibid., pp. 404-407; Thomas M'crie, Ibid., p. 178;

W.M. Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland: from the
Introduction of Christianity to the Period of the Disruption,
Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1843, Vol. I., pp. 193-208; Sidney
A. Burrell "The Covenant Idea as a Revolutionary Symbol: Scotland
1596-1637", Church History, 1958, vol. 27., p. 342.
-66-
114. Paul T. Fuhrmann, An Introduction to the Great Creeds of the Church,
Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1960, p. 111.

115. Robert Rollock, Tractatus de vocatione efficaci (Edinburgh, 1597),

English translation: "A Treatise of God's Effectual Callings",
Select Works of Robert Rollock, The Wodrow Society, ed. W.Gunn,
Edinburgh, 1849, Vol. I., pp. 5-288.

116. Robert W.Letham, Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology:

op. cit., Vol. I., pp. 44-47.

117. I. B. Cowan, "The Apocalyptic Vision of the Early Covenanters", The

Scottish Historical Review, 1964, Vol. XLIII., No. 135., p. 13;
John H. Leith, Assembly at Westminster: Reformed Theology in the
Making, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1973, p. 92.

118. The Confession of Faith: the Larger and Shorter Cathechisms, with
the Scripture proofs at Large: Together with the Sum of Saving
Knowledge, Edinburgh: Printed by D. Hunter Blair and M.T. Bruce,
1836, Chapter, 7., i-iii and xix., i.

119. Acts of the General Assembly, p. 225.

120. Thomas Boston, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, U. S. A: Still Waters

Revival Books, Reprint edtion of 1991; J. I. Ainslie, The Scottish
Reformed Church and English Puritanism, 1942, Vol. 8., p. 92.

-67-
 CHAPTERTWO

FACTORS
CONFLICTBETWEENCHURCHAND STATE: MAJORCONTRIBUTORY

AND THE COVENANTERS'

THEOLOGICALMANIFESTO

Having traced the biblical and theological background to the

covenant concept, and indicated five related ways in which covenant was

used and developed, I now intend to examine the major factors

contributing to the conflict between Church and State in Scotland

between 1643-1723. An understanding of this conflict is necessary before

we can appreciate the development of the term covenant from an almost

exclusive divine context to that of political and religious significance

for the Scottish nation and church. The background to this conflict is

first outlined before pinpointing more specifically the reasons for the

conflict between church and state or, in other words, between monarch/

episcopalianism and Presbyterianism in Scotland. In this context, it

will be necessary to consider in detail the Covenanters Theological

Manifesto as it relates to covenant thought. Basically, the conflict of

Church and State centred around opposing views of the divine right of

kings and the divine right of Christ.

-68-
2.1/ The Conflict between Church and State: Major Contributory Factors.

After the Reformation of the 16th century in Western Europe, there

were marked changes in people's material and religious concerns. It was

a period of changing ideas particularly concerning the nature and

structure of the organized community, the traditional duties of rulers

and subjects. 1

In England, 'secular interests became more important than those of

church and religion. Holland, where religious wars and persecution

continued with little respite during the 16th century, became a

prosperous nation of traders in the 17th century. In the meantime,

during the latter part of that century in France, Louis XIV took more

control of the Church, while in Germany the secularising process, which

began about the middle of the century, continued with increased momentum

until the end of the century and beyond. In 17th century Scotland, there

was regular fighting as opponents fought a deadly struggle to secure the

Crown Rights of Christ. 2 On the whole, the conflict between the King

and Church was accompanied by a questioning of, firstly, the accepted

Presbyterianism, and secondly, covenant reasons for obeying earthly

powers. 3

2.1.1/ Divine Right of Kings or Divine Right of Christ (Presbytery).

The idea of covenants developed and became prominent in Scotland

in reaction to the Stuart monarchs who advocated and applied where

possible the theory of the Divine Right of Kings; 4 this theory had a

long history and was partly based on New Testament passages like Romans

13 as well as the teaching of early leaders like Augustine whose "The

City of God"5 gave popular expression to the theory.

-69-
 According to Augustine, there was an earthly city characterised by

love of self and a heavenly city characterised by love to God. The wise

men of the earthly city lived according to human ideas and sought

worldly profit, while in the heavenly city there was godliness,

appropriate worship, and a seeking for reward in the society of the

saints. 6 Professor Lyall observes that "The Gelasian theory of the Two

Powers, current throughout the Middle Ages, was put forward by Pope

Gelasius I in A. D. 494 in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor to justify

his argument that Imperial interference in Church affairs was illegal". 7

The Pope and lesser church officers were held to be the human

authorities of the heavenly city, while the king and lesser civil

magistrates were the authorities in the earthly city. The power of

government in both domains was regarded as coming immediately from God

with both ruling in God's stead. This theory underlies the separation

of Church and State, a theory which many Churches have argued for.
Regarding ordination as a sacrament administered by bishops who

allegedly succeeded the New Testament Apostles, the Roman Church claimed

the exclusive right under God to ordain men to the ministry and

protected this right from interference by earthly powers. 8

Consequently, the theory of apostolic succession as taught by Rome

further increased the authority of the Pope and lesser Church officers

by insisting that the Scriptures and unwritten traditions, as well as

the exclusive power to judge and interpret them, were "transmitted as it

were from hand to hand" from Christ through the Apostles to the Roman

Catholic Church.

In accordance with "the law of pure nature", Rome taught that "the

power of government is immediately from God". According to a "secondary

law of nations", the authority of particular kings was divine in origin

but mediated through the consent given by a community, which "resigneth

-70-
their power to one or more rulers". 9 The Pope, by contrast, claimed "an

indirect directive and coercive power... over kings and states... so may

he king and unking princes at his pleasure". 10 Historically, Rome was

only able to benefit from these claims when the Church's position was

strong in several countries.

Prior to the Reformation, Europe had at least an impressive form of

unity under the direction of Rome - both in Church and State. The Holy

Roman Empire was not all that it claimed to be yet it exercised a

profound influence on the nations under its control. The Roman Empire

was presided over by an Emperor to whom kings owed allegiance, but with

Emperor and Pope often at variance with one another it was inevitable
that the partnership should be doomed to failure.
The Reformation accelerated change, teaching, applying and
developing new democratic ideasli in the spheres of both state and

church influence. The revolt against ecclesiastical autocracy at the

time of the Reformation often involved the Reformers in circumstances

which necessitated an appeal for protection from civil leaders.

Sometimes, the civil power set a price upon its service that was

excessive. For example, not long after the establishment of the

Presbyterian Church and the achievement of reform in Scotland in 1560,

the Stuart kings (James VI, Charles I and II, and James VII), considered
that the king, as supreme head of the church, derived his authority from

God to function also as supreme governor on earth. They firmly asserted

that even parliaments were only expedients and that members sat in

Parliament only by special privilege accorded by the ruler.

The king began to appropriate powers previously associated with

pope and emperor. 12 Divine right, then, in its application to Church

and State was the main cause of the struggles in Scotland during the

reigns of the Stuart kings. The Black Acts in 1584, under king James

-71-
VI's reign, declared that the king was head of the Church as well as of
the State; in addition, it declared that there should be Crown-appointed
bishops in the Church of Scotland, and that ministers should not discuss

public affairs under penalty of treason because of resistance to the

"Lord's anointed". In this way the king claimed supremacy over the

synod and the right to judge ministers; he declared that if he had not

claimed this power, he would have wronged God. 13

According to D. H. Pennington, quoting from Roger Manwaring's

preached sermons in the 1620s, to achieve salvation the will of the

sovereign must be obeyed unless "flatly against the law of God".

Pennington gives further evidence that "in France homilies on the

Christian duty of obedience to kings were common". 14 Admittedly, the

king could not be liable to the penalties of the law, or to coercion by

subjects. However, the king should be the greatest in virtue as well as

in power; his virtue included setting an example to his subjects of

obedience to his own just laws. The relation between the ruler of the

state and the law had been disputed more than that of his relationship
to God. The king, however, tended to misunderstand that the law to

which he must submit was not simply the law of God: it included also the

law of the land.

Significantly, Thomas Erastus (1524-1583), doctor of medicine at

Heidelberg in Germany, insisted that the State was the supreme authority
in religious affairs. This tended to endanger religious freedom and make

belief subject to political convenience and remove from the Church the

right to decide who should be admitted or excluded from its ordinances.

All government, civil and ecclesiastical, was by divine authority and

vested in the civil magistrate. The discipline of excommunication was

not exercised by the Church because in a Christian State it was the

civil magistrate alone who, on this theory, has the right to punish

-72-
offences. Erastus claimed there can be no government of the Church which

is independent of the State; the Church was merely one of its general

functions so everything in the Church must be subject to the civil

power. The pastoral office for Erastus was only persuasive, like that

of a professor over his students, lacking direct power. Erastus also

asserted that, in the State, all citizens. were members of the same

Church, believing the same truths. 15 The result of Erastus's theory was

to remove entirely all ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction; it

deprived the Church of all power of government and made it the mere

"creature of the State".

As a result, Erastian kings tried to control as far as possible

both Parliament and members of the Church. They did this through bishops

appointed by their authority, who in turn governed other ministers. The

theory was embraced by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes16 and also favoured

by most state churches. Scotland repudiated legally and ecclesiastically

all claims of the sovereign to be supreme governor in causes ecclesias-

tical and spiritual. However, the Erastian theory was embodied in the

English constitution in Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy of 1534,17 renewed

by Edward VI and Elizabeth 1,18 and is still the law of England.

The Independents, in contrast to the Erastians, insisted that there

were two different and separate institutions ordained by God: Church and

State. According to Independent theologians, each has its own government

and system of administration. The one cannot exercise control over the

other. The State does not rule over the Church and her affairs, and

neither does the Church control the State. There is no superior person,

group or office responsible for church government. In the covenant of

God, all congregations have equal rights. No one congregation has a

right of control over any other; congregations are independent of each

other and individually complete. 19

-73-
 This means that each congregation is entrusted with its own local

government, church members entitled to regulate church affairs with its

elders and deacons. Churches were then local, and independent in

government, except when advice was needed. Independents were accused of

inconsistency because they gave people the power to constitute the

Church yet said that there ought to be five Elders in every

congregation. 2° The consistency of the Independents was also questioned

because they taught that this power of believers to constitute

themselves into a church was to be exercised only by men, i. e. women and

children were excluded. 21

On the whole, Independents differ little in their opinions

respecting the powers properly inherent in congregations but they reject

any kind of church system such as a Kirk Session, Presbytery, Provincial

Synod, or the General Assembly, bodies which are associated with

Presbyterianism, 22 that oversight is vested not in individual bishops or

superintendents but in courts or councils, of which there is a hierarchy

- kirk session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly. Independents

readily acknowledged the need to discuss common interests, 23 and shared

the same Calvinistic orthodoxy and twofold covenant scheme as the

Covenanters, yet- rejected their Presbyterian principles relating to

church government.

Presbyterian church government involves rule by elders elected by

members of a local congregation; these elders are then formally

associated with elders and ministers of other similar congregations in a

body called the presbytery. The distinctiveness of Presbyterianism lies

in the powers given to each Presbytery to prepare, ordain, and

discipline ministers; to - establish, unite, and dissolve local

congregations; to govern local churches where self-government has

failed; to hold property on behalf of all member congregations and to

-74-
elect representatives to higher governing bodies of the Presbyterian

churches such as synods (regional associations of presbyteries) and the

General Assembly (a national body representative of the regional

associations). In all areas relating to church life, a system of appeal

extends from presbytery through synod to the General Assembly where

final decisions are made.

Presbyterian polity is not then vested in individual bishops or a

pope or superintendent but in church bodies, namely, the local kirk

session or consistory of elders, the area presbytery, the wider regional

synod and the national General Assembly. This type of government

combines the principles of personal, local freedom as well as extensive

unity and firm direction. For Presbyterians, the office of elder is one

of four local church ministries, together with ministers and teachers,

both ministers and elders are members of presbyteries; the fourth office
is the diaconate. Presbyterial functions include preaching, teaching,

administering the sacraments and governing whereas deacons manage

parochial finances, care for the poor and sick.

The term Covenanters here needs careful handling and defining. The

term is used to describe those Presbyterians like Andrew Melville and

Samuel Rutherford who, between 1648 and 1690, actively resisted

episcopacy and the principle of the divine right of kings in favour of

the divine right of Christ. They were intolerant of any form of church

government apart from Presbyterianism. Melville and Retherford were

known as Covenanters in this narrow sense. There were others, however,

in the period called Resolutionists who tolerated compromise yet adhered

to covenant theology. After 1690, the more radical Covenanters, who

rejected the Revolution settlement of the Church, were known as

Cameronians. In the early part of the period 1648-1690, especially in

the 1650s under Cromwell, those who opposed state interference in church

-75-
affairs were also called Protesters. These Protesters were generally

Covenanters and so the terms are almost synonymous in the early period.

On the matter of the Covenantal Church of Christ, the Reformers and

their successors, the Covenanters, believed firmly in the Biblical

warrant for Presbyterian church government. What Covenanters in Scotland

insisted upon was two institutions or government systems which God

ordained in the world: Church and State. 24 For their safety, each should

help the other: the Church by praying for the State, and the State

supporting the Church. They laid greater stress upon church government

and claimed there could be no office in the Church superior to that of

pastor / minister. 25

They also asserted that, in the covenant, all ministers are equal
before God in status and in spiritual affairs. Ministers are a united

body of Jesus Christ who rule his church. 26 The Covenanters maintained

that ministers were responsible for the whole church, not merely for one

congregation. They went further by insisting that it belonged to

ministers to dispense the mysteries of God, to watch over souls as those

that are accountable before God, to preach the Word, to administer the

sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, to pray for and bless the

people in the name of God along with elders, to rule and govern the

church, to maintain discipline, doing all this on behalf of Christ.

Presbyterians were convinced that all powers exercised in the ministry

were exclusively spiritual, not temporal.

Among the most important duties of the minister was the

administering of the sacraments. They laid particular emphasis on the

rule that baptism must only be administered by a minister. They did this

because, in the eyes of the Reformers, there had been more laxity over
this sacrament. To keep order, it was necessary for the church to

exercise discipline. Yet, the government of the Church exists under the

-76-
freedom of the people and the authority of its rulers while the unity of

the kingdom is expressed by church officers who are distinct from the

civil magistrate. All the members of the church are under the same

censure of government.

The theory of the Divine Right of Presbytery was held by Andrew

Melville who had drawn a clear distinction between civil and

ecclesiastical affairs. Accordingly, the Presbyterians, and in the later

years the Covenanters, hated the episcopal Bishops who were among the

main hindrances to the new movement. They especially disliked their

prelatic pride and their worldly possessions which contrasted so

markedly with the example of Early Church leaders.

2.1.2/ Theodore Beza and Presbyterianism.

It is generally agreed that the founder of Presbyterianism was John

Calvin. Theodore Beza (1519-1605), however, Calvin's successor in the

Academy of Geneva, is widely acknowledged as the pioneer of

Presbyterianism worldwide. After a severe illness in 1548, Beza visited

Calvin in Geneva; within a year he became professor of Greek in the

Academy where he remained from 1549 to 1558. He also exercised a

fruitful ministry among young people in Pays de Vaud. 27 In this post-

Reformation period, there were multiple problems in Geneva as elsewhere

in Europe. Social and political positions brought not only prestige, but

worldly comforts, luxury and in many cases, moral corruption. At the

same time, there were controversies in the church concerning the

sacrament of the Eucharist and the system of church government.

Against this background Beza sought to develop the theology of

Calvin and promoted the continuing spread of Calvinism throughout

Europe. 28 Since he viewed himself as Calvin's heir and sought to

-77-
maintain the purity of his master's theology,. in most matters Beza

reiterated Calvin's views, though with greater stress on ecclesiastical

discipline and rigid obedience to authority. Beza, however, did not

maintain all of Calvin's views. In fact, Beza's "De jure Magistratum

(1574)" overthrew the earlier Calvinist doctrine of obedience to all

civil authority; later it became one of Calvinism's major political

manifestos. He regarded kings as being created for the people and not

vice versa. In introducing the contractual element, he argued there is a

bond of mutual obligation between kings and people. If monarchs disobey

divine law and its covenant, the people are allowed to resist through

their representatives.

Beza warned John Knox not to be hesitant in his rejection of

bishops, on the basis of the covenant, for Beza held that "to set up

bishops would be to introduce Epicureanism, and Erasmus spoke of bishops

as preferring Epicurus to Cicero". 29 Here Beza meant that bishops

preferred self-indulgence to aesthetic wisdom. He also regarded the

bishop30 as a symbol of priestcraft so he urged the church to follow the

Presbyterian model. Like Calvin, he insisted that the aim of

Protestantism was to bring the church back to the original purity of

apostolic times. 31 But Beza warned that "we must not simply look what

was done of the Apostle... but we must rather have respect unto their end

and purpose, and that manner and form to be used that may best bring

that to pass". 32

In referring to the term "presbyterium" in the Vulgate translation

of I Timothy 4: 14, Calvin explained it as "a collective name for a

college of presbyters". Beza cited "Corinthiorum presbyterium" and spoke

of "ecclesiasticum synedrium ... cui Christianum presbyterium successit".

He described the expression "coetum ecclesiasticum" and went on to

identify "seniorum collegium" with the Jewish "synedrion" and the

-78-
Christian "presbyterium". 33 Like all the Huguenot's, Beza favoured the

federal conception of the supreme exercise by power of the Estates

General. 34 Later on he developed his federal theology.

Beza was adamant in his insistence that the only appropriate form

of church government warranted by the Scripture was representative

government; he was responsible for the intellectual battle against

episcopacy. As a result of his influence, a presbyterian form of

government was assured for the Reformed Church35 and so ultimately

became the established pattern in Scotland. Accordingly, after the death

of Calvin, the influence of Beza's theology on Presbyterianism has been

acknowledged by Reformed Churches worldwide.

2.1.3/ John Knox and the Reformation Principle.

In Scotland, the Covenanters' convictions concerning the nature of

church government owed much to John Knox who, when in exile in Frankfurt

and Geneva, was impressed by the Presbyterian Church polity which he saw

in use there. As Knox himself describes, his stay in Geneva was the most

peaceful and happiest period of his ministry as well as the most

influential. 36 However, it is a matter of controversy how much the

development of Presbyterianism in Scotland was the work of Knox or of

Andrew Melville. 37

The principle for which Knox contended at the time of the

Reformation was the absolute authority of the Word of God over His

covenant people. That Word was the law to which the individual, church

and nation must yield implicit obedience; it was also the obligation of

all believers who were inextricably bound to the covenant. This covenant

shifted from a fellowship of human beings to a relationship between God

and human beings. The provisions of the covenant were that God would be

-79-
the believers' God if they would be His people. God gives goodness and

grace while human beings return service and worship; God will preserve

them from damnation, but they must refuse to worship other gods or have

fellowship with idolaters. 38 For Knox, no Protestant could participate

in the Mass since it was regarded as being idolatrous.

Concerning the aspects of the covenant relationship of Church and

State, Knox emphasised that these two institutions should involve not

only the moral responsibility of human beings towards one another, but

also continuity in the history of salvation under the Covenant of Grace.

Knox stressed that "we confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms,

dominions, and cities to be distinct and ordained by God". 39 The

responsibility of the civil government towards the church was expressed

as follows:

"Moreover to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm

that chiefly and most principally the reformation and purgation of
Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil
polity, but also for the maintenance of the true Religion, and for
the suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in
David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended
for their zeal in that case, may be espied". 4°

Knox went further by insisting that "if a ruler is not able to confess

and vow that he is God appointed, then resistance to the supreme power

was permissible as the ruler was resisting God's ordinance". 41 Knox

insisted he was not guilty of resisting the ordinance of God, when

impious and idolatrous princes were involved, suppressing the members of

the people of God. 42 This meant that while the princes and rulers

vigilantly travailed in executing their office, the protesters could

deny their help,. counsel and comfort.

On the matter of church leaders, Knox maintained that when a

congregation elects church offices such as elders and deacons, then they

-80-
should use criteria such as purity of life, faithfulness and honesty as

criteria for their election. It must be "the freedom of the local

congregation to nominate the church officers", 43 but under the derection

of presbytery or synod. This was regarded as Scriptural and marked the

recognition of the laity's responsibility in the government of the

church, particularly its place in the ordering of church discipline.

John Knox and his colleagues applied it further to the wives and

families of ministers and to deacons as well. 44

Moreover, Knox believed that to be in the covenant required

separation from idolatry or more specifically, from Catholicism: "This

is the league between God and us, that He alone shall be our God, and we

shall be his people: He shall communicate with us of his grace and

goodness; We shall serve him in body and spirit.. lee from all strange
.f
Gods... solemnly we swear never to have fellowship with any religion

except with that which God has confirmed by his manifest Word". 45 The

Scottish Reformation Parliament of 1560 ratified the Scots Confession of

Faith and agreed to govern the country in conformity with the exposition

of the Christian faith contained in that document. This particular

Parliament established the Protestant faith and abolished papal

authority, but did not prescribe a definite form of church government.

Although it had spoken against the office of an episcopal bishop, the

Parliament had not abolished this office and there was no compulsion on

the bishops to subscribe to the new confession of faith of 1561.

Compulsion being impossible, persuasion alone could be tried; persuasion

was tried yet with only imperfect success. Parliament necessarily left

many practical questions unanswered because many Parliamentary members

feared the implications for themselves.

In this complicated situation, a convention held at Leith in

January 1572, under the leadership of the Earl of Morton(1516-1581),

-81-
intentionally laid the foundation of the prelatical system which had all

along proved so hateful to the Scottish people. 46 He wanted the Church

of Scotland to be constituted like the Church of England, though as a

concession he allowed that bishops might be subject to the General

Assembly. Accordingly, a measure of compromise was provided, whereby

certain Episcopal titles were provided and certain duties ordained, but

all under the control of the Assembly, and in no way to prejudice

Presbyterianism in practice. 47 What was of primary importance was that

the Church should be subject to the supreme power of the Crown, as in

England.

Nobles and lairds who did not attend the convention sent their

proposals to the Regent and the Privy Council. One of these proposals

was that a public humiliation, or fast, should be held throughout the

whole of Scotland during the last eight days of November. Another was

that the Protestants of the realm should enter into a solemn band, that

they might be ready on all occasions to resist the enemy. 48 Accordingly,

the more zealous and intrepid Presbyterian ministers continued to resist

the encroachments of the Court, until the Assembly which was held at

Glasgow in 1610, when the old forms of Presbyterian discipline and

Church government were in a great measure overthrown. Indifference

Episcopacy was introduced by king James VI. and two years later was

confirmed by an Act of Parliament. 49

Andrew Melville, after his return from Geneva in 1574, worked out

the details of the covenant doctrine of church and state together with
the reorganization of the Reformed church in Scotland. On May 22 1592,

the General Assembly met in Edinburgh and chose Melville as the

Moderator of the Assembly and formulated a petition to the king. When

the petition of the Church was taken into consideration by the

Parliament which met in June, an Act was passed by the Assembly known as

-82-
the "Golden Act" or often called "the Magna Charta of Presbyterian-

ism", 50 and it legalised the most essential part of the Second Book of

Discipline, ratifying the Church's liberty from legal jurisdiction by

courts thus securing spiritual independence. By 1592 this had been

adopted as the pattern of government in the Church of Scotland.

The Acts of 1584 were also abrogated in so far as they impinged on

ecclesiastical authority in matters of religion, heresy, excommunica-

tion, and provided that presentations should henceforward be directed,

not to the bishops, but to the presbyteries within whose bounds the

vacant benefices lay. It was Melville who claimed parity of the ministry

and government of the church by assemblies of pastors and elders rather

than by episcopal bishops, and the separation of the two kingdoms of

Church and State. The supreme authority of the church on earth, Melville

asserted, was not the king but rather the voice of the whole

congregation met in Kirk sessions, presbyteries and synods as well as in

general assembly. 51

In "the Second Book of Discipline", he asserted the independence of

the Church from civil authority; Church powers and authority were

derived from God. He also argued that the Church had the right and duty

to instruct the civil authority in matters of conscience and religion,

and indeed the right to tell the civil arm how to exercise its own civil

authority in accordance with the Word of God. 52 Melville clearly

distinguished the office and ministry of Church and State. At the

General Assembly in Cupar, Fife, in 1596, Melville addressed King James

VI on this subject in his admonition:

"Sir, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is
King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ
Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is,
and of whose kingdom he is not a king, not a lord, nor a head, but
a member... We will yield to you your place, and give you all due
obedience; but again I say, you are not the head of the Church: you
-83-
 cannot give us that eternal life, which we seek for even in this
world, and you cannot deprive us of it. Permit us then freely to
meet in the name of Christ, and to attend to the interests of that
Church of which you are a chief member". 53

Here is another account of the same statement:

"Sir, when you were in your swaddling-clothes, Christ Jesus reigned

freely in this land and his ministers and servants did then freely
in his name what they ought to do; and now, when you are come to
the kingdom, will you take it upon you to make encroachments? "54

They were momentous days, and if the future of the Reformed church

seemed precarious and uncertain in 1560, yet by 1638 many of the

promises and polities set out in the First and Second Books of

Discipline had been securely established. The Scottish Reformation was

achieved by the men of the covenant who fought against the royal power

and popery for the sake of the kingdom and glory of God. J. D. Douglas has

shown from examples of the Reformation in Germany, England, France, and

Scotland in the sixteenth century, that there were'two main conflicting

ways of understanding the political and theological relationships

between King and Church; both were very much present during the

conflicts in Scotland. 55 Each group wanted their own way in the matter

of church government. The king wanted Bishops to rule the church; the

Covenanters rejected this and insisted that Presbyteries should rule

over the church.

John Knox and his colleagues asserted the claims of Christ's

prophetic and priestly offices; those who came after them contended

mainly for his kingly prerogatives. Where the 16th century Reformers in

Scotland, following Martin Luther (1483-1546), Huldrych Zwingli-(1484-

1531), Heinrich Bullinger (1505-1575) and John Calvin (1509-1564), took

as their watchword 'None but Christ saves', those of the seventeenth

-84-
century were forced by political developments to add a further word,

'None but Christ reigns'. 56 This latter phrase became the crucial issue

during the later covenanting period, and this idea gave a further

impetus to the Marrow men, who maintained the sovereign grace of God in

the salvation of people.

2.2/ The Reigns of the Scottish Sovereigns in this Period.

During the outlined period of the reigns of the Scottish sovereigns

in Scotland, Church and State had been closely linked but the structure

and life of the Church had become tattered and decadent. It was unable

to withstand the reform let loose by the circle around John Knox in

1560. As Prof. Knox suggested the ensuing years witnessed a series of

changes, developments and swings in its ecclesiastical polity to

accommodate differing shades of religious opinion to and from episcopal

and presbyterian church order, 57 to episcopacy in 1572, to presbytery in

1580, to episcopacy in 1584, to presbytery in 1592, to episcopacy in

1610, to presbytery in 1638, to episcopacy in 1661 with an interlude of

Cromwellian independency from 1655 to 1658, and to the presbytery in

1690 and down to 1733.

However, it is necessary to clarify in more detail the development

in the understanding and use of "covenant" between the significant dates

1638 to 1690. As mentioned in chapter one, the concept of covenant is

both biblical / theological and socio / political. This fundamental

understanding of covenant continues throughout this period, but with

changing application and emphases. In 1638 and 1643 the subscribers of

the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant universally

believed these bonds to be of perpetual obligation, and ruled out any

compromise and only a Scotland united on the basis of the covenants

-85-
could expect the blessing of God upon its arms and its prayers. During

this time the meaning of "covenant" was understood in terms of rejecting

Roman Catholicism/ Episcopalianism; most of the Scottish people agreed.

After the succession of Charles II the Covenanters began to divide

and their numbers declined. The understanding of "covenant" became very

narrow, focusing largely on the Protesters, and excluding toleration of

the other groups. Tensions were also created in relation to the

understanding of the covenant between the Covenanters; one group, the

Resolutioners, 58 favoured the Public Resolutions while the Protesters59

opposed the Resolutioners, protesting against the legality of the

General Assembly which had ratified the Public Resolutions. Also, many

of those who had accepted the Covenants now embraced Prelacy.

Consequently, the number of Covenanters in both groups decreased.

Through the twenty eight years of persecution which followed the

Restoration in 1660, this principle of covenant was not generally

accepted in the Church and nation of Scotland. In 1690, King William

acknowledged both Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism. However, nothing

was said of the two'Covenants of 1638 and 1643. Although the Covenanters

expressed criticism of this omission it was only the Cameronians who

argued for the perpetual obligation of the Covenants after the

Presbyterian Settlement. The Cameronians and the Reformed Presbyterian

church continued the tradition, believing that the church and nation of

Scotland should be under the sole headship of Christ.

2.2.1/ The Reign of King Charles I.

Since the reigns of Mary Queen of Scots and King James VI, there

had been problems concerning the form of church government. In 1584 the

"Black Acts" declared, contrary to the teaching of Knox, that the king

-86-
was head of the Church and State, that there should be Crown-appointed

episcopal bishops in the Church of Scotland, and that ministers should

not discuss public affairs under penalty of treason. After this, James

gradually allowed presbyteries to increase their authority at the

expense of the bishops. The Act of Revocation of 1587 which appropriated

the ecclesiastical temporalities to the Crown gave the King very

considerable resources.

In 1597, James used his authority to further his aim of being

supreme head of both Church and State. He intended to force Episcopacy

upon Scotland, that is, imposing prelacy upon presbyterian polity. He

openly asserted the "Divine Right of Kings" and was determined that he

would have no "competing authority in the land", namely, the Kirk and
its Presbyterian polity. Meetings of presbyteries and synods were

presided over by the bishop of the diocese as perpetual or constant

moderator. His purpose was to re-introduce the spiritual estate and

subvert the Presbyterian government of the church and to establish royal

control of Parliament.

After succeeding to the English throne in 1603, James found a

church which suited him admirably, so that he was in a position to

bestow upon his native kingdom the benefits of the English

ecclesiastical system. In order to achieve this James postponed the

General Assembly of 1604 and the ministers who held the General Assembly
in Aberdeen in July 1605 and adjourned to meet again in September, were

summoned by the Privy Council to answer for their conduct. Refusing to

acknowledge its jurisdiction, these ministers were condemned for treason

and exiled. In 1606 the two Melvilles and six other brethren were

summoned to London and subjected to a course of sermons by eminent

Anglican divines intended to prove the advantages of episcopacy. The

bishoprics were now rapidly filled by royal nomination, and by an Act of

-87-
Parliament rescinding the Act of Annexation of 1587 their temporalities

were restored.

In 1610, although Presbyterianism had been established in Scotland

and the King had sworn to maintain it, every means that the king could

use was employed to deprive the Church of her liberty. By means of

bribery and intimidation, the General Assembly of 1610 was won over to

the King's side. Accordingly, the bishops who were consecrated in London

in 1610 returned to Scotland and consecrated other bishops for Scotland.

Bishops now presided at ordinations and in the church courts but they

acted with restraint and made no move to require those who had been

ordained by presbytery to submit to episcopal ordination. It was only

the external framework of the Church that became Prelatic and erastian.
The change was abhorrent to most of the Scottish people who still
favoured Reformation principles and Presbyterianism. 60 But even in this

period, extending from 1610 to 1637, Episcopacy may be said to have

existed more in name than reality in Scotland. 61

Moreover, at an Assembly held at St. Andrews, in November 1617, the

bishops failed to bring about that conformity which the King described.
The next attempt to bring about conformity was made at Perth on the 25th
August, 1618, when the Five Articles were enacted. These articles

occasioned disorder in the Church, and led to very serious consequences;

the Articles were: (1). Kneeling at the communion. (2). The observance

of certain holidays, viz. Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and

Pentecost. (3). Episcopal confirmation. (4). Private baptism in the case

of necessity. (5). Private communion to the sick. 62

This became more complicated in the reign of Charles I who

succeeded to his father's throne in 1625 and embraced the belief in

royal supremacy; he also wanted to rule church and state through

bishops. The latter was particularly offensive to the Presbyterian

-88-
church in Scotland which had already formally rejected 'Episcopacy' as

unbiblical. Charles I promptly cleared up the disorder at court which

James had tolerated, and declared that whoever had business with him

"must never approach him by backstairs or private doors". 63 Ultimately,

Charles went even further than James had done by continuing to assert in

Scotland royal absolutism but without the tact and discretion which his

father had exercised. Without the sanction of either Assembly or

Parliament, the king tried to impose a Book of Canons on the Scottish

Church in January 1636.

In 1637, once more on his own authority but with the encouragement

of William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a liturgy later known as

Laud's Liturgy, 64 was decreed for use throughout Scotland. The aim was

uniformity of worship and unity of religion throughout the united

kingdom and thus a common front against the English Puritans. On the

other hand, the bishops urged that a book with some claim to be Scottish

might have a better chance of peaceful acceptance in Scotland. The

publication of the Prayer Book was followed by a royal proclamation made

at the market crosses of the chief towns commanding "all our

subjects... to conform themselves to the said Public Form of Worship

which is the only form, so that it fit to be used in God's Public

Worship in this our Kingdom". Contraveners were to be punished, and each

parish was to provide itself with at least two copies of the Prayer Book

before Easter when it was to come into general use. The majority of
to their
ministers must by now have been ordained and admitted charges

by bishops. Some, like Robert Bailie, 65 minister of Kilwinning in

Ayrshire, the group known as the "Aberdeen Doctors", 66 and two other

burghs - Crail and St. Andrews, supported the new measures.

The "popishness" of the imposed and disliked Prayer Book was

exaggerated by the opponents of Charles's episcopalian policy and

-89-
religious concern ran deep. An order came from the king appointing the

third Sunday of July 1637 as the day on which the book was to be first

used in St. Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh. This led to violent protests in

St. Giles' Cathedral and elsewhere and then to the signing of the

National Covenant in 1638. This Covenant, widely approved, was the-

expression of a national resentment against the English attempt to

reorganize remould the Scottish Church; it rejected the Service, Book and

vowed to resist any further innovations made without the consent of

Parliament and the General Assembly.

When the signing of the National Covenant was taking place

throughout Scotland in 1638, the "Aberdeen Doctors" grouped together to

oppose the Covenant. The reason for the opposition was that according to

the Doctors, the King's authority was derived directly from God and

because of this, the subject had no right to seek the redress of

grievances by force of arms. In contrast, the Covenanters held that the

authority of the King came from the people who had the right to rebel to

maintain or to regain their fundamental liberties. They also held widely

differing views of the nature of church and state. The Doctors believed

that church and state were the two component parts of one commonwealth

of which the King was the head. Because of this, after consultation with

the church, the King had the right to decide the polity and liturgy of

the church. However, the Covenanters afforded no such right to the King.

They emphasised Christian liberty of conscience in principle. 67

Moreover, their view of the relationship that existed between

church and state were fundamentally different. The Doctors felt that

rebellion could never be justified, while the Covenanters felt that an

impious prince must be resisted. Two different views on church

government which were mutually irreconcilable were in conflict here. 68

This debate consisted of a series of pamphlets written by the Doctors

and the Covenanters between July and October 1638.69

The General Assembly held in Glasgow in November 1638 swept away

episcopacy, the Service Book, the Book of Canons and the Five Articles

of Perth. Charles believed that "because he was their rightful anointed

king his subjects should accept without resentment the curtailment of

their power by him". 70 He did not understand that he had to find a means

of governing Scotland, and that he could not simply destroy his father's

system of conciliar government, as he did during his first eighteen

months on the throne, and replace it with nothing more than the advice

of a handful of discontented courtiers and men without influence among

the people who counted north of the Tweed. 71

Accordingly, Charles with his strong sense of divine right resolved

to use force rather than allow his authority to be challenged. In May

1639, the King's forces hesitated in the face of stronger Covenanting

troops stationed on the Scots border. In June, 1639, a treaty, "The

Pacification of Berwick", was made. Back in England, Charles summoned a

new Parliament in order to get money to renew the war against the Scots.

This opened the struggle of the English Parliament against the King.

This "Short Parliament" met on April 13,1640, but proved so unco-

operative that the King dissolved it on May 5,1640.

The Scots then invaded with the encouragement of English

Parliamentarians and Puritans. The king provoked it by his own

ineptitude, and once the resistance began he refused to make any

concessions until it was far too late. Had Charles I ruled like his

father, and governing through them in a more democratic way, there need

not have been any confrontation, as the relative tranquillity of James

VI's latter years demonstrated. 72 But Charles never showed any

comprehension of the fact that he needed to work at the task of

governing Scotland. Charles's inability to cope with the rebellion he

-91-
had unnecessarily provoked in Scotland led to the summoning of the Long
r

Parliament and to what followed from that fateful decision, including

the upheaval in Ireland after Strafford's departure from that unhappy

land.

There was something inevitable about a Scottish revolution leading

to the Civil War in England. The Scots now found a common interest with

the English Parliament in opposing the King and this led to the signing

of the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643 by which, in return for

Scottish military aid, the English Parliament covenanted to reform the

Church of England so that there might be a common structure of the

Church throughout Britain. The reform was to be in a manner agreeable

with the Word of God and the Scots assumed this would prove to be

Presbyterian. But the definition of what was agreeable with the Word of

God proved to be a matter of acute debate.

All the efforts of the Assembly seemed to be wasted as Cromwell

rose to power and crushed any hope of imposing a national presbyterian

system or of forcing all citizens to conform to it. In Scottish eyes the

Covenant was being betrayed and the Scots were further disturbed by the

treatment meted out to their king who was in the custody of the English

army. As early as 1648 a group of Scots made an Engagement to rescue and

restore the King to his throne. Charles undertook to accept the Covenant

and to give presbyterian government and worship a three-year trial but

with the proviso that no one be forced to sign the Covenant. Some Scots

entered into an Engagement with the king whereby in return for support

in regaining his authority he would subscribe to the Covenant and give

Presbyterianism a three-year trial in England. Other Scots, including

Rutherford, did not trust the king's word and the General Assembly gave

no support to the Engagement.

However, an army of Engagers, led by the Marquis of Hamilton,

-92-
invaded England, but it was ill-prepared and was easily crushed by

Cromwell at Preston in 1648. The English Parliament was now dominated by

Cromwell (until his death of 1658). The king was executed in 1649.

2.2.2/ The Reigns of King Charles II and James VII.

The period during which the two Stuart kings, Charles II and James

VII, reigned was not very much different from that of Charles I except

that it was generally even harder for the Covenanters. Six days after

the execution of Charles I at Whitehall in 1649, the Scottish Estates

invited his son, who had been proclaimed in Holland as Charles II, to

come to Scotland. His arrival was widely welcomed thus posing a

challenge to England and Cromwell lost no time in leading an army into

Scotland where he defeated a Covenanting army at Dunbar on 3 September

1650. The Scots regrouped further north and Charles was crowned at Scone

in 1651, though he was acknowledged on condition that he accepted the

covenants with all their implications. 73 The Scots became uneasy about a

policy leading them into permanent opposition to the King. The tension

between loyalty to the Covenant and to the King put a strain upon

Scottish Covenanting unity.

In the struggle against Cromwell, the Scots had divided into

Resolutioners and Protesters. The Resolutioners gave priority to

national survival in which all Scots had an interest, but more

importantly were prepared to tolerate episcopacy. The Protesters held

that loyalty to the Bible-based Covenants of 1638 and 1643 ruled out any

compromise; only a Scotland united on the basis of the Covenants could

expect the blessing of God upon its arms and prayers. The Resolutioners

raised an army and invaded England in an attempt to retain the English

throne for their king but they were defeated by Cromwell at Worcester on

-93-
3 September 1651. Cromwell regarded this as God's crowning mercy and it

was followed by the flight of the King then by the conquest of Scotland

by General Monk. The Protesters were distressed by the policy imposed by

the Cromwell regime and also dismayed by the readiness of so many to

accommodate themselves to that situation; they were unable to arouse any

fervent opposition to the government. 74 Accordingly, Protester leaders

in Glasgow like Patrick Gillespie, the Principal of the Glasgow College,

had some inclination to co-operate with the Cromwellian authorities in

the hope of ditching the Resolutioners whose policy prevailed. By 1655

General Monck had crushed all resistance.

Under Cromwell in Scotland, presbyterian ministers and supporting

elders were not generally prevented from meeting in presbyteries and

synods, though a synod in Fife was dissolved in 1655, and meetings of

ministers in Edinburgh were also forbidden lest they became centres of

disaffection. The Scottish Privy Council, the Estates and the Court of
Session were abolished.

However, commissioners arranged for the provision of

_English
maintenance for "such ministers and persons of pious life and

conversation and well affected to the Parliament as should be most

fitted to preach the Gospel and instruct the people". Ministers were

allowed to use the parish churches and to minister to those who chose to

resort to them but there was no barrier to the formation of

congregations outside the parish system. This new order was the negation

of presbyterian hopes for a national and enforced conformity. Up to 1660

the parishes were staffed by a range of presbyterians, independents and

a few baptists, as well as by many Episcopalians who disguised their

loyalties or ministered in remote areas or had local protection from

powerful patrons who were able to retain some influence in these

difficult times.

-94-
 On 6th September, 1661, Charles II re-established Episcopacy. The

establishment of absolute government over the Church and State was the

settled policy of all the governments - the more moderate as well as the

more severe - from the Restoration to the Revolution. This was made up

by a hierarchical system and contained much bureaucracy, and so the

royal headship fitted in to it with great ease. The bishops were

appointed by the Crown and were dependent on the royal favour;

therefore, they were much more easily controlled than annual church

assemblies where all clergymen and elders had an equal vote. Without the

consent of the Church, the king declared the various Acts of Parliament

and Council, proclamations, oaths and bonds void. Charles acted through

Parliament and his Privy Council, but the Parliament was not freely

elected, and the Church itself was not consulted.

Therefore, the Patronage Act was circulated in 1662, and the

Assertory Act followed in 1669, declaring the king inherently supreme

over all persons and in all causes; the express aim of this action was
to force the Covenanters into a position where by they would break both

civil and ecclesiastical laws by meeting together, and so justify action

being taken against them in the form of imprisonment and execution. In

July 1670, moreover, the Conventicle Act against the Covenanters,

including English nonconformists and Compulsory Church attendance were

passed, and in 1669,1672, and 1681, the Indulgences75 and the Test

Act76 were also passed by the Parliament.

After the sudden death of his brother, Charles II, James, Duke of

York, a Roman Catholic, ascended the throne in February 1685 and his

accession marked no change of policy in the treatment of the

Covenanters. He assumed the reins of government and gave a solemn

promise to the Council that he would maintain the established liberties

of Church, State and people. The Estates then expressed their gratitude

-95-
for the blessings which they owed "to the sacred race of their most

glorious kings, and to the solid, absolute authority wherewith they were

invested by the first and fundamental laws of the monarchy". James VII

asserted that the kings of the realm derived their royal power from God

Almighty alone.

The first Parliament of James VII went further and passed the "Test

Acts" in 1685. It was declared the obligation of "any person who held a

public office, from the privy councillor down to the exciseman, to swear

that he owned the true Protestant religion as explained in the

Confession of 1560; that he acknowledged the king to be supreme in all

causes and over all persons, both civil and ecclesiastical; that he

would never consult about any matter of State without his Majesty's

express license or command; and never endeavour any alteration in the

government of the country".

It insisted, moreover, that any person who preached at or attended

a conventicle was to be punished, possibly given the death sentence and

his goods confiscated. As J. H. S. Burleigh points out, "He dismissed

Protestants from offices of State, the Privy Council, the judiciary,

military commands, even town councils, and replaced them with Romanists

dispensing them from the requirements of the Test Acts". 77 Both Papists

and Presbyterians immediately'reacted against the Acts. There were even

more declared Acts against non-conformists, including the Covenanters,

such as the Toleration Acts in 1687 and the Declaration of Indulgence in

1688. The Stuart kings believed in the Divine Right of kings to the

extent that they did not consider themselves in any way bound by

promises to inferiors.

The reaction to the Acts declared by King James VII was so strong

that even the primate and seven English bishops were not happy and

refused to submit. They presented a petition to the King on the

-96-
subject. The bishops were committed by a court to the Tower until the

time came for them to answer charges at Westminster of publishing a

"false, malicious, and seditious libel". Conflict between the

Covenanters and the State during this period of the Stuart reigns was,

therefore, inevitable. They could point to Knox and Melville as the

upholders of the Church's freedom, and to the struggles and successes of

the "First Covenanters". The Covenanters held firmly to the Presbyterian

claim of free assembly and the divine origin of the Presbyterian polity.

2.2.3/ The Reigns of King William and Queen Anne.

After the dismisal of King James VII, the Scottish Estates invited

and made Prince William and Mary of Orange, King of Scotland on 14 March
1689 to deliver the nation from violation of its religion, laws and

liberties. 78 This accession was a great relief but William's insistence

upon a measure of toleration was a great disappointment to the

Covenanters. 79 Ecclesiastically, the Revolution introduced a limited

measure of toleration which broke the monopoly of the established

Churches of England and Scotland.

The conditions under which dissenting churches were permitted to

assemble and to maintain a way of life outside the established Church

were still far from full toleration and did not extend to the Roman

Catholic Church. But citizens were no longer expected to conform to the

practices and discipline of the established Church. Henceforth, the

monarchy could not claim to rule solely by divine right. The hereditary

principle still operated and the panoply of coronations retained many

echoes of a divine commission, but monarchs now ruled within the law and

were accountable to the parliaments of the two kingdoms and, after 1707,

to the parliament of the United Kingdom.

-97-
 By 1688 most ministers had been episcopally ordained and even if

not strongly attached to episcopacy they had become reconciled to it;

but the old habit of conforming to the swings of government prevailed

once again and most of them accepted the change to presbyterianism. The

ease of transition varied from area to area. William would have liked to

include some episcopalians in public offices but he had to conform in

the face of opposition from Presbyterian peers who called prelacy "a

great and insupportable grievance".

On 11th May 1689 king William was asked to take an oath to "root

out all heretics as enemies to the true worship of God that shall be

convicted by the true Kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes" but he

refused: "I will not lay myself under any obligation to be a

persecutor". He would go no further than to say that "Presbytery was

acceptable to the inclinations of the people". He was resolved to take

the Kirk along the road to tolerating dissent. In July an Act was passed

abolishing prelacy on grounds that Presbyterian Church government was

the only biblical form of government, 80 but he refused to concede that

this demanded the crushing of all dissent.

However, we could ask at this point, what was achieved in 1690? In

October 1690, with much hesitation, William consented to the abolition

of patronage except in the case of town councils; this meant that more

power was now lodged in presbyteries with their strong 'ministerial

managers and he urged that discipline be administered in such a way as

to remove all occasions of complaint for rigour. Such was the Revolution

Settlement which brought to an end the long, bitter, and complicated

struggle between Church and ging begun with Knox at the Reformation in

1560 and continued by Andrew Melville and the Covenanters. This marked

the end of twenty-eight years of tyranny and persecution, and at the

same time marked a new era for the Scottish church and nation.

-98-
 Parliament gave to the church power to secure the Protestant

in that Papacy might

religion and Presbyterian church government order

be kept away from Scotland. They established by law that the churches'

from Jesus Christ, the Only Head and King His

authority was derived of

Church, from Whom it received its order and Presbyterian government.

This was regarded as a better foundation than the inclinations of the

people or the laws of men - as the only government of the Church within

the Kingdom of Scotland.

Moreover, in 1690, the Act of Supremacy was repealed by king

William. William preferred an episcopal system but found it impossible

because of the nonjurors so Presbyterianism was the only option

available to him and he established a Presbyterian polity. The

Westminster Confession of Faith was approved as the public confession of

the church. The government of the church by kirk sessions, presbyteries,

provincial synods, and general assemblies as established in 1592 was

confirmed, but without any mention of the Covenants. This omission meant

there was no requirement to assent to the divine right of presbytery and

it was hoped that this would enable many episcopalians to conform. The

inclusion of the Westminster Confession as the standard of doctrine

placed the Church firmly in the Calvinist tradition and this eased the

conformity of many presbyterians, even those of a rigid ilk.

Towards the late 1690s, William, moved by persons who had become

known as Jacobites, wanted all ministers both Episcopal and Presbyterian

to swear a simple oath of allegiance to himself and Mary, acknowledging

them as the only lawful sovereigns of the realm, and to defend their

title and government against the late king James and his adherents. All

ministers who did so were given assurance of protected livelihoods.

However, when this was proposed there was an angry reaction from

Presbyterians. When the assembly was convened, there almost seemed to be

-99-
an inevitable rupture of relations between Church and Crown in 1694. In

1701 the Assembly thanked the King for concurring in the decision of

Parliament making the Westminster Confession and the presbyterian

government permanent marks of the Church of Scotland. 81

Queen Anne succeeded to the throne in 1702 and she urged the 1703

Assembly to maintain the Reformed Protestant Religion and to be on guard

against the growth of Roman Catholicism, but she also called the Kirk to

live peaceably with others of the Reformed Protestant Religion, albeit

differing in forms of church polity. Accordingly, under the reign of

Queen Anne the relationship between Presbyterians and Episcopalians and

between Church and State were far from settled. The advent of a strong

Tory and Anglican government in 1710 and the Queen's support for

episcopacy revived the alarm; and there was a bitter reaction to the Act

passed in 1712 declaring that the worship of the episcopal communion in

Scotland should not be disturbed and that it could be conducted

according to the forms in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of

England.

The Toleration Act particularly alarmed Presbyterians. This was

because Presbyterianism was not going to continue to be the only form of

church government and religious worship in Scotland; now they were

required to tolerate the liturgy of the Church of England to be used in

Episcopal churches and also that the liturgy should be used in the

worship of the Presbyterian church itself. This Act also restored the

ancient patronages and was to have baneful consequences for the Church

of Scotland for a century and a half to come. A proposed amendment that

all holders of public offices should conform to the Kirk as all holders

of offices in England had to conform to the Church of England was

rejected. The right to nominate a minister for a vacant parish was

vested in the Protestant heirs, and the elders. The congregation might

-100-
then approve or disapprove, and the presbytery had the final say.

The Cameronian Covenanters declared that the contemplated union

with prelatic England was a further defection from the Covenants. In

1719 the terms of the oath were amended and the offence removed in

recognition of the complete loyalty of the Presbyterians to the

Hanoverian king during the Rebellion of 1715. But for twenty years after

1712 there was much uncertainty and some confusion. As long as the law

of patronage stood, it had to be obeyed and presbyteries had to do their

duty yet it was not always clear to whom the right of patronage

belonged.

2.3/ The Covenanters' Theological Manifesto on Covenant thought.

The main theological problems which arose in the early part of the

17th century were those of Church polity and the sovereignty of God's

grace. These subjects were of grave concern to the Scottish people; they

were the central issue between the royalists and the Covenanters in the

17th century, and between the moderates and evangelicals of the early

18th century. The conflict had been interwoven by rivalries and

alliances, and both had been bitterly divided between centralizing and

decentralizing forces, between versions of Protestant Christianity that

served to arouse emotion and hostility.

During the time of turmoil under the reigns of Charles I and II,

there were momentous events happening in the three kingdoms of Britain,

such as the adoption of the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, the

Westminster Assembly of 1643-1648, and the Restoration of the Act of

Uniformity of 1661, etc. The idea of the Covenant was formulated and

preserved in the formal documents, and at the same time it was salvaged

by the sovereigns and his subjects. James Sharp, the minister of Crail

-101-
and a leading Resolutioner, was sent to London and to Breda to see what

could be salvaged. He secured a promise from the King to "protect and

preserve the government of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by

law, without violation" and to resist the pressure of "some ranting men"

for a return to episcopacy. He also promised to call a General Assembly.

The majority of the nobility, even among those who had supported
the Covenants (the National Covenant of 1638 and Solemn League and

Covenant of 1643), were leaning towards a hierarchy in the Church as a

desirable counterpart for a stratified system in society at large. Two-

hundred and sixty-two ministers, mostly Protesters, held the new system

to be a betrayal of presbyterianism, of the Covenant, and even of the

Christian faith itself. They refused to conform, and despite orders

forbidding conventicles, they gathered congregations and endured heavy

penalties in order to maintain their faith. 82

During the time of persecution from 1681 to 1688, the Covenanters

expressed publicly their covenant thought in various writings, and

proclaimed their manifesto against their enemies. Also, the Marrow men,

as "descendents of the Covenanters", 83 rejected by the General

Assembly's Act, insisted that their theory was the theology of the

sixteenth century Reformers. Therefore, the church in Scotland was

rarely at peace throughout this period. Even up to the 19th century,

there were continual struggles between those who sought episcopacy and
those who sought presbytery, between those who wanted a liturgy and
those who wanted a freer form of worship and church government.
For the Covenanters and the Marrow men, the theology of the

covenant generally had regard to national, religious and spiritual

maatters was far more important than any other issue and they strongly

emphasised and applied their theology in various documents throughout

this period. They treated the whole problem as fundamentally

-102-
theological, so that it was the security of the church which concerned

them.

In dealing with the Covenanters' theological manifesto on Covenant

thought, we shall consider the Two Books of Discipline of 1560 and 1578

and also the National Covenant of 1638 as the first formal documents of

Christian liberty. We shall also examine the King's Confession of 1581,

and some of the writings of the Scottish Divines who contributed their

covenant thought to the Westminster Assembly of 1643-1648, in London.

The Marrow men's covenant thought will also be explored here as well.

This is important because this covenant concept had considerable impact

in confirming their own'faith before God and also in influencing their

descendants in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

2.3.1/ True Religion and Christian Liberty.

Since the Reformation of 1560, as elsewhere in Europe, the Church

of Scotland achieved great freedom by the public use of the Scriptures.

The Scottish people believed that the Bible offered spiritual freedom

for God's people in Scotland and everyone could, for their spiritual

welfare, directly approach the Scriptures without human intermediaries.

All these points were well covered in detail in the Two Books of

Discipline. 84 Since the Reformation, there had been "Covenants" made

among the Scottish people securing their religious freedom, by the

practice of signing bonds or covenants. 85 The Scottish people were

convinced that it was God who had made the covenant with them.

The First Book of Discipline86 was drawn up against a background of

political uncertainty, but the advocates of reform had achieved a

political victory and considered themselves in a position to set forth

their demands in forceful terms. 87 The First Book of Discipline was

-103-
divided into nine heads, but mainly consisted of six parts: Doctrine,

The Sacraments, Ministers and their Lawful Election, Provision for the

Ministers, Of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and Policy. The main emphasis

was upon the provision of suitable ministers in the parishes and much

was achieved in this direction. This was in accord with the Genevan

stress upon the priority of the preaching of the Word and the

administration of the two Sacraments. 88 The authors of the book state

that "Scripture'is to be the ultimate authority by which their plans are

judged and if need be amended".

The book begins by stressing the centrality of preaching the Word

of God:

"Seeing that Christ Jesus is he whom God the Father has commanded
only to be heard and followed by his sheep, we judge it necessary
that his Gospel be truly and openly preached in every Church and
assembly of this realm and that all doctrine repugnant to the same
be utterly repressed as damnable to man's salvation". 89

It ordained, therefore, that Baptism be administered only when the Word

of God is preached, and consequently said it would be "more expedient"

that it be administered on Sundays or at the week day service after

sermon. 90 In the final form of the book these heads were expanded to

nine.

Sections VII to IX of the final form of the Book are primarily

devoted to Church Polity or ecclesiastical administration, particularly

at congregational level, that is, the ordering of both public and

private religious practice throughout the country, care of church

buildings and the punishment of those who seek to exercise any of the

functions of the ministry without a "lawful calling". 91 In section

VIII, when a congregation elects the church officers, elders and

deacons, they are to use criteria such as purity of life, faithfulness

-104-
and honesty. Furthermore, it must be "the freedom of the local

congregation to nominate the church officers". 92

In the section on civil power and the church, the authors of the

Book of Discipline -recognised that the country should agree to live in

conformity with the Gospel and organise both its civil and religious

life in accordance with these beliefs. So in July-August 1560, the

Parliament ratified the Confession of Faith and agreed to govern the

country in conformity with the exposition of the Christian faith

contained in that document. John Knox stressed that "we confess and

acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distinct and

ordained by God". 93 Accordingly, the attitude of the Church towards

civil government is expressed in the following terms:

"Moreover to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm

that chiefly and most principally the reformation and purgation of
Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil
policy, but also for the maintenance of the true Religion, and for
the suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in
David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended
for their zeal in that case, may be espied". 94

And again:

"We should recognise, confess and vow before the Lord, that such as
resist the supreme power, doing that thing which appertains to his
charge, do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be
guiltless. This meant that we can deny their help and support, and
counsel and comfort, while the princes and rulers vigilantly
travail in the executing of their office". 95

The book does, however, allow the appointment of ten superintendents to

exercise certain episcopal functions such as oversight and inspection

within the church. The problem of archbishops and bishops remained

largely unsolved, for in the majority of cases, prelates of the old

-105-
church remained in office and still enjoyed the revenues of their

bishoprics. On the institution of the Eldership, Dr. I. M. Cla: rk has said:

"It marks the recognition of the laity's responsibility in the

government of the Church, and particularly its place in the ordering of

the discipline of the Church". 96

After John Knox's death in 1572, the political situation in

Scotland was complicated. It is necessary for a clear understanding of

the background to realise that the Regent James Douglas, Earl of Morton,

used bishops to consolidate his power. Immediately after the

Reformation, there had been great difficulty in providing a sufficient

number of Protestant pastors and until presbyteries were fully organised

some ministers were appointed to large districts. The Regent Morton

indeed wished certain ministers to be set apart as bishops, and he

secured a compromise whereby they received the name of bishops to enable

them to increase the episcopal revenues. These dignitaries were

nicknamed "Tulchan Bishops", a tulchan being a stuffed calf used to

induce a cow to give her milk more freely. 97 They proved a device to

milk the revenues of the Church for the nobility.

In 1578, the Second Book of Discipline was drafted by Andrew

Melville and others. 98 The Second Book states the independence of the

Church from civil authority, Church powers and authority being derived

from God. It also argues that the Church has the right and duty to

instruct the civil authority in matters of conscience and religion, and

indeed the right to tell the civil arm how to exercise its own peculiar

civil authority in accordance with the Word of God. 99 In particular,

this book recognises four offices as specially needful in the government

of the Church: 1. Pastors, ministers, or presbyters; 2. Doctors,

prophets, or teachers; 3. Elders; 4. Deacons. To the pastors alone

belong the right of preaching the Word of God and of administering the

-106-
Sacraments.

However, there were important differences between the First and

Second Books of Discipline. In the Second Book, for example, it is the

Presbytery which has authority to excommunicate individuals. Also, the

Presbytery exercises the functions of an episcopal bishop. According to

the First Book of Discipline, the impenitent is to be "excommunicated by

the mouth of the "minister, and consent of the ministry, and commandment

of the Church". 100 These principles of Church government were

fundamental issues throughout the covenanting period. The General

Assembly of July, 1580, through the influence of Andrew Melville, passed

an Act declaring that the office of a Bishop as commonly understood was

(a). without warrant or authority from Scripture; (b). was of human

invention and tended to the injury of the Church and called upon all who

held such offices to leave them; (c). it also appointed times and places

when and where they might meet to signify their submission to this Act.

In 1592 came the Act which has been regarded as the Charter of
Presbytery. It confirms all liberties, privileges, immunities, and
freedoms given to the true and holy church presently established within
the realm. Furthermore, it gave the General Assembly the right, to meet

once a year or oftener pro re nata, in the presence of the king or his

commissioner who appointed the time and place of the next meeting. The

government of the Church under the assembly by synods, presbyteries, and

particular sessions is approved. Episcopal jurisdictions are abolished,

and presbyteries receive presentations to benefices, give collation and

put order to all matters and-causes ecclesiastical within 'their bounds,

as the bishops had formerly been empowered to do. The Act of 1592 seemed

uncompromising so a Presbyterian like James Melville approved the 1592

Act in that it granted all that he desired. Melville expected the king

and the church to live in harmony.

-107-
 However, the proclamation of the true religion and Christian

liberty in relation to the national religion appeared more widely in the

National Covenant of 1638, written by Archibald Johnston of Warriston

and Alexander Henderson and, subsequently revised by Rothes, Loudoun and

Balmerino. 101 It was the first public document of the covenant and it

expressed strong support for Christian liberty, which occupied a central

place in Scottish theology. As Hugh Watt has described, the National

Covenant is a document in which "stern determination, legal dexterity

were blended" for Scotland. 102

The National Covenant consists of three parts. Its first part

contains the King's Confession of 1581,103 insisting that "before God

there is only true religion, pleasing God and bringing salvation to

man... the preaching of the blessed Evangel; and is received, believed,

and defended by many and sundry noble Kirks and realms which men declare

as the Christian faith". 104 Accordingly, the Confession and form of

Religion must rely on "God's undoubted truth and verity grounded only
upon His written Word". 105

The Confession rejected the usurped authority of the Roman Anti-

Christ with regard to the Scriptures, the Church, the civil magistrate

and consciences of men; it also denied "all his tyrannous laws made upon

indifferent things against Christian liberty, corrupt doctrine, five,

so-called 'bastard sacraments', and the worshipping of images, relics

and crosses, dedicating of Kirks, altars, and days". 106 This Confession

placed a great deal of importance on the doctrine of the covenant, the

prominence of the Word and Holy Spirit; it renounced Popery unequivo-

cally and promised all necessary support to the Protestant faith. The

Confession was subscribed to again by King James VI in 1590 and 1596 and

it became the most important historical document of the National

Covenant of 1638 and later in the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643.107

-108-
 The second part of the covenant stressed its legitimacy by listing

Acts of Parliament in favour of the Reformed Church and against Popery.

Accordingly, all Papists and Priests should be punished as "adversaries

to God's true religion preached and by law established within this

realm"; 108 the Pope's authority and jurisdiction should also be banished

out-of the land. 109 In the name of King James VI, all sort of Popish

ceremonies were condemned. "The people protested against the Papistical

rites, stating they were a dishonour of God, a contempt of religion, and

the fostering of great error among the people: This second part went

further in emphasising the maintenance of God's true religion, purity in

doctrine and sacraments of the true Church, liberty and freedom in her

national Synod, Assemblies, Presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline,

and jurisdiction; as that purity of religion and liberty of the Church

was used, professed, exercised, preached and confessed according to the

reformation of religion in this Realm". llo

Turning to the last section of the National Covenant, we find that

it is the most original part, written largely by Alexander Henderson.

On the basis of the first two parts, this section bound the signatories

to adhere to and defend the true religion. This meant refusing to

conform to the innovations in worship and government thus withholding

approval of the appointment of bishops and other ministers to civil

offices until these matters had been discussed and approved in a free

General Assembly of the Church and Parliament. At the same time there

was a strong profession of loyalty to the King. 111 Therefore, this

covenant emphasised what we have to do as our duty as follows:

"... from the knowledge and conscience of our duty of God, and our
King and Country, without any worldly respect or inducement, so far
as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the
grace of God for this effect; we promise and swear by the Great
Name of the Lord our God, to continue in the profession and
obedience of the foresaid religion; and that we shall defend the
-109-
 same, and resist all these contrary errors and 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". 112

The National Covenant of 1638 incorporated covenant ideas and traditions

into the "New" with an agreement to uphold true religion, its laws,

liberties and royal authority. This document reflected not only the

immediate causes of the conflict but also the underlying ones; that the

"Prayer Book of 1637" conflicted with national feeling as being

essentially English; that it conflicted also with religious feeling as

being founded on royal edict without any ecclesiastical sanction; that

it conflicted with doctrinal views firmly held by the great bulk of the

Church since the Reformation and leaned towards Romanism, etc. 113 John

Cunningham has justified this Covenant in this way,

"They are times when law must be set aside-when man resumes his
natural rights. The king had violated the laws of the land; why
should not the people? The king had attempted, in defiance of the
constitution, to force an obnoxious liturgy upon the nation; why
should not the nation band itself together and defy him to do it?
Is the monarch made for the nation, or the nation for the monarch?
Is the will of the one or the will of the many to be supreme?
Should the people, for fear of violating some statute, and giving
pain to some men in high places, sit still and allow their religion
and liberties to be trampled on? Had the Covenant not been
subscribed, it is certain the liturgy would have been introduced,
the canons enforced, and the heel of arbitrary power placed on the
neck of our country. This is its justification". 114

The Covenant was an appeal to law and constitutional ityl 15 for a

declaration of spiritual liberty; it was subscribed to as Scotland's

covenant with God. Accordingly, this document, which gave its name to a

party and a movement, was simply a means to an end. It was subscribed to

almost universally by every class of the community: ministers,

burgesses, nobles, gentry and commons-in Scotland. Soon copies were
being carried to towns and villages throughout the country and offered

-110-
for signature to all. Aberdeen and a very small minority in other places

in the Highland area, were reluctant to sign. 116 But it was received

with acclamation as truly national as any such document can ever be. As

the result of signing the covenant, the Scottish people were united both

in politics and religion. The covenant was developed into the Solemn

League and Covenant of 1643 and became the doctrinal background of the

Westminster Confession of Faith; it also related more to the later

covenanting period.

2.3.2/ The Covenanters' views on Church Government.

2.3.2.1/ Its Brief History and Principles for Practice.

One controversial issue discussed during the Westminster Assembly

in London in 1644 was church government. Answering from
some questions
the English Puritans at the Westminster Assembly, Alexander Henderson

(1583-1646)117 wrote a brief account of the testimony and history the

of

order and government of the Reformed Churches, particularly, the Church

of Scotland under the title of Reformation of Church Government in

Scotland. In it, he honoured the Church of Scotland for being faithful

to Reformed principles of church government, in advancing the Kingdom,

in converting and saving many souls, in opposing and also suppressing a

world of corruptions, heresies, and schisms, by the Lord's remarkable

blessing upon their church government and life.

(A). Concerning church government, Henderson praised the beauty and

strength of the order and Government of the Reformed Churches. This was

known as "the Nations of Kingdoms of the earth, openly professed and

practised in the eyes of the world". 118 He was convinced that "it was

commended and already confirmed by a long tract of time, and the

-111-
experience of many years". 119 It had also been countenanced from heaven

and blessed from above, with the preservation of the truth and unity of

religion against heresies and errors in doctrine, idolatry and

corruptions in worship, and all sorts of sects and schisms, wherewith it

had been continually assaulted". 120 Accordingly, he maintained that-the

instruments the Lord had used in the work of Reformation in the Church

of Scotland were not only learned, holy men, but also men extraordi-

narily gifted and zealous for God's glory.

He further explained that their adversaries were not able to resist

the wisdom and spirit by which they spoke. Some of them had a prophetic

spirit while others were honoured to be martyrs. So that in "the people

of God converted by them, and in the Reformation brought about by the

blessing of God upon their labours, against all the learning, pride,
policy, and abuse of power of the time, there was to be seen a
representation of the primitive and apostolic times, and a new
resurrection from the dead". 121 Henderson said that after them the Lord

continued to raise up in the Church of Scotland many burning and shining

lights, men of the same spirit, mighty in the converting of souls to

walk in the same way. He pointed out further that "They communicated

their counsels and kept correspondence with Divines of other nations

including the greatest and purest lights in the church of England, at
the point of Reformation and setting of Church-Government. These were

at that time the common study and endeavour of both, wherein they and

their successors continued, till the times of defection, which made an

unhappy interruption of the work". 122

On the whole, according to Henderson, the Scottish Reformers had no

other rule and pattern of Reformation other than the Word of God as a

fundamental principle, and the practice of the Apostolic Churches in the

world. 123 Henderson wrote:

-112-
 "all the books of God are perfect, the book of life, the book of
nature, the book of providence, and especially the book of
Scripture, which was adopted by the Holy Ghost to be a perfect
directory to all the Churches, unto the second coming of Jesus
Christ, but so that it presupposes the light and law of nature, or
the rules of common prudence, to be our guide in circumstances or
things local, temporal and personal, which being Ecclesiastic
politics, are common to the Church with civil societies, and
concerning which, the word gives general rules to be; universally
and constantly observed by all persons, in all times and
places". 124

He emphasised that what they had received was not based upon probable

grounds of conjecture but upon the warrant of the Word, and by the

teaching of the Spirit with the certainty of faith. They, therefore,

resolved to hold fast to it and hated anything contrary to it.

(B). Concerning practices of Presbyterian Church Government,

Henderson gave examples of heretics like the Arians, Socinians, and

others who erred in denying major doctrines. He himself fully accepted

the doctrine of the Reformed churches concerning the Christ
person of

and his offices. Henderson pointed out that the chief reformers had had

experience of Churches other than their own and this had been to the

benefit of the Church of Scotland. 125 Henderson asserted that the

Reformers in the Church of Scotland intended and designed from the

beginning to govern the Church by Assemblies and Presbyteries but they

could not achieve it in the infancy of Reformation; rather, they gave

way to necessity.

In this they followed the example and practice of the Churches

planted by the Apostles which, if not at first, yet afterwards, were of

greater number in one city, than did or could ordinarily assemble in one

place for the worship of God, and therefore had a plurality of pastors

and officers, which made up a common presbytery for governing the

whole. 126 Accordingly, they set up such officers in the church, as were

both necessary and sufficient for the church: Pastors, teachers, ruling

-113-
elders, and deacons. They did not permit lay-men to preach or prophesy

in the Congregation, nor did they admit any other ruling elders, but

only those who were solemnly elected and ordained. They maintained

themselves by their own means, and attended their own particular

callings, if compatible with their office. This was especially true of

those who were appointed by a number of competent people and also

proportional to the total number of the Congregation. Their

'ecclesiastical charge, not being pastoral, nor requiring any great

meditation or study apart, was such as they could easily attend to

without neglect of their own business and family. 127

(C). Concerning the relationship between Church and Magistrate,

Henderson says that: "the principles both of civil and church-government

are laid out in Scripture, and therefore the one cannot be contrary to

the other, or be inconsistent between themselves. Nor do we measure the

power of the Magistrate by the principles of Presbyterial government,

but both of them by the Word, and therefore deny not unto the Magistrate

what God gives them, and more than this, dare we not profess for any

respect to ourselves, or to the form of Ecclesiastical government

professed by us". 128 Here Henderson cites examples of Reformers not

only in England and France but also in Scotland herself.

However, Henderson emphasised that the Church of Scotland in its

conferences and assemblies, had debated matters of discipline and

government for 20 years from 1618 to 1638. They endured considerable

opposition from the authorities, worldly men, adversaries of the truth,

both Prelatical, and Separatists. Henderson described the Separatists as

a whetstone to quicken the Reformed Churches, and to make them the more

circumspect and exact in their way, which lay in the middle betwixt

Episcopacy upon the one hand, and popular confusion on the other. 129 He

encouraged the Church of England by pointing out that visible churches,

-114-
which have been, or shall be at any time on earth, will consist of

persons good and bad, sheep and goats, wheat and tares.
Henderson further explained that all of this was willed by God;

when God's servants have been diligent in searching the truth, and

zealous in professing it, then they need to confirm and seal this truth

which they have believed and professed with their own confession and

suffering. Therefore, the Church of Scotland, as all other reformed

churches, had used the power of the keys, and church censures of all
types, especially excommunication, with such severity and yet caution to

preserve God's Name from being blasphemed and the church and its people
from deception.

The delinquents were brought under censure from destruction, which

were the. ends proposed by them in executing the censures of the

Church. 130 According to Henderson, the doctrine of the Arminians and

Socinians appealed only to the state church authorities on matters of

excommunication. This opened the. door to many other practices and errors

which were universally abhorred by all Christians, and these tended to

the overthrow of the Reformed Religion. 131

Henderson finally pointed out that there were two main objections
that were raised against the principles and practice of order and

government of the Reformed Churches. One was that there was no need of
the authoritative power of Presbyteries and Synods to impose

excommunication; rather, the exhortation of individual Churches to each

other and the withdrawal of inter-church fellowship would be a

sufficient and effective remedy.

This was especially true if the Magistrate granted his assistance

and imposed his authority, to strengthen the sentence of Non-

communion. 132 The other objection was that by this authority and order

of Government, one church had power over another, which was contrary to

-115-
the liberty and equality with which Christ had endowed his Churches, and

was no more than a new prelatical dominion set out against the Churches

of Christ. Henderson replied:

"Firstly, we are very far from imposing or acknowledging any such

collateral power of one particular church over another, nay not of
the greatest in all respects whatsoever over the smallest, for God
has made them equal one to another. The power which we maintain, is
aggregative of the officers of many congregations over the
particular members of their corporation. All the Reformed Church
acknowledge the dependency of one particular Church upon another.
Secondly, it is as miserable a mistake to compare Presbyteries and
prelates together: for the courts of prelates are altogether
foreign and extrinsicall to the congregations over which their
rule, and then indeed the Metropolitan Church tyrannized over other
churches, but the power of Presbyteries is intrinsicall and
natural, they being constitute of the pastors and elders of the
particular congregations over which they are set. So that another
without themselves does not bear rule over them, but all of them
together by common consent does rule over every one, which is a
most mild and free form of Church government. It being no more
contrary to the liberty of a particular church, to be ruled by a
common collegiate, presbytery, or ecclesiastic Senate, than is for
a member of a particular congregation, to be ruled by his own
particular eldership... 11133

Henderson's main task was vindicating Presbyterian Church government. He

thought it was warranted by the Word of God and should be vindicated by

all others whether Independent, or Sectarian. 134

2.3.2.2/ The Covenanters' Vindication of Presbyterian Church Government.

In late spring of 1646, a pamphlet written by John Maxwell, former

Bishop of Ross, made its appearance in London. In it, Maxwell elaborated

on "Issachar's Burden", criticizing strongly the Scottish Presbyterian

Church Government. Maxwell likened England to Issachar couched down

between two burdens, the one being presbytery; the other, Parliament.

These two burdens, according to Maxwell, were infinitely heavier than

were the alternative ones of episcopacy and monarchy. 135 All the evils

-116-
in England, according to Maxwell, had come about because England had

rejected episcopacy, without which no legitimate church could exist, and

had rejected the right of monarchy not only to define the law but to be

above the law, and had extolled the Parliament above the king.
Under these two burdens England was doomed. Maxwell clearly admired
the English monarchy and Episcopacy. Robert Baillie136 quotes Maxwell:

"That Episcopacy is a necessary and fundamental truth, of Divine

Institution and Commandement. All Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction
belong to the Bishops alone by Divine Right, no Presbyter ought to
be a member so much as of a provincial Assembly. That the King
consent to the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland, is the true and
great cause of all the troubles which since that time has befallen
him and his subjects... That the Pope by Divine Right is as true a
Bishop, he is greater then any other. That Presbytery is worse then
Popory and Jesuitism, that it were much better for any king to put
his Dominions under the yoak of the Pope and Jesuites, then of
Presbyteries, and Synods. That the first Reformation in Scotland,
France, Holland, Germany, and where ever the supreame Magistrate
was not the Author and Actor of the work, was unorderly and sinful,
an action seditious and treasonable, a great cause of all the
mischefes that from that time to this have come upon the Churches.
All controversies of Religion, ought to be decided by the writs of
the fathers. It is but precise puritanism to refuse the Apocrypha
Book. It is presumption for any man upon earth to meddle with the
questions of Election and Predestination. All necessity takes away
Freedom from the Will. Schoolmen do rightly teach that the
Sacraments confer grace by some extrimse call supervenient power,
mens sins are washed away by doing of pennance, Ministers are
Priests, all who have adhered to the Parliament are Sectaries and
mad ones... "137

Maxwell further pointed out that the Covenanters' new governmental

system failed to conform to their earlier theories. Whereas they had

previously posited authority with the natural leaders of society, now

they attempted to appeal to all the Scottish classes and moved away from
their original religious basis. For the royalists, the Covenanters were

amply proving the inherent radical and political trends of their

movement. The Burden of Issachar was the final royalist attack on the
Covenanters' theoretical position.

-117-
 In reply, Baillie began with the history of the Canterburians, the

Scottish reformers and its church government system. The pamphlet

consisted of four parts: (1) a challenge to the author's credibility

because of his deposition and excommunication by the General Assembly in

1638; (2) an exposition of "those whom he professes to tax", namely.

Scotland, and that, as an attack on Scotland, it is an attack on England

also, for since the time of Elizabeth, England had "assisted" in the

Scots Reformation; (3) a question concerning the motives of the

publishers since it had been published by "a Bishop at Oxford" where all

were known Malignants, opposed to both the London Parliament and the

Scots at the Assembly; and (4) a refutation, point by point, of all the

charges that the pamphlet laid against the Scots Reformed church, its

classification of officers, its system of church courts, its history

from the time of John Knox and Andrew Melville.

After his introduction, Baillie asserted that "all our Heresies and
Sects did breed under the wings of Episcopacy". 138 Baillie resisted or

refuted Maxwell's remaining charges. "Even elders", he explains, "do not

have any more power in the kirk sessions of Scotland than have those of

the Reformed churches of France, Holland, or New England". 139

Particularly, concerning preachers, unlicensed preachers do not preach

in the presbyteries; expectant ministers undergo their trials there: '4°

"Where can these exercises be so fitly performed as in the

presbyteries? " he asked. "The Expectants are present in the presbyteries

for their training, not as Members. Also, presbyteries do not meddle

with trade and commerce; they concern themselves with church matters

only". 141 "You liken our synod meetings to the old episcopal provincial

council and then say that no true provincial council can exist without a

bishop at its head, but since we reject episcopacy your arguments fall

flat". 142

-118-

4
 Concerning assemblies, Baillie defended the General Assembly: "we

say that the assemblies have no powers except those that the Parliament

has allowed them; we say that the assemblies do not change the civil

law, but, seeing a change to be necessary, petition the king and

Parliament to do so; we say that the assembly does not meddle with civil

courts". 143 Maxwell had jibed at what he called the twelve articles of

the Covenanters creed.

Baillie is content to speak his mind about these articles. 144 He

concedes that they believe God to have instituted two policies among

men: church and state. These are not to be confounded and should not

encroach upon one another. "We do believe in parity among the ministry.

No, we do not believe in Independency but rather on the necessary

subordination of each church court to the one above. We do grant the

General Assembly the power to judge of all divine truths and heresies.
We do hold that any minister treason
who preaches must be subject to the

magistrates". 145

Baillie emphasised that "they did not insist that the civil
magistrates added further sanctions to the decrees of the assembly; that

was a matter for law, conscience, and custom. They did insist that

reformation within the church was permitted only as the Word of God

dictated. They believed that inferior magistrates... were not to be

public reformers of a country without a lawful calling, regardless of

the sins of idolatry of their superiors. The task of the inferior was

rather to reform his own soul. They considered that all the Covenants of

their land were warranted by Acts of Parliament. They asserted that

their assemblies did not "meddle with questions of State". 146

Baillie concluded with the statement that "all episcopacy is a

human invention, is not based on the word of God, and serves only the

prince in advancing his privileges above all law and that any

-119-
episcopacy, even the moderate episcopacy of which Maxwell speaks, is

still episcopacy, and to speak of a moderate episcopacy is the same as

speaking of a moderate Popedom, a moderate tyranny, is to tell us of a

chaste Bordello murderer, and such like repugnancies". 147

... a meek

Baillie was by this time as much a Presbyterian as Alexander Henderson.

2.3.3/ The Covenanters' Views on Tradition.

During the Westminster Assembly of 1644-1647,148 the concept of

tradition was debated. Among the Divines, Erastians insisted on
tradition as a basis for their practices in the Church where the

Scriptures gave no guidance. In an address, Robert Baillie answered an

opponent to the Erastians with these words:

"While you tell us here that Tradition is a sufficient ground for

Episcopacie though Scripture were lacking, you but joine with your
Brethren the Canterburians, who upon this ground presse upon us
already their Altars, Crosses, Images, the primacie of the Pope,
and much more, and shew their minde by this doore to let inn upon
us the whole flood of Anti-Christian abominations, when they find
their season, especially as your self here does professe, any
matter of practice, of discipline, of government. This your popish
errour of tradition is a very genarall, and catholike one, which
shakes not one or two, but all the ground-stones of Protestant
reformations". 149

In another work, Baillie renews the theme that the high Churchmen

endorse Roman Catholic errors. "Alwayes not to strive for words, our

assertion is, that the grossest of the Roman errors which in the common

stile of Protestants, went to go for heresies, are maintained by the

Canterburians for Catholic truths". 150 He pressed this charge directly

in the case of tradition. "For to cleare this, cast over the bookes of
Bellarmine, and see if his grossest tenets bee not by them embraced. At

first, his error about the Scriptures imperfection, and doctrinal

-120-
traditions, seem to be most weighty". 151 After listing other Roman

Catholic errors embraced by the high church party, Baillie enters into

the question of Scripture and tradition more fully:

"Begin with Scripture and traditions: The reformed Churches in the

harmony of their confessions lay all down one common ground, for
their mutuall consent; the Scriptures absolute perfection, without
the helpe of any doctrinall tradition: Hogh me once this pillar,
the Papists plant two Engines: One that there is divers Apostolicke
and ancient traditions, both rituall and dogmaticall, which beside
Scripture with a divine faith must be formely beleeved: An other,
the Scripture must not be taken in any sense by us, but that
wherein the ancient Fathers of the Church have understood it, or
the present Church do take it, glory and triumph above all other
reformed Churches, that they doe embrace doctrinall traditions, for
which in Scripture there is no ground". 152

Baillie points out that this honouring of human traditions leads to a

dishonouring of Scripture. He says: (a) "In the meane time Scripture

must bee stiled the booke of hereticks, (b) In no controversies no not

in Sermons any use may bee made of it, except so farre as wee can backe

our deductions from Scripture, by consent of the ancient Fathers, or

present Church". 153 Thus, for Baillie, the practice of the Westminster

Divines of drawing deductions from Scripture is an honouring of

Scripture. At the same time, he attacks members of the high church party

who object to deductions being made from Scripture, yet who add human

traditions which have no base whatsoever in Scripture.

2.4/ Summary of this Chapter.

While chapter one provided a brief biblical and historical survey

of the development of covenant theology in Scotland, this second chapter

has concentrated on pinpointing and illustrating the major factors

contributing to the conflict between Church and State in Scotland. At

-121-
the centre of this conflict was the covenant concept and its application

to the Church/State relationship as perceived by the Scottish

Covenanters. The major conflict centred round the contrasting theories

of the Divine Right of Kings as advocated by the Scottish monarchs and

that of Christ's sole headship over the Church as insisted upon, and

interpreted, by the Covenanters. This was the key issue. For the latter,

Christ's headship of the Church involved necessarily the divine right of

Presbytery which in turn demanded a clear line of demarcation between

the spheres of Church and State. This view of Church government held by

the Covenanters owed much to John Knox who in turn had been impressed by

the Presbyterian form of Church government he had seen practised on the

continent.

As we have seen, it was Andrew Melville who developed further in

Scotland the covenant doctrine of Church and State with its emphasis on
the parity of ministry and the government in the Church by pastors and

elders rather than by episcopal bishops. Melville also clarified the

covenant understanding of the Church and State as being two distinct

kingdoms or realms.

Provoked by the threat of Roman Catholicism, the advocacy of

episcopalianism by the Stuart kings and their unwise attempts to impose

episcopalianism upon the Scottish Church, the eroding of religious

freedom, the Scottish Covenanters responded by expressing their

theological convictions in the Two Books of Discipline of 1560 and 1578

and then the National Covenant of 1638. This covenant developed into the

Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 which in turn provided the doctrinal

background for the Westminster Confession of Faith. The chapter then

ended with a more detailed account of covenant views on Church

government and their vindication of Presbyterian polity.

Covenanters demanded their liberty in four areas, namely,

-122-
spiritual, political, religious and personal. Arising from this fourfold

understanding of liberty, the Covenanters opposed civil absolutism in

favour of democracy and a constitutional monarchy. They also gave to

laymen prominence in Church government and democratised kirk sessions

while the election of ministers by the people gradually became a

strongly supported claim in the eighteenth century. Christian liberty

also for these Covenanters involved unashamed intolerance of other

theologies and religious practices.

The Covenanters' theological manifesto on covenant thought and

Presbyterian church government (in the National Covenant), therefore,

can be described under two main themes, namely, divine sovereignty and
Christ's headship and absolute authority over his church. Christ's

headship over the State means He instituted offices such as king and

magistrates as well as ecclesiastical offices in the church, such as

ministers and elders, and then in proceeding to describe the officers

appointed by Christ for rule in his church. Therefore Christ rules his

office over the Church and State as the King and the only Head of his

Church and State, and the liberties and powers of the Church are derived
from Christ only. This manifesto became the cornerstone of the theology

of all Calvinists in Scotland with a high view of Scripture; their

beliefs and actions were justified from the Scriptures and thus the

Covenants were Scriptural. The stage was now set for a greater use of
the covenant concept within a political/religious context. In the next

chapter, we will consider the significance of the Solemn League and

Covenant of 1643 and the Westminster Assembly for the development of

covenant theology between 1643 and 1648.

-123-
 ENDNOTES
TO CHAPTERTWO

1. D. H. Pennington, Europe in the Seventeenth Century, London and New

York: Longman, 1989, pp. 210-211.

2. Donald MacLean, Aspects of Scottish Church History, Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1927, p. 37.

3. During the covenanting period from the 17th to the early 18th
century, the term "covenant" was used extensively by the Scottish
Presbyterians. In this period, covenanters or presbyterians were
terms used interchangably for their representatives.

4. "Kings were established by God, they sit on God's throne, they are
responsible to God alone". J. D. Douglas, Light in the North, The
Paternoster Press, 1964, pp. 13-14: Francis Lyall, "Metaphors, Legal
and Theological", Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 10.
No. 2., Winter 1992, pp. 94-112; James Dodds, The Fifty Years'
Struggle of the Scottish Covenanters 1638-1688, Edinburgh: Edmonston
and Douglas, 1860, pp. 1-10,15-18; James Cossar, Contending for the
Faith, The Annual Lecture of the Evangelical Library, 1959, pp. 4-5..

5. Augustine, The City of God, tran. Marcus Dods, Vol. II., in A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, ed. Phillip Schaff, grand Rapids, 1977.

6. Augustine, Ibid., pp. 205,282-283,285; J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right

of Kings, Cambridge, 1896, pp. 94-112; "The Great Leviathan",
Churches in the Modern State, London, 1913.

7. Quoted in Francis Lyall, Of Presbyters and Kings: Church and State in

the Law of Scotland, Aberdeen University Press, 1980, p. 3.

8. "The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent", 1563, in Vol. II of

The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Phillip Schaff, London, 1877, p. 189.
In ordination the authority or consent of the civil magistrate or the
people was not required. The Council of Trent first met in 1546 and
concluded in 1563. Cf. James L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial
Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries,
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1940, pp. 199-228.

9. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, London 1644, Harrisonburg, Virginia,

1982, pp. 1-3. Cf. 1. "What is warranted by the direction of nature's
light is warranted by the law of nature, and consequently by a divine
law; for who can deny the law of nature to be a divine law? and "All
civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, god
bath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed
by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man's nature:
so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2nd, God and nature
intendeth the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature
have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a
power of government". Cf. also 12,16.

10. Samuel Rutherford, Idid., p. 205.

11. Such as those practiced during the renaissance in the city of Rome.
-124-
12. Francis Lyall, op. cit., p. 5.

13. The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1585, pp. 17,
19; Thomas M'crie, The Life of Andrew Melville, Edinburgh: William
Blackwood and Sons, 1855,, pp. 92-128.

14. D. H. Pennington, op. cit., p. 213.

15. R. W.Dale, History of English Congregationalism, London: Hodder and

Stoughton, 1906, p. 265; James Moir Porteous, The Government of the
Kingdom of Christ, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter & CO., 1873, pp.
178-179.

16. Hobbes's full expression of absolute power is contented in his book

"Leviathan" (1651), which embodied in the absolute sovereign holding
office by divine right - jure divino. It insisted that this power is
free of the restraints of law - natural, positive and customary -
and Parliament, which received such stress from sixteenth century
English writers on polity. Hobbes empowers the sovereign to judge
what doctrines are to be taught its subjects and to appoint remarks
pastors: "Seeing then in every Christian commonwealth, the civil
sovereign is the supreme pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of
his subjects is committed, and consequently that it is by his
authority that all other pastors are made and have power to teach
and perform all other pastoral offices; it followeth also that it is
from' the civil sovereign that all other pastors derive their right
of teaching, preaching and other functions pertaining to that office
and that they are but his ministers ...
If a man therefore should ask
a pastor, in the execution of his office, as the chief priests and
elders of the people (Matt. 21: 23) asked our Saviour, "By what
authority doest thou these things and who gave thee this authority? "
he can make no other just answer but that he doth it by the
authority of the commonwealth, given him by the king, or assembly
that representeth it". "All pastors", Hobbes concludes, "except the
supreme, execute their charges in the right, that is, by the
authority of the civil sovereign, that is jure civili. But the king
and every other sovereign executeth his office of supreme pastor by
immediate authority from God, that it to say, in God's right or jure
divino". Bishops are - equally with civil servants - employed "on
his majesty's service". Thomas-Hobbes, Leviathan, London, 1962, pp.
375ff. Cf. Paul D. L. Avis, The Church in the Theology of the
Reformers, London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1981, pp. 142-143;
A. Taylor Imes, Church and State, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870, p.
189.

17. G. R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary,

Cambridge, 1972, p. 356. The Royal Supremacy, however, was opposed
both by catholics such as Thomas More and puritans such as
Cartwright precisely because it made a layman head of the Church. It
is interesting that Cartwright, who would only accept the Royal
Supremacy in a qualified sense, asserted that Old Testament kings
exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction not as kings but because they
were also prophets of God - or, if not prophets themselves, they
received a special commission through the prophets. Cf. Paul
D. L. Avis, op. cit.., pp. 136,151-163 and see A. F. Scott Pearson,
Church and State: Political Aspects of Sixteenth Century Puritanism,
Cambridge, 1928, p. 12.

-125-
18. Paul D. L. Avis, Ibid., pp. 72,136.
19. R. W.Dale, op. cit., pp. 107-111.
20. Patrick Gillespie, An Assertion of the Government of the Church of
Scotland, Edinburgh, 1641, p. 200.

21. Ibid., p. 27.

22. James Moir Porteous, op. cit., pp. 190-205; W.M. Hetherington,
History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, Edinburgh: John
Johnstone, 1843, pp. 199-200.

23. E. G. Matthews, The Savoy Declaration, Chap. xxvi.

24. See further details in 5.1.2.2 of Chapter Five, pp.

25. James Kirk, The Second Book of Discipline, The Saint Andrew Press,
Edinburgh, 1980, pp. 43-45; G. D. Henderson, The Claims of the Church
of Scotland, Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pp. 81-85.

26. James L. Ainslie, op. cit., pp. 91-123.

27. Beza's Icones, Contemporary Portraits of Reformers of Religion and
Letters, Int. C. G. M'CRIE, London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909,
pp. 3-32; Francis Coxon, Christian Worthies, Vol. II., Zoar
Publications, 1981, pp. 138-145; R. D. C. Robbins, "Life and Character
of Theodore Beza", Bibliotheca Sacra & Theological Review, Vol. 7.,
No. 7., Andover, 1850, pp. 501-533.

28. Jill Raitt, "Beza, Guide for the Faithful Life", Scottish Journal of
Theology, 1986, Vol. 39. pp. 83-107; and The Person of the mediator:
Calvin's Christoloty and Beza's Fidelity' in Occassional Papers of
the ASRR, 1, December, 1977, pp. 53-80; Michael Jinkins, "Theodore
Beza: Continuity and regression in the Reformed Tradition",
Evangelical Quarterly, ed. I. Howard Marshall, Vol. LXIV. No. 2.,
April, 1992. Cf. Ralph Keen, "The Limits of Power and Obedience in
the Later Calvin", Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 27., 1992, pp.
252-276.

29. Knox's Works, Vol. IV., p. 614. Cf. James L. Ainslie, op. cit., pp.
117-118; G. D. Henderson, Presbyterianism, Aberdeen, The University
Press, 1955, p. 42.

30. According to Beza's work it distinguishes three categories of

bishops - of God, of man and of the devil - and was commonly
referred to as his treatise "De Triplici Episcopatu", a survay of
the pretended holy discipline, 1593. The bishop of God (Divinus
Episcopatus), he argues, is simply the pastor or minister, divinely
instituted oversight, ie., presbyterianism. The bishop of man
(Humanus Episcopatus) is a pastor to whom is given certain power
over his fellows (with safeguards against tyranny). Such an office,
he was at pains to show, had no scriptural warrant, but was "brought
in-of man, by little and little... a privy custom". The bishop of the
devil (Satanus Episcpatus - the Roman hierarchy), again, "sprouted
forth of the corruption of the bishop brought in by man", arrogated
to himself sole authority over the clergy, invaded temporal dominion
and wasted the patrimony of the church. Such bishops are the image
-126-
 of the beast and their hierarchy an anti-Christian primacy. Cf.
Gordon Donaldson, "Lord Chancellor Glamis and Theodore Beza",
Scottish Church History, Scottish Academic Press, 1985, pp. 122-136;
Paul D. L. Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, London:
Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1981, pp. 123-124.

31. G. D. Henderson, op. cit., p. 45.

32. Ibid., p. 117.

33. Ibid., pp. 92-111.

34. A. F. Scott Pearson, Church and State: Political acpects of Sixteenth
Century Puritanism, Cambridge University Press, 1928, p. 87.

35. John S. Gray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination,

Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatoricca, Vol. 12., 1975, p. 9.
Beza's argument was taken further by Thomas Cartwright who claimed
that Scripture is prescriptive of every detail of Christian life
("The word of God containeth the direction of all things pertaining
to the Church, yea of whatsoever things can fall into any part of
man's life) and that discipline and government in the Church were
matters "of faith", pertaining to salvation. Albert Peel and Leland
H. Carlson (eds. ), Cartwrightiana, London: George Allen and Unwin
LTD., 1951, pp. 22-25,63-75. Cf. Paul D. L. Avis, op. cit., p. 124.

36. Knox's Works, Vol., IV, p. 240.

37. James Kirk, Patterns of Reform: Continuity and Change in the

Reformation Kirk, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1989, pp. 334-367.
Cf. J. H. S. Burleigh, "The Presbyter in Presbyterianism", Scottish
Journal of Theology, 1949, Vol. 2., pp. 293-309; "What is
Presbyterianism", 3The Evangelical Quarterly, 1951, Vol. 23., pp. 8-
18; Peter A. Lillback, "The Reformers' Rediscovery of Presbyterian
Polity", Pressing Toward the Mark, eds. Charles G. Dennison & Richard
C. Gamble, Philadelphia: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986, pp. 63-
81.

38. Knox's Works, Vol. III., pp. 190-191. Cf. James L. Ainslie, op. cit.,
pp. 117-118.
39. John Knox, "The Book of Discipline", The History of the Reformation
of religion in Scotland, ed. Cuthbert Lennox, London: Andrew
Melrose, 1905, p. 361; William Crift Dickinson, John Knox's History
of the Reformation in Scotland, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., London,
1949, Vol, II., p. 287.

40. Knox's Works, Vol. II., p. 118; William Crift Dickinson, Ibid., p.
271.

41. William Crift Dickinson, Ibid., p. 361. Cf. Robert M.Healey, "John
Knox's "History": A "Compleat" Sermon on Christian Duty", Church
History, Vol. 62, No. 3., 1992, pp. 319-333.

42. J. W.Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,

London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1941, p. 113.

-127-
43. John Knox, "The Book of Discipline", The History of the Reformation
of religion in Scotland, ed. Cuthbert Lennox, London: Andrew
Melrose, 1905, p. 401.

44. The First Book of Discipline, ed. James K. Cameron, The Saint Andrew
Preess, Edinburgh, 1972, p. 179; No Macnaughton Clark, A History of
Church Discipline in Scotland, Aberdeen, 1929, p. 56.

45. Knox's Works, Vol. III., pp. 190-191.

46. George R. Hewitt, Scotland under Morton 1572-1580, Edinburgh: John
Donald Publishers Ltd., 1982, pp. 19-22.

47. Alexander Taylor Innes, The Law of Creeds in Scotland, Edinburgh:

William Blackwood and Sons, 1867, pp. 30-36,49-50; John Lee,
Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh:
William Blackwood and Sons, 1860, Vol. I., pp. 307-309.

48. D. Hay Fleming, The Story of the Scottish Covenants in Outline,

Edinburgh, 1904, pp. 17-19.

49. David George Mullan, Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea

1560-1638, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1986, pp. 95-113.
50. David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, Edinburgh:
The Wodrow Society, 1844, Vol. V., pp. 162-170; W.M. Hetherington,
History of the Church of Scotland from the introduction of
Christianity to the Period of the Disruption. May 18.1843,
Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1843, pp. 176-178; James Rankin,
The Church of Scotland, Glasgow, Vol. II., p. 469.
51. James Kirk, The Second Book of Discipline, op. cit., pp. 146-151;
Gordon Donaldson, "Lord Chancellor Clamis and Theodore Beza", op.
cit., p. 122; James Dodds, The Fifty Years' Struggle of the Scottish
Covenanters 1638-1688, op. cit., pp. 11-13; Thomas M'crie, Life of
Andrew Melville, op. cit., pp. 56-61. Cf. G. D. Henderson, The Claims
of the Church of Scotland, Hodder and Stoughton, op. cit., pp. 9-10.

52. John Kennedy, Presbyterian Authority and Discipline, The Saint

Andrew Press, 1960, p. 44; George Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of
Scotland, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1861, Vol. II., pp. 217-
225.

53. Patrick Walker, Six Saints of the Covenant, Vol. I., p. 303; The
Autobiography and Diary of James Melville, Edinburgh: Wodrow
Society, 1842, pp. 370-371; Thomas M'crie, Life of Andrew Melville,
op. cit., p. 181.

54. Melville's Diary, Ibid., p. 371; Thomas M'crie, Life of Andrew

Melville, Ibid., pp. 181-182.
55. J. D. Douglas, op. cit., pp. 14-16; Cf. Gordon Donaldson, "Church and
Community", Scottish Church History, Scottish Academic Press, 1985,
pp. 232-238.
56. J. D. Douglas, Ibid., p. 13.

-128-
57. R. Buick Knox, "A Scottish Chapter in the History of Toleration",
Scottish Journal of Theology, 1988, Vol. 41., pp. 49-74; T. C. Smout,
A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, Collins/Fontana, 1973,
pp. 57-66; William Haller, Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan
Revolution, Columbia University Press, 1963, p. 104.

58. Moderate Covenanters who supported the Resolutions which rescinded

the exclusive policy of the Act of Classes of 23 January 1649. This
Act designed to exclude from office all but the most rigid
Covenanters. The leaders of the Resolutioners were David Dickson and
Robert Baillie. Gordon Doanldson and Robert S. Morpeth, A Dictionary
of Scottish History, Edinburgh: John Donald Purlishers Ltd., 1988,
p. 181.

59. Extreme Covenanters who protested against General Assemblies of 1650

and 1651 in which they were in a minority. The leaders of the
Protestors were James Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, Johnston of
Wariston and Samuel Rutherford. Ibid., p. 176.
60. John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh, 1887,
p. 66.

61. Ibid., p. 44; R. Buick Knox, "The Presbyterianism of Samuel

Rutherford", Irish Biblical Studies, Vol. 8., July 1986, pp. 143-
153.

62. Ibid., pp. 67-70; Thomas M'CRIE, The Storv of the Scottish Church
from the Reformation to the Disruption, London, 1875, p. 113-115;
J. H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, Oxford University
Press, 1960, chapter III.

63. J. D. Douglas, op. Cit., p. 23. James Cossar, Contending for the
Faith, op. cit., pp. 4-5..

64. Evidently the details of the Prayer Book were drawn up, not by Laud
himself, but as Burnet says, "all was managed by three or four
aspiring bishops, Maxwell, Sidserfe, Whitford, and Banautine, the
Bishops of Ross, Galloway, Dunblane, and Aberdeen". (Baillie calls
them the "Canterburian faction"). Even so, it is certain that Laud
at least approved the finished article. Robert Baillie's letters,
Vol. I., p. 162; Mathieson William Law, Politics and Religion in
Scotland 1550-1695, James Maclehose and Sons, 1902, Vol. I., p. 357;
Sheriff. R. L. Orr, Alexander Henderson - Churchman and Statesman,
Hodder and Stoughton, 1919, pp. 60,76-78; William D. Maxwell, A
History of Christian Worship: An Outline of Its Development and
Forms, Baker Book Hourse, Michigan, 1982, pp. 154-155.

65. F. N. McCOY, Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation,

University of California Press, London, 1974, pp. 27-45.

66. The Aberdeen Doctors were a group of six ministers who were
disciples of Bishop Patrick Forbes. They were John Forbes, the son
of Bishop Forbes and professor of theology at King's College,
Aberdeen, Robert Baron, professor of theology at Marischal College,
Aberdeen, William Leslie, the Principal of King's College, Alexander
Scroggie, the minister of St. Machar's Cathedral, Alexander Ross,
minister of St. Clement's Footdee, and James Sibbald, minister of
St. Nicholas in Aberdeen who had all received the degree of Doctor of
-129-
 Divinity at Aberdeen. They were men of learning, piety, loyalty to
principle, and devotion to the king. G. D. Henderson, "The Aberdeen
Doctors", The Burning Bush, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1957,
p. 75; Gordon's Scots Affairs 1637-1641, Second Book, Aberdeen,
1861, Vol. I., pp. 50,153-154, Vol. III., pp. 203-205,209-210;
David Stewart, The "Aberdeen Doctors" and the Covenanters, Th. M.,
thesis, Aberdeen University, 1978, p. 24.

67. G. D. Henderson, Ibid., p. 76. Cf. Yohahn Su, A Study of the Scottish
Covenanters on Church Government from 1638 to 1648, Th. M., thesis,
Aberdeen University, 1990, pp. 30-39,61-64,85-89,102-107.

68. Gordon's Scots Affairs, op. cit., pp. 87-90.

69. Ibid., pp. 87-90; John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland from
the year 1558 to August 1637, ed. John Row (his son), Edinburgh,
1867, pp. 496-497: Cf. David Stewart, op. cit., p. 121.
70. Maurice Lee, Jr, "Scotland and the 'General Crisis' of the
Seventeenth Century", Scottish Historical Review, Vol. LXIII., No.
176,1984, p. 147; James Dodds, The Fifty Years' Struggle of the
Scottish Covenanters 1638-1688, op. cit., pp. 22-32.
71. Maurice Lee, Ibid., p. 147; James Dodds, Ibid., pp. 33-37; Marcus
L. Loane, Makers of Religious Freedom, I. V. F. 1960, pp. 16-19.

72. Maurice Lee, Ibid., p. 151.

73. When he ascended the throne, he declared: "I will swear all the
covenants to keep". Charles II acknowledged that he had promised to
maintain the government of the church of Scotland as established by
law, but seeing that subsequently parliament had rescinded all acts
of pretended parliaments since the troubles began, he resolved after
reflection to restore the government of the church as it existed
before 1638. Charles's intention was to make Scotland Episcopalian
in religion and politically a mere dependency of England. He
favoured the Episcopal form as this was useful for his own position
as king.

74. Their successors under Charles II and James VII became the heroic
remnant of Covenanters which endured great hardships in "the Killing
Time".

75. Measures designed to conciliate Presbyterian dissidents in 1669,

1672,1679 and 1687: (1). ministers deprived in 1662 were allowed to
return to their parishes if they were vacant; (2). a number of
specified ministers were licensed to preach; (3). laws against those
frequenting conventicles were suspended, after Bothwell Bridge; (4).
James VII conceded a general toleration. R. Buick Knox,
"Establishment and Toleration during the Reigns of William, Mary and
Anne", p. 332.

76. The act imposed on all office-holders an oath adhering to the

Protestant religion as defined in the Confession of Faith of 1560
and accepting royal supremacy.

77. J. H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Hope Trust,

1983, p. 252.
-130-
78. He renewed his declaration that he had come to deliver the country
from despotism and popery, and that neither he nor the Princess Mary
purposed claiming the Crown, yet, William took the oath but with the
reservation that he would not bind himself to be a persecutor.
Ibid., p. 253.

79. Followers of Richard Cameron who rejected Revolution settlement of

Church and retained their identity to become the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, the majority of whose members joined the Free
Church in 1876, and leaving a continuing remnant. Gordon Doanldson
and Robert S. Morpeth, A Dictionary of Scottish History, Edinburgh:
John Donald Purlishers Ltd., 1988, p. 34.

80. This had already been stated in the Claim of Right: "Prelacy and the
superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters is and has
been a great and insupportable grievance to this nation and contrary
to the inclinations of the generality of the people, they having
reformed from Popery by presbyters, and ought to be abolished".
Ibid., p. 253.

81. Acts of the General Assembly, p. 231.

82. R. Wodrow, The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland,
Glasgow, 1828-30, Vol. I., p. 189; R. Buick Knox, op. cit., pp. 59-
60.

83. Hugh Watt, Recalling the Scottish Covenants, Edinburgh: Thomas

Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1946, p. 68.

84. The First Book of Discipline, ed. James K. Cameron, Edinburgh: The
Saint Andrew Press, 1972; The Second Book of Discipline, ed. James
Kirk, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1980.

85. John Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, Paisley: Alexander Gardner,

1914, p. 12; John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant,
Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887, pp. 23-27,48.

86. The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, The Wodrow Sosiety, 1848,
Vol. II., p. 128; Thomas M'CRIE, Sketches of Scottish Church
History, Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1841, Vol. I., p. 74; James
K. Cameron, "The Cologne Refornation and the Church of Scotland", The
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 30., 1979, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 42-43. The First Book of Discipline
was compiled by a group of Reformers and addressed to the Great
Council of Scotland on May 1560. The authors of the First Book of
Discipline were six ministers who were commissioned in April 1560
but their names have not been recorded in any of the surviving
documents. They must, however, according to J. K. Cameron, have been
drawn from those who had accompanied the Lords of the Congregation
in their recent campaign. Of these reformers John Knox and John
willock were the most prominent; John Spottiswoode and John Row may
also have been present, but there is no certainty concerning the
presence of John Douglas and John Winram from St. Andrews. All six
'Johns' contributed to a volume on the policy and Discipline of the
Church. W.C. Dickinson, Knox's History of the Reformation in
Scotland, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1949, p. 343; H. S. N. McFARLAND, The
Book of Discipline, Aberdeen University Press, 1959-1960, vol. 38.,
p. 246; G. D. Henderson, The Burning Bush, The Saint Andrew Press,
-131-
 Edinburgh, 1957, p. 42,49; Robert Herbert Story(ed. ), The Church of
Scotland: Past and Present, London: William Mackenzie, Vol. II., p.
437; J. H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Hope
Trust, 1983, pp. 163-164; Francis Lyall, Of Presbyters and Kings:
Church & State in the Law of Scotland, Averdeen University Press,
1980, p. 14; Janet G. Macgregpr, The Scottish Presbyterian Polity,
Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh: Tweeddale Court, 1926, pp. 25,31-37.

87. James K. Cameron, "The Cologne Reformation and the Church of

Scotland", p. 42.

88. R. Buick Knox, "A Scottish Chapter in the History of Toleration",

Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 4., pp. 51-52.

89. John Knox, op. cit., p. 363.

90. James K. Cameron(ed)., The First Book of Discipline, op. cit.;, p.

182; George Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1861, Vol. II., pp. 93-99.

91. Ibid., p. 15; James K. Cameron, "The Cologne Reformation and the
Church of Scotland", op. cit., p. 55; J. H. S. Burleigh, op. cit.,
p. 166.

92. John Knox, op. cit., p. 401; Thomas M'CRIE, Ibid., p. 75.
93. John Knox, op. cit., p. 361; William Crift Dickinson, John Knox's
History, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd. London, 1949, Vol. II., p. 287.
94. Knox' Works, Vol. II., p. 118; William Crift Dickinson, Ibid., p.
271.

95. Knox's History, op. cit., p. 361.

96. No Macnaughton Clark, A History of Church Discipline in Scotland,
Aberdeen, 1929, p. 56.

97. John Beveridge, op. cit., pp. 12-13; N. L. Walker, Scottish Church
History, T&T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1882, p. 41; William Law
Mathieson, Politics and Religion, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons,
Vol. I., p. 289.

98. James Kirk(ed), The Second Book of Discipline, Edinburgh: The Saint
Andrew Press, 1980: The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,
Philadelphia, Vol. 10., 1938; Pearson Madam Muir, The Church of
Scotland, London, 1907, pp. 36-37.

99. Elizabeth Whitley, The Two Kingdoms, The Scottish Reformation

Society, 1977, pp. 1-8; Francis Lyall, op. cit., p. 17; John
Kennedy, Presbyterian Authority and Discipline, The Saint Andrew
Press, 1960, p. 44; George Grub, op. cit., Vol. II., pp. 217-225.

100. James Kirk, op. cit.. Chapter ix, 9, pp. 210-211.

101. George Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Edinburgh:

Edmonston and Douglas, 1861, Vol. III., p. 2.
102. Hugh Watt, Recalling the Scottish Covenants, London: Thomas Nelson
and Sons Limited, 1946, pp. 14-15.
-132-
103. It was drawn up by John Craig and signed by King James and his
household, originally intended as a sort of supplement to the
Confession of 1560, and even more explicitly listing and abjuring
the errors of Rome. It was called the Negative Confession to
distinguish it from Knox's Confession of 1560, which was
affirmative in its form, and was adopted as a mode of preventing
defection by a solemn renunciation of Popery. John C. Johnston,
Ibid., p. 48.

104. John Lumsden, op. cit., p. 228.

105. Ibid., p. 228

106. Ibid., pp. 108-109.

107. The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 will be discussed in more
detail in the next chapter in relation to the Westminster
Confession of Faith.

108. Records of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Alexander Peterkin, Edinburgh:

Peter Brown, 1863, p. 232.

109. Ibid., p. 232.

110. Ibid., p. 233.

111. Ibid., p. 238.

112. Ibid., p. 238.

113. Robert Herbert Story, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 501.

114. John Cunningham, The Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Adam
and Charles Black, 1859, Vol. II., p. 85.

115. Hugh Watt, op. Cit., pp. 95-105.

116. George Grub suggested that the National Covenant was formally
condemned by the Universities of St. Andrews and Aberdeen. In order
to gain support, the Tables sent several commissioners, among whom
were the Earl of Montrose, the Lord Cupar, the Master of Forbes,
Sir Thomas Burnet of Leys, and three covenant ministers, Henderson,
Dickson, and Cant. These commisioners came to Aberdeen on Friday,
20th of July. George Grub, op. cit., pp. 3,12-13; See David
Stevenson, The Covenanters: The National Covenant and Scotland, The
Saltire Society, 1988, p. 2; John Macpherson, op. cit., p. 188.

117. Born Creich (Fife); minister of Leuchars 1612; one of the authors
of the National Covenant and moderator of the Glasgow Assembly 1638
who was involved in subsequent negotiations with Charles I. He was
also a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly 1643-1647.
118. Alexander Henderson, Reformation of Church-Government in Scotland,
cleared from some mistakes and preiudices, by the Commissioners of
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, London, 1644, P. 2.

119. Ibid., p. 3.

-133-
120. Ibid., p. 3.
121. Ibid., p. 4.

122. Ibid., p. 4.

123. Ibid., p. 5.

124. Ibid., pp. 5-6.

125. Ibid., pp. 10-11.

126. Ibid., p. 12.

127. Ibid., p. 12.

128. Ibid., p. 13.

129. Ibid., pp. 13-17.

130. Ibid., p. 20.

131. Ibid., p. 21.

132. Ibid., pp. 22-23.

133. Ibid., p. 24.

134. Beillie's criticism on the Independents or Sectarians can be seen

further detail in appendix III on "Dissuasive from the Errors of
the Time".

135. Alexander Henderson, op. cit., p. 54.

136. Born in Glasgow; minister of Kilwinning 1631; reluctantly accepted

anti-episcopal policy of Covenanters 1638; he wrote works against
Charles I's policy, including Letters and Journals. He worked as
professor and principal at Glasgow University 1642 and 1660. He was
one of the commissioners at Westminster Assembly 1643-1647.

137. Robert Baillie, An Historical Vindication of the Government of

Church of Scotland: From the manifold base calumnies which the most
Malignant of the Prelats did invent of old, and now lately have
been published with great industry in two Pamphlets at London,
Samuel Gellibrand, London, 1646, p. 2.

138. Quoted in Ibid., pp. 4-5.

139. Ibid., pp. 12-13. Cf. Iain Murray, "Ruling Elders -A Sketch of a
Controversy", The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, April. No.
235., 1983, pp. 1-9.

140. Ibid., pp. 14-20.

141. Ibid., p. 21.
142. Ibid., pp. 22-27.

-134-
143. Ibid., pp. 28.
144. Ibid., pp. 32-33.

145. Ibid., p. 33.

146. Ibid., p. 34.

147. Ibid., p. 34; Baillie, Letters, Vol. II., pp. 385-386; F. N. McCoy,
op. cit., pp. 108-110.

148. See chapter three of this dissertation.

149. Robert Baillie, The Unlawfulnesse and Danger of Limited

Episcopacie Whereunto is Subioyned a Short Reply to the Modest
Advertiser and Calme Examinator of that Treatise. As also the
Question of Episcopacie Discussed from Scripture and the Fathers,
London, 1641, P. 15; Jack Bartlett Rogers, Scriptures in the
Westminster Confession, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967, p. 349.

150. Bobert Baillie, The Life of William Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury,

examined, London, 1643, p. 64.

151. Ibid., p. 64.

152. Ibid., pp. 65,66-67.

153. Ibid., p. 67.

-135-
 PART TWO: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

AND THE CHANGINGTHEOLOGICALEMPHASISFROM1643 TO 1723

 CHAPTERTHREE

THE SOLEMNLEAGUEAND COVENANT

OF 1643 AND THE WESTMINSTER

ASSEMBLYFROM1643 TO 1648

In the previous chapter we saw how the Covenanters' manifesto on

Covenant thought in relation to church polity highlighted fundamental

political and religious issues existing between the Covenanters and the

kings in the Scottish Church. During the period from 1643 to 1648, the

struggles between the Covenanters and the State were largely concerned

with church polity and the principal doctrines of covenant thought which

were becoming more prominent during the period.

In the struggle with the king, the Covenanters formed an alliance

with the English Parliamentarians. Scotland supported England in her

battle against royal oppression, and the two kingdoms became more united
in sentiment and religion. This alliance took the form of the Solemn

League and Covenant of 1643 by which Presbyterianism was to be

established in England and Ireland and maintained in Scotland. Prelacy

in these countries had become synonymous with tyranny, and now that

Parliament had defied the King, many Puritans were prepared to adopt

Presbyterianism and form a union with Scotland.

-136-
 The term Presbyterianism is not found in the Solemn League and

Covenant, but there is no doubt what the Scotsmen had in mind. For them,

reforming the church meant establishing their Presbyterian form of

church government. Indeed, it is strange that the English church leaders

did not realize this.

However, they agreed to the Solemn League and Covenant. For the

Covenanters, this new order of church government could be established

"according to the best reformed churches". 1 Therefore, the Covenanters

harboured no doubts that the government would copy their own

presbyterian polity which they conceived to be "Jure Divino" (Divine

Right). As a consequence, eight Scottish Commissioners2 went to London

to attend the Westminster Assembly of divines which had been set up by

the English Parliament.

During the Westminster Assembly in London, the Scottish Covenanters

contributed significantly to the formation of the Westminster documents

and had an influence far beyond what their small number might suggest.
Therefore, the idea of the Divine Right of Presbytery, that is, their

understanding of the authority of Christ in the church, "was well argued

in the documents. This was one of the central doctrines for the Scottish

Covenanters and they were intolerant of other opinions and parties such

as English Independents, Anabaptists, Brownists, and Episcopalians. They

argued against Episcopalians and English Independent Puritans on issues

of church polity.

The idea of the covenants, in particular, was at the heart of the

controversy over church polity; it became the key issue of the Scottish

covenanting movement throughout this period and was the subject of

political as well as religious debate. Alexander Henderson, Robert

Baillie, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie helped make the

standards adopted by the Westminster Assembly acceptable to the General

-137-
Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This chapter will examine the

development of the Covenanters' thought from the Solemn League and

Covenant of 1643 to the Westminster Assembly of 1643-1648; in addition,

we will trace how covenant thought developed in Scotland through the

Westminster Documents.

3.1/ The Solemn League and Covenant of 1643.

3.1.1/ Its Historical Background.

After the successful meeting of the Glasgow General Assembly in

1638, the relationship between the Covenanters and the State was not at

all harmonious. In 1641, the King raised an army to crush the

Covenanters.

The Covenanters had no alternative but to take up arms to defend

their rights. The Covenanters armies met at Dunse Law; as his army was
ill trained, ill paid and, therefore, unreliable, Charles thought it

best to negotiate. 3 The negotiations ended with the granting of

permission for the Covenanters to meet in a free Assembly. The armies

then parted without bloodshed. This was, as George Grub points out,
"quite an astonishing victory for the Covenanters". 4

In the meantime, disaffection over this affair was spreading in

England and the English Parliament, for example, challenged the

despotism of Charles I. In response to this, Charles himself declared

war in August 1642. The English Parliament sought the assistance of the

Scottish Covenanters, as a necessary step in preserving the liberties of

both kingdoms. The English would have preferred a political alliance,
but the Scots would not agree to anything but a religious covenant. 5
Circumstances thus compelled the Covenanters and the English Puritans to

-138-
join forces at this time.

It was during this period that the vision of uniformity manifested

itself in the minds of the Covenanters and they proceeded with caution

and consideration "to attain this end". 6 A petition was sent to the

King from the General Assembly of 1642 urging him to "establish

throughout all his dominions the unity of religion and uniformity of

Church government... as serving most for the glory of Christ, his own

honour, and the good of religion". 7 As the Covenanters had succeeded in

establishing such a system of church government in Scotland, they

concluded that it would be equally beneficial for England. However,

England only wanted a military treaty. As its name indicates, though, it

was a civil treaty as well as a religious covenant. It was to be

solemnly entered upon in the presence of God by individuals of all

classes.

Importantly, it should be noted that before 1643, English reformers

had not used the idea of the covenant as the basis of political reform.

The English government had until this time been reformed internally

largely by means of economic pressure on the monarchs by successive

parliaments, as for example, when Charles I forcefully petitioned for

money to support this campaign against the Scottish army, Parliament

rejected his petition.

In June 1643, both houses at Westminster engaged themselves in a

covenant to support the parliamentary army which had been raised against

the king. This step followed on the heel of news from Ireland which

indicated that Charles was in communication with the Irish rebels. 8 In

August 1643, the Commissioners from the English Long Parliament (from

November 1640 to 1648) came to Scotland. At that time the English

Parliament was in conflict with the King on religious as well as

political and social grounds and it regarded the invading Scottish army

-139-
as an ally.

English Commissioners9 proposed the formation of a solemn bond of

union between the three kingdoms, as the only means for common

deliverance, preservation, and safety. But, when the General Assembly

met in St. Giles Church in Edinburgh on August 17,1643, the Moderator,

Alexander Henderson, moved that the bond should be not only a civil

League but also a religious covenant. 10 The English were reminded that

for "the peace of these Kirks and Kingdoms", their desire was "that

there might be in both Kirks one Confession, one Directory for public

worship, one Catechism, and one form of Church government".

On August 28,1643 the "Solemn League and Covenant" was drawn up

for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the

King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms Scotland,
of
England, and Ireland". 11 It was recommended to the Westminster Assembly

for their advice. The Solemn League Covenant

and moved beyond any

pretence of upholding the rights of Scotland as established by the

framework of previous covenants. It was passed by the Scottish

Parliament, but neither the rights of the kirk nor the political rights

of the three estates were being threatened by the Crown. Under the

Solemn League and Covenant, the Churches of England and Ireland were to

be reformed in doctrine, discipline, worship and government, according

to the Word of God.

3.1.2/ Its Relationship to the National Covenant of 1638.

As many have agreed, the wording of the Solemn League and Covenant

was more aggressive than that of the previous covenant, with which it is

often confused. It is true, as Sheriff Orr has said, that "the Solemn

League and Covenant is a shorter document than the National Covenant of

-140-
1638, and lacks its grave and sustained dignity of language, but it is a

more remarkable instrument and had very different historical results". 12

The Solemn League and Covenant was influenced by the National Covenant,

as much as the National Covenant was affected by the Negative Confession

of 1581.

These Covenanting documents are closely related to one another. On

the one hand, in the words of C. J. Guthrie, "the two Covenants (the

National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant), stood against

autocracy on the same basis, for democratic principles of civil and

religious liberty". 13 On the other hand, the one was national, drawn up

by two men (Alexander Henderson and Johnston of Wariston)-, and was

framed to unite Scotland against the attempt of Charles I to force

episcopacy on Scotland, while the other covenant was international,

drawn up by one man (Alexander Henderson), and declared that they had

before their eyes "the true public liberty, safety and peace of the

Kingdoms, wherein every one's private condition is included". 14

In fact, the National Covenant was drawn up to defend the Scottish

people against the wishes of the King, whereas the Solemn League and

Covenant was designed to unite Scotland and England against Royalist

assaults on the civil and religious liberty of both kingdoms. It also

aimed at "the extirpation of popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy,

schism... "15 The earlier covenant exercised a profound influence on the

latter in its political and theological contexts. Soon afterwards, it

was sworn and subscribed to in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, by the

Lords and Commons in both Parliaments, and also by the General Assembly

of the Church of Scotland and the Westminster Assembly which had then

begun its settings.

3.1.3/ Its Content and Theology.

-141-
 The Solemn League and Covenant has six main parts. including

introductory and concluding statements. Its purpose, according to its

title, was threefold. First, the Covenanters sought religious

reformation and unity, calling for "the extirpation of episcopacy in

England and popery in Ireland for the bringing of the Churches of God in

the three kingdoms that the providence of God, living under one King,

and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of

God, and the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus

Christ". Secondly, the stated concern for "the honour and happiness of

the King's Majesty and his posterity indicated the desire for

accommodation of political unification and the true public liberty... and

practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors

thereof in all places... "16 Finally, as a result of these reforms, the

Covenant expressed hope for the continued safety and peace of the three

kingdoms.

In the prologue, all classes of society are named in this pledge

for the reformed faith. The unity between England and Scotland, made

possible by the consolidation of the two kingdoms under the Stuart

monarchs and by commitment to Protestantism, called for expanded co-

operation. The proposals for religious unity, however, ignored the

serious nature of the civil conflict between the king and the

Westminster Parliament as well as the continued exclusion of the Roman

Catholic population in all three countries. In fact, the continued

practice of Catholicism and the use of episcopacy for church government

in the English State Church depended upon a hierarchy of prelates

providing a primary impetus for establishing this covenant. According to

the prologue, the threat to "the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord

and Saviour Jesus Christ" (a possible reference to the Covenanter

concept of a Scottish theocracy), 17 the honour and happiness of the king

-142-
and to public liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms came from the

"enemies" of God. These "enemies" had caused the current "deplorable"

condition of the Church of England and impeded the well-being of the

Church of Scotland.

Moreover, the prologue appealed to puritan disappointment in not

achieving a proper reformation through the use of "supplication,

remonstrance, protestations and sufferings". To enter into the League

and Covenant therefore showed a unified front of both Scots and English

which strengthened the attempt to achieve reformation. Consequently, the

Scottish covenant idea as a form of protest against the existing

political authority was adopted. The prologue concluded with an appeal

to divine aid and thus prepared the background, and necessity, for the

six specific articles calling for action.

Despite the Westminster Parliament's pressing need for troop

reinforcements, paragraph I of the Covenant was devoted to the current

state of the churches. In this first head, any question concerning the

course of the proposed reformation was clearly answered. The reformed

religion as established by the Church of Scotland was to be preserved

intact. Furthermore, religion in England and in Ireland was to be

reshaped with particular stress on the grace of God, the preservation of

the reformed religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and form of

Church government against its common enemies in the three Kingdoms. A

particular emphasis was that this covenant has been derived from the

Word of God, and the example of the best reformed, Churches, 18 for

example, Frankfurt, Zürich and Geneva, which presumed a Presbyterian

Scotland.

In paragraph II, it followed the National Covenant in its rejection

of the episcopal system of government and the names of the office

bearers in "Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresie, Schisme and

-143-
Prophaneness". In fact, the parenthetical section of head II defined

prelacy in terms equating it to the government of the Church of England.

Superstition, a general term of contempt, included a variety of

religious acts and practices ranging from kneeling at the rail for the

communion sacrament to the general puritan abhorrence of witchcraft. The

concern was with heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever was found

to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness. 19

In paragraph III, there is a marked transition from the theme of

church reform to the necessity for political unity within the framework

of a parliamentary monarchy. Here we find a well-balanced description

of the liberties of the Kingdoms with a defence of the King's person and

his authority to preserve and defend the true religion and liberties of

the Kingdoms:

"We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our
several Vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives, mutually
to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliaments, and the
liberties of the Kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's
Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of
the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms, that the world
may bear witness with our consciences of our Loyalty". 20

The war between Charles and the Westminster Parliament caused moderates

both in England and in Scotland to favour any move which would produce a

peaceful settlement while effectively limiting the king's power. This

head concludes, therefore, with the plea "that we have no thoughts or

intentions to diminish His Majesties just power or greatnesse". Since

Scotland had entered the war against the monarchy without any immediate

provocation, she justified her position by showing that the king had

overstepped his lawful powers and had thus offended all of his subjects.
Paragraph IV addresses active resistance to the monarch. Had the

king been inadequately advised or adversely influenced? The wording of

-144-
Article IV seems to indicate that the king was not totally responsible

for the civil conflict. Both Scottish Presbyterians and English

Puritans, having suffered under Laud's heavy handed religious rule,

described the king's representatives as "Incendiaries, malignants, or

evill instruments. " Head IV threatened this class with punishment by the

highest courts of both kingdoms for their role in "hindering the

Reformation of Religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of

the Kingdoms from another". Furthermore, action was also promised

against all those who would in the future, make factions among the

people "contrary to this League and Covenant". The covenanting faction

seemed well aware that approval of this covenant would not automatically

bring the vast majority of people flocking to ratify its terms.

Paragraphs V and VI are inseparable since a similar subject matter

is addressed by both. They stress the unity of the community, the so-

called, League and Covenant, and recall the good providence of God

granted to them. They swear to seek out, and bring to trial, "all

incendiaries, malignants and evil instruments who hinder the reformation

of religion, or divide the king from his people or one kingdom from

another". All classes of society were encouraged accordingly to assist

and to defend all others who, having entered into the Covenant, might by

"permission or terrour" be diverted from the goals of religious and

political reformation. Paragraph VI emphasises "the peaceful settlement

of their life promises in this common cause of religion, liberty, and

peace of the Kingdoms, and to assist and defend all those that enter

into this League and Covenant".

In conclusion, it states plainly why this covenant has to be

proclaimed:

"... And because these Kingdoms are guilty of many sins and
provocations against God, and his Son, Jesus Christ, as is too
-145-
 manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits theirof,
We profess and declare before God and the world, our unfeigned
desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these
Kingdoms... And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty
God-, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform
the same... deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement
to the Christian Churches groaning under, or in danger of the yoke
of Anti-Christian Tyranny; to join in the same, or like Association
and Covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement of the Kingdom
of Jesus Christ, and the peace and Tranquillity of Christian
Kingdoms and Commonwealths". 21

The Covenant consisted in an oath to be subscribed to by all persons in

both kingdoms, whereby they bound themselves to preserve the reformed

religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and

government, according to the Word of God and the practice of the best

reformed churches. It represents an attempt to enforce a standardised

church government upon groups spawned by the Reformation. The Covenant

also shows evidence of the Covenanting Party's hope of establishing a

national theocracy throughout Britain.

As a result, the Covenant affected the lives and attitudes of the

leaders of church and state in England; it also touched the lives of

many of the common people who were caught up in the conflict between

king and parliament. 22 In the parliament, for example, the questions

raised by the Covenant's articles brought the problem of church

government and discipline to the foreground of political debate. At the

same time among royalists, the terms of the Covenant provided a ready

reference point concerning the aims of the parliamentary faction in

relationship to the monarchy and the established church government.

Moreover, for a vast number of persons residing in counties under

parliamentary control, and especially for the officers and soldiers of

the parliamentary army, the Covenant came to be viewed as a political
test of loyalty to the parliament. In addition, it also came to be

viewed as a test of the king's loyalty to the defence of true religion,

-146-
his subjects and their liberty which they could enjoy.

3.2/ The Westminster Assembly from 1643 to 1648.

3.2.1/ A Brief History of the Westminster Assembly.

3.2.1.1/ Its Ecclesiastical and Political Outlook.

By command of the Long Parliament, a number of English divines were

summoned to meet at Westminster,. "for the settling of the government and

liturgy of the Church of England, and for vindicating and clearing of

the doctrine of the said Church from false parts and interpretations

from the Thirty-Nine Articles which had any possibility of Arminian,

Pelagian, or Roman Catholic influence". 23

In January, 1643, Parliament abolished what it termed "prelacy".

the existing episcopal government of the Church of England, but no other,

constituted church system had yet taken its place. 24 R. H. Nichols

suggests that "parliament desired to clear the ground for further Church

reform, unprejudiced by the dominance of the bishops in the House of

Lords" for progress to be made. 25 Parliament, therefore, decided that

the Assembly should be composed not only of theologians but also of

selected members of the Lords and Commons.,

The Assembly began its deliberations on the Ist of July 1643, as

had been decided, on the 12th of June 164326 of the same year, with a

sermon from John 14: 18 by the Prolocutor, William Twisse. Parliament

was faring badly in its war with the King during that summer of 1643 and
it needed the support of Scotland. As we have seen, both parties agreed
to sign the Solemn League and Covenant for the safety of their two

countries. As a result of the agreement, the "Solemn League and

-147-
Covenant" was approved by the Scottish Parliament on August 17, and on

September 22 it was approved by the English Parliament. On September 25,

1643,228 members of the Westminster Assembly and the House of Commons,

both Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, including Scottish

Commissioners, 27 and subscribed to the Solemn League and Covenant at

St. Margaret's Church, Westminster.

The Assembly then turned its attention to church government. It had

to develop the doctrine of the church, and in doing so work also for a

unified society.

3.2.1.2/ Its Organization and Membership.

It is important to note that the Assembly was not an ecclesiastical

court; rather, it was appointed by Parliament. Its purpose was not to

act in the name of the church and exercise directly judicial functions.

The Assembly was called together in a case of extreme emergency to

advise Parliament on church government, and to draft a confession of

faith, a catechism and a directory for public worship which required the

sanction of civil authority for their implementation. The members were

all appointed by Parliament. 28 They were to represent the counties, the

universities, and Parliament itself.

Its membership consisted of a hundred and twenty-one divines and

thirty lay assessors. Except for the Scottish lay commissioners, 29 the

lay members of the Assembly attended as members of Parliament, not as

church officers. A. A. Hodge describes the persons who were to constitute

this Assembly as "the flower of the Church of that age". 30 He points

out that "the Ordinance for calling the Assembly included ten members of

the House of Lords, twenty members of the House of Commons as lay-

members, and 121 divines. Subsequent appointments were made to fill

-148-
vacancies". 31

At first the Assembly met in Henry VII's Chapel. But with the cold

weather setting in, - they went on October 2 to the Jerusalem Chamber,

where they had a comfortable fire. The Assembly included champions of

various forms of ecclesiastical polity, but not Archbishop Laud's party

because that group was regarded as the cause of the troubles. Moreover,

the latter would not have come. Those who did attend included Erastians,

Episcopalians, Independents, Presbyterians, and the Scottish

Commissioners. 32 The prohibition of the King and the imposition of the

Covenant caused some who came at the beginning to absent themselves from

later sessions. 33 The Erastians in the Assembly were few in number but

formidable in point of learning and ability. Their chief speakers were

John Lightfoot, Thomas Coleman, and a layman, John Selden who was a

scholar famous for his table talk.

The Independents, at first only five in number, 34 afterwards

increased to about a dozen divines. They were able, learned, and

enthusiastic in their opinions. They had already begun to acquire an

ascendancy in the army. Their principal leaders were Thomas Goodwin,

Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, and Sydrach Simpson.

They resisted at every turn the Presbyterian doctrines regarding ruling

elders, ordination, and the jurisdiction of presbyteries.

The Presbyterians formed the vast majority of the Assembly, and
Baillie claimed that they formed a majority of the English nation. They

were, however, divided into two classes: those who maintained Presbytery

as of divine right, and those who maintained it as simply useful and

expedient. Among the former were the Scottish Commissioners to the

Assembly35 and among the latter was Dr. Edward Reynolds, afterwards

Bishop of Norwich, and author of the General Thanksgiving in the Book of

Common Prayer.

-149-
 Assembly members were divided into three grand committees to work

on revising the Thirty-nine Articles. They were divided according to

the order in which their names stood in the ordinance of Parliament

calling the Assembly. The work of the Assembly was delegated first to a

Drafting Committee, then to three sub-committees. The Assembly was

convened for the first time on Saturday, July 1,1643, and it continued

to hold regular meetings till February 22,1649. It continued to meet

occasionally until March 25,1652, when Cromwell forcibly dissolved the

Long Parliament, and completely destroyed everything which it had

brought into existence. The number of sessions held by the Westminster

Assembly was 1163, and the period of its duration five years, - six

months, and twenty one days. 36

3.2.1.3/ Its Important Theological Issues.

There is no indication that the members of the Assembly were put

under any political pressure concerning the dominant theological issues

yet they were not indifferent to the political and social crises. What

it meant was that church government and worship were the important

theological issues of the period. The office of ruling elder as known

in the Church of Scotland was strenuously opposed, but finally allowed.

According to John Cunningham, "the Scotch commissioners expounded their

fourfold gradation - the classical, congregational, provincial, and

national, citing scripture for each". 37 He says that "the Independents

fought hard and managed to protract the debates, but they lost

ground". 38

During the Westminster Assembly, "the four points of uniformity".

or four things mentioned under the Covenant thought were discussed, i. e.

the Directory for Public Worship, the Confession of Faith, the Larger

-150-
and the Shorter Catechisms, and the Form of Presbyterial Church

Government. 39 The Confession, ratified by the Estates of Parliament,

became the official doctrinal standard in Scotland. The responsibility

of the Assembly became international in the sense that Scotland was now

joined to it. This was brought about by the Scottish Covenanters. The

Scots who were so influential in the Assembly were not members of it,

but commissioners under the treaty from their national church. The

Solemn League and Covenant was a formal treaty between two separate

nations. By it, the Assembly was bound to prepare a church constitution

which would secure uniformity in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Within this historical and theological framework, we will be able

to see how the ideas of the Scottish Covenanters were incorporated into

the Westminster documents as a result of the doctrinal debates during

the Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession became the

Confession of the Church of Scotland, but not of the Churches in

England, despite it being largely an English composition with strong

Scottish influence. Turning to the Westminster documents. we find that

they set out the ideas of the Scottish Covenanters.

3.2.2/ Theological Controversy in the Westminster Assembly.

3.2.2.1/ The Directory for the Public Worship of God.

According to the Preface of the Directory, God "vouchsafes to his

people more and better means for the discovery of error and

superstition, and for attaining of knowledge in the mysteries of

godliness, and gifts in preaching and prayer". 40 Therefore "we may in

some measure answer the gracious providence of God, which at this time

calls upon us for further reformation, and may satisfy our own

-151-
consciences, and answer the expectation of other reformed churches...

public testimony of our endeavours for uniformity in divine worship

which we have promised in our Solemn League and Covenant we have,

...

after earnest and frequent calling upon the name of God, and after much

consultation, not with flesh and blood, but with his holy word, resolved

to lay aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies

formerly used in the worship of God". 41

Upon this basis the Directory concentrated its attack upon the

system of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the doctrine of the mass. The

reasons were that (1) Roman ecclesiology was not justified in Scripture

and (2) that the doctrine of the mass undermined central Gospel truths

such as the atonement and its sufficiency and finality. The Westminster

Assembly also regarded as unacceptable the Church of England liturgy so,

in drafting the Directory, the divines departed from it. The Directory

for Public Worship provided a trustworthy guide to the ministers in

carrying out their duties; it also reflects the influence of the Scots

who were accustomed to a Book of Common Order rather than a Book of

Common Prayer. -

Turning to the document itself, we find that it consists of two

main parts, namely, Public Worship and the Administration of the

Sacraments. The former is described as "the Assembling of the

Congregation, and their Behaviour in the Public Worship of God, of

Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures, of Public Prayer before the

Sermon, and of the Preaching of the Word and of Prayer after Sermon". 42

The latter covers the following subjects: "Of Baptism, of the

Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, of the

Sanctification of the Lord's Day, the Solemnization of Marriage,

Concerning Visitation of the Sick, Concerning Burial of the Dead,

Concerning Public solemn Fasting, and Concerning the Observation of days

-152-
of Public Thanksgiving and of Singing of Psalms". 43
The whole work exalts the supreme authority of the Word of God and

stresses the profit to be derived from hearing the Bible (which was once

a sealed book) read in their own language. The Directory supplies

guidelines for worship to replace the set forms of the Book of Common

Prayer, and it was completed before the issues of government and

discipline were settled. f

3.2.2.2/ The Form of Church Government and the Ordination of Ministers.

There was considerable discussion on the various points on which

the English Independents and Erastians differed from the Presbyterians

regarding church government and the ordination of ministers. There was

also much opposition to the authority which the Scots claimed for ruling

elders. It was with great difficulty that the Presbyterians succeeded,

in the face of opposition from the Independents, in carrying the point

that no single congregation had the power of ordination. In fact, it was

one of the most hotly disputed subjects which the Assembly had to

consider.

(i). Background to the Debates. In the debate on ordination held

on 25 January 1644, John Selden caused considerable consternation by

declaring that "the power of the bishops to ordain had never been taken

away from the Church of England; for the laws governing ordination had

never been repealed and therefore were part of those laws which the

Solemn League and Covenant had sworn to uphold".

Selden's speech, while it infuriated the Scots, may have been of

some comfort to the English Presbyterians, who were sensitive about

their episcopal ordination. The fact that the Independent ministers,

-153-
most of whom had been ordained by bishops, believed that the power of

ordination lay in the congregation helps to explain this sensitivity.

During the debate, Phillip Nye, one of the most aggressive Independents,

declared that his ordination by a bishop was valid. 44 Against Nye's

speech, Gillespie gives all the names of members who were ordained

"under the Prelacy" attending the Westminster Assembly. 45

Another factor which aroused public opinion against the bishops was

the kind of inflammatory sermons which ordinary church ministers

themselves had preached. They claimed that the more radical sectaries

were saying that episcopal ordination was sinful.

All were agreed that a new form of ordination was needed, but the

difficulty of deciding what this form should be led to some sharp

debates. The result was that the differences within the Assembly became

more marked.
The Independents and the Scots commissioners agreed that ordination

should be for a particular church, or congregation, according to their

doctrinal standards. They disagreed, however, about ordination itself,

whether it should be by a presbytery, as in the Scottish church, or by

the congregation of which the ordinand was to be pastor, as the

Independents held.

The Independents, who realized that this ordination was an attempt

by the majority of the Assembly to check them (Presbyterian and other

sectarians, such as the Quakers), protested against this motion of the

Assembly.

The Independents repudiated presbyteries, synods, and assemblies,

and shocked the Scottish commissioners by talking of receiving the

sacrament of the Supper in their pews, of preaching with their hats on,

and of extending liberty of conscience to all. Gillespie, however,

objected to this clause'on the grounds that "the interpretation should

-154-
be that 'caeteris paribus', i. e. ordination by a bishop did not bar a

man from the ministry". As a result, it became one of the most disputed

subjects in the Assembly between the Scottish Covenanters and the

English Independents as well as the Erastians.

(ii). The Controversy among the Westminster Divines at the

Westminster Assembly.

(a). On 14 November, 1643, Stephen Marshall, an Erastian, brought

in "a report from the Committee of the Scots, and of the Houses, and of
the Assembly, imparting the desire of the Scots' Commissioners, which

they had imparted to that Committee". This report described the officers

in the Scottish Church, the method of government, but especially "that

there were four sorts of Assemblies among them, Church sessions or

particular elderships, classes of Presbyters, provincial Synods,

national Assemblies". 46

Again, on 24 January, just after the subject of the presbytery had

been introduced by Antony Burgess, the Scottish Commissioners presented

each member of the Assembly with a paper "touching their own

government". Marshall moved that this paper should be recommended to the

committee which had under consideration the question of a presbytery.

The Independents also issued a pamphlet on Presbyterian church

government.

It appeared in an "Apologetical Narration". 47 The Apologetical

Narration was an authoritative exposition of the views of the

Independents on Church government, for the guidance and information of

the Assembly. 48 Thomas Goodwin, one of the outstanding leaders of the

Independents, argued at considerable length on this issue:

"The extensive power of ministers, as well as their intensive, must

be warranted by institution, but that he would forbear that, and
-155-
 pitch on another kind of argument. That presbyterial government,
over many congregations, is not inconsistent with the scripture and
principles acknowledged by reformed churches. That congregations,
united under one presbyterial government, must either be distinct
settled bodies, as in Scotland, or else cast in a promiscuous way
as in the Low Countries... 1149

He contended further that:

"It cannot stand with the lawful calling of officers. If they be

elders to all these churches, they must be chosen by all these
churches, at least called with their consent; but the other
churches have no hand in the calling of these elders, which they
should have, no less but more than in the choice of their
particular elders, because the presbytery is to ordain,
excommunicate, and do the greatest things which concern these
churches... "50

George Gillespie claimed in his booklet, "A Treatise of Miscellany

Questions", that neither the Erastians' nor the Independents' point of

view on ordination was biblical. He insisted that "the ministry is a

perpetual ordinance of Christ in the Church, and ministers are to be

received as the Ambassadors of Christ now as well as in the primitive

times". 51 In particular, Gillespie attacked Thomas Goodwin's critical

view of Presbyterian government:

"It follows not because many regiments are under one martial
government, the commanders of the regiments being joined in one
council for managing the war, therefore each in that council bears
the relation of a commander to each regiment. Because the United
Provinces are under one Government of the States-General, therefore
each commissioner among the States-General bears a relation to each
province. So here the Parliament governs all the countries, but
each knight or burgess bears not relation to each country or
city... If a national synod govern all the Churches in a nation,
then each one in the synod is a governor of each congregation in
the nation. The first simile fits our case best, because these
that make up the great council of war do also govern their own
regiments apart". 52

Gillespie added that "the elders of many congregations may be understood

-156-
to be joined in one presbytery for the government of all these

congregations, either virtute potestatis ordinis, or virtute potestatis

jurisdictionis". 53 He said that "we hold not the former but the latter,

for non quatenus presbyteri, sed quatinus presbyteri in presbyti, they

govern these many congregations; this power is not given uni but

unitati, nor pluribus partitive, but consessui presbyterorum; for if

they govern many congregations, by virtue of their presbyterial order,

then each may govern all apart, as he baptiseth apart, etc". 54

In order to clarify this principle, Gillespie insisted that "the

ministry, as it is distinct both from magistracy and from private

Christians, is a perpetual standing ordinance of Christ in his church to

the end of the world". 55 He suggested scriptural texts to prove this:

"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be

evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's

people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of

God and became mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of

Christ" (Ephe. 4: 11-13). 56 He asserted that "these could not be meant

of the apostles only, or other ministers of Christ at that time

respectively and personally, but must needs be extended to true

preachers and baptisers in all ages to the end of the world, as is

manifested by the promise added". 57 He said that "where the ordinance

of pastors and teachers for the work of the ministry reacheth as far as

the perfecting of the whole body of Christ, and the gathering in of all

the elect, and, consequently, as far as the end of the world". 58

Gillespie spoke about the only essential requirement for the right

calling of a minister and whether imposition of hands was essential and

necessary to that call. Imposition of hands was a rite used in

ordination after the example of the primitive churches, but the

-157-
substance, essence, and formal act of ordination, was another thing. 59

The texts which Gillespie used to distinguish between the act of

ordination and the ceremony of ordination, and to answer all the

questions raised by the opposing Independents was Tit. 1: 5-7, "The

reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was

left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An

elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose

children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and

disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be

blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to much wine,

not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain". 60

For Gillespie, these references established the key principle that

the act of ordination was divine; men are directly ordained by God, not

by bishops or any ceremony of ordination. Gillespie held that even the

Apostle Paul himself clearly regarded ministers as having a special

function, 1 Thess. 5: 11,14. "Therefore encourage one another and build

each other up, just as in fact you are doing... And we urge you, brothers

warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient

with everyone". Gillespie warned that it is a mistake to hold that the

ceremony of ordination is essential to the calling of a minister. The

snare was that either the ministers in the reformed churches are not

true ministers, only pretending to be so, or those in the church of

Rome, from whom the Protestant ministers, in the beginning of the

reformation, had their ordination, were true ministers of Christ. 61

By contrast, he warned that if those in the church of Rome who did

ordain, were not "true ministers of Christ, then they had no commission

from Christ to make ministers for him". 62 Even Samuel Rutherford

insisted that "the presbytery doth not rule constantly as a particular

eldership, but occasionally... "63 In spite of Goodwin's question on

-158-
this issue, by the 15th of February, it was concluded by Gillespie that'

the arguments brought forward did not invalidate the Presbyterian

position.

(b). Turning to the Form of Presbyterian Church Government, we find

that it emphasizes the fact that Christ appointed officers for the

edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints. Further, it

declares that there is one general church visible, and also particular

visible churches set forth in the New Testament.

The officers appointed by Christ for the edification of his church

are "either extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, who

have ceased; or ordinary and perpetual, such as pastors, teachers, and

other church governors, and deacons". 64 It belongs to the pastor's

office to pray publicly and privately with his flock; to read the

Scriptures publicly, to preach, to catechize, and to administer the

sacraments; to bless the people; to take care of the poor; and to rule

over the flock. 65 The teacher or doctor, as well as pastor, has power

to minister the word and sacraments, and is particularly useful in

schools and universities. 66

When there are several ministers in the same congregation, they may

properly divide the occupations of pastor and teacher; where there is

only one, he is to perform, as far as he can, the whole work of the

ministry. 67 As in the Jewish church the elders of the people were

joined in ecclesiastical government with the priests and Levites, so in
the Christian church, the officers, commonly called elders by the

Reformed, have a share in the government. 68 The various points mentioned

in the Form of Presbyterian Church Government and Ordination are
illustrated by an ample array of texts from Scripture. As Clement Graham

points out, approval was eventually forthcoming from the Scottish

Estates of Parliament for "a Practical Directory of Church Government".

-159-
This was mainly the work of Alexander Henderson and confined itself to

prescribing the framework of Presbyterian government, rather than

arguing about the principles. 69

3.2.2.3/ The Westminster Confession of Faith.

After the draft on Public Worship had been agreed, a committee was

appointed to begin work on the Confession of Faith on August 20,1644.

It was composed of: William Gouge(1578-1653), Thomas Gataker (1576-

1654), John Arrowsmith (1602-1656), Thomas Temple (1599-1661), Jeremiah

Burroughes (1599-1646), Anthony Burges (1607-1663), Richard Vines (1600-

1656), Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), and Joshua Hoyle (1590-1654). Soon

after, more members were added to the committee and the Scots pressed

for the work of the Assembly to be completed. As a result of the

Assembly, on April 17,1645, the House of Commons proceeded with a

Confession of Faith. 7° On September 25,1646, the first nineteen

chapters of the Confession with the title "to the Honourable the House

of Commons assembled in Parliament" were discussed. The remainder of the

Confession was finished by November 26 and sent to Parliament. However,

Parliament requested Scripture proof texts, and this work was not

completed until April 29,1647. The Assembly, too, had misgivings about

the Scriptural proofs; they felt that full proofs for so large a

Confession would require a whole volume.

(i). Of Church Censures and Excommunication. Soon after the debate

on Presbyterian church government, the Scottish Covenanters again

insisted that church censures and excommunication were as important as

Presbyterian government in relation to covenant theology. These were

needed for Church purity in its widest sense. According to Marshall, an

-160-
Erastian scholar, there were three views on excommunication at this

time: (1). "Some hold it only in the congregational presbytery (The

Scottish Covenanters); (2). others think that both the congregation and

greater assemblies may do it (Independent); (3). others, it may be,

think that particular congregations may not do it (Erastians)... "71 It

can be presumed the excommunication debated at the Assembly was mainly a

controversy between Erastians and the Scottish Covenanters.

The Erastian views resembled those of Erastus, a German physician

of the sixteenth century, whose conviction was that the pastoral office

was only persuasive, like that of a teacher of science, and that the

power of the keys was not annexed to it. The punishment of all offences

ought to be reserved for the magistrate. 72 The Erastians claimed that

excommunication should be practised only by the temporal ruler whereas

the Scots insisted that it was a spiritual function of the Church. They

quoted Christ's words, "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto

the church, but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee

as a heathen man and a publican" (Matt. 18: 15-17). This subject became

a matter for discussion at the Assembly. John Selden, 73 lawyer and a

political Erastian, sought to prove that excommunication needed the

consent of the civil power and strove to demonstrate that the passage

contained no warrant for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that it

related to the ordinary practice of the Jews in their common civil

courts. After Selden's speech, the Assembly was overwhelmed by the

breadth of his erudition, and even the most able of the divines seemed
in no haste to challenge their formidable opponent. At length both

Charles Merle and Stephen Marshall attempted answers, but failed to

counteract the effect of Selden's speech.

J. D. Douglas*gives an account of this debate: "Gillespie arose, and

gave first a summary of Selden's argument, divesting it of all the

-161-
confusion of the cumbrous learning in which it had been wrapped, and

reducing it to its simple elements. He then, in a speech of singular

acuteness' and power, completely refuted it, proving that the passage

could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere reference to a

civil court".

Then, by seven distinct arguments, Gillespie proved that the whole

subject was of a spiritual nature and not within the cognisance of civil

courts. Douglas goes further and says that Gillespie "proved also, that

the church of the Jews both possessed and exercised the power of

spiritual censures.

The effect of Gillespie's speech was so great, as not only to

convince and excite the admiration of the whole Assembly, but also to

drag a wry acknowledgement of defeat from Selden himself". 74 Gillespie,

along with Rutherford, argued strongly for a more summary procedure in

excommunication than most of their colleagues favoured. Gillespie

pursued the doctrine of excommunication on a biblical basis. Gillespie

insisted that it must be practised in the church, not in a civil or

criminal court. 75 He said that:

"All that is spoken to specify that sort of sin that deserves

excommunication, that is not before you... But for the ground of
such a different proceeding in several sorts of public sins... the
ground of that will appear from the vote in the Assembly... Voted
the suspension of a person not yet cast out of the Church. There is
gradus to excommunication. They will not say that the incestuous
Corinthian (I Cor. V: ) should first have been suspended from the
sacrament... In other cases there is a proceeding by more degrees,
as that place, "a heretic after once or twice admonition reject"...
and that place, "them that sin reprove before all men, that others
may fear. "76 According to Marshall, three sorts of opinions in
this Assembly: (1). some hold it only in the congregational
presbytery; (2). others think that both the congregation and
greater assemblies may do it; (3). others, it may be, think that
particular congregations may not do it... These words are so. tied
down as that all they who can but submit to have the business
carried before a greater assembly may enjoy their own way, their
own opinions, and practice... "77

-162-
Moreover, in a speech before going to Scotland in 1644, Gillespie

emphasised that he preferred excommunication to toleration. However,

both may be mutually endeavoured for a happy accommodation:

"There is a certain measure of forbearance, but it is not so

seasonable now to be talking of forbearance, but mutual endeavours
for accommodation... Since God hath promised to give His people one
heart and one way... Now if you have any other commands for us that
are going home, we shall be careful of them; though we go from you,
we shall be present with you in spirit". 78

The term Erastian was given a new meaning in this debate. Erastus

himself was mainly interested in the question of excommunication and

wished to repudiate it as a weapon of the Church; the role of the

magistrates was of less interest to him. The opposition to Presbyterian

views on excommunication at Westminster came from the Erastians and some

others who managed to secure parliamentary intervention in the debate.

Thus the matter of excommunication raised the question of state control.

Gillespie used the term "Erastian" to cover all forms of state

control, not just intervention where the excommunication was

concerned. 79 Gillespie defended the Presbyterian view of excommunication

when he preached before the House of Lords in answer to Thomas

Coleman, 80 one of the Erastian divines. After his sermon was published,

he added an appendix to it entitled, "A Brotherly Examination of some

passages of Mr. Coleman's late printed sermon on Job 11: 20". In his

appendix Gillespie began by summarizing Coleman's sermon into four kinds

of rule:

"All eyes are upon government, they look upon it as the only help.
If anywhere, here let wisdom be used. To prescribe is above me,
only let me offer two or three rules, which may either be helpful
to the work, or useful to the workmen. 1. Establish as few things
by divine right as can well be. 2. Let all precepts, held out as
divine institutions, have clear scriptures. 3. Lay no more burden
of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath
-163-
 plainly laid upon them. 4. A Christian magistrate, as a Christian
magistrate, is a governor in the church". 81

After the brief explanation of Coleman's sermon, Gillespie went on to

his main criticism:

"1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of

it... Therefore as by the covenant Prelacy was not to be reformed,
but to be abolished, so, by the same covenant, church government
was not to be abolished, but to be reformed. 2. Church government
is mentioned in the covenant as a spiritual, not a civil thing. The
matters of religion are put together - doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government the privileges of Parliament come after,
in the third article. 3. That clause, "According to the word of
God", implieth, that the word of God holdeth for such light unto us
as may guide and direct us in the reformation of church government.
4. And will the brother say that the example of the best reformed
church leadeth us his way; that is, to have no church government at
all distinct from the civil government? "82

As we have seen above, Gillespie insisted that a Christian magistrate in

terms of the Bible is a governor in the church. In giving evidence for

this, he took some biblical examples such as 1 Thesss. 5: 12,17; "Now

we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are

over you in the Lord and who admonish you... pray continually". 83

According to him, Christian magistrates are to manage their office

under Christ, and for Christ. Christ as Mediator is the Head of the

church and of believers, and God gave His authority to His son Jesus
Christ. Accordingly, the church officers have their power from Christ as
Mediator and they are to manage their office under, and for, Christ. In

this sense, Christians can assemble "in the name of the Lord Jesus

Christ" (Matt. 18: 20; Luke. 24: 47; Acts 4: 17-18; 5: 28,41; 9: 27),

"in his name do we baptise" (Acts 2: 38; 4: 12; 16; 19: 5), "in his name

do we preach" (Luke 24: 47; Acts 17-18; 5: 28,41; 9: 27), "in his name

we excommunicate" (1 Cor. 5: 5). 84 These are the blessings given by the

-164-
Lord for His people. So here Gillespie emphasised the Christian's

spiritual liberty, privilege and power in Christ. Nevertheless.

Christians are the servants of the Lord who should exalt the name of

Jesus as Saviour and the Head of the Church, and King over the world. 85

Gillespie declares that Christians are free men through the power

of the blood of Jesus Christ, but "there is no reference in the

scripture that the magistrate is to rule, or to make laws, or to manage

any part of his office in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". 86 As the

Bible states that Jesus Christ has put all things under his feet, all

the governments in this world are given to Christ as Mediator (Phil. 2:

10-11). All creatures in heaven and earth belong to Jesus. On this

biblical basis Gillespie goes on to state "that all government, even

that which is civil, is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator" and

these things are sufficient for the present life. 87

After this debate Coleman soon published a pamphlet entitled, "A

Brotherly examination Re-examined. " In response to this, Gillespie

replied somewhat sharply in another pamphlet entitled, "Nihil

Respondes". Gillespie thought that Coleman's preaching was contrary to

the covenant of the three kingdoms, and destructive to the reformation

of religion. He attacked Coleman's view and asserted that church office

bearers, including pastors and ruling elders, form the corrective part

of government, and form a power which is not merely doctrinal but

disciplinary, according to the covenant Word of God:

"1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of

it... "to endeavour the reformation of Prelacy, and even of Popery
itself, according to the word of God, and the example of the best
reformed churches; " that is, taking an oath to deliver in our
opinions of these things according to the word of God, and to
inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops,
bishops, deans... whether guilty or not guilty... 2. By the same
principle of his we are not tied by the first article of our
covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only to
search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine,
-165-
 worship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the
covenant. 3. His own simile hath this much in it against him... so
he that swears to endeavour the reformation of religion in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, and yet will not
only dislike this or that form of government... "88

Gillespie was deeply concerned with the purity of the Church and this

required the discipline of members in the visible church. Gillespie

concludes with this prayer:

"The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the spirit of
error and division, and fire us all more of his Spirit, to lead us
into all truth, and into all self-denial, and grant that none of
his servants be found unwilling to have the Lord Jesus Christ to
reign over them in all his ordinances! "89

Coleman attempted no reply; it has been claimed that Gillespie's

arguments have never been answered by any subsequent advocate of

Erastianism.

Gillespie's chief work "Aaron's Rod Blossoming", which was

published in 1646, had not been completed at that time. Here, in

opposition to the Erastians, Gillespie also deals with the whole

Scottish case for excommunication.

Book 1 deals with Jewish Church government and examines and refutes

the case which Erastus made from it for excommunication by a godly

magistrate. Gillespie recognised that even to Jews, excommunication was

a manner or form of solemn ecclesiastical censure, as Erastus himself

had said. Excommunication among the Jews was a public and judicial act.

Yet, the combination of and cutting off a man from his people or
...
from the congregation of Israel, is neither eternal death, nor dying

without children, nor capital punishment by the hand of the magistrate,

nor yet being cut off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sin.

According to Ezra 10: 8, this "cutting off" actually meant separation or

-166-
excommunication from the congregation, but not banishment. Excommuni-

cation was not only from civil fellowship, but also from sacred or

church communion. 90

However, Gillespie did not consider that the excommunication, "ex

natura rei" meant the devoting of a man's estate as holy to the Lord.

Gillespie said, "No, the excommunication cannot hurt a man in his

...

worldly estate farther than the civil magistrate and the law of the land

appointed; and there was excommunication in the apostolical churches,

where there was no Christian magistrate to add a civil penalty. The

devoting of the substance of excommunicated persons, Ezra 10, as it had

the authority of the princes and rulers for it, so what extraordinary

warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence we

cannot tell". 91 Quoting Neh. 13: 25, "I contended with them, and cursed

them", Gillespie said that he laid no weight upon this, unless you

understood the cursing or malediction to be an act of the ecclesiastical

power, only authorised or countenanced by the magistrate, which the

words might well bear. 92 Therefore, it seems that Nehemiah did express

his zeal against them as persons that deserved to be banned, or cut off

from the people of God.

Gillespie pointed out that Luke 6: 22 "was the most misapplied

censure in the world, in respect of the persons thus cast out. But yet

it proves that the Jewish custom of casting out was such as those they

thought wicked and obstinate persons". 93 "The members of the Jewish

church would intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walk in

disorderly and scandalous ways rather than to separate men of this

manner from their society (Acts 19: 9; 2 Cor. 6: 17; Gal. 2: 13), or for

God to separate the godly and the wicked (Matt. 13: 49; 25: 32)". There

is evidence, therefore, for assuming that Gillespie understood that a

civil separation is for a civil injury. But this separation is for

-167-
wickedness and impiety, whether accompanied by civil injury or not. 94 It

is, clear that Gillespie did not share the Erastian view of

excommunication. For Gillespie, if anyone confesses his or her sins

before the Lord or sometimes in public as in the Old and New Testaments

(for example, various offerings: Lev. 5: 5, Num. 5: 6-7; Ezra 10: 10-11;

John 9: 24), he will be forgiven in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our

sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1: 9). 95

Book 2 tells of the origin and precepts of Erastianism and of the

power and privilege of the magistrate in matters ecclesiastical. In

particular, Gillespie strongly stressed the brief history and error of

Erastianism. "The breasts which gave it suck were profaneness and

self-interest". 96 They were compared to the sons of Belial. Moreover, in

his response to the Erastians' attack on church government, Gillespie

maintains that "all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be

governors or members in the ecclesiastical republic, that is, in a

visible political church. None are to govern nor to be admitted members

of presbyteries or synods, except such as (both for abilities and

conversation) are qualified according to that which the apostle, Paul

required a bishop or elder to be". 97 As Augustine said, scandalous or

profane church-officers are "the worst of dogs and swine, and to be

first cast out". 98 Gillespie takes the same view. When asked by

Erastians, Gillespie asserts that "Presbyterian government is not

despotical, but ministerial. It is not a dominion, but a service, and

we are not lords over God's heritage (1 Pet. 5: 3), but we are the

servants both of Christ and of his church (2 Cor. 4: 5). Even the power

of government with which pastors and elders are invested, has for the

object of it, not the external man, but the inward man". 99 Gillespie

concludes: "Even if comparisons be rightly made, Presbyterian government

-168-
 is the most limited and the least arbitrary government of any other in

the world". 100

Book 3 is an exposition of the famous "Tell the Church" passage

(Matt. 18: 15-17) and various other arguments. In this book, Gillespie

explains in more detail the spiritual teaching on excommunication from

the church and suspension from the Lord's table (I Cor. 5: 7). The basic

problem concerns interpretation and application. In his interpretation

of Matt. 18: 17-19, Gillespie attacks Prynne's (an Erastian) view of

excommunication, especially on the problem of how to deal with

scandalous sins.

As a matter of fact, Prynne asserted first that "this text speaks

not at all of public scandalous sin against the church or congregation,

the proper object of church censures, but only of private civil

trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words". 101
Gillespie said against this that "Christ does not speak of the case of

personal injuries, as if He meant to restrict unto such cases the order

of proceeding for gaining of the offender's soul from sin". 102 Rather,

Gillespie continued, we should recognise that "from the beginning of the

chapter to this very text, v. 15, Christ has been teaching upon the
doctrine of scandals, warning us not to offend so much as one of his
little ones, which he pressed by divers arguments". 103
Gillespie considers the chief argument by which Erastus would prove
that this text is meant only for private civil injuries. Erastus

interprets v. 17 in this way, the "trespass here spoken of is no other

than what one brother may forgive to another. " Gillespie thinks that

Erastus and Prynne assume the text, Matt. 18: 16-17, to be parallel to

that in Luke 17: 3-4, but without any justification. He maintains that

"we cannot gather from the text that Peter did propound this question
immediately after, or upon occasion of, that which went before, v. 15-

-169-
17, where nothing is spoken of one brother forgiving another". 104

W.M. Campbell regards this whole book as "an ordered and learned

exposition of his case". 105

In his controversy with the Erastians, Marshall and Coleman,

Gillespie stressed his view of God's covenant with His people according

to His Word. He expounded the texts on excommunication in detail, 106 and

in doing so did not depend upon tradition or kingly authority. In the

debate on church censures, Gillespie argued that censures must be

dispensed by church officers, because they were different from the civil

magistrates:

"1. The magistrate ought to punish any of his subjects that doeth
evil, and he ought to punish like sins with like punishments; but
if the power of church censures be in the magistrate's hand, he
cannot do so, for church censures are only for church members, not
for all subjects (1 Cor. 5: 10-12). 2. Church censures are to be
executed in the name of Christ (Matt. 18: 20; 1 Cor. 5: 4), by those
who are sent from him with commission to bind or loose, to forgive
or retain sins; but where is any such commission given to the civil
magistrate? 3. Church censures are for impenitent sinners only, but
the magistrate must punish offenders, whether penitent or
impenitent. 4. The magistrate's power of punishing offenders is
limited by the law of the land, what then should become of such
scandals as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land, such
as filthy and rotten talking, adulterous behaviour, and scandalous
conversing together, where the crime of adultery itself cannot be
proven, living in open malice and envy, and refusing to be
reconciled, and thereupon lying off from the sacrament and the
like... 11107

Rutherford insisted, however, that the whole Assembly should agree that

"the end is unity and peace, without any hurt or violation of truth, the

same is recommitted... "108 He even went further; he that "joins in

prayer prays with the Church, and saith Amen, but not so in hearing of
the word... The minister may pray with him, but not for him and
therefore there is not par ratio". 109 Rutherford, in his "Due Right of
Presbyteries", contended elaborately, in opposition to the Erastians or

-170-
 even Independents, that the keys of discipline were committed not to the

Church, but to the officers of the Church. 110 These can be marked as in

a speech of Dr. Burgess, who said before the Assembly regarding the

Scottish Commissioners' achievement:

"It bath pleased the Commissioners to acknowledge it a great

happiness that he (Rutherford) had opportunity to be amongst us so
long. I think the Assembly will acknowledge it a happiness to have
enjoyed their help... For his modest expression of speaking in the
Assembly, the Assembly acknowledgeth with all thankfulness... It's
a pious and Christian close... What he hath desired is the desire
of us all... "111

There were three main debates on the extent of excommunication.

Coleman, Calamy and Marshall's positions were in strong contrast to

that of the Scottish Covenanters. 112 Marshall said:

"That of joining in prayer is darker to me; not satisfied that he

should come to join in prayer... Not that I think the one to be
more an act of communion, but upon this ground; he is not to be
admitted to those ordinances, but only as a means to bring him to
repentance. If any of those ordinances could reach him with as
good effect in his absence, then he ought not to be present at any
of them; but preaching cannot do it, prayer may". 113

Despite the strong attack by the Erastians, the Scottish Covenanters

persuaded the Assembly to include a chapter entitled "Of Christ's

Censures" in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Scottish General

Assembly in 1648 adopted an order of excommunication, even though the

Westminster Assembly had refused to do so.

(ii). Civil Magistrates and the Jurisdiction. The civil magistrate

was as controversial an issue as excommunication. According to Neil

A. Macleod in an article on "Church and State", there were at least four

different points of view on civil magistrates during the Westminster

-171-
Assembly. "First of all, there is the view that the state should be

subject to the church in everything both civil and spiritual, which is

the papal position. The reverse of this, that the church should be

subject in all respects to the civil authority, is the second we take up

for mention, and is usually referred to as Erastianism, although it is

sometimes described by continental writers as Byzantinism. A third view

is that which has come to be known as Voluntaryism, which abhors and

abjures any kind of contractual relation or alliance between the two

spheres, civil and ecclesiastical. There is, fourthly, the position to

which we as a church subscribe, and is based upon what is known,

historically, as the Establishment principle". 114

In 1590, the leaders of the Church of Scotland, with Andrew

Melville as their head, addressed King James in the following terms:

"There are two jurisdictions exercised in this realm: the one spiritual,

the other civil; the one respects the conscience, the other external

things; the one directly procuring the obedience of God's word and

commandments, the other obedience unto civil laws; the one persuading by

the spiritual word; the one spiritually procuring the edification of the

Kirk, which is the body of Jesus Christ; the other, by entertaining

justice, procuring the commoditie, peace, and quietness of the

Commonwealth, the which, having ground in the light of nature, proceeds

from God, as He is Creator, and so termed by the Apostle Humana

Creatura". 115 "But the respective boundaries and functions of the two

jurisdictions were", as Macleod argues "not only carefully defined,

their mutual relations and obligations were clearly set out". 116

However, as we have seen above, the Erastians had emphasised three

principles concerning the superiority of the King during the Westminster

Assembly: first, that there is no government of the church independent

of the state, as the church is merely one of the state's general

-172-
functions so everything in the church must be subject to the civil

power. Secondly, every subject of the state is thus a member of the

church, and entitled to all its privileges. Thirdly, ministers of

religion have only power to preach and administer sacraments. They have

no power of discipline, since to exclude from ordinances would deprive

men of their civil rights. 117 In a word, they denied that there is any

real power of government in the hands of church officers over Christ's

house, either wholly or partially.

Rutherford discussed this in his work "Lex Rex": "God is the author

of civil laws and government, and his intention is therein the external

peace, and quiet life, and godliness of his church and people, and that

all judges, according to their places, be nurse - fathers to the church

(Is. 49: 23)". 118 The first duty of the civil magistrate is to

recognize, to countenance, to protect, to promote and to maintain with

the nation's resources the true religion in the reformed confessions.

Of course, not all these confessions maintained that this was his first

duty, but with one accord they insisted that it was a principal part of

his magisterial responsibility. The church, for its part, also had

responsibilities towards the state. It was its duty to pray for the

civil rulers, to offer them guidance in spiritual and moral matters, to

admonish them when their conduct of civil affairs was in conflict with

the teaching of the word of God, and generally to support whatever

advanced the spiritual welfare of the people. It must be noted, however,

that, in his later thought, Rutherford moved away from the position

stated above, namely, that the promotion of religion was the civil

magistrate's first responsibility. 119

Turning to chapter 20, section 4 of the Confession itself we have a

well-described model of the relationship between church and state:

supporting both sides "and because the powers which God hath ordained,

-173-
and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to

destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon

pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the

lawful. exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the

ordinance of God". 120 In chapter 23 the position of the civil

magistrate is more clearly stated under the heading "Of the Civil

Magistrate" as follows:

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained
civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own
glory, and the publick good; and to this end, hath armed them with
the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them
that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of

a magistrate, when called thereunto in the management whereof, as
they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace,
according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that
end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon
just and necessary occasions.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the

administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys
of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his
duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the
church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all
blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses
in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the
ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the
better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be
present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in
them be according to the mind of God.

IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honour

their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their
lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for
conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical
persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power of
jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their
people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or
lives, if he shall judge them to be hereticks, or upon any other
pretence whatsoever". 121

Such then is the doctrine laid down in the Westminster Confession

-174-
respecting the duty and office of the civil magistrate in regard to the

Church. Although the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres are quite

distinct, they have mutual relations and obligations. In spiritual

matters, the Church has its own responsibilities to the State. It must

seek to pray for its officers, to guide them, and admonish them where

necessary.

In civil matters, the Church is subordinate to the State, whereas

in spiritual matters the State is subordinate to the Church. The

authority which constitutes and limits the power in each province, civil

and ecclesiastical, is the will of Christ expressed in his own word. To

the Scottish Covenanters the mutual relationship of Church and State was

to be subordinate to the headship of Christ and the authority of the

scriptures.

Indeed, for the Covenanters there is no other head of the church

but the Lord Jesus Christ; He is the only king and head of His

church. 122 In that sense there is no distinction between the laws of

church and state. According to James Bannerman in his book "The Church

of Christ": "The truth is, that those two ordinances of God, that of

civil authority on the one side, and that of conscience on the other,

cannot be inconsistent with or destructive of each other... "123 As

God's appointed agencies they should be designed for co-operation, not

conflict or mutual destruction. Accordingly, this view of the Scottish

Covenanters concerning the relationship of civil and spiritual authority

was incorporated in the Confession as a major theological principle.

3.2.3/ The Westminster Confession of Faith and its Concept of Covenant.

Regarding the Bible as inspired and as a consequence "the only rule

of faith and obedience", the Assembly used this as the principle of

-175-
interpretation by which theologians moved from Scripture to theology.

The infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture

itself so doctrine must either be explicitly taught in Scripture or

deduced from Scripture.

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the

Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the
true and full sense of any Scripture, it must be searched and known
by other places that speak more clearly". 124

One distinguishing feature of the Westminster Assembly was its

confidence in the power of man's reason, rectified and guided by the

light of the Holy Spirit, to carry out the theological task. George

Gillespie describes clearly this theological method which is assumed in

Chapter 20 of the Confession:

"this assertion must neither be so far enlarged as to comprehend

the erroneous reasonings and consequences from Scripture which this
or that man, or this or that church, apprehend and believe to be
strong and necessary consequences: neither yet must it be so far
contracted and straitened as the Arminians would have it, who admit
of no proofs from Scripture, but either plain explicit texts, or
such consequences are NULLI NON OBVIAE, as neither are, nor can be,
controverted by any man who is NATIONIS COMPOS... by which
principle, if embraced, we must renounce many necessary truths
which the reformed churches hold against the Arians, Antitrinitar-
ians, Socinians, Papists, because the consequences and arguments
from Scripture brought to prove them are not admitted as good by
the adversaries... This also I must, in the second place, premise,
that the meaning of the assertion is not that human reason, drawing
a consequence from Scripture, can be the ground of our belief or
conscience; for although the consequence or argumentation be drawn
forth by men's reasons, yet the consequent itself, or conclusion,
is not believed nor embraced by the strength of reason, but because
it is the truth and will of God.... Thirdly, Let us here observe
with Gerhard, a distinction between corrupt reason and renewed or
rectified reason:... It is the latter, not the former reason, which
will be convinced and satisfied with consequences and conclusions
drawn from Scripture, in things which concern the glory of God, and
matters spiritual or divine". 125

This concept was also common to many other Puritian divines at the

-176-
time. 126 Gillespie also distinguished between necessary consequences

and those which are only good or possible consequences. Consequences

from Scripture, he says, are of two sorts, "some necessary, strong and

certain, and of these I here speak in this assertion; others which are

good consequences to prove a suitableness or agreeableness of this or

that to Scripture, though another thing may be also proved to be

agreeable unto the same Scripture in the same or another place. This

latter sort are in divers things of very great use".

Gillespie here infers that since God is wholly consistent with

Himself, man's deductions from God's known word will correspond to God's

will. The Confession of Faith includes well-balanced doctrines of the

infallibility of the Scriptures on the one hand and human reason on the

other. According to John H. Leith, these emphases fit together, but they

fit together not so much as a logical system but as character traits fit

together in a living person. 127 Leith has suggested that "the authors

of the Confession had a very high regard for human reason, and they

certainly intended their theology to be reasonable.

But they never intended reason to have an equal place with

Scripture". 128 The relationship of faith and reason has been a key issue

in the history of the Church; this was true in the Reformation as well

as for the writers of the Confession. For both, reason was limited in

that it could not penetrate the mystery of God's person, transcendence

and purpose. The divine self-revelation was a prerequisite for knowing

any objective truths about God. Reason, therefore, must submit to and

work from the foundation of this self-revelation, elucidating,

commending and communicating it.

The Confession also affirms the lordship and sovereignty of God.

This sovereignty determines the whole government of the world, and so it

includes, carries with it, and disposes of all the actions of God's

-177-
creatures, the eternal destinies of the human race and the ultimate fate

of each intelligent creature. It is affirmed that the light of nature

shows forth the lordship and sovereignty of God and that the Scriptures

abundantly declare it. In the Confession XXI, I and II, i., III, i., V,

i., and Chapter X, iii, especially, "of Effectual Calling", the

sovereignty of God is stressed in regard to salvation. God effectually

calls those whom He predestines by his Word and Spirit.

The sovereignty of God is not only affirmed over nature, man and

his salvation but also over the governments as well. Chapter XXIII,

section 1 of the Confession emphasizes that God ordained civil

magistrates to be under him, over the people, for His own glory, and the

public good; and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the

sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for

the punishment of evil-doers. Chapter XXX declares that "the Lord Jesus

Christ, as king and head of his church, hath therein appointed a

government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil

magistrate". The leading Erastians of that period, learned and subtle as

they were, felt it impossible to evade the force of this proposition,

and could not refuse to give to it the sanction of the Legislature.

The development of covenant thought is one of the distinguishing

features of the Westminster Confession. 129 Indeed, covenant thought

shaped Puritanism in the 17th century. As we saw in chapter one, the

idea of the covenant was a crucial one for the Scottish Covenanters and

they in turn had an influence on the Puritan Divines in the Westminster

Assembly.

The Westminster Confession itself centres around two covenants. The

first was a covenant of works or law (nature), made with Adam. This law,

which was given to Adam, was chiefly written in his heart at creation,

and partly also spoken during his time in Paradise. By this was meant

-178-
that there was perfect affinity between man's nature and the covenant of

God. This means that the promise of eternal life, conditional upon man's

obedience to the commandment of God, was in perfect accord with the

state in which man was created. It emphasised that man was created in

the image and likeness of God and was already in possession of a life in

communion with God and His blessing.

In this covenant, God promised salvation to man on condition of

perfect obedience as a natural duty130 and gave to man the power to

fulfil the law. This covenant was binding upon all men at all times in

all places, both before and after the Fall, by virtue of their descent

from Adam. If Adam had not fallen into sin, his children would have been

obligated to keep this Edenic covenant. Adam fell, but his children are

still obligated to keep the prelapsarian covenant. The Westminster

Confession of Faith states it in this manner:

Chap. VII. Of God's Covenant with Man:

(1). The distance between God and the creature is so great, that
although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their
Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their
blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on
God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of
covenant. (2). The first covenant made with man was a covenant of
works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his
posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. 131

Chap. XIX. Of the Law of God:

(1). God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he

bound him, and all his posterity, to personal entire, exact and
perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and
threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power
and ability to keep it. (2). This law, after his fall, continued to
be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by
God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two
tables... (4). To them also, as a body politick, he gave sundry
judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that
people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity
therof may require. (5). The moral law doth for ever bind all, as
well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and
that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in
respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. Neither
-179-
 doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen
this obligation. 132

However, after the covenant of works was broken by man's disobedience,

man became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in soul and body; guilt was

then imputed and conveyed to all their posterity. How sin was propagated

from one generation to the next was not a matter for speculation. It was

sufficient that there was evidence of the same sin in posterity. The

consequences of the "Fall" in the corruption of man's nature, as well as

in his actual transgressions and punishment, show remarkable parallels.

Original sin consisted in man being dead in sin, having in him the

seed of all sins; this did not mean, however, that the image of God was

wholly destroyed in man. Man was still a reasonable creature, his

faculties remained, his understanding, conscience and will could still

be exercised to some extent towards what was good. On the other hand,
ti
fallen man had neither the power to recover his former estate, nor to

please God in any respect. 133 Man did not deserve the promised reward.
His works under the covenant only had value by virtue of the agreement.

They had no intrinsic, meritorious value of their own.

Therefore, the covenant of grace made by God in Christ was extended

from man's fall to the new creation and its state is "ultimately

determined by the idea of man's destiny in the state of original

uprightness". 134 It is divided into two administrations: the Old and New

Testaments. 135 But it was strongly emphasized that these were not two

covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under

various dispensations. Both administrations should be understood

Christologically. There was but one covenant of which Christ was the

substance, though he was "exhibited under the gospel". 136 God,

therefore, makes with man a second covenant:

-180-
 (3). Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that
covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called
the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life
and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that
they may be saved... (5). This covenant was differently
administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel;
under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies,
sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and
ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying
Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and
efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and
build up the elect in faith in the promised Mesiah, by whom they
had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation. (6). Under the
gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in
which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and
the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper... There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing
in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations. 137

The distinctions between the two administrations pertain to the clarity

of revelation and to the extent of salvation, not to the different

manner of salvation.
Under the old covenant, that is, the O. T. administration of the

covenant of grace, the Lord revealed himself in promises, types, and

ordinances to Israel. Israel's experience of salvation and the

revelation of God was for them "sufficient and efficacious, through the

operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in

the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and

eternal salvation". 138 Since the coming of Christ, salvation extends to

Gentiles as well as Jews, and this salvation is enjoyed more fully and

with greater efficacy, though with less apparent "glory". 139

Nevertheless, the two dispensations are dispensations of the "one

and the same" covenant of grace. 140 In the Westminster Confession the

doctrine of the covenants is significantly placed between the doctrine

of God141 and the chapter on the mediatorial role of Christ. 142 On

account of man's fallen condition, 143 the Lord voluntarily condescended

to meet man's needs and made a "covenant" with Him. 144

-181-
 This covenant is defined as the covenant of grace "whereby He

freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ,

requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to

give unto all those that are ordained unto (eternal) life His Holy

Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe". 145 There is no doubt

that "the theological idea of the Covenant became one of the organizing

movements of the Confession". 146 So the Westminster Confession and also

the Catechisms, put forward the powerful idea of a covenant between God

and man. Chapter VII of the Confession, as we have seen above, is

entitled "Of God's Covenant With Man" and explains the relationship

between Creator and creature.

In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, 147 David

Dickson (c. 1583-1663), Professor of Divinity first in Glasgow and then

in Edinburgh, defended and expounded the Calvinist system, as he did,

too, in his "Therapeutical Sacra" of 1648.148 It was Dickson's "The Sum

of Saving Knowledge" (1650) (written with James Durham) which helped

most to promote covenant theology in Scotland, even more decisively than

the Confession had done; 149 ultimately it was bound up with the

Confession and Catechisms for common use. The covenants were taught

thus:

"Our first parents, being enticed by Satan, one of these devils

speaking in a serpent, did break the covenant of works, in eating
the forbidden fruit; whereby they, and their posterity, being in
their loins, as branches in the root, and comprehended in the same
covenant with them, became not only liable to eternal death, but
also lost all ability to please God; yea did become by nature
enemies to God, and to all spiritual good, and inclined only to
evil continually. This is our original sin, the bitter root of `all
our actual transgressions, in thought, word and deed". 150

According to John Macleod, Dickson's exposition of covenant thought was

very significant. He writes:

-182-
 "We might also here draw attention to the exposition he gave of the
Covenant Scheme in his careful address on doctrine at the great
Glasgow Assembly of 1638. It was his method before the star of
Cocceius had risen above the horizon. At any rate Scottish Covenant
Theology could never be spoken of as Cocceianism. The Covenant
Categories as the lines of doctrinal schematising were recognised
and used in the previous century and did not begin only in the 17th
century to be employed as the framework of Christian teaching". 151

The covenant was made in Christ, since without such a mediator no

reconciliation could be effected. It stood in the gracious, free promise

to repair, restore and augment with "a restipulation of such duties as

will stand with free grace and mercy. For the Covenant of Grace does

exclude all conditions, but such as will stand with grace". 152

Furthermore, the Christian life and human responsibility in

relation to the covenant are other important aspects of the Confession.

There are 33 chapters in the Confession. Of these, chapters X to XXXIII,

comprising two-thirds of the Confession, deal with the Christian life of

a man saved by the Lord. In order to be strong Christians, the

Confession insists that they should be living in the Holy Spirit. The

Holy Spirit works predominantly through His perfect will as revealed in

the Bible, in effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctifica-

tion, and glorification. The confession describes effectual calling as a

basic stage to glorification. It is accomplished by His Word and Spirit.

Furthermore, the Ten Commandments are the centre of the Christian

life, as the Larger Catechism Faith is shown to be the

makes clear.
God-appointed means whereby united to Christ and brought
sinners are
into the bond of the covenant (Isa. 55: 3; Acts 16: 31; Rom. 4: 16), and

once sinners are in a covenant state, they are required to fulfil

covenant obligations (Deut. 10: 12; Lk. 1: 68-75; 2 Cor. 6: 16-18).

3.3/ Summary of this Chapter.

-183-
 We have considered the significance of the Solemn League and

Covenant of 1643 and the Westminster Assembly for covenant theology from

1643 to 1648. During this period, covenant thought was developed in the

Scottish Church; this theology had religious, political and further

theological implications, namely, the adoption of the Solemn League and

Covenant and the Westminster Confession of Faith. In these, the church's

spiritual independence was affirmed in clear terms so that the Scottish

people thought of themselves as a "Covenanted People and Nation" of God.

The Covenanters identified themselves as the Israelites had done - God's

chosen, covenant people. For them, "Christ as Head of the Church has

therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct

from the civil magistrate". There are indeed statements in the

Confession which assign to the civil magistrate an important position

with regard to religion, but there is nothing that really conflicts with

the above. In particular, the church under Christ holds total

jurisdiction over spiritual matters. This is claimed to be by Christ's

appointment. 153

In the Westminster Assembly, the Scottish Commissioners had an

honourable place. They were expected to give information and guidance;

they exercised an influence far beyond their small number, for they had

worked out their ideas in the course of a long struggle in an unstable

society with a regime at once more arbitrary and less secure than in

England. In particular, to defend Scottish Presbyterian government, the

Scottish Commissioners fought against the Erastians on the one hand, and
Independents, on the other. They were questioned, consulted and often

helped to settle debates. At times, the Commissioners were asked to lead

the Assembly through confused arguments to a clearer position. The

deliberations of the Westminster Assembly issued in the publication of

the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, which

-184-
finally became the subordinate standards of faith for the Church of

Scotland. These documents were regarded as authoritative by Scottish

Presbyterians immediately from the time of their formulation.

There was little or no opportunity for original religious thought

or discussion, yet the Covenanters were generally in constant dread of

any modification of doctrine or any ambiguous formulation which might he

to the advantage of Rome. The Westminster Confession took a firm hold

upon the thinking of all Presbyterians and Churches, not only in

Scotland, but throughout the world. This happened not just because of

its embodiment in statutes but also from the great concern to preserve

true doctrine as well as the place these statutes occupy in the history

of religious thought.

The amplification which the church made of these articles did not

come from Scottish or Presbyterian hands. Rather, it came from one of

the most eminent divines in the Episcopal Church, namely, Archbishop

Ussher, who drew up the Irish Articles in which covenant thinking first

appeared in confessional form. Nevertheless, the articles on

excommunication and church government were drawn up by the Scottish

Commissioners. It was in the formulation of these articles that

Gillespie and Rutherford out-argued the English Puritans. John H. Leith

says, that "one could not easily write the Westminster Confession today

just as it was written in 1644-1647". 154 In that sense, the work of the

Assembly was remarkable.

The English Parliament, however, did not complete its review of the
Confession until June 1648. The document was changed by the House of

Commons from "Confession of Faith" to "Articles of the Christian

Religion", since the title was not written in the "I confess" format.

The version which was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on

June 20,1648, omitted Chapter XX, part of the fourth paragraph, and all

-185-
of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of Chapter XXIV, XXX ("Of Church

Censures") and XXXI ("Of Synods and Councils").

While the Assembly of Divines was holding its sittings at

Westminster, five battles were being fought in England: Edgehill, 23

October 1642; Marston Moor, 1 July 1644; Naseby, 14 June 1645;

Philiphaugh, 13 September 1645; Preston, 18 August 1648.155 As a result

of these, Oliver Cromwell became a great power in the land. In spite of

the Scottish Covenanters' efforts at the Westminster Assembly,

presbyterian church government lost ground to Cromwell's advocacy of

Independency so their programme was never widely established in England.

As a consequence of this, from 1648 to 1688 the Scottish Covenanters and

Presbyterianism had to fight for survival against episcopacy. Their

convictions concerning the divine right of Christ with the implications

for the church/state relationship inevitably led to a stronger emphasis

being made by the Covenanters on the political as well as religious

aspects of the covenant for Scotland. It would take the Marrow men to

restore the balance again by returning to the central thrust of the

covenant, namely, the spiritual relationship with God with all its

privileges and responsibilities.

As indicated in pages 55-57, the covenant concept was used in

different ways and with different emphases during the period 1643-1723.

The primary usage of the covenant concept relating to God and His elect

continued throughout the period although, at times, the more socio-

political aspects were given greater attention and prominence. This was

especially true when the Stuarts attempted to enforce their own absolute

rule upon the people and also impose episcopacy upon Scotland. From the

basis of the divine covenant, the Covenanters developed the concepts of

national and political covenants which had deep religious significance

and implications. One major reason for this type of covenant was the

-186-
upholding and propagation of the Protestant reformed faith with its

Presbyterian polity. The Scottish National Covenant (1638) and the

Solemn League and Covenant (1643) expressed these concerns and opposed

episcopalianism and Roman Catholicism. Both of these covenants espoused

democratic principles of civil and religious liberty.

The Westminster Confession of Faith served to confirm and secure

Scottish Presbyterians in covenant theology, namely, the divine

covenants of works/law made with Adam and that of grace which operates

from the period of man's fall; the latter is administered in two

distinct but related periods, namely, the Old and New Testaments. The

Westminster Confession of Faith together with the Catechisms reaffirm in

the clearest terms the covenant now operating between God and redeemed

man, the covenant of grace. Political tensions in the decades up to 1690

served to highlight the socio-political implications of those other

developments from the divine covenant of grace. When dissent and heresy

emerged following the settlement of 1690, it required the Marrow

Controversy to bring ministers and churches back to the central features

and emphases of the covenant of grace.

The increased usage of the covenant concept in its political aspect

by the Covenanters in the period following the Westminster Assembly now

needs to be traced. Here was a period, 1648-1688, of intense conflict

between the Scottish Covenanters and their kings who sought to impose

episcopacy and thus bring the Church under greater control by the State.

-187-
 ENDNOTES
TO CHAPTERTHREE

1. A solemn League and Covenant For Reformation and Defence of Religion.

The Honoured and Happinesse of the King and Peace and Safety of the
Three Kingdomes of England. Scotland and Ireland, London, 1643, p. 2.

2. There were eight Commissioners appointed by the General Assembly of

the Church of Scotland to represent Scotland for the subscribing to
the Solemn League and Covenant in London and to attend the
Westminster Assembly of Divines as well: among them five ministers:
Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Robert
Douglas, Robert Baillie, and three lay elders: John Earl of Cassilis,
John Lord Maitland and Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston. Neither
the Earl of Cassilis nor Robert Douglas attended the Westminster
Assemlby during its protracted labours. For the English
Commissioners, see footnote No. 9 of this chapter. The Confession of
Faith, Edinburgh, 1836, pp. 18-19; W.M. Hetherington, History of the
Church of Scotland from the introduction of Christionity to the
Period of the Disruptions. May 18 1843, Edinburgh: Johnstone and
Hunter, 1842, p. 367; Thomas M'Crie, op. cit., p. 200; James Rankin,
The Church of Scotland, Vol. II., p. 520; W.Stephen, History of the
Scottish Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1896, Vol. II., pp. 292-
293.

3. Alex. S. Morton, Galloway and the Covenanters, Paisley: Alexander

Gardner, 1914, p. 71; J. H. S. Burleigh, op. cit., p. 222.

4. George Grub, op. cit., Vol. III., p. 83; John Lwnsden, op. cit.,
pp. 248-252; David Stevenson, op. cit., p. 50.
5. W.M. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,
Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1843, p. 122; J. L. Ainslie, "The Scottish
Reformed Church and English Puritanism", The Scottish Church History
Society, 1942, Vol. VIII., p. 84; C. Russel, "The Scottish Party in
English Parliament, 1640-1642", Historical Research: The Bulletin of
the Institute of Historical Research, Vol. 66. No. 159., February
1993, pp. 35-52; W.D. J. McKay, "The Westminster Assembly and the
Solemn League and Covenant", Reformed Theological Journal, 1993, Vol.
9, pp. 5-18.

6. Baillie's letters, Vol. II., p. 8; Robert Shaw, The Reformed

Faith, 1845, p. XXV.

7. John Lumsden, op. cit., p. 260.

8. Samuel R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War 1642-1649,4 Vols.
New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1965, Vol. I. pp. 148-149.

9. The English Commissioners were, from the Lords, the Earl of Rutland
and Lord Gray of Wark; from the Commons, Sir William Armyn, Sir Harry
Vane the younger, Mr. Hatcher, and Mr. Darley; from the Assembly of
Divines, Mr. Steven Marshall and Mr. Philip Nye. The commissioner at
the Assembly of the Church of Scotland was Sir Thomas Hope, the lord
advocate, as well as royal commissioner and the moderator was
Alexander Henderson. Both sides, the English Commissioners and the
Assembly, agreed to the subscribing of the Solemn League and
-188-
 Covenant. W.M. Hetherington, op. cit., p. 121. Thomas M'Crie, The
Story of the Scottish Church from the Reformation to the Disruption,
London: Blackie & Son, 1875, p. 194; W. Stephen, History of the
Scottish Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1896, Vol. II., pp. 292-
293.

10. Baillie's letters, Vol. II., p. 90; Historical Part of the Testimony
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp.
96-99; Robert Shaw, op. cit., p. XXV. Cf. William Haller, Liberty
and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution, Columbia University
Press, 1963, pp. 100-104.

11. Alexander Henderson, A Solemn League for Reformation, and defence of

Religion, London, 1643, pp. 1-3; John Lumsden, op. cit., pp. 260-
261; Pearson Madam Muir, The Church of Scotland, London: A. & C.
Black, 1907, p. 41; John Conningham, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 135;
A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 1878, p. 15; W. M. Hetherington,
History of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter,
1843, pp. 363-367.

12. Sheriff R. L. Orr, Alexander Henderson: Churchman and Statesman,

London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1919, pp. 307-309.

13. Charles J. Guthrie, "The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three
Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland", The Scottish Historical
Review, Glasgow, 1918, Vol. 15., p. 296; James Dodds, The Fifty
Years' Struggle of the Scottish Covenanters 1638-1688, Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1860, p. 42.

14. James Kerr, The Covenants and the Covenanters: Covenants. Sermons
and Documents of the Covenanted Reformation, Edinburgh: R. W.Hunter,
1895, p. 131.

15. Ibid., pp. 132-133; James Dodds, op. cit., pp. 43-50.

16. John Lumsden, op. cit., p. 261.

17. Scotland as a God-governed state, adopted by the Covenanters as a

distinct belief, although the concept was more idealistic than
realistic.

18. John Lumsden, op. cit., p. 262.

19. Ibid., pp. 262-263.

20. Ibid., p. 263; Alexander Henderson, op. cit., pp. 5-7.

21. Ibid., pp. 264-265.

22. Marvin Keith Achilles, The Solemn League and Covenant: An Experiment
in Religious Uniformity, M.A thesis, Syracuse University, New York,
1970, pp. 19-20.

23. W.M.Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,

Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1843, p. 118; Jack Bartlett Rogers,
Ibid., pp. 117-118; John H. Leith, Assembly at Westminster: Reformed
Theology in the Making, John Knox Press, Virginia, 1973, pp. 4-5.
59-60; A. A. Hodge, op. cit., pp. 17-18.
-189-
24. Robert Shaw, op. cit., p. XXVi; John Macpherson, The Confession
of Faith, T&T. Clark, 1881, p. 12; Robert Hastings Nichols, "The
Tercentenary of the Westminster Assembly", The American Society of
Church History, ed. Robert M. Grant, Martin E. Marty, and Jerald
C. Brauer, 1944, Vol. XIII., p. 31; Peter Toon, "The Westminster
Confession of Faith", Puritans and Calvinism, " Pennsylvania: Reiner
Publications, 1973, pp. 52-61.

25. Robert Hastings Nichols, Ibid., p. 31.

26. Minutes of the Sessions of the Assembly of Divines; from August 4.
1643 to April 24,1652 in three volumes, London. I found the
original minutes of the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652 in Dr.
Williams Library - but I could not read it because the writing was
not clear - it was on microfilm copied from the original which is in
New College, Edinburgh. I checked the transcript from the original
film but this was also illegible. W.M. Hetherington, op. cit., pp.
92-95,108; R. W.Dale, History of English Congregationalism, London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1906, pp. 257-304. Cf. Thomas Fuller, The
Church History of Britain, from the Birth of Jesus Christ until year
MDCXLVIII, London, 1842, Vol. iii., pp. 446-448.

27. See foodnote No. 2.

28. Baillie's letters, Vol. II., p. 186. As Baillie lamented, "no proper
Assembly but a meeting called by the Parliament to advise them in
what things they were asked". "They have no power to write one line
to any 'soul but as the Parliament directs". James S. McEwen, "How the
Confession came to be Written", The Westminster Confession in the
Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on
Doctrine, ed. Alasdair I. C. Heron, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh,
1982, pp. 13-14; Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp. 93-97. Cf.
William Haller, "An Assembly of divines", Liberty and Reformation in
the Puritan Revolution, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963,
100-142; Thomas Fuller, ibid., p. 446.
29. Ethyn Williams Kirby, "The English Presbyterians in the Westminster
Assembly", The American Society of Church History, ed. Robert
M.Grant, Martin E. Marty, Jerald C. Brauer, 1964, Vol. 33., p. 422;
George Gillespie, "Notes of Proceedings of the Assembly of, Divines
at Westminster", The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle
and Oliver and Boyd, 1846, Vol. II., pp. XIII-XV; Jack Bartlett
Rogers, Ibid., p. 120.
30. A. A. Hodge, op. cit., p. 18.

31. Ibid., p. 18; W.M.Hetherington, op. cit., pp. 109-112; Robert Shaw,
op. cit., p. XXVi; W. Beveridge, A Short History of the Westminster
Assembly, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904, p. 20.

32. See foodnote No. 2.

33. "Samuel Rutherford", Scottish Divines: 1505-1872, Edinburgh: Macniven

and Wallace, 1883, p. 96.

34. R. W.Dale, History of English Congregationalism, London: Hodder and

Stoughton, 1906, pp. 265,277,279,287-288; Robert Shaw, op. cit.,
-190-
 p. XXVii; The five are referred to as "The Five Dissenting
Brethren". In spite of the smallness of their number, they possessed
considerable; influence in hindering, and finally preventing, the
Assenbly in its work of national ecclesiastical construction; and
their influence was due to the support they received from
politicians without the Assembly, in the Long Parliament, in the
army, and, above all, from the great Cromwell himself. A. A. Hodge,
op. cit., pp. 18-19; John Macpherson, op. cit., p. 17; Thomas
Fuller, op. cit., pp. 466,480. However, Geoffrey F. Nuttall
suggested that within the group, there were considerable differences
of emphasis on church government and theology. Despite their
differences of emphasis, these five men formed a distinct group in
the Westminster Assembly. See further details, Visible Saints: The
Congregational Way 1640-1660, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957, pp. 11-
14.

35. Baillie's letters, Vol. II., p. 96; Jack Bartlett Rogers, op.
cit., p. 123. Rogers insisted that Apparently none of the seven
English Presbyterians who drafted the Westminster Confession
believed in the divine right of presbyterian church government. Yet
this was perhaps the central point which the Scots Commissions had
come to England to secure.

36. John Cunningham, op. cit., p. 150. See further details in Baillie's
Letters and Journals, Vol. II., pp. 108-109.
37. Ibid., pp. 143-144.

38. Baillie's letters, Vol. II., p. 144.

39. Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,
ed. Alex. F. Mitchell, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874,
p. 484. In addition, the preaching of the members of the Assembly
to Parliament and to the public always included political and
religious applications. The members of the Assembly understood the
happenings of their time in terms of their theology and the
providence of God, and they believed that God would fulfil his
purposes in England either through reform or through apocalyptic
events. Accordingly, the members of the Assembly was primarily
concerned with the future life and the present assurance of eternal
salvation. James C. Spalding, "Sermons Before Parliament (1640-1649)
As A Public Puritan Diary", The American Society of Church History,
ed. Robert M. Grant, Martin E. Marty, and Jerald C. Brauer, 1967,
Vol. 36., p. 24.

40. "The Directory for the Public Worship of God", The Confession of
Faith, Edinburgh: D. Hunter Blair and M.T. Bruce, 1836, p. 527.

41. Ibid., p. 527.

42. Ibid., pp. 528-540.

43. Ibid., pp. 541-558.
44. George Gillespie, "The Ordinance of Parliament Calling the Assembly
which met at Westminster", Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the
Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster, The
Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh, 1846, Vol. II., pp. Vii-Viii.
-191-
45. Ibid., pp. Vii-Viii.
46. W.Beveridge, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
47. The pamphlet extends to only thirty-one pages. Its title was "An
Apologetical Narration, Humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses
of Parliament. " By Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson,
Jer. Burroughes, and William Bridge, London, 1643, Ibid., p. 70;
William Haller, op. cit., pp. 112-128,143-151.

48. Ibid., pp. 69-70; Robert S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, op. cit.,
pp. 121-127; William Haller, "The Word of God in the Westminster
Assembly", Church History, 1949, Vol. XVIII., No. 4., pp. 210-213;
George Yule, The Independents in the English Civil War, Cambridge
University Press, 1958, pp. 11-12.

49. Thomas Goodwin, The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. XI., The
Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ,
Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1845, p. 217 (Cf. 225-231); George
Gillespie, "Notes of Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster", The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle
and Oliver and Boyd, 1846, Vol. II., p. 10.
50. Goodwin, p. 222 (Cf. 145-174); Gillespie, Ibid., p. 11.

51. Gillespie, Ibid., p. Vii; Notes of Preceeding of the Assembly of

Divines at Westminster, p. 43.

52. Ibid., p. 11.

53. Ibid., p. 11.

54. Ibid., pp. 11-12.

55. Ibid., p. Vii.

56. Matt. 28: 19-20; Eph. 4: 11-13; Jer. 3: 15; 23: 4; Isa. 30: 20; 62:
6-7; 64: 21; Ezek. 34: 23; Matt. 24: 13-14; Luke 24: 47.

57. Gillespie, op. cit., pp. Vii-Viii.

58. Ibid., p. Vii.

59. Ibid., p. 15.

60. Ibid., pp. 18-27. Matt. 10: 1; 28: 19-20; Mark 3: 13-15; Luke 9: 1;
12: 42-48; Rom. 10: 15; Tit. 1: 5-7; Psalm 2: 6. Chapter 2-3; "A
Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies", Part 3. Digression
I, pp. 163-168.

61. Ibid., p. 26.

62. Ibid., p. 26.
63. Ibid., p. 13.
64. George Gillespie, "Notes Proceeding in the Assembly of Divines in
Westminster, op. cit., pp. 2-4.
-192-
65. Ibid., p. 3.
66. Ibid., p. 3.
67. Ibid., p. 4.
68. Ibid., p. 5.

69. Clement Graham, "The Confession of Faith", op. cit., p. 35.

70. John H. Leith, op. cit., p. 60.

71. Minutes, p. 30.

72. John Lee, Lectures of the History of the Church of Scotland, ed.
William Lee, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1860, Vol. II.,
pp. 302-303.

73. J. D. Douglas, New International Dictionary of the Christian Church,

p. 895.

74. Selden himself exclaimed in a tone of bitter mortification, "That

young man, by this single speech, has swept away the learning and
labour of ten years of my life! ". George Gillespie, op. cit., p.
XXiii; J. D. Douglas, Light in the North, The Paternoster Press, 1964,
p. 41. Cf. W.M.Campbell, op. cit., p. 63.

75. George Gillespie, "Notes of Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines

at Westminster", op. cit., p. 110.

76. J. D. Douglas, op. cit., p. 41.

77. Alex. F. Mitchell and John Struthers(Edited), Minutes of the Sessions

of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, William Blackwood and Sons,
1874, pp. 25-26.

78. Ibid., pp. 53-55.

79. W.M.Campbell, op. cit., p. 63.

80. Thomas Coleman(1598-1647). Dictionary of National Biography, London,

1890, Vol. IV, pp. 745-746.

81. George Gillespie, "A Brotherly Examination", Presbyterian's Armoury,

Robert Ogle, and Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1844, p. i

82. Ibid., pp. 9-10.

83. Rom. 13: 1-2; Heb. 13: 7,17; Rom. 12: 8.

84. Gilllespie, op. cit., p. 10.

85. Ibid., p. 12

86. Ibid., p. 12.

87. Ibid., p. 13.

-193-
88. Gillespie, "Nihil Respondes", Presbyterian's Armoury, Robert Ogle,
and Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1844, pp. 15-16. This is
generally the accepted edition now.

89. Ibid., p. 19.

90. George Gillespie, "Aaron's Rod Blossoming", The Presbyterian's
Armoury, Vol. II., Edinburgh, 1846, pp. 34-35.

91. Ibid., pp. 34-35.

92. Ibid., p. 35.
93. Ibid., p. 35.

94. Ibid., p. 36.

95. Ibid., p. 79.1 John 4: 2; Psalm 51: Acts 19: 18; Matt. 3: 16; 1
Tim. 6: 5; 2 Tim. 3: 5; 2 Thes. 3: 6). Gillespie here gives various
historical and biblical sources of the forgiveness.

96. Ibid., pp. 75-76.

97. Ibid., pp. 80-81.

98. Ibid., p. 164.

99. Ibid., p. 81.

100. Ibid., p. 82.

101. Ibid., pp. 162-163.

102. Ibid., p. 165.

103. Ibid., p. 164.

104. Ibid., p. 165.

105. W.M.Campbell, op. cit., p. 65.

106. Alexander Henderson, The Government and Order of the Church of

Scotland, London, 1641, pp. 39-45. Henderson, like Gillespie and
Rutherford, gave his ideas based upon the Bible on Censure and
Excommunication. George Gillespie, op. cit., pp. 110-111.

107. George Gillespie, op. cit., p. 111.

108. Minutes, p. 32.

109. Minutes, p. 35.

110. Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Prsbyteries or a Peaceable Plea
for the Government of the Church of Scotland, 1644, pp. 176-185,
especially, see pp. 177,179., chap. Viii, sect. 7.

111. Minutes, p. 28.

-194-
112. Minutes, pp. 34-36.
113. Minutes, p. 36.
114. Neil A. Macleod, "Church and State", Hold Fast Your Confession, ed.
Donald Macleod, Edinburgh: The Knox Press, 1978, p. 52.

115. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750,

The Knox Press(Edinburgh), 1982, pp. 143-144; John Macpherson, op.
171; Thomas Brown, . 86-88.
cit., p. op. cit., pp.

116. Neil A. Macleod, op. cit., p. 53.

117. James Moir Porteous, The Government of the Kingdom of Christ,

Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, & CO., 1873, p. 179.

118. Samuel Rutherford, "Lex, Rex", or "The Law and The Prince"; The
Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, Oliver and Boyd,
1846, Vol. III., p. 105.

119. Neil A. Macleod, op. cit., pp. 53-54.

120. The Confession of Faith, Edinburgh: Hunter Blair and M.T. Bruce,
1836, p. 121.

121. WCF, pp. 139-144.

122. WCF, XXV, 6, p. 152.

123. James Bannerman, op. cit., pp. 168,174-185.

124. WCF, I, 1, p. 32.

125. George Gillespie, "Treatise of Miscellany Questions", in The

Presbyterian's Armoury, 3 Vols, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle & Oliver &
Boyd, 1846, Vol. II., pp. 100-101.

126. Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and

Experience, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947, pp. 35-37.

127. John H. Leith, op. cit., p. 68.

128. Ibid., p. 68.

129. Davie B. McWilliams, "The Covenant Theology of the Westminster

Confession of Faith and Recent Criticism", Westminster Theological
Journal, 1991, Vol. 53., pp. 109-124; Mark W.Karlberg, "Reformed
Interpretaton of the Mosaic Covenant", Westminster Theological
Journal, 1980, Vol. 43, pp. 1-57.

130. WCF, VII., p. 57, Larger Cat., Q. 20,22, Shorter Cat., 12. Cf. The
Gallican Confession Art. IX says "We believe that man was created
pure and perfect in the image of God. " Also the Heidelberg
Catechism says that "God created man good, and after his own image
- that is, in righteousness and true holiness, that he might
rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him
in eternal blessedness to praise and glorify him. " Heidelberg
Confession Question 6.
-195-
131. WCF, VII., pp. 57-58
132. WCF, XiX., pp. 110-113.
133. WCF, VI. 6.

134. Geerhardus Vos, The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed

Confession, p. 6.
135. WCF, VII., pp. 58-59.
136. The differences could be summarized as follows: (1). Under the Old,
Messiah was promised; under the New, Christ was exhibited. (2).
Under the Old, Christ was prefigured in sacrifices, sacraments,
types and ordinances; under the New, he was set forth in the
preaching of the word, and the sacraments. (3). The New was less
complicated and had fewer and less ostentatious ceremonies. (4).
The New was a fuller, clearer revelation and was more efficacious
spiritually. (5). The Old was given only to the Jews; the New, to
Jews and Gentiles of all nations. All this was not to say that the
Old was ineffectual. Such revelation as was given was adequate for
the times, and for the calling and instruction and strengthening of
the elect by the Holy Spirit. Salvation and remission of sins was
given through faith in the promised Messiah. Believers in Old
Testament times were saved by faith in Christ every bit as much as
those of gospel times.

137. WCF, VII., pp. 58-61.

138. WCF, VII., p. 59.
139. WCF, VII., p. 60.

140. WCF, VII., pp. 60-61.

141. WCF, II-V., pp. 33-52.

142. WCF, VIII., pp. 62-71. Cf. Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in
Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the
Westminster Assembly, Ph. D. thesis, Glasgow University, 1988, p.
57.

143. WCF, VI., pp. 52-56.

144. WCF, VII., pp. 57-61.

145. Dirk Jellema, "Voetius, Gisbertus"", New International Dictionary

of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan: Grand Rapids,
1974, p. 1022.

146. John. H. Leith, op. cit., p. 94; Sinclair B. Ferguson, "The Teaching
of the Confession", The Westminster Confession in the Church Today:
Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, ed.
Alasdair I. C. Heron, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1982, pp.
36-39.

147. Truth's Victory Over Error, ed. John Reid, Edinburgh 1684.

-196-
148. James Watson, Edinburgh, 1697.

149. "Scoto-Calvinism and Anglo-Puritanism, " An Irenicum, The British

and Foreign Evangelical Review, 1868, Vol. 17., pp. 257-258.

150. WCF; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture proofs
at Large: together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, Edinburgh,
1836, pp. 443-478.

151. John Macleod, Scottish Theology, Knox Press, 1974, p. 85; Thomas
Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace from the Sacred Records,
intro. Malcolm H. Watts, Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1990, pp.
i-Viii.

152. John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, London, 1645, pp.
15-16; Andrew A. Woolsey, op. cit., pp. 64-66.

153. Thomas Brown, op. cit., p. 114.

154. John Leith, op. cit., p. 17.

155. James Bannerman, op. cit., p. 524; James Rankin, op. cit., p.
197; William Haller, op. cit., pp. 189-215.

-197-
 CHAPTERFOUR

ON COVENANT
AND THEIR DECLARATIONS
THE COVENANTERS'CONTROVERSY

THOUGHTFROM1648 TO THE REVOLUTIONOF 1688

In order to re-establish supreme power and episcopal church

government, the Stuart kings during this period used force and became

men of cruelty in their opposition to the Covenanters. Both sides, the

State and the Covenanters, claimed that their own interpretation of

covenant thought as applied to the authority of the church was best for

the nation. This difference of interpretation led inevitably to a long

conflict between them. The State passed several Acts of Parliament

against the Nonconformists in general and these restricted the activity

of the Covenanters.

The Covenanters' response to the State was-to argue that the Stuart

kings had illegally broken the covenants which they themselves had

sworn!. 1 The Covenanters believed that they had ample justification for

applying their doctrine of just rebellion (civil disobedience). A holy

war (a religious reformation) against the state could be justified

legally as a necessary defence for the people of God. The political

aspects of the covenant concept became ever more dominant in this

-198-
period.

The doctrine of a just rebellion was popularised by the radical

Covenanters in the conventicles; it was elaborated in formal written

documents containing historical proclamations of belief and also in

popular literature written by Covenanters such as Samuel Rutherford,

Donald Cargill, Richard Cameron and James Renwick. For these men, all

compromise with their opponents was rejected. Their revolutionary ideas

marked a new era in politics and British religion during the next

generation.

In order to understand the situation more clearly, the period can

be divided into two. First, the years from 1647 to 1660. While one can

discern the development and progress of the Covenanters' thought in

Scotland during these years, it was a time of in-fighting and division.

They began to fight against their brothers instead of against their

enemies. In the end, the covenanting movement divided into two parties,

namely, the moderates and the extremists. From the second half of this

period, the covenant idea coloured Christian politics significantly.

During this time of persecution, the Covenanters remained a remnant

people in their tradition just as Israelites had been in biblical

history. Indeed, they remained so until their ideas became the law of

the land and its national creed in 1690.

In this chapter we shall examine the thought of the Covenanters and

how their ideas developed during the controversy with the state and

under the persecution of the Stuart Kings.

4.1/ Development of Covenant Thought during the Controversy between the

Covenanters and the State from 1648 to 1661.

4.1.1/ The Controversy surrounding the "Engagement" of 1647-1648.

-199-
 After the ratification of the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643,

the Scottish Covenanters (Presbyterians) had great influence for a brief

period in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Having been defeated by

Cromwell's army, Charles I was sent to the Isle of Wight, where from

November 1647 to September 1648 he was a prisoner at Carisbrooke Castle

under the English Parliament. 2 The Scots, however, maintained their

loyalty to the King and were willing to do what they could for him

within the limits imposed by the Solemn League and Covenant. On 26

December 1647, the King intimated to three Scottish Commissioners -

Loudon, Lauderdale, and Lanark, who secretly visited the King on the

Isle of Wight, that he was willing to confirm the Solemn League and

Covenant by Act of Parliament on certain conditions. 3

Under these conditions he agreed to give parliamentary sanction to

the Solemn League and Covenant, to establish Presbyterianism in England

for three years, the royal household being allowed to observe their own
form of worship, and to call a meeting of divines at the end of the

three years to determine upon a scheme of ecclesiastical polity in

accordance with the Word of God. 4 At that time a treaty was agreed
between the King and the Scottish Estates. This treaty, known as the

Engagement, did not commend itself to the General Assembly, and the

policy of the Estates was condemned by the Assembly. The Assembly, being
the supreme court of the Church of Scotland, would only acknowledge an

agreement in which the king, after accepting the Covenant and becoming a

Presbyterian, would compel his English subjects to follow him. The Duke

of Hamilton and his party, who were opposed to the Covenanters, agreed
to raise an army in Scotland to assist the King in his effort to regain

the throne of England. Accordingly, the Scots were, by arms if

necessary, to defend the King's person, restore his power, establish

religion, and to settle a lasting peace thus fulfilling the Engagement.

-200-
 In March, 1648, the controversies over this document led to an

immediate breach between the Parliament of Scotland and the Scottish

Church. The Parliament (the Estates) passed an act requiring all

subjects to sign a bond supporting the Engagement. When the General

Assembly met in July 1648 the declaration of the Assembly's Commission

was approved, and the Act of Parliament requiring the bond to support

the Engagement was condemned. 5 On the basis of the Two Covenants

(National and Solemn League Covenant), the Covenanters insisted that the

Engagement was being misused by the royalists for the king's power.

Therefore, the Assembly warned all members of the Church of Scotland to

beware of the unlawfulness and dangers of the Engagement, and passed an

motion of censure on all ministers who had favoured the Engagement or

who had neglected to warn against its sinfulness. The Covenanters

insisted that the intention of the Act was to further the political

ambitions of the royalists. The Covenanters sent a letter to the King,

asserting the sinfulness of the Engagement, and stating that the

concessions he had promised were inadequate, and requesting him to

comply with the Covenant so that they could consistently support and

defend him.

4.1.2/ The Acts of Classes of 1649-1650.

Johanness G. Vos claims that the failure of the Engagement caused a

political change in Scotland. 6 The radical Covenanters now obtained

control of the Parliament, which had previously been controlled by the

supporters of the Engagement. On 4 January, 1649, the new Parliament

passed "The Acts of Classes, " which was intended to exclude from public

office all who had in any degree favoured the policy , of the

"Malignants"7 who opposed to the Covenants.

-201-
 The Acts enumerated four classes of persons ineligible for public

office, and classified them according to the degree of their

disqualification. The army was purged of all persons who had taken part

in the Engagement or were suspected of being Malignants. The Acts of

Classes have been regarded as intolerant and unreasonable, but it must

be remembered that it was a time of considerable public danger. The

purpose of this law was to preserve the safety of the nation by keeping

out of public office men who were known to be opposed to the recognized

principles and sacred obligations of the nation. The philosophy which

undergirded the Acts of Classes was the philosophy of Christian civil

government, namely, that such government could not continue to exist in

a wicked world without the provision of religious tests for public

office. According to the Acts of Classes, no wicked power could rule

over the church and nation. They wanted the nation and church to be

purified.

After Charles I had been executed in Whitehall and the news had

reached Edinburgh, his son, Charles II, who was an exile in Holland, was

proclaimed king in Edinburgh not only of Scotland but also of England,

Wales and Ireland. Commissioners were sent to invite him to Scotland on
the basis of the Covenant to be king in succession to Charles I. The

Covenanters were determined that the King and his government should
declare individually their acceptance of the Covenant, and undertake to

secure the enforcement of its principles and requirements throughout the

land. They insisted that the new King should solemnly promise to admit

no Malignant to office, and that he should regard all who had given
their support to the Engagement as disqualified. Furthermore, they

expected the king to allow all civil matters to be determined by

Parliament, and all ecclesiastical matters by the Assemblies of the

Church. 8 Charles II swore his acceptance of the National Covenant and

-202-
the Solemn League and Covenant on 23 June 1650.9

The Scottish Covenanters compelled the King to accept these two

Covenants in order to establish Presbyterianism in Scotland. In agreeing

to the Covenants, the King had in fact bound himself to maintain the

principles contained in them and had undertaken to support a

Presbyterian government, the Directory of Worship, the Confession of

Faith and the Catechisms (as agreed by the Assembly and Parliament). '0

He had promised to observe these in his own practice and family, and

never to do anything in opposition to them. The General Assembly held in

July, 1651, passed "Resolutions" which declared that "In this case of so

great and ardent necessity, we cannot be against the raising of all

fencible persons in the land, and permitting them to fight against this

enemy for defence of the kingdom; excepting such as are excommunicated,

forfeited, profane, flagitious", etc. 11

From July 1651, the Covenanters were divided into Resolutioners and

Protesters (who protested against the legality of the General Assembly

which had ratified the Public Resolutions). The Resolutioners were

willing to permit "Malignants" to fight with them against the common

enemy. Robert Douglas, David Dickson, Robert Blair and Robert Baillie

were the leading Resolutioners. The Protesters, 12 who included such men

as Patrick Gillespie, James Guthrie and Samuel Rutherford, protested

against the employment of any but "God's saints" in fighting the battles

of the Lord. 13 In August, Charles II signed a declaration renouncing

popery and prelacy and professing adherence to the Solemn League and

Covenant. 14 On January 1st, 1651, Charles II was crowned King of

Scotland at Scone. 15 In March, 1651, the Scottish Parliament made

Charles II commander-in-chief of the army to oppose the Cromwellian

English army, but they were completely defeated by the soldiers of the

Commonwealth at Worcester on September 3rd, 1651. The King escaped and

-203-
after wandering about England for some weeks, finally reached France on

October 16th, 1651.

4.1.3/ The Controversy between the Resolutioners (the Kirk Party)

and the Remonstrants (the Protesters) of 1651-1653.

This crushing defeat was followed by the complete subjection of

Scotland to the English Parliamentary Army. The English made no attempt

to bring the Resolutioners and Protesters to a better, mutual

understanding. All courts of justice which were not licensed by

Parliament, were prohibited, and all oaths and covenants were forbidden

unless sanctioned by the government. On February 4th, 1652, the royal

arms were publicly destroyed at Edinburgh and the authority of Charles

II was abolished. The English Parliament passed legislation which

required that England and Scotland would be jointly governed by a

council of twenty-one members. The people of Scotland were strongly

opposed to the Commonwealth, but they were powerless to resist it.

On February 13th, 1652, the Commissioners put before the Scots what

they called the "Tender". This was, in fact, an offer of incorporation

of Scotland with England. According to the terms of the proposal,

ministers both of the established Church and of dissenting sects were to

have freedom to preach. Although some of the Scots favoured the Tender,

most ministers were against it. The outcome of this was a proposal of

"Public Resolutions. " The Estates of Parliament consulted the General

Assembly whether some way could not be found by which those persons who

had been disqualified by the Act of Classes could be restored to

positions in the State and in the army. It is clear that the

Resolutioners and the Protesters differed from each other not only in

the specific matter of the propriety of the repeal of the Act of

-204-
Classes, but in their whole view of the principles and ethics of

Christian civil government.

In 1652 the Protesters held a General Assembly, and after their

adjournment the Resolutioners -held their own Assembly. The Protesters

declared that the Resolutioners' General Assembly was "unlawful, unfree

and unjust. " They also viewed the calamities of the nation as the

consequence of national sin and insisted on the purity of Christian

civil government in ethical terms. For them, the remedy lay in

repentance, confession of sin and a new obedience to the divine law. In

other words, spiritual remedies should be used if real relief was to be

achieved. In contrast to this, the Resolutioners looked upon the

national calamities as the result of a lack of unity in the nation. In

their view, the remedy lay in healing the breaches caused by the Act of

Classes, and rallying all the people of Scotland to the defence of the

King and the kingdom. They felt that whatever might be the ultimate

analysis and remedy, the national emergency justified overlooking

conflicting approaches and taking all possible measures against the

enemy. While this was a reasonable approach, later events showed it to

be over optimistic.

The Resolutioners' Assembly of 1652 threatened to censure the

Protesters, but the latter obtained the protection of the Commonwealth.

In 1653, the two parties held General Assemblies at the same time in the

same building, St. Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, with a partition between

them. Many of the persons admitted to power under the Public Resolutions

welcomed the Restoration and became persecutors of Presbyterianism after

1660.16 This division among the Covenanters hindered the consolidation

of the cause and added to the dangers that arose when the new enemies,

the Resolutioners, and the old foes, the Royalists, united their forces

and effected mainly through General Monk the Restoration of Charles in

-205-
 1660.

4.1.4/ The Development of the Covenanters' Thought during the Reigns of

Charles II and James VII (1660-1688).

King Charles II resented the Covenants he had been obliged to sign,

and it was not long after his accession before he proceeded to overturn

the whole work of reformation, civil and ecclesiastical, which he had

solemnly sworn to support. On the Ist of October, 1662 the Privy

Council, sitting in Glasgow, issued a proclamation forbidding all

ministers who had not applied to the bishops for presentation, to preach

or exercise any ministerial function; they were also required to remove

themselves and their families from their parishes by the Ist of

November, and not to reside within the bounds of their presbyteries. The

Privy Council deemed that all ministers should attend the meetings

summoned by the bishops, and that all who absented themselves should be

punished appropriately.

It was a crime, therefore, to be a loyal Covenanter, and the royal

troops sought to convince men of the divine authority of episcopacy.

Charles considered presbyterianism "no religion for a gentleman", and
indeed, his only fixed purpose appears to have been to use the power of
the throne to gratify his selfish desires. The men whom he chose to be

his counsellors were even more determined than he was to remove the

religious liberties of the people. The policy of the state under Charles
II incensed the Covenanters. From that time, field preaching began and

had a powerful impact upon many people17

In 1665, the Privy Council issued a proclamation against

conventicles, but this measure failed to stop private religious meetings

and conventicles. In 1669, King Charles II issued "Indulgences"18 which

-206-
were royal offers to permit some of the ejected ministers to resume

their ministry under certain regulations, designed to conciliate the

Covenanters.

In 1670, Parliament passed the Second Conventicle Act. All previous

measures had failed to stop the "seditious" meeting, and this Act, with

others passed at the same time, provided legislation intended to

suppress utterly all religious meetings not held in parish churches, and
to punish those who attended and supported such meetings. Every person

was required to give evidence on oath concerning conventicles and those

who attended them. The penalty for refusal to testify was a fine,

imprisonment or banishment. 19 The oath could be administered at any

time, and by any public official. The Covenanters were placed outside

the pale of society and excluded from the benefits and protection of the

law.

On 13th August, 1681, the Act dealing with the right of succession

to the imperial crown of Scotland was passed. This Act repeated the

assertion "that the kings of the realm derived their royal power from
God alone", 20 and succeeded to it by lineal descent, which could not be

altered without involving the nation in perjury and rebellion. Moreover,

a new proclamation against conventicles was issued by the Privy Council

in the name of the King. This proclamation ran in part as follows:

"Forasmuch as field conventicles, which were in our laws, by the

universal consent of all the representatives of this our kingdom,
declared to be the "Rendezvouses of Rebellion", are now found, by
the undeniable experience of all sober men, to have bred up the
unwary commons unto a most atheistical giddiness, to the owning of
those murdering principles, which are a reproach to the protestant
religion, and inconsistent with the security of every private man,
and to the condemning of their own masters and landlords: we
therefore... do hereby command and ordain, that how soon soever any
field conventicle, or other conventicles, understood to be field
conventicles by constraction of law, shall be kept, the heritor in
whose lands or house the same is kept... shall immediately advertise
the sheriff of the shire... within three days after the same is
kept", etc. Persons attending conventicles unarmed were to be dealt
-207-
 with according to the previous legislation for attending
conventicles; those who attended armed were to be dealt with for
treason. 21

Charles II died on 6th Feb. 1685 and was succeeded by James VII, who was

a Roman Catholic and hence an even more bitter opponent of the

Covenanters. In his reign, Parliament enacted more stringent legislation

against the Covenanters. More acts were declared by the King; those of

February 12th, March 31st, 5th July, 1687 and 15th May, 1688 and these

were much heavier than former ones.

By one of these acts, "the death penalty was provided for being

present at a conventicle, as well as preaching at one. Even private

family worship was treason if more than five non-members of the family

were present". 22 During the years 1685-1688, persecution reached its

height and many were put to death by soldiers, without the process of

law. The King's army could kill anyone attending conventicles without

any censures. Even the presumption of having been at a conventicle was

sufficient ground for instant execution without legal prosecution. 23 The

laws against field conventicles were left "in full force and vigour",

because the king held that, after the issue of the Indulgences, there

could be no excuse for field meetings.

These Indulgences were, however, accepted by nearly all

Presbyterian ministers, except the radical Covenanters, who had just

published their "Informatory Vindication", a statement and defence of

their principles. They consistently rejected all the Indulgences. In

addition, the idea that an absolute human right, such as the right to

worship God according to His revealed will, could be either tolerated or

restricted by an earthly ruler was anathema to them. If a king tolerated

religious freedom in this way then it implied it was not a right but a

privilege which he could give or withhold at his pleasure.

-208-
 Radical Covenanters saw clearly that the Act of Indulgence was in

essence not a recognition of man's right to worship God according to

Scripture, but a mere concession or granting of privilege, which

proceeded wholly from the doctrine of the supremacy of the King in

matters ecclesiastical. The Covenanters saw the Indulgences as wholly

Erastian and opposed to divine law and human freedom; they, therefore,

held aloof from the whole system. To the bitter end, they rejected every

offer of Erastian toleration, maintained their high principle of the

sole headship of Christ over the Church, and continued their field

meetings. 24

Furthermore, during the period of persecution between the

Restoration and the Revolution, seven Acts of Indulgence were passed.

The two Kings tried these Indulgences as a form of toleration, but the

Covenanters were not interested in the King's proposals; 25 rather, they

stood firmly upon the two Covenants.

4.2/ Development of Covenant Thought in the Historical Documents.

4.2.1/ The Rutherglen Declaration of May 29th, 1679.

On 13th May, 1679, the government issued a proclamation calling the

field conventicles "Rendezvouses of Rebellion", declaring that all who

attended and took up arms against the King were traitors. 26 Before this

proclamation, the Covenanters contented themselves with gathering to

hear sermons preached in the fields by ministers and preachers, and only
defending themselves when attacked. The Covenanters now decided it was
time to publish their principles to the world as a response to the

Conventicle Acts, and selected Thomas Douglas, one of the ministers, and
Robert Hamilton, a Covenanter leader and brother of the Laird of

-209-
Preston, to go with eighty armed men to the town of Rutherglen, near

Glasgow, for this purpose. The little band assembled at the market cross

of Rutherglen, extinguished the bonfires which were burning in honour of

the King's birth and restoration. They also burned the laws made against

the Covenants, destroyed a copy of all the Acts of Parliament in favour

of Episcopacy since 1660 then fixed a copy of their Declaration27 on the

Cross.

The declaration was entitled "The Declaration and Testimony of Some

of the True Presbyterian Party in Scotland, published at Rutherglen, May

29th, 1679". 28 It was a condemnation of various laws enacted since the

Restoration, including: (1) The Rescissory Act (2) The Acts for creating

and establishing of abjured Prelacy (3) The requirement that persons

holding public office renounce the Covenants (National and Solemn League
Covenant) (4) The Act which resulted in the ejection of ministers in

1662 (5) The Act requiring the anniversary of the Restoration to be kept

as a holiday (6) The Assertory Act of 1669 which declared that the King

is supreme in all causes ecclesiastical.

In addition to these, the Covenanters asserted that they would no

longer submit to tyranny, and condemned all Acts of Council for

enforcing the King's supremacy over the Church. 29 They publicly burned

all the Acts directed against the Reformation, "as they have unjustly,

perfidiously, and presumptuously burned our sacred Covenants". 30 This

public testimony, based upon the Word of God and the National and Solemn
League Covenants, displayed contempt for the King's attempt to subvert

Christ's authority and raised a greater storm of persecution against the

defenders of the Covenants.

4.2.2/ The Queensferry Paper and Sanquhar Declaration of 1680.

-210-
 During the interval between the publication of the Rutherglen

Testimony and the battle of Bothwell Bridge, there was much controversy

among the Covenanters as they endeavoured to formulate a statement of

their reasons for taking up arms. 31 The House of Stuart was declared

untrustworthy, and accordingly they proceeded to reject the King and to

establish their own community. They produced a document opting for

republicanism with a legal system modelled on ancient Israel. The

Covenanters did this by uniting together to obtain and exercise

religious freedom. The similarity with Israel was that the Covenanters

believed themselves to be chosen by God, directly under divine rule,

recipients of his infallible revelation; they also insisted that no

earthly person, not even a king, could modify or interfere in this

unique relationship between God and people. The document closed with a

warning that interference with the rights and liberties of those who

signed it would be regarded as a declaration of war. On June 4th, 1680,

a paper was found in the possession of Henry Hall of Haughhead, a strict

Covenanter who was apprehended at South Queensferry, near Edinburgh,

from which fact the paper was afterwards known as the Queensferry Paper.

The paper was unsigned and was obviously a draft. Somewhat rough

and unfinished in style, it was clearly not intended for publication in

this form. The paper itself contained eight statements of policy, each
linked to a separate declaration of intent and emphasised an

ecclesiastical obligation with no obligations to any king. The first

four statements dealt generally with the state of the church, affirming
the loyalty of the authors to the Scriptures, the principles of the

Reformation, Presbyterian church government and the Covenants, and

pledging themselves to overthrowing prelacy and Erastianism. The

remaining four statements, particularly the fifth and sixth, were much

more radical in tone.

-211-
 The fifth statement consisted of three parts and took as its

premise "that the hand of our kings have been against the throne of the

Lord, and that now for a long time, the succession of our kings, and the

most part of our rulers with them, have been against the purity and

power of religion and godliness, and freedom of the church of God". 32

It went on to rehearse the tyrannical acts of the government, their

oppressions, persecutions and injustice, "so that it can no more be

called a government, but a lustful rage, exercised with as little right

reason, and with more cruelty than in beasts, and they themselves can be

no more called governors, but public grassators, and public judgements,

which all men ought as earnestly to labour to be free of, as of sword,

famine or pestilence raging amongst us11.33

The paper also considered whether there was any hope of reclaiming

the rulers to better ways: "Neither can it be thought that there is hope

of their returning from these courses, having so often showed their

natures and enmities against God and all righteousness, and so often

declared and renewed their purposes and promises of persevering in these

courses". The paper then reached its climax. "We then, seeing the

innumerable sins and snares that are in giving obedience to their

acts... and siding with God against his stated and declared enemies, do

reject that king, and those associate with him, from being our

rulers... and declare them henceforth to be no lawful rulers, as they

have declared us to be no lawful subjects.. and that after this we

.
neither owe, nor shall yield, and willing obedience to them... so that

none can say that we are now bound in allegiance unto them, unless they

will say we are bound in allegiance to devils, whose vice-regents they

are". 3a
The fifth statement went on to propound a more radical idea still:

"Being now loosed from all obligations both divine and civil to them, we

-212-
do declare that we shall set up over ourselves and over what God shall

give us power of, government and governors according to the Word of God,

that we shall no more commit the government of ourselves, and the making

of laws for us, to any one single person, or lineal successor, we not

being by God, as the Jews were, bound to one single family; and this

kind of government by a single person being most liable to

inconveniences and aptest to degenerate into tyranny, as sad and long

experience has taught us". 35 Here not only the king, but the whole

concept of hereditary monarchy was being rejected. What was propounded

was a republican form of government, subject indeed to the laws of God,

but assuming to itself the civil magistracy which had hitherto resided

only in the King. This was revolutionary, and it is hardly surprising

that it was treated as such by the government.

Having dealt with the civil power, the paper went on in its sixth

statement to deal at length with the condition of the church, and

particularly with the evil of the Act of Indulgence. It denounced

vigorously those ministers who had accepted "that liberty founded upon,

and given by virtue of their blasphemous, arrogated and usurped power",

ands who had thereby "changed their masters, and of the ministers of

Christ are become the ministers of men and bound to answer to them as

they will". Since those ministers had thus ceased to be ministers of

Christ, they were no longer to be countenanced; the scriptural

injunction was "If any brother walk disorderly, from such to withdraw".

The seventh paper proceeded to advocate much more than a mere withdrawal

from these ministers themselves. It included in its denunciations "any

who have encouraged and strengthened their hands by hearing and pleading

for them": "all those who have trafficked for a union with them"; "all

that do not faithfully testify against them"; and "all who join not in

public with their brethren, in testifying against them". 36

-213-
 Eighth and lastly, the paper finished with a wide sense of

brotherhood in Christ: "We bind and oblige ourselves to defend ourselves

and one another in our worshipping of God, and in our natural, civil and

Divine rights and liberties, till we shall overcome, or send them down

under debate to the posterity that they may begin where we end; and if

we shall be pursued or troubled any farther in our worshipping rights

and liberties, that we shall look on it as declaring war, and take all

the advantages that one enemy doth of another, and seek to cause to

perish all that shall, in an hostile manner, assault us, and to

maintain, relieve, and right ourselves of those that have wronged

us... We do declare that we shall set up over ourselves and over what God

shall give us power of, Government and Governors according to the Word

of God". 37

As we have seen, this paper acknowledged God as Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost as well as the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and

New Testaments; it also expressed a determination to establish

throughout the land, righteousness, the true Reformed religion in

doctrine, worship, ordinances, right government and discipline. The

paper accused the government of "a lustful rage exercised with as little

right reason and more cruelty than in beasts", and Charles of having

renounced the Covenants which formed the agreement by which he became

King. This document went on to discuss the presbyterian system of

Church government, popery and prelacy, and the crimes of the House of

Stuart, including a testimony against the defections of the ministers of

Scotland. It affirmed the gospel ministry and, finally, issued a
declaration of war for the divine right and liberties of a free General

Assembly. 38 The Paper was a stepping stone to the more famous Sanquhar
Declaration which became an official declaration of their principles.
On the 22nd of June, 1680, less than three weeks after the incident

-214-
 at Queensferry and on the anniversary of Bothwell, a party of nineteen

horsemen, including Richard Cameron, rode to the cross in the village of

Sanquhar and there read a paper known as the Sanquhar Declaration which

they afterwards nailed to the market-cross of Sanquhar. This

Declaration, "The Declaration and Testimony of the True Presbyterian,

Anti-Prelatic, Anti-Erastian, and Persecuted Party in Scotland",

insisted that Charles Stuart, by his perjury in breaking the Covenant,

and his tyrannical government and usurpation of the civil and religious

liberties of the country, had forfeited his right to the crown. The

Sanquhar Declaration was in some respects a condensed version of the

Queensferry paper. It was much more concise, and it left out many of the

more contentious matters, particularly the disowning of hereditary

monarchy on the part of complying ministers. It did not mention the Act

of Indulgence at all and dealt only generally with the state of the

church; its main orientation was matters of state.

In this Declaration, the Covenanters expressly disclaimed the

authority of Charles Stuart, condemned his perjury and breach of the

National Covenant. They declared war on Charles as a tyrant and usurper:

"We disown Charles Stewart that has been reigning, or rather

tyrannising on the throne of Britain these years bygone... We being
under the standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation,
do declare a war with such tyrant and usurper, and all the men of
his practices as enemies of Christ and His cause and covenants. "39

But the declaration went further than the Queensferry paper in the

consequences and extent of this action "... against all such as have

strengthened him, sided with, or any wise acknowledged him, in his

tyranny, civil or ecclesiastic - yea, against all such as shall

strengthen, side with, or any wise acknowledge any other in the like

usurpation and tyranny". 40 Here was a positive, militant resolution,

-215-
taking the offensive against an enemy. The declaration went on to

endorse the testimony of Rutherglen, to disclaim the Hamilton

declaration for supporting the king's interests, and to disown the

reception of the succession of the Duke of York. It then concluded with

the hope that none would be offended by the rewarding of their

opponents, as the Lord should give them opportunity, in the same manner

as they had themselves been treated. Thus:

"Therefore, although we be for government and governors such as the

Word of God and our covenant allows, yet we for ourselves and all
that will adhere to us, as the representative of the true
Presbyterian kirk and covenanted nation of Scotland, considering
the great hazard of lying under such a sin any longer, do by these
presents disown Charles Stuart, that has been reigning (or rather
tyrannizing as we may say) on the throne of Britain these years
bygone, as having any right, title or interest in the said crown of
Scotland for government, as forfeited several years since by his
perjury and breach of covenant both to God and his kirk, and
usurpation of his crown and royal prerogatives therein, and many
other breaches in matters ecclesiastic, and by his tyranny and
breach of the very LEGES REGNANDI in matters civil... We do declare
war with such a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his
practices as enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ and His cause and
Covenants; and against all such as have strengthened him, sided
with, or any wise acknowledge any other in the like usurpation and
tyranny, far more against such as would betray or deliver up our
free reformed mother-kirk into the bondage of Antichrist, the pope
of Rome As, also, we disown, and by this resent the reception of
...
the Duke of York, that professed Papist, as repugnant to our
principles and vows to the most high God... We also, by this,
protest against his succeeding to the Crown; and whatever has been
done, or any are essaying to do in this land (given to the Lord) in
prejudice to our work of reformation... This is not to exclude any
that have declined, if they be willing to give satisfaction
according to the degree of their offence". 41

This is both a declaration of Christian/religious freedom (Assembly) and

civil liberty (Parliament). What is evident here is that prelacy was

associated as much with the absolutism of the throne in the state as in

the church. The Cameronians thus broke away from all other Presbyterian

ministers and became more extreme. In the name of freedom, they insisted

that a holy war should be waged against their enemies. By this

-216-
 declaration, they justified setting aside a despotism in order to

establish a theocracy.

In this declaration they were alone, and none of the Presbyterian

ministers in Scotland approved, as they themselves acknowledged and

regretted afterwards. Indeed, they amended and explained several

expressions quoted in this paper. This was the first public statement of

the Covenanters in which allegiance to Charles II was renounced.

However, J. D. Douglas observed that "the principal reasons which the

Cameronians gave were: the perjury of the king in breaking and burning

the Solemn League and Covenant which he had twice sworn to uphold; his

persecution of the cause which he had professed to be the cause of the

Lord; and his disloyalty to God, as shown in his own flagrantly immoral

conduct". 42 The Covenanting appeal was to God and to conscience thus

transcending legal considerations.

4.2.3/ The Act and Apologetic Declaration of the True Presbyterians of

the Church of Scotland, on January, 1682.

After the passing of the Test Act by Parliament in 1681, the King

pressurised the Covenanting ministers to accept the Act. Many

Covenanters submitted to the oath, condemned Conventiclers and offered

to pay cess (a tax for the upkeep of the dragoons), but over a thousand

still refused to perjure themselves in this way. However, being

compelled to sign the Act was the occasion for another public protest on
the part of the Cameronian Covenanters. To this end, a company of them

appeared armed at the town of Lanark on January 12th, 1682, burnt the

Test Acts and then read aloud a solemn declaration. It reaffirmed the

proclamation of Rutherglen, the Queensferry Paper and the Sanquhar

Declaration. They renounced all allegiance to the King, and regarded

-217-
 themselves at war with him; their members were forbidden to pay taxes or

to contribute to the support of the Erastian clergy or to recognise the

jurisdiction of law courts. 43

The declaration also asserted the right of the people to throw off

the yoke of a tyrannical government. It declared with some questions

that the Scottish Parliaments "are so prelimited by law, as that no true

son of the State or Church hath liberty to sit and vote there", and

asked questions like, "What shall the people do in such an extremity?

Should they give their reason as men, their consciences as Christians,

and resign their liberties, fortunes, religion, and their all to the

inexorable obstinacy, incurable wilfulness, and malice of these, who in

spite of God and man (and notwithstanding of their many oaths and vows

both to God and His people) are resolved to make their own will the

absolute and sovereign rule of their actions, and their strained

indulgences, and the measure of the subjects' hope and happiness? Shall

the end of government be lost, through weakness, wickedness, and tyranny

of governors? Must the people be in implicit submission and deplorable

stupidity, destroy themselves, and betray their posterity, and become

objects of reproach to the present generation and pity and contempt to

the future? Have they not in such an extremity good ground to make use

of that natural radical power they have, to shake off that yoke, which

neither we nor our forefathers were able to bear: which accordingly the

Lord honoured us (in a general and unprelimited meeting of the estates

and shires of Scotland) to do; a convention of un-prelimited members, a

convention of men who had only the glory of God and the good of the

commonwealth before their eyes, the like where of the present reigning

tyrant could never since his home coming pretend to? "

The declaration was afterwards published at Sanquhar by special

warrant from the said convention. The declaration moves on to enumerate

-218-
as grounds for the above action, "some of the many thousands of the

misdemeanours of the now cast-off tyrant in his overturning of our

Church and State". These included (1). The Act Rescissory, which changed

the constitution of both Church and State in Scotland. (2). The King's

exalting the royal prerogative above the law of the land, so as to make

Scotland "a laughingstock to the neighbouring nations. who say we have

.

only the law of letters, instead of the letter of the law". (3).

Arbitrary adjournment of Parliaments. (4) Claim of supreme power over

all persons and in all causes. (5). Oppressive taxation, "for keeping up

a brothel, rather than a court". (6). The packed Parliament and the Test

Act passed by it, "such as no Protestant can take". The document

continues: "We are only endeavouring to extricate ourselves from under a

tyrannous yoke, and to reduce our Church and State to what they were in

the years 1648 and 1649". It then approves the Rutherglen and Sanquhar

Declarations, proceeds to "rescind, annul, and make void" all the acts

of Charles II since 1660, and particularly the act of the Parliament

which met at Edinburgh, on July 28th, 1681. The closing words of the

document are: "Let King Jesus Reign, and all His enemies be

scattered". 44

This declaration emphasised that the various Acts passed under King

Charles II since 1660 were unlawful. By contrast, it affirmed that

their King was Jesus Christ and all prayed that His enemies might be

scattered. The document moved further towards the Scottish Covenanter

position on Church and Civil government to the apologetical declaration

of 1684.

4.2.4/ The Apologetical Declaration and Admonitory Vindication of the

True Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland, against Intelli-

gencers and Informers, November, 1684.

-219-
 The government's answer soon came in the form of an Act of the

Privy Council which stated: "the Lords of His Majesty's Privy Council do

hereby ordain any person who ownes, or will not disown the late

treasonable Declaration upon oath, whether they have arms or not, to be

immediately put to death; this being always done in presence of two

witnesses, and the person or persons having commission from the Council

to that effect". 45 This order provided for military execution without

any form of trial. An alternative form provided for trial by a jury of

fifteen men to be followed by immediate execution, and this was, used in

some parts of Scotland.

Against this, in November 1684 the Cameronians published an

"Apologetical Declaration", composed by James Renwick. This maintained

the Covenants and declared that "whosoever stretches forth their hands

against them (the Covenanters) by shedding their blood either by

authoritative commanding as the justiciary or actual doing as the

military, or searching out and delivering them up to their enemies as

the gentry, or informing against them wickedly and willingly as the

viperous and malicious bishops and curates... should be reputed by them

(the Covenanters) enemies to God and the covenanted work of Reformation,

and punished as such, according to our power and the degree of their

offence". 46 The Covenanters disowned the authority of Charles 11.47

This was, in effect, an open declaration of war against Charles and his

accomplices, and when on the night of 19-20 November, two soldiers were

murdered after leaving a tavern at Swyne Abbey in West Lothian,

hostilities were deemed to have commenced. On 22nd November 1684 the

Privy Council replied to this Declaration by an ordinance, by which any

person who refused to disown the Declaration was to be instantly put to

death, in the presence of two witnesses, by person or persons

commissioned by the Council. 48

-220-
 Even when driven almost to madness by persecution, the Cameronians

declared "we utterly detest and abhor that hellish principle of killing

all who differ in judgment and persuasion from us, as having no bottom

on the Word of God, or right reason. It was ... "the cause and interest

of Christ against his enemies, in the defence of our covenanted

reformation, by shedding our blood actually... "49 This contained a

warning to their persecutors that they counted them, and would punish

them, as the enemies of God and His covenanted work, although they

previously repudiated the principle of killing those who differed from

them. 50

The Declaration goes even further; "we do hereby declare, that we

abhor, condemn, and discharge any personal attempts, upon any pretext

whatsoever without previous deliberation, common or competent consent,

with certain probation by sufficient witnesses, the guilty person's

confessions, or the notourness of the deeds themselves". 51 It stressed

strongly the covenant and cause of Christ. "We are a people holy

covenanted unto the Lord, in our persons, lives, liberties, and

fortunes, for defending and promoting his glorious work of

reformation... and sworn against all neutrality and indifferency in the

Lord's matters. Let King Jesus reign, and all his enemies be

scattered". 52 This rebellion went no further than that advocated by

George Buchanan where a tyrannical ruler was involved. The Covenanters

had supported the claim to the throne of King Charles II until he turned

against the Covenants he had signed at his accession. But within a few

years, the Covenanters' rejection of tyrannical rulers became the

nation's rejection, and what had been called treason and rebellion,
became'the deliberate act of the nation, in the Revolution of 1688. The

Presbyterians refused to recognize the supremacy of the state in

ecclesiastical matters. 53

-221-
4.3/ Covenant Thought in Popular Literature and its Relation to the

Doctrine of Just Rebellion.

4.3.1/ Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) - "The Saint of the Covenant"

Samuel Rutherford, prominent Covenanter in 17th century Scotland,

was brought up in the Scottish Borders. He studied at Edinburgh

University then continued his academic life as Professor of Classics. He

later studied theology and for some years exercised a pastoral ministry

in Anwoth until his deposition and imprisonment in Aberdeen. In Aberdeen

he wrote most of his letters54; these letters have been preserved and

are still a source of devotional inspiration to many people.

After his release, he was sent as a commissioner to the Westminster

Assembly of 1643-1648. One controversial issue at the Assembly was

church government. Rutherford believed in the two covenant system of

theology, 55 namely. works and grace and at Westminster he also defended

Presbyterian church polity. In later years he was first a Professor and

then Principal of St. Mary's College at St. Andrews University. Rutherford

died on 20 March 1661, before he could be tried by the second episcopal

regime. Undoubtedly, in the period following 1638, Rutherford became the

Covenanters' most able and articulate theorist of government.

It was while he was a commissioner that Rutherford wrote in 1644

his famous book "Lex Rex, or, the Law and the Prince; a Disputation for

the Just Prerogative of King and People". "Lex. Rex" grounded its case
from Scripture primarily upon two texts; (a). Deuteronoy 17: 15 which

describes "the first king ordained by God's positive law" as chosen by

the people and it was to be the pattern for all subsequent kings. This

was a favourite Scripture passage for Rutherford as it sets out clearly

the regulations for establishing and maintaining the monarchy in Israel;

-222-
he frequently to the in which these regulations related to
refers way

the appointment of the first king, Saul. (b). II Kings 11: 17 in which

"Jehoida made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people";

this became the model of a covenant, that tied the King not only to God

but to the people. He wrote it in answer to a treatise by John Maxwell,

the excommunicated Bishop of Ross. Maxwell's work was entitled "Sacro-

Sancta Regum Majestas, or., The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian

Kings". 56

Here, Maxwell tried to prove that the royal prerogative of kingly

authority was derived from God alone. He asserted the divine right of

kings in the most absolute way, and regarded any protest or even

suggestion of reform on the part of the people as not only rebellion but

also sacrilege. In Maxwell's opinion, subjects were to render absolute

and passive obedience to the will of the sovereign.

In order to defend the royal prerogative of Christian kings,

(wherein sovereignty is, by Holy Scripture), Rutherford discussed the

question of the source of human sovereignty, and showed that it derived

from the people. Where the need arose, then, they had the right to

exercise their power. Rutherford wrote his "Lex Rex" to promote

religious toleration and to defend civil liberties. He went so far as to

call Scotland to a Holy War to rescue England from the tyranny of

episcopacy and to bring her to the true religion, namely,

Presbyterianism. This caused a storm at the Westminster Assembly, but

its significance went far beyond the times in which it was written. It

can be summed up under three main headings.

(i). All civil power is derived ultimately from God. In "Lex Rex",

Rutherford traces his polemical covenant theology of church government

back to the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Sovereignty is the

-223-
property of God alone, not of a king or any human authority. Rutherford

maintains that all civil power relies on God, as declared in Romans 13:

1-4 and other passages of Scripture (Titus 3: 1; 1 Peter 2: 13-14; John

19: 11). and since God has made man a social creature and one who is

inclined to be governed by man, then he must certainly have put this

power in man's nature. 57 God's creative purpose involved making humans

so that they are naturally disposed to relate socially to others and to

provide appropriate government for themselves.

Since God and nature intended such a situation, they must have

given mankind the power to achieve this end. In this context everyone is

equal before the Lord. In his Question I of "Lex Rex", Rutherford says:

"That power of government in general must be from God, I make good,

Ist, Because "there is no power but of God; the powers that be are
ordained of God (Rom. 13: 1). " 2nd, God commandeth obedience, and so
subjection of conscience to powers; Rom. 13: 5, "Wherefore ye must
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake; " 1 Pet. 2: 13, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man,
for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme. " Now God
only by a divine law can lay a band of subjection on the
conscience, tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgress.
All civil power is immediately from God in its root... "58

"... and if all men be born equally free, as I hope to prove, there
is no reason in nature why one man should be king and lord over
another. "59 In one and the same action, God, by the people's free
suffrages and voices, createth such a man king, passing by many
thousands and the people are not passive in the action, because by
the authoritative choice of the states the man is made of a private
man and no king, a public person and a crowned king: 2 Sam. 16: 18;
Judges 8: 22; 9: 6; 11: 8,11; etc., 60

The principle that all humans are born equally free is emphasised by

Rutherford. Naturally, whether by birth, family or wealth etc, no one

can claim authority over their fellow humans. In other words, no one is

automatically born to rule; rather, the people must themselves appoint

rulers. This principle was expressed as early as 1579 by the Scottish

theologian George Buchanan in his "De Jure Regni Apud Scotu". Rutherford

-224-
applies the principle almost exclusively with regard to the monarchy and

finds support in the Old Testament, especially Deuternomony 17: 15ff; he

uses this scripture reference to prove that God has delegated authority

to the people as a whole to appoint suitable rulers.

For Rutherford, there is no reason why royalists should deny that

church government was the natural social system, as it is ordained by

God, and that the kingly power is immediately, and ultimately from God.

He believed that it was against man's nature for him to resign his

liberty to a king or any ruler or rulers. Moreover, in answering

Question IV, "Whether the king be only and immediately from God, and not

from the people? " he stressed that power:

"floweth from the people, not by formal institution, as if the

people had by an act of reason devised and excogitated such a
power: God ordained the power. It is from the people only by a
virtual emanation, in respect that a community having no government
at all may ordain a king or appoint an aristocracy... For the
pastor's and the doctor's office is from Christ only... 1161

Rutherford insists that, although chosen by God, Saul was not actually a

king until the people of Israel had approved him. J. D. Douglas suggested

in his "Light in the North", that Rutherford's theories' "might still be

regarded by some as "advanced" for he deals with the pressing question

of absolutism. Is the king above the law? Can he modify or dispense with

it? Can the people legitimately resist him in defence of it? "62

To answer these questions, Rutherford discussed the origin of

government which, he stressed, is from God, and exists only by His

authority. The particular form of government, however, is by the

voluntary choice of men; and "the aptitude and temper of every

commonwealth to monarchy rather than to democracy or aristocracy is

God's warrant and call to determine the wills and liberty of the people

-225-
to pitch upon a monarchy 'hic et nunc', rather than any form of

government, though all the three be from God". 63

(ii). The king is to rule for the good of the people. Concerning

the kingly and royal office, Rutherford says that this is from God by

divine institution, and not by naked approbation. Indeed, the law is

not the king's own, but given to him in trust. The power of making a man

king is from the people. If the king does not have the consent of the

people, he is a -usurper, for we know no external lawful calling that

kings have now, or their family, to that crown, but only the call of the

people. He explained the kingly and royal office from Scripture as

follows:

"1st, We may well prove Aaron's priesthood to be of divine

institution, because God doth appoint the priest's qualification
from his family, bodily perfections, and his charge. 2nd, We take
the pastor to be by divine law and God's institution, because the
Holy Ghost (1 Tim. 3: 1-4) describeth his qualifications; so may we
say that the royal power is by divine institution, because God
mouldeth him (Deut. 17: 15;. "Thou shalt in any wise set him king
over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, one from amongst thy
brethren, " Rom. 13: 1, "There is no power but of God, the powers
that be are ordained of God". 3rd, That power must be ordained of
God as his own ordinance, to which we owe subjection for
conscience, and not for fear of punishment; but every power is such
(Rom. 13: ) 4th, to resist the kingly power is to resist God. 5th,
He is the minister of God for our good. 6th, He beareth the sword
of God to take vengeance upon ill-doers. 7th, The Lord expressly
saith, 1 Pet. 2: 17, "Fear God, honour the king; " ver. 13-14, "Submit
yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether
it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as those that are
sent by him, "Tit. 3: 1, "Put them in mind to be subject to
principalities and poweres". 64

Moreover, Rutherford made the familiar distinction between the king "in

concreto, " the man who is king, and the king "in abstracto", the royal

office of the king. He supports this by citing Knox's "History of the

Reformation": "There is a great difference betwixt the authority, which

-226-
 is God's ordinance, and the persons of those who are placed in

authority". 65 The kingly office is from God, but the people are the true

rulers, not any individual James or Charles. They can delegate authority
to this representative or that, selecting whom they please.
Accordingly, the king acts as trustee for the people. He is to

administer the law, not to make, break or dispense with it, nor to

enforce his own private interpretation of it. Interpretation of the law

is the business of the civil judges who are the king's public officers,

responsible directly to God alone for their administration of the law. 66

Rutherford considers these "judges" to have delegated authority under
God, similar to the king. Their consciences are not subject to the

monarch and this teaching contributes significantly to Rutherford's

understanding of civil resistance. Authority is spread out from the king

to include such judges and leaders. Monarchy, asserted Rutherford, is

not made by the people absolutely, but conditionally; the people and

parliament have superior power so that the king is not above law, either

divine or human.
He concluded that absolute monarchy is the worst of all forms of

government; such absolute power is contrary to nature, and is both

irrational and unlawful. In such cases, passive as well as active

disobedience must be exercised against the commands of the ruling

power. 67

(iii). A private man may defend himself against unjust violence but

not in any way he pleases. Rutherford went against the king where

necessary; the latter has his special dignity and stately privileges.
Nevertheless, in question IX, Rutherford stated: "I see not what

privilege nobles have, above commons, in a court of parliament, by God's

law". 68 In particular, the power of lawful defence against tyranny was

-227-
an issue of primary concern to him.
When Rutherford contends that the people have the right and duty to

resist tyranny, whether expressed in isolated acts or unlawful rule in

general, he is not talking merely of passive disobedience, but of active

resistance. This means not only continuing to preach, as in the case of

the apostles (Acts 4: 19; 5: 19), but trying to prevent or stop evil.
The first step will be to protest, to put forward "supplications and

apologies". 69 Passive disobedience will be the next stage. Rutherford

maintained that the King must rule and judge according to the law. 70

Since, in his judgment, the King's power is derived from the people, he

prefers an elected rather than an hereditary king. Parliament makes laws

while the King can only execute them; the sovereign is not above the

law, nor is he its sole interpreter. Rutherford underlines the fact that

civil power comes from God:

"... Tyranny being a work of Satan, is not from God, because sin.
either habitual or actual, is not from God: the power that is, must
be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is good in nature of
office, and the intrinsic end of his office (Rom. 13: 4), for he is
the minister of God for thy good and therefore, a power ethical,
politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power,
but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but
from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin... "71

Like other Covenanters, Rutherford insisted that all civil powers

originate with God. However, such offices and powers can be misused thus

releasing people from submission to those leaders. A fundamental

principle underlying all that Rutherford writes concerning resistance to

the king or government is that sovereignty is given by the people; where

necessary, the people can withdraw their delegated authority to a leader

to rule. Rutherford adds another argument, namely, that the commonwealth

of people is more important than the king. He wrote:

-228-
 "There is an oath betwixt the king and his people, laying on, by
reciprocation of bands, mutual civil obligation upon the king to
the people, and the people to the king; 2 Sam. 5: 3; 1 Chron. 11: 3;
2 Chron. 23: 2-3; 2 Kings 11: 17"72 and "But simply and absolutely
the people is above, and more excellent than, the king, and the
king in dignity inferior to the people... because he is the means
ordained for the people, as for the end, that he may save them (2
Sam. 19: 9); a public shepherd to feed them (Psalm 78: 70-73); the
captain and leader of the Lord's inheritance to defend them (1 Sam.
10: 1); the minister of God for their good (Rom. 13: 4)". 73 Power
is a birthright of the people borrowed from them that they may let
it out for their good, and resume it when a man is drunk with it. 74

Here the reasons for Rutherford's position are clearly stated, namely,

the covenant between king and people, the king's primary duty to serve

the people and their interests and, consciously or unconsciously, to be

the "minister of God" on their behalf. It is interesting that in Lex

Rex, Rutherford does not employ the concept of a covenant between God

and the nation.

Commenting on Deut. 17: 16-20, Rutherford boldly deals with the

king's relationship to the civil law. The king is himself bound by the

law and this for two reasons; all proper civil laws have their source in

God and the purpose of civil laws is peaceful, not divisive. Civil

leaders also are to be concerned for the wellbeing of the church:

"that God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a king

above the law". 75 God is the Author of civil laws and government,
and His intention therein the external peace, and quiet life, and
godliness of His church and people, and that all judges, according
to their places, be nurse-fathers to the church (Is. 49: 23)". 76

"The law is not the king's own, but is given him in trust... the
king may not dispose of men as men, as he pleaseth... my life and
religion, and so my soul, in some cases, are committed to the king,
as to a public watchman, even as the flock to the feeder, the city
to the watchmen, and he may betray it to the enemy". 77

Rutherford went beyond this and exalted God Himself:

"Now certain it is. God only, univocally and essentially as God, is

-229-
 the Judge (Psalm 75: 7), and God only and essentially King (Ps. 97:
1; 99: 1), and all men in relation to Him are mere ministers,
servants, legates, deputies". 78

For Rutherford and others, the concept of the divine right of kings had

not dealt adequately with the position of the king and his office in

relation to God Himself; whatever office men hold, they always remain

servants or stewards before God. Rutherford explains the government's

idea of monarchy, as exemplified in Scotland and England:

"For the lawfulness of resistance in the matter of the king's

unjust invasion of life and religion, we offer these arguments.
Arg. 1. That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and
religiously for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the
people on these conditions, and not' absolutely, cannot tie the
people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused
to the destruction of laws, religion and the subjects. But all
power of the law is thus obliged (Rom. 13: 4; Deut. 17: 18-20; 2
Chron. 19: 6; Ps. 132: 11-12; 89: 30-31; 2 Sam. 7: 12; Jer. 17: 24-
25), and bath, and may be, abused by kings, to the destruction is
clear: 1. From the powers that tie us to subjection only of God. 2.
Because to resist them, is to resist the ordinance of God. 3.
Because they are not a terror to good works, but to evil. 4.
Because they are God's ministers for our good. But abused powers
are not of God, but of men, not ordinances of God; they are a
terror to good works, not to evil; they are not God's ministers for
our good". 79

"A limited and mixed monarchy, such as in Scotland and England,

seems to me the best government, when Parliaments, with the king,
have the good of all the three. This government hath glory, order,
unity, from a monarch from the government of the most and wisest,
it bath safety of counsel, stability, strength from the influence
of the commons it bath liberty, privileges, promptitude of
obedience". 80

This idea of government was mainly directed against Stuart absolutism.

Supporters of such absolute authority held that a "free monarchy" meant
that the king was above the law and not bound by bonds of constitutional

obligation. Such a king was free to modify or overrule, to dispense

with or set aside the law. Rutherford, however, anticipated and

fearlessly advocated some of the more advanced principles that

-230-
characterized enlightened political thinking in his day and age. 81 Not

surprisingly, his works were publicly burnt at the cross of Edinburgh.

Rutherford concluded that since rulers are God's ministers

appointed through men, they must rule according to God's will for the

benefit of the people. ' When they fail to do so, they may and, indeed,

must be resisted by disobedience, protest, flight and, in the end,

force. If the rulers persist in such failure, so that their entire rule

becomes a tyranny, they may be deposed, either by inferior rulers or by

the people, if they have the necessary strength. Rutherford stressed

that pastors and elders "as servants under Christ had a ministerial

power over bishops as well as kings. He contended that no one, not even

the king, was exempt from church censures. At the same time, Rutherford

taught that all citizens, both believers and unbelievers, were subject

to the king's power to "punish the superstitious or neglecters of divine

worship".

Our interest in Rutherford's Lex Rex is his understanding and use

of the covenant concept. While fully embracing personal covenant

teaching, he emphasised in the Lex Rex the covenant between ruler and

people, basing it on Old Testament scriptures like Deuteronomy 17: 15,2

Kings 11: 17. Such a covenant need not necessarily be in written form

for it could be implicit and future generations would be bound to it

unless one or both parties in the covenant broke their agreement and

withdrew.

Discussing the power wielded by civil rulers, Rutherford underlines

the basic principle that rulers are servants of God who exercise

authority under God and are thereby accountable to Him. Rutherford

concentrates his attention on the relationship of the ruler to his

people and, for this reason, uses extensively the idea of "a covenant

politic and civil"! In Rutherford's mind, the absolutism claimed by the

-231-
Stuart kings necessitated a detailed examination of the ruler's

relationship to his people; the emphasis on the civil, political

covenant was, therefore, inevitable. It was the situation which

compelled Rutherford to challenge and argue in detail against the divine

right of kings; he did this on the basis of the covenant but a more

limited aspect of the covenant concept relating to the relationship of

king to his people. The covenant imposes obligations on king, "judges"

and people; the latter have authority to keep their ruler to his

covenant promises and obligations.

Furthermore, for Rutherford, as also or many of his colleagues,

Christ's mediatorial rule extended only over those redeemed in Christ.

Universal rule is exercised by Christ but, for Rutherford, this was

exercised by Christ as God and Creator. This has important implications

such as the fact that Rutherford denies the possibility of a civil

magistrate being a church officer.

-232-
4.3.2/ Donald Cargill (1627-1681)82 - "A Flying Evangelist of Christ"

Donald Cargill completed his studies for the ministry in 1652 and

was licensed by the Presbytery of St. Andrews on 13th April 1653.83 Two

years later he was called to be minister of the Barony Church in Glasgow

where he remained until 1660. During his ministry there "Cargill often

startled his congregations, for at this time his covenant thought, which
had been formed in an earlier period, 84 was developing and he began to

make frequent comments about the political state of the country. Cargill

joined a party which rejected the king's authority; this was distinct
from the principles and practices of Presbyterians since the Reformation

of Scotland. 85 On the day of the anniversary of the Restoration of

Charles II, Thursday 29 May 1662, Cargill set his church members in
bitter opposition to the Acts of the Restoration which had caused the

problems of the period. 86 Upon entering the pulpit he said:

"We are not come here to keep this day upon the account for which
others keep it. We thought once to have blessed the day, wherein
the king came home again, but now we think we shall have reason to
curse it. And if any of you come here in order to the solemnising
of this day, we desire you to remove". 87
"Whether any of his congregation complied with his charge is not
recorded; it is more than likely that the seriousness of his words
and the' earnestness of his manner compelled them to stay. For me I
desire to be found in the way of my duty, being our ordinary day,
otherwise I would not have preached a word on that account". 88

Cargill enlarged upon the unlawfulness of solemnising the day with

several weighty arguments. This extremely incensed the Malignants

against him. As a result of the decision of the Scottish Council on 1st

October 1662, Cargill was banished to the north of the Tay as from 1st

November. This he disregarded, and went on preaching in private houses

and field conventicles. From that time until the end of his life,

-233-
 Cargill's idea of the National covenant was fundamental to his theology.

Therefore, on 3rd June 1680, as we have seen earlier. Donald Cargill

with Captain Middleton met at Queensferry and made their declaration.

In his Covenanting document to the Queensferry Paper, drawn up on

4th June 1680, Cargill bound all who signed it to "overthrow the kingdom

of darkness, popery, prelacy and erastianism; to reject the royal

family, and set up a republican government; and to separate from

indulged ministers and from all those who hold communion with them... And

we bind and oblige ourselves to defend ourselves and one another in our

worshipping of God, and in our natural, civil and divine rights and
liberties, till we shall overcome, or send them down under debate to

posterity, that they may begin where we end". 89

M. Cargill's views on the Doctrine of Authority and God's

Judgement. Cargill's views on the doctrine of authority and God's

judgement can be seen in his sermon preached after the death of Cameron

at Torwood in September 1680. In a sermon and a discussion. Cargill

rejected the King and his authorities on the basis of what he regarded

as his own God-given authority. Under this deep conviction of divine

authority, Cargill disowned the government and highly exalted God. 90 He

entered on the work in the assurance that he was obeying God's command,

and his words were accompanied by claims of divine authority. It was

perhaps natural that even some of his friends strongly criticized him

yet his future ministry and action against the government would be

readily recognized as carrying divine authority by himself. 91 On this

basis, Cargill affirmed the divine authority behind the office of the

king or ruler, and his duty to govern his people in righteousness. 92

Cargill believed that kings were only human and subject to human

frailty. He remarked:

-234-
 "There is nobody that rules, but they are liable to failings in
ruling; and therefore if all failings of rulers should be exactly
looked to, there would be none who would rule a day to an end, but
we might find faults in them, for which to depose them ere night.
To govern his people according to God's law was an essential part
of the king's duty. "We are sure", said Cargill, "we see this plain
from the Scripture, that this is the part of the office of a king.
and he that has no regard to this ought no more to be esteemed a
king, but a tyrant and enemy to God". 93

For Cargill, as a minister of God's Word, the work of the ministry was a

great power for it meant that a creature had the power of heaven, power

to plant, to pluck up and to destroy (Jeremiah 1: 10). Therefore, as the

persecution had been against God, the sentence must be pronounced by one

of God's servants in his Master's defence, "We shall only say this of

it" said Cargill in his own defence, "that ere all be done, great men

shall know that there has been a prophet and a minister that has had the

mind of the Lord in what he has done; and that as we have cursed or

excommunicated, so the Lord has cursed or excommunicated". 94 What had

been done by God's servant in his name on earth, the Lord himself had

ratified in heaven.

Also, in a sermon preached from Isaiah 10: 3 in June 1681, he spoke

about judgement on rulers for their oppressions and God dishonouring

laws, and judgement on subjects for giving obedience to them. Cargill

asserted again that the rulers had been cast off by God through the

church by means of excommunication, and that this practice should be

used without hesitation in their regard, if they were not themselves to

come under God's displeasure:

"Let every man look to what obedience he gives to powers, to

rulers, to tyrants, for they are no rulers but tyrants. It is true
terror to evil works, and a praise to the good. Laws must be
stamped with justice and equity, and so have the authority of
heaven, as well as the authority of men; and if you obey them
without considering whether or not they have this mark, in obeying
them you disobey God". 95

-235-
 Cargill's judgement on excommunication was based upon Knox's Genevan

Service Book, namely, that excommunication was a corporate act of the

church and not to be entered upon by any one person. 96 As Grant has

remarked, in Cargill's time there was hardly anyone who stood beside

him, therefore, he acted alone to do his work. 97 Cargill was certain

that he had been commandedby God to the work and, no matter what others

might do, it was his duty to obey. Cargill recognised that since the

Reformation, the Church of Scotland had had to contend in a particular

way for the right of Christ to rule in his own house, for the church to

have the oversight and jurisdiction of her own affairs independently of

the state. This great principle, "the most radiant pearl in the Church

of Scotland's garland", as "A Cloud of Witnesses" calls it, had been a

vital point of testimony in the post-Reformation church, and was of the

essence of Scottish Presbyterianism. 98

It was this principle the king had violated by taking away the

liberties and rights of the church and arrogating to himself a supremacy

which alone belonged to Christ. 99 For Cargill, therefore, it was not

strange to object to the Explanatory Act for it had given absolute

supremacy to the king in 1669 over Church and State; those who had

fought at Bothwell Bridge, in Cargill's view, were not rebels for they

had been aroused and provoked by oppression. Since the Crown was one and

indivisible, there was no way in which the king's authority could be

recognized in one sense and not in another: it was impossible for his

authority to be admitted in civil matters and not in ecclesiastical

affairs. Denial of one was denial of the other and both were equally
treasonable in the eyes of the law. For Cargill there was no evading
this basic issue. Therefore, there was no room for temporizing or

manoeuvre. He wrote:

-236-
 "This is the magistracy that I have rejected, that was invested
with Christ power. And seeing this power, taken from Christ, which
is his glory, made the essential of the Crown... There is no
distinction we can make that can free the conscience of the
acknowledger from being a partaker of this sacrilegious rebelling
of God; and it is but to cheat our consciences to acknowledge the
civil power, for it is not civil power only that is made of the
essence of his crown. And seeing they are so express, we ought to
be plain; for otherwise it is to deny our testimony, and consent to
his robbery". 10°

Cargill believed that the king was under the authority of Jesus Christ

and so he should obey Christ. The authority given by Christ, to which

his words bear such firm witness, was at all times the driving force.

His greatest desire as a preacher was to proclaim Christ as Prophet,

Priest and King. For Cargill, to deny Christ's supremacy in one sphere

was to deny it in all; to deny him as King was to deny him also as

Priest and Prophet. 101

On his own authority, he bitterly criticised the King. From

Ezekiel 21: 25-27, Cargill preached about God's judgement and His

displeasure before excommunication. He also preached about the wicked

prince, that his diadem should be removed and his crown taken from him.

Much blood might be involved retaining the king's authority and such

rule might last for a while but it would be overthrown permanently and

such people would fall from the throne to eternal fire, from the crown

to eternal fire. 102

Even when Cargill stood before the Council in Edinburgh to be

examined as to his guilt on the 15th and 19th July 1681, in the presence

of His Royal Highness, his Majesty's High Commissioner and Lords of his

Majesty's Privy Council, he denied the king's authority, rejected the

king as his lawful prince and also denied the magistrate's authority

established by the Act of Parliament "anent Supremacy and the

Explanatory Act". 103 His view and attitude on authority was the same as

-237-
at Torwood. He refused to make any further answer at that moment
because he thought silence was the best protest.

(ii). Cargill's views on the Doctrine of Excommunication. In a

short discourse after preaching at Torwood in September 1680, Cargill

linked the words of his text with those of Paul in 1 Cor. 5: 13:

"Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " His theme

was the ultimate sanction wielded by the church, namely excommunication

which was the Lord's word to revenge all disobedience to God. It must

not, however, be drawn out at all times, or against all sins. 104

Cargill defined excommunication as "a declaring that a man, by his

sinning, though he still abide under the covert of the name of a

Christian, and fear of God, belongs to the other body or corporation,

whereof Satan is head, and not to that body whereof Christ is Head". 105

It was a "taking away, a rending off of the insignia of Christianity; a

ministerial punishment; a ministerial declaring of the mind of the Lord,

that he quits formally these wicked persons, and divests them of that

church and domestic relation of children they profess to have with him,

and that he quits and gives them up to Satan as his own, to be tempted,

tortured and punished by him at God's will", 106 "And", Cargill noted,

"it is very remarkable that where this sentence is just, that it passes

the power of the devils to make them such a life as they had before; for

after that, they are still languishing, vexed and anxious in heart, as

persons fallen from the highest and best condition, who are fallen under

the worst of heads, and to the dreadfullest conditions and

companies". 107

For him, the subject of excommunication was "those who either were

or are the members of the true church, who were entered by baptism, and
have fallen away by impieties, and not those who are without; all

-238-
Christians, we mean one as well as another, the great as well as the

mean, ministers as well as people; all people, priests, princes and

kings are the subjects of excommunication. For excommunication, as it

has causes, so it ought to follow upon the disobedience of the subjects

to God, and that indifferently upon all, without respect of persons, as

God, who is the Commander of this judgement will proceed himself in

judgement, without respect of persons". 108 The causes of this ultimate

sanction were "sins great and uncontrovertible, such. -as blasphemy,

paganism, atheism, murders, adulteries, incests, perjuries, wilful and

open breaking of the Sabbath, or where there is added contumacy to these

sins, and obstinacy in regard to repentance". 109

He finally speaks of the ends (or purposes) of excommunication,

namely, "zeal to God's glory, that will not suffer such to abide in his

house; that wickedness, which is like a leaven, which leavens the whole

lump, may be stopped from further infection, and that the purified

member which is ready to infect the rest may be cut off before its

infection spreads further; and to be a warning to whose who are thus

guilty and cast out, those censures being the forerunners and

prognostics of ejection and banishment from God and eternal happiness,

and a sorting of them to their own party and fellowship that they shall

be eternally with, if they repent not". 110 Upon the basis of his

discussion on excommunication, Cargill believed that those who had used

excommunicators were under the influence of Satan and were further

identified with king Charles II as follows:

(1). For his high contempt of God, after he had acknowledged his
own sins, his father's sins, his mother's idolatry, and had
solemnly engaged against them in a declaration at Dunfermline, the
16th day of August 1650, he has notwithstanding of all this gone on
more avowedly in these sins than all that were before him. (2). For
his great perjury, after he had twice at least solemnly subscribed
that Covenant, he did so presumptuously renounce, disown and
command it to be burnt by the hand of the hangman. 111 (3). Because
-239-
 he has rescinded all laws for establishing of that religion and
reformation engaged to in that Covenant, and enacted laws for
establishing its contrary, and is still working for the introducing
of popery in these lands. (4). For commanding of armies to destroy
the Lord's people who are standing in their own just defence and
for their privileges and rights against tyrannies, oppressions and
injuries of men; and for the blood he has shed on fields and
scaffolds and in seas of the people of God, upon account of
religion and righteousness more than all the kings that have been
before him in Scotland. (5). That he has still been an enemy to,
and a persecutor of the true Protestants, a favourer and helper of
the papists, both at home and abroad, and has hindered, to. the
utmost of his power, the due execution of just laws against
them. 112

It was clear that Cargill's attitude to the authority involved in the

state was radical. Indeed, Cargill was far more radical because he

pronounced sentence "by the same authority of the Word of God and in the

same name of Christ on six of the king's leading officers of state". 113

(iii). Cargill's doctrinal position on a just war or rebellion. As

indicated by his final speech given just before his execution in July

1681, Cargill was committed to the idea of a just war or rebellion.

Cargill at first traced it back to ging Charles II's covenant of the

16th of August 1650, subscribed in his enthronement before the estates

of the Parliament and later by James VII, Duke of York. Cargill

criticised both as idolatrous. He declared that Charles had rescinded

all laws for the establishing of that religion and the reformation

promised in that covenant which he swore; in fact, he enacted laws for

establishing the opposite. The king even worked for the introduction of

popery to Scotland. He was condemned especially "for commanding of

armies to destroy the Lord's people, who were standing in their own just

defence, and for their privileges and rights, against tyrannies,

oppressions, and injuries of men; and for the blood he has shed, in

fields, on scaffolds, and in seas, of the people of God, upon account of

-240-
religion and righteousness". ''4

Cargill says further that the "king had been an enemy to, and a

persecutor of, the true Protestants, a favourer and helper of the

Papists, both at home and abroad, and had hindered to the utmost of his

power, the due execution of-just laws against the Covenanters". 115 In

attacking the king's behaviour, Cargill stood in the faith of the

Scottish Reformers who opposed the king by means of war.

In this there was no essential difference between the National

covenant thought of Cargill and Rutherford. They were similar in their

preaching and their writing of letters which gave Scripture comfort to

their people in the trial. 116 There was, however, a difference of

emphasis among the Covenanters. For Cargill, the king's offence was not

primarily against man but God. It was the sword of God rather than the

sword of man which had to be drawn out against him. He often said that

his own authority was the authority given by God to the ministerial

office. Throughout his life he cherished the highest regard and respect

for the office and work of the ministry.

-241-
4.3.3/ Richard Cameron (1648-1680)117 - "The Lion of the Covenant"

Richard Cameron was a schoolmaster and precentor (a leader of

worship) in an episcopal parish church. He was so powerfully impressed

by the sermons of field preachers in conventicles that he was won over

to their side. Cameron strongly espoused the cause of the most radical

section of the Presbyterians, holding that those who had accepted the

Indulgences had sinned grievously. Cameron expressed his convictions as

one of the signatories of the Sanquhar Declaration. He was greatly

influenced here both constitutionally and doctrinally by Rutherford's

"Lex Rex". 118

After a period as a field preacher in the south, Cameron went to

Rotterdam, where he was ordained to the ministry. After his return from

the continent in the autumn of 1680, Cameron emerged as an even more

determined opponent of Erastianism. 119 From that time until his

death120 nine months later he served the members of the church in

conventicles. 121

M. Cameron's views on Indulgence. The first Indulgence was issued

by Charles II and his council in June 1669. It was proclaimed as flowing

directly from the royal supremacy. The power was granted to the

persecuting Council, at their discretion, to appoint certain of the

ousted ministers to vacant parishes, but on strict conditions. If the

Covenanters refused to accept the authority of the bishops, they were

refused stipends. They were only to possess the manse and glebe although

an annuity was given. If they did not attend diocesan synods, they were

to be confined within the bounds of their own parishes. They were not to

dispense ordinances to persons from other parishes, nor, on any account,

to hold conventicles. They were prohibited from speaking against the

-242-
king's authority, or the public measures of the government; they were

also expected to report their peaceable behaviour from time to time to

the Council. 122

The Covenanters had always declined to take the Oath of Allegiance,

for it involved the acknowledgement of the king "as supreme Governor of

the kingdom over all persons and in all causes". The power of the

persecutors failed to stop the preaching of the gospel in the fields,

and .to crush the spirit of liberty among the people of Scotland. The

Indulgence commanded by the king was a master contrivance of the "arch-

enemy" to divide the Presbyterians and to induce them to abandon some of

their fundamental principles, for the sake of outward advantages. 123

Wodrow has suggested that when the Indulgence was declared by the

government, Cameron at first preached separation from the indulged. 124

For him it was a matter which could not be separated from the issue of

the purity of the church; if the church was to evangelize and also

strengthen its witness, it must first cleanse itself from the evils

which had overtaken it. Cameron also attacked strongly the Indulgence of

Spring 1678.125 In a sermon preached on 20th May, 1680, he exclaimed:

"The most part of the land cry out, 'We will have no other king but

Caesar - no other king but king Charles'. But we must cry, 'We will have

no other king but Christ". 126 Thus, he rejected any suggestion of

toleration.

(ii). Cameron's views on Just Rebellion. After the battle of

Bothwell Bridge (1679), the field meeting movement seemed to decline.

Its members lost enthusiasm and at the same time some leading figures in

the conventicles left for their own safety. This changed when Cameron

and Cargill came back from abroad, and joined with the covenanting

movement. The leaders encouraged each other and worked hard during those

-243-
 days. They involved themselves intensely in the preaching ministry in

the various conventicles. Cameron's text one day was Hosea 13: 9-10: "0

Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. I will be

thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? And

thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? "

On this occasion Cameron declared himself openly to be for

disowning the king, and appeared at times to be urging his hearers to go

even further still. Calling the king an "enemy of God" and a "vile

adulterer", he went on:

"We must cry we will have no other king but Christ. If you would
have him be for you, you must cut off this king and these princes
and make able men be your rulers, endued with suitable
qualifications both of body and mind, that may employ their power
for the cause and interest of God. If we had the zeal of God within
us we would not call him our king, and even with regard to the
nobles and magistrates of this land we would not acknowledge them
to-be magistrates. I will tell you, sirs, if ever you see good days
in Scotland without disowning the present magistrates then believe
me no more. I know not if this generation will be honoured to cast
off these rulers, but those that the Lord makes instruments to
bring back Christ and to recover our liberties civil and
ecclesiastical shall be such as disown this king and these
inferiors under him. Are there none to execute justice and
judgement upon these wicked men who are both treacherous and
tyrannical? The Lord is calling men of all ranks and stations to
execute judgement upon them. And if it be done we cannot but
justify the deed, and such are to be commended for it, as Joel
was". 127

Just as Cameron declared a just rebellion against wicked rulers, so he

also strongly rejected the idea of paying cess (i. e. tax). Cameron

illustrated the difficulty of forsaking sin by a reference to those who

paid the cess. He maintained that "many a man that has even paid that

wicked cess will acknowledge it as an evil and a sin". 128 He justified

the doctrine of defensive arms and of resistance to Charles. He

presented a clear argument for resistance as set forth in the Sanquhar

Declaration, and spoke freely of the use of arms. "And indeed, suffering

-244-
for the cause gives a noble dash to enemies. We never lost anything by

dearly suffering, but gained much by these who lost their lives on

fields and scaffolds... But for suffering, that man will confine in the

breadth of a turnover that he will suffer for. These that cry down

defensive arms, when they see it comes to this". 129

Cameron justified this in such a way and added this warning to the

persecuting authorities, with the heroic resolve, "Let them take heed

unto themselves; for though they should take us to scaffolds, and kill

us in the fields, the Lord will yet raise up a party who will be avenged

on them. We had rather die than live in the same country with them, and

outlive the glory of God departing altogether from these lands". 130

Cameron's main concern was to target the king who was not yet disowned

as sovereign.

-245-
 4.3.4/ James Renwick (1662-1688) - "The Last Martyr of the Covenant"

After completing his studies abroad, James Renwick, an apostle and

man of war for Christ, 131 returned to his home country in 1683 as an

ordained minister to the Remnant later known as the Cameronians. 132

Before Renwick went abroad for his studies, serious tensions existed in

Scotland between the Covenanters and the State regarding Christian

polity. From 1683 he was soon involved as a field preacher in the

conventicles and, as a result, the spectre of a further rebellion

against the law of government was spread throughout the country. During

his ministry of about five years (1683-1688), he fought against church

government by episcopacy established by King Charles 11.133 Charles had

tried to rebuild his tyrannical authority, but this was a course of

action inconsistent with the safety and freedom of the people. Charles

overturned the fundamental constitutions of the government, perverted

and subverted laws, liberties of church and state, and all that had been

established since the Reformation in Scotland.

Renwick was one of the great leaders of the late covenanting period

and as a representative of the Covenanters drafted the "Apologetical

Declaration and Admonitory Vindication of the True Presbyterians of the

Church of Scotland" on 28 October 1684. He died in Grassmarket,

Edinburgh, on the 18th February 1688. Renwick's covenant thought can be

seen in his letters and various writings.

(i). Renwick's covenant thought can be seen in his attitude to the

law respecting the payment of cess (taxation), issued by the Act of

Convention at Edinburgh on July 10th 1678. He believed in the collection

of taxes but not in this particular one for it was contrary to God's

law. The money should be used in the service of the people and not for

-246-
 the king's advancement. The tax was specifically instituted to create

and support a large standing army to fight against the Covenanters and

particularly for the suppression of Conventicles. It was intended by the

estates of the Parliament to oppress the conventicles where the

Covenanters were gathering, and were still growing dangerously in

numbers. According to the estates, it was in order to serve His Majesty

in the maintenance of his honour, and defend the people from such

"wickedness", that the new taxation law was issued. 134

Renwick thought that the payment of this war tax was a practical
denial of God and a breaking of the covenant (1651)- even "suppressing

the Gospel". 135 Renwick knew that the supply of money was fuel for the

furnace of persecution; and that the cess would not be used for

persecuting their brothers in the conventicles who truly relied on the

Lord. Cess ought to be spent only in defence of true religion and
liberties yet the cess was used to maintain tyranny and to promote the
destruction of religion and liberty. 136 Renwick also asserted that taxes

should be used for the ministry of the Church. He raised some questions

and justified his rejection of the war tax as follows:

"How can it consist with all faithful endeavours, to discover, and

bring to condign punishment, a faction of incendiaries and
malignants, to pay cess for their maintenance and encouragement?
How can it consist with an endeavour, that the kingdoms may remain
conjoined in a firm peace and union, to pay a cess to the enemies
of peace and truth? "137
"Would it have been thought lawful for the Jews, in the days of
Nebuchadnezzar, to have brought every one a coal to augment the
flame of the furnace, to devour the three children, if so they had
been required by that tyrant? And how can it be lawful either to
oppress poor people for not bowing to the idols the king sets up,
or for their brethren to contribute what may help forward their
oppression on that account? 138

An analysis of this quotation highlights two important arguments against

-247-
 the payment of cess. First of all, the loyalist / Episcopalians who were

in charge of local and national church affairs are here regarded as "the

enemies of peace and truth". This may be an extreme statement but it

expressed the strong convictions concerning Presbyterianism and the

crown rights of Christ held by Renwick and others. For them, truth was

compromised by loyalists and therefore both civil and religious peace

were unobtainable. Secondly, Renwick uses an Old Testament incident,

perhaps somewhat emotively, to argue that by paying cess the Covenanters

would actually be supporting, albeit indirectly, the oppression of their

own members by the civil authorities. It was no longer a matter of

personal freedom or conscience; there was a need to protect their own

followers from increased or, at least, continuing oppression and

persecution.

In order to protect themselves from evil men, it was natural to

take up defensive arms against their enemies. In a letter to Donald

Cargill which he wrote on September 2nd 1682, Renwick argued that

raising armies against their enemies was inevitable. According to

Renwick, defensive arms were needed to protect those who preached the

gospel in the fields and to defend themselves against the Anti-Christian

popish threat which was in its nature and design. 139 This being the

case, Renwick' naturally taught his followers to carry arms to defend

themselves and to resist the unjust violence of their enemies. 140

The government's act made all preaching in the conventicles a

criminal offence and a capital transgression. 141 In reaction to this

statement, the Covenanters, including Renwick, declared that a holy war

was a necessary duty and that it was right to defend themselves by

resisting unjust violence and fighting to destroy their enemies, 142

because God ordained all authority, and that which is opposed to Him

should be opposed by His people. Renwick maintained that it was very

-248-
 necessary for the servants of Christ to find themselves bound in duty to

testify their adherence to, and continuance in, their covenanted

profession, their abhorrence of abjured prelacy, and their love and zeal

to keep the purely dispensed ordinances of the gospel in the land.

Inevitably, the Covenanters were forced to meet in the fields. This

enabled them to meet in great numbers, in secrecy on the moors or

mountains, and also in safety because such natural places were better

locations of flight and necessary resistance. 143 The places where they

met gave them freedom to testify to the gospel and enjoy the ministry.

Renwick believed that God was able out of the stones to raise up

children to Abraham and that "He will not want a testimony; yea, that if

these were silent the stones would cry out. So this should teach them to

credit Him with the cause, who is the maintainer thereof and will show

Himself to be the avenger thereof also". 144 During the difficult time of

persecution, Renwick encouraged the members of his conventicles. 145 In

an undated letter to Sir Alexander Gordon, he justified not paying cess,

because the decision of the General Assembly to which he belonged was

more faithful than any other Assembly. For him, the Covenants - the

National and the Solemn League and Covenant - condemned these deeds as
"the enemies of the kirk and kingdom". 146
Renwick was caught by his enemies in Fife on Ist January 1688. He

later stood before James VII to be questioned by the King himself. In

his answer Renwick confessed that he was a Presbyterian and adhered to

Knox's Reformation principles, 147 such as were generally professed by

church and nation from 1640 to 1660. Renwick was indicted by James

Guthry Pursevant on 8th February 1688. There were three main reasons
for the indictment. Firstly, according to the documents, Renwick broke

the laws of those acknowledged to be sovereign monarchs, absolute

princes, judges, and governors of the realm. No-one should defy the

-249-
 king or his authority under the pain of treason and that the kings of

this realm held their crown and authority from God only. Even upon the

death of any king or sovereign authority, the laws were immediately

devolved on the next lawful successor. No objection or pretence

whatsoever could impede or obstruct the same and the design to impose or

divert the succession was declared treason. 148 Therefore, the entering

into leagues and covenants, rising in arms against the king, or

suspending him from the exercise of his government or putting

limitations upon the allegiance and obedience of the subjects were

declared treason.

Secondly, the indictment went on to say that Renwick, "having

shaken off all fear of God, respect and regard to his Majesty's

authority and laws, and having entered into the society of some rebels

of most damnable and pernicious principles and disloyal practices, took

upon him to be a preacher to these traitors. He became so desperate a

villain that he openly and frequently preached in the fields, declaiming

against the authority and government of his sovereign lord the king,

stating that his most gracious sovereign king James VII was an usurper,

and that it was not lawful to pay cess or taxes to his Majesty". 149

Thirdly, the indictment insisted that in his recent activities

Renwick had denied the king to be his lawful sovereign and at the same

time the popish succession did not give a right to govern, so that it

was not a necessity to pay cess to the king. 150 Rather, Renwick urged

the people to come in arms to his meetings for defence, in case they met

with opposition, and taught that it was lawful to do so.

When Renwick appeared before the Judiciary court151 on Wednesday,

February 8th 1688, he adhered to all that he had said previously. He

denied that the present king could even be acknowledged to be lawfully

invested with authority according to the word of God or the laws of the

-250-
 land and the covenants. 152 He also denied that it was lawful to pay the

present cess in obedience to the Acts, imposing them upon such declared

ends; and he affirmed the importance as a duty, in the present

circumstances, of preaching in the fields, and defending the meeting by

arms.

The king for him was "de facto" but not "de jure". 153 All of which
he declared with such an unappalled countenance, and undaunted

confidence that he seemed rather ambitious of death than fearing it. 154

He was afraid to offend God and violate his law, saying that he was

there standing ready to be condemned. He held fast the word of God, the

covenants, the Reformed principles of Knox, and the Presbyterian system

of church government. 155 The assizers decided that he professed

Protestant or Presbyterian principles and an adherence to the covenanted

work of the Reformation. 156

In an appeal before his enemies to the government or court against

his sentence, Renwick defended Presbyterians and their system of

government. He stood firmly with the work of the Reformation of 1560

and defended his theology against "papists, prelates and malignants". 157

He affirmed the two covenants: the National Covenant of 1638 and Solemn

League and Covenant of 1643. He also accepted the doctrines of the

Westminster Confession of Faith as developed in his own theology with a

more aggressive stance on the covenants, especially in a political

context. He asserted that no one should break the covenants and that
God would punish all such false swearers. 158 He compared his enemies to
the Amalekites in the Old Testament against whom God would have war from

generation to generation. Renwick went even further and stated that God

would fight for His people against His enemies. Baptismal vows,

according to Renwick, were an act of covenant with God so that we should

fight under His banner against the devil, the world and the flesh. 159

-251-
 It was natural, therefore, that he strongly urged his people "not

to break their vows in making peace with any of them". 160 Renwick's

covenant thought appears in more detail in his various letters but

Renwick's strong conviction concerns the relevance of covenant thought

to the church and nation. 161 For him, "Absolute power is that which

none can claim but God, who is infinite, and whose will is a law: But

yet the present tyrant claims this, and requires all to obey it without

reserve of religion, conscience, credit, or honour; but all are to be

mancipate and enslaved to it". 162 He denied that James VII was a

covenanted king or lawful sovereign. Rather Renwick regarded the king

as a law-breaker. War was therefore possible against the king, and, he

asserted, "it is lawful to resist any that served his Majesty in the

church and the state army and country". 163

(ii). Renwick believed his involvement in the conventicles was

related to the doctrine of the Covenant Church where the Lord has to do

with His people in any place, so he trusted Him and gave thanks to the

Lord who would guide and direct their paths. As he remarked: "0 noble

guide! 0 sufficient guide! and 0 constant guide! "164 He felt that the

Lord was nearer than a brother, "though father and mother should both

forsake, yet He would not; He would not leave us, nor forsake us". He

went further and believed that "God is not- like other masters, for there

is an infinite disproportion between His work and His reward; and He

gives no work, but He gives also a heart for the same, and all equipment

suitable and requisite for the doing thereof, which is the thing that

other masters cannot do". 165 Because of this faith, he not only stood

before his God and Father but before his enemies as well. Therefore, he

urged his people to follow the Lord and serve Him in His own way. He

considered that the remnant must be ready to suffer for the cross. 166

-252-
 (iii). Renwick's church covenant thought can also be found in his

doctrine of infant baptism and in what he said about the ordination of

ministers. According to his own account in a letter sent to Robert

Hamilton in August 13 1686, when he was in England for a season, the

Anabaptists or Sectarians had criticised him for allowing infant baptism

in the field. Renwick attacked them with his conviction that it was a

doctrine warranted by the Scripture and also the testimony of some

ancient authors in the Reformation of Scotland. Renwick did not,

however, allow parents to present their children for baptism unless they

gave evidences of faith in a right and practical way. They were also

required to show clearly that they were convicted of their sin, humbled

by it and determined to turn from their sin. He strongly asserted that

he would not let them present themselves for baptism unless, and until,

they promised not to sin further and gave satisfaction of their

sincerity. 167 This was regarded as a matter of a covenant with God. 168

Concerning ordination to a particular church, every minister must

have Christ as his head and King, and be a member of the church catholic

as Christ's body and kingdom. 169 Thus ordination was not necessarily

dependent upon an officiating body. He also confirmed that "ministers so

ordained might and ought to be received in the church whereof they were

members, through the call of the people". He said that "no particular

church had the power to arrogate to herself the sole authority for

ordaining all who were to be admitted to officiate there". 170

Despite the complicated circumstances of the times. Renwick sought

the glory of God, and to be more committed to Him and His ministry. 171

Renwick maintained that the Covenants and the Westminster Confession

asserted the ministerial duty of resisting the authorities if they

resisted the public work of preaching the gospel. If any ministers were

under the same bond of Covenant with his party, they should be obliged

-253-
to maintain the same word of testimony with respect to the broken and
declined state of the church. 172
Renwick's central beliefs, then, can be summed up in his view of

the covenant which God has made with His people. According to Renwick, "

men are rebels and outlaws, lost and undone. But God made a covenant

with his people, and gave his only Son as a ransom. For Renwick, this

covenant is fundamental for the Christian life; it is "well ordered in

all things and sure". 173 He believed it had "all that was needful for

the matter; all wisdom, for the manner; all condescendence in the terms.

It is most wonderful in its end, being made to bring about the peace and

salvation of sinners; and it is most necessary, for there is no

journeying to heaven without it".

Renwick's application of covenant theology was wide-ranging. As we

have seen he related it to the rejection of cess and the raising of an

army against the king in what he conceived to be a "holy war" who

persecuted whose who preached the gospel of grace in the fields. For

Renwick, the conventicles related to the covenant church while the

covenant was applied vigorously to church government, baptismal vows and

the divine right of kings. The latter was rejected because the covenant

God alone had absolute power. Despite this wide-ranging application of

the covenant concept, Renwick placed considerable emphasis on the

spiritual nature, privileges and responsibilities of the covenant of

grace which focused on salvation in Christ alone. The actions of the

king, however, constrained Renwick to disobey and rebel against the king

because of the covenant of grace gave central place to the crown right

of Christ over an earthly king. Renwick claimed support from the

National Covenant (1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) for

his views.

-254-
4.4/ Summary of this Chapter.

The problem at this period in the history of the Scottish church

was the relationship between the Covenants, authority and freedom. As we

have seen, belief in the Divine Right of Kings meant that the kings

could execute those who opposed them; they required that their subjects

should obey them absolutely and they persecuted the Covenanters by law

as far as they could. The Covenanters, on the other hand, strongly

believed that all authority or supreme power to be owned of men must

come from God (Rom. 13: 1). 174 If the king oppressed the subjects, as

contrary to the Scriptures, he was to be judged resisting the ordinance

of God. The Covenanters believed that usurping, and tyrannical rulers

were not ordained by God. Therefore, the whole rebellion was justified

by the Covenanters in terms of the covenanting declarations. As

Alexander Shields describes, such a king was rather a servant of anti-

christ and as such under the Mediator's malediction (Hos. 8: 1-4). 175

When the Covenanters were fighting the royal armies, they needed to

be defended by God's people against their enemies. Many Covenanters were

convinced that the Scottish church and nation had sinned in not

resisting the tyranny of the perjuring and cruel king. This view was

boldly proclaimed by the leaders of the covenanting ministers namely,

Samuel Rutherford, Donald Cargill, Richard Cameron and James Renwick. 176

As a result, several Declarations - the Sanquhar Declaration chief among

them - were nailed in various places, as part of their defence of the

faith. These documents disowned the Stuart Sovereigns and declared war

against the supreme power. Their reason was that they were tyrants who

had subverted the Covenanted constitution which they had sworn to

maintain, and that they had murdered subjects who were faithful to that

constitution. The covenanting leaders, Cargill, Cameron, Renwick and

-255-
 their followers acted on the doctrine of Knox and of Rutherford: that

kings and governments who trample upon the conscience and liberty of the

people forfeit their right to rule and may be deprived of authority by

their subjects. 177

The question of authority also involved the question of conscience.

In order to exercise liberty of conscience, the Covenanters fought

against the king. They did this because, according to the Covenanters,

there is a mutual compact between the king and his subjects. This was

regarded as being indispensably necessary to maintain the relation

between sovereign and subjects being proved both from the light of

nature and Scripture.

In his promises regarding the succession of kings in Scripture, God

secures their continuation only conditionally, by their continual

obedience to the commandments (1 Chron. 28: 7; 2 Chron. 6: 16). It was

insisted by Buchanan's "De Jure regni, Jui prior a Conventis recidit",

that "There being a paction between the king and subjects, he who first

recedes from what is covenanted, and dothe counteract what he hath

covenanted, he looses the contract; and the bond being loosed, which did

hold fast the king with the people, whatever right did belong to him by

virtue of that compact, he loses it and the people are free as before

the stipulation". 178

For the Covenanters, there are two situations when subjects are

freed from covenanted allegiance to their princes. Firstly, when the

prince avoids the obligations towards his subjects. Secondly, when a

prince enters into a mutual covenant with the people, and then breaks

it; but even more, when he has absolute authority and thereby tries to

establish a kingdom whereby he rules absolutely without any

obligations. 179 Therefore, a covenanted prince, who breaks all the

conditions of his compact, forfeits his right to the subject's

-256-
 allegiance. In such a case, the subjects are not bound to own the
king. 180 This theory was strongly practised by the Covenanters during

the time of persecution.

As some covenanting documents have maintained, the central charge

against the King was his rejection of the covenant and, therefore, the

authority of God and His word. He was also guilty of aggression towards

God's people. As Rutherford says in his 'Lex Rex', any power which is

oppressive towards God's people is a licentious deviation of power and

is not from God, but from man's sinful nature and the devil.
The problems of this period were caused by conflicting views of the

power of kings resulting in deep theological and ecclesiastical

differences in which covenant thought was prominent. Covenant theology

emphasized God's sovereignty in grace, including the doctrine of the

divine headship of Church and State as taught in the Scriptures. It was

for these truths that the Covenanters fought against their enemies but

their theology had become increasingly entangled with political

considerations.
During decades of toleration, the convictions of Covenanters were

not developed, but with opposition they had to confirm and articulate
their doctrine biblically. For the great majority of nobles and lairds,
the Covenants were dead. There had been disastrous mistakes which had
led to chaos, defeat and threats to the established social hierarchy.

At first, it seemed that the banner of the Covenanters might have gone

down, but in the words of J. H. S. Burleigh, "though they were but a

remnant, their loyalty to convictions more widely shared, their

constancy under persecution and their warm if narrow evangelical faith,

must be recognized, and without their testimony the victory of

Presbyterianism would have been impossible". 181

The Covenanters maintained and developed the theology of the

-257-
 Scottish Reformers. When James VII was declared to have forfeited the

throne and the Crown was offered to William and Mary, the ideas of the

Covenanters became the law of church and nation; these ideas also

occupied the central place in Christian theology. In the next chapter we

shall therefore consider the development of the covenanting thought from

the Revolution of 1688-1690 to the Marrow Controversy of 1717-1723.

Through the "Marrow men", the theology of covenant concept returned
full circle again to its essential spiritual, salvatory character; the

politicising aspects were no longer dominant nor relevant because the

political situation had changed and, what was more serious, the nature

and application of the Christian Gospel itself was now threatened. For

these reasons, the "Marrow men" focused their attention on the major

doctrines of grace which were at the heart of covenant theology.

As we have seen, the term covenant has been used in a variety of

ways; to refer to a personal covenant between the individual and God but

also for God's covenant with His Church and with the State. What is

important to note is that all the different forms of covenant which are

referred to led to the difficulty of distinguishing precisely what was

meant by people who saw themselves as upholders of one or a multiplicity

of its forms. Therefore, it is important to note that those who held to

a multiplicity of covenants (e. g. personal, Church and State) did hold

to the doctrines of grace as part of their belief. However, the

increasing emphasis placed on the political covenant resulted in a

lessening of practical and experiential interest in the covenant of

grace. This is one reason why the Marrow men felt they must make' their

protest and call the Church back to the central doctrines of grace.

V.

-258-
 ENDNOTES
TO C APTERFOUR

1. Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor

Gollancz Ltd., 1976, pp. 48-49. Cf. 5.1.2.2 of Chapter Five.

2., James Raukind, A Handbook of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh and

London, 1888, pp. 197-198.

3. John Beveridge, The Covenanters, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905, p.

19; John Macpherson, A History of the Church in Scotlnad: From the
Earliest times down to the Present day, Alexander Gardner, 1901, p.
203.

4. James Renwick, An Informatory vindication of a poor. wasted.

misrepresented Remnant of the Suffering... Presbyterian Church of
Christ in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1687, pp. 15-16; James Rankind, op.
cit., p. 198; John Cunningham, The Church History of Scotland,
Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, Vol. II., p. 157; John Lee, Lectures
on the History of the Church of Scotland, ed. by William Lee,
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, Vol. II., p. 308; William Law
Mathieson, Scotland and the Union: A History of Scotland from 1695 to
1747, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1905, p. 9.

5. James Renwick, Ibid., pp. 16-24; John Macpherson, op. cit., p. 204;
Johannes G. Vos., op. cit., p. 48.
6. Johannes G. Vos., Ibid., p. 49.
7. John Macpherson, op. cit., p. 205.
8. John Cunningham, op. cit., p. 161; Robert Wodrow, op. cit., Vol. I.,
p. 92.

9. Thomas M'crie, Sketches of Scottish Church History: Embracing the

period from the Reformation to the Revolution, Edinburgh: Johnstone
& Hunter, 1841, Vol. II., p. 41.
10. J. King Hewison, The Covenanters, Glasgow: John Smith and Son, 1908,
Vol. II., pp. 27-30.
11. John Macpherson, op. cit., p. 212.
12. Baillie's Letters, Edinburgh, 1841, Vol. III., pp. 248,245,258;
Thomas M'Crie, "'The Marrow' Controversy: with Notices of the State
of Scottish Theology in the beginning of last Century", The British
and Foreign Evangelical Review, Vol. II., Edinburgh, June, 1853,
pp. 418-422; Ibid., p. 212; John Cunningham, op. cit., p. 168.
13. John Macpherson, Ibid., pp. 212-213; John Cunningham, Ibid., p.
168; John Lee, op. cit., p. 309; James Rankind, op. cit., p. 202.
14. Ibid., p. 41; James Kerr, "The National Covenant", The Covenant and
the Covenanters, Edinburgh, 1895, pp. 349-385; See George Grub, An
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1861, Vol. III., pp.
151-153.

-259-
 15. James Kerr, Ibid., p. 386; James King Hewison, The Covenanters: &
History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the
Revolution, 1908, Vol. II., p. 27.
16. G. D. Henderson, The Church of Scotland: A Short History, Church of
Scotland Youth Committee, Edinburgh, 1939, p. 74.

17. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church

in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp. 121-156; Robert Wodrow, The History
of the Sufferings of 'the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to
the Revolution, Glasgow, 1830, Vol. I., p. 283.

18. Gordon Donaldson and Robert S. Morpeth, A Dictionary of Scottish

History, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD., 1977, p. 104. Cf.
Johannes G. Vos, The Scottish Covenanters: Their Origins. History and
Distinctive Doctrines, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant
Publications, 1980.

19. W.M.Hetherington, op. cit., p. 432.

20. John Mackintosh, The History of Civilisation in Scotland, Aberdeen,
A. Brown & Co. 1884, Vol. III., p. 155.
21. W.M.Hetherington, op. cit., p. 505.
22. Ibid., p. 505.
23. Wodrow's history, Vol. IV., pp. 417-419.
24. The conventicle movement reached its height in great gatherings at
which the Lord's Supper was administered, in 1677 and 1678.
Gilfillan suggested that "one such conventicle was attended by 600
armed men and thousands unarmed persons". Gilfillan, Martyrs and
Heroes, p. 78.

25. Johannes G. Vos, op. cit., p. 80. Cf. M.Goldie, "James II and the
Dissenters Revenge: the Commission of Enquiry of 1688". Historical
Research: The Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Vol.
66, No. 159., February 1993, pp. 53-88..

26. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 58-59.

27. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., p. 66..
28. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 66-67.
29. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 66-67.
30. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., p. 67; James Renwick, op. cit., pp.
171-173.

31. J. D. Douglas, op. cit.. p. 140.

32. Wodrow's History, Vol. III., pp. 208.
33. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 208.
34. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 209.
-260-
35. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 209.

36. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., p. 211.

37. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., p. 211.

38. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 211-212.

39. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., pp. 212-213; Hector Macpherson, "The
Political Ideals of the Covenanters, 1660-1688", The Scottish
Church History Society, 1926, Vol. I. p. 231; J. H. S. Burleigh,
Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Hope Trust, 1983, pp. 250-
251; John Beveridge, The Covenanters, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1905, p. 100; Thomas M'crie. Sketches of Scottish Church History:
Embracing the period from the Reformation to the Revolution,
Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1841, Vol. II., p. 197; George Grub,
An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland: From the Introduction of
Christianity to the Present time, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas,
1861, Vol. III., p. 262; William Stephen, History of the Scottish
Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1896, Vol. II., p. 389.

40. Wodrow's history, Vol. III., p. 213; James Renwick, An Informatory

vindication of a poor. wasted. misrepresented Remnant of the
Suffering Presbyterian Church of Christ in Scotland, Edinburgh,
1687, pp. 173-177. Cf. Maurice Grant, No King but Christ,
Evangelical Press, 1988, pp. 122-123; Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish
Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1976, p. 105,
Source book, Vol. III., pp. 177-179.

41. Ibid., Vol. III., pp. 212-213. According to Cargill, four more
declarations were declared at the Cross of Sanquhar: the first,
August. 10th 1692; the second, November 6th 1695; the third, May
21st 1703; the fourth, May 1707., proclaiming to the world their
disowing of the State. "The declaration 1707 was a popish malignant
Contrivance, there being at their time a designed Rebellion amongst
them. " Richard Cameron, Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and
Death of these three famous Worthies. Signal for piety and zeal.
whom the Lord helped and honour'd to be faithful unto the Death, viz
Mr. John Semple. John Welwood. Mr. Richard Cameron. Ministers of the
Gospel, according as they were taken off the State: who were all
shining Lights in this Land, and gave Light to many. in which they
rejoiced for a Season, Edinburgh, 1727, pp. 85-86.

42. J. D. Douglas, op. cit., p. 150.

43. Wodrow's history, op. cit., Vol. III., p. 213.

44. Hector Macpherson, op. cit., p. 231.

45. James Renwick, An Informatory vindication of a poor. wasted.

misrepresented Remnant of the Suffering Presbvterian Church of
...
Christ in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1687, p. 189; John C. Johnston,
Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887,
pp. 144-147.
46. Ibid., pp. 142-144.

-261-
47. W.H. Carslaw, The Life and Letters of James Renwick, Edinburgh:
Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1893, p. 106.

48. Wodrow's history, op. cit., Vol. IV., p. 148.

49. Wodrow's history, Vol. IV., p. 148.

50. Wodrow's history, op. 'cit., Vol. IV., p. 148.

51. Wodrow's history, Vol. IV., p. 149.

52. Wodrow's history, Vol. IV., p. 149.

53. Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor
Gollancz LTD, 1976, p. 128.

54. Andrew A. Bonar (ed. ), Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Edinburgh,

1863; Thomas Smith (ed. ), Letters of the Samuel Rutherford,
Simpkin, Marshall & CO: London, 1876.

55. Robert Rollock, Tractatus de vocatione efficaci, (Edinburgh: 1597),

English translation (pp. 1-288): "A treatise of God's Effectual
Calling", Select Works of Robert Rollock, ed. William M.Gunn,
Edinburgh, Wodrow Society, 1849, Vol. I., p. 38.

56. J. D. Douglas, Light in the North, op. cit., p. 50.

57. Samuel Rutherford, "Lex Rex" - "the Law and the Prince", The
Presbyterian's Armoury, Vol. III., Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and
Oliver and Boyd, 1846, p. 1. Cf. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the
Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, Baker Book House,
1987, pp. 24-26, R. Buick Knox, "The Presbyterianism of Samuel
Rutherford, Irish Biblical Studies, Vol. 8.. July 1986, pp. 143-
153..

58. Ibid., p. 1.

59. Ibid., p. 2.

60. Ibid., p. 7.

61. Ibid., p. 6.

62. Ibid., p. 51.

63. Ibid., p. 5.

64. Ibid., p. 4.

65. John Knox, The Reformation of Scotland, Vol. I., p. 168.

66. J. D. Douglas, op. cit., pp. 51-53; Marcus L. Loane, op. cit., p. 78.

67. Samuel Rutherford, op. cit., pp. 38,62.

68. Ibid., p. 34.

69. Samuel Rutherford, op. cit., p. 160.

-262-
70. Ibid., p. 141.
71. Ibid., p. 34.
72. Ibid., p. 54.
73. Ibid., p. 78.
74. Ibid., pp. 62-63.

75. Ibid., p. 101.

76. Ibid., p. 105.
77. Ibid., p. 72.
78. Ibid., p. 107.
79. Ibid., p. 141.

80. Ibid., pp. 190-192.

81. Ibid., p. S.
82. Until 1988, the accepted birth date of Donald Cargill was
traditionaly either 1610 or 1619. According to Maurice Grant,
these dates are significantly wide of the mark. Then, for me, the
suggested date with long description given by Grant is more
accurate than the other dates. So here I put the date from Grant's
suggested date of Cargill's birth 1627. Further references can be
found in Maurice Grant's No King but Christ: The Story of Donald
Cargill, Evangelical Press, 1988, pp. 237-239.

83. Hew Scott (ed. ), Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Edinburgh: Oliver and
Boyd, Vol. III., 1915, p. 392; James Kerr, Sermons delivered by
Times of Persecution in Scotland, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and
company, 1880, p. 465.

84. According to Grant, Cargill's development of covenant thought was

made in his earier period, not only his strong religious impression
of home background but also his life in Aberdeen where he met Samuel
Rutherford who was banished there in 1636. Grant suggested that
Cargill might be a member of the group led by Rutherford. However,
it was greatly influenced by Cargill's life and ministry. Ibid.,
pp. 16-18,23-24.
85. D. Hay Fleming (ed. ), Six Saints of the Covenant, London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1901, Vol. I., p. 313.

86. Donald Cargill, A few of the many remakable passages of the Long
life (being past sixty years) and at his bloody death. of Mr. Daniel
Cargill. a Man greatly beloved indeed. who was born in the North.
and was eldest son of a singular godly Gentleman. and Heritor in the
Parish of Rattrav. some miles from Dunkeld. He was commonly called
Donald, but his baptized Name was Daniel, May 29th 1660, pp. 7-8;
Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor
Gollancz Ltd., 1976, p. 51.

-263-
87. Donald Cargill, Ibid., p. 466; John H. Thomson, A Cloud of Witnesses,
Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and Company, 1871, p. 503; John Howie,
"Donald Cargill", The Scots Worthies, Glasgow and London, 1858, p.
383; James Barr, The Scottish Covenanters, Glasgow: John Smith & Son
Ltd., 1946, p. 77.

88. Maurice Grant, op. cit., p. 48.

89. Donald Cargill, op. cit., p. 466; John C. Johnston, Treasury of the
Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887, pp. 134-141;
Wodrow's History, Vol. III., pp. 207-211. Cf. James Barr, Ibid., p.
55.

90. James Kerr, Sermons delivered by Times of Persecution in Scotland,

op. cit., p. 467; Maurice Grant, op. cit., p. 137.

91. Ibid., p. 138.

92. "We confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions and cities
to be distincted and ordained by God; the powers and authority in
the same, be it of emperors in their empires, or kings in their
realms, dukes and princes in their dominions, and of other
magistrates in their cities, to be God's holy ordinance, ordained
for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and
commodity of mankind ... not only they are appointed for civil
policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for
suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever". Scots
Confession, 1937, ed., pp. 93-95.

93. Donald Cargill, A Lecture upon 2 Chronicles 19: 1-2,1681, p. 6.

94. Maurice Grant, op. cit., pp. 139-140; J. Meldrum Dryerre, Heroes and
Heroines of the Scottish Covenanters, Scotland: Kilmarnock, pp. 56-
70.

95. Donald Cargill, A Sermon on Isaiah 10: 3,1681, p. 19. Cf. Ibid., p.
174. Cargill's main concern was the duties of the ministerial office
and the solemn responsibility and examination, so that he preached a
number of times on that issue. See his sermons reference to Isaiah
9: 16; Jeremiah 1: 10; on the covenant Sam. 2 23: 5

96. Knox's Works, "The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the

Sacraments etc., Vol. IV., p. 205.

97. "People-like" Robert Law described it. Ibid., p. 140.

98. James Kirk, The Second Book of Discipline, Edinburgh: The Saint
Andrew Press, 1980, pp. 42-45.

99. Maurice Grant, op. cit., p. 141.

100. Ibid., pp. 194,197-198.
101. Donald Cargill, Being the lecture and Discourse going before. and
the afternoon sermon following: with the Action of Excommunication
itself. pronounced at Torwood September 1680. upon king Charles II,
pp. 3-4.

-264-
102. Ibid., p. 6. Cf. Grant, op. cit., pp. 131-133.
103. Donald Cargill, The Last words of Mr. Donald Cargill. when on the
Scaffold, July 27th 1681, Edinburgh, 1719; Grant, Ibid., pp. 187,
193-194. According to Grant, the date was a mistake. The suggested
one was Sunday,. 12 September, Lauderdale Papers, Vol. III., p. 209.
Cf. Thomas Houston, The Life of James Renwick, Edinburgh, 1987, pp.
10,33-34.

104. James Kerr, Sermons delivered by Times of Persecution in Scotland,

p. 497.

105. Ibid., p. 495.

106. Ibid., p. 496.

107. Ibid., p. 496.

108. Ibid., p. 496; John Howie, "Donald Cargill", op. cit., pp. 390-391.

109. Ibid., p. 497.

110. Ibid., p. 497.

111. Wodrow's History, Vol. I., p. 243; John H. Thomson, op. cit., pp.
507-508.

112. James Kerr, op. cit., pp. 498-499; John H. Thomson, Ibid., pp. 507-
508. The pronouncement consisted in 7 parts, then, most of them we
see (5 parts) were negative to the authorities according to his own
authority.

113. James Kerr, Ibid., pp. 492-501. The Duke of York, the Duke of
Monmouth, the Duke of Lauderdale, the Duke of Rothes, Sir George
Mackenzie, and Thomas Dalyell of Binns. As Grant has suggested, it
was the historic principles of Scottish Presbyterianism which
emphasised all baptized persons were subject to the discipline of
the church and so were potentially liable to her ultimate sanction.
This stressed the essential unity and catholicity of the visible
church and her jurisdiction over all within her pale, high or low,
whatever their religious allegiances or affinities might be". In
contrast, Cargill formely believed tht the Lord would not cast off
a remnant for the Lord would not cast off for ever. " (p. 502). John
Knox's Works, "First Book of Discipline", Vol., II., p. 233.
Similarly in the Order of Excommunication of 1569: "All crimes
that by the law of God deserve death, deserve also excommunication
from the society of Christ's church, whether the offender be
papist or Protestant, for it is no reason that under pretence of
diversity of religion open impiety should be suffered in the
visible body of Christ Jesus, Ibid., Vol. VI., p. 449.

114. John H. Thomson, op. cit., p. 508.

115. Ibid., p. 508.
116. Maurice Grant, op. cit., pp. 152-153,162-163.
117. Ibid., p. 127.
-265-
118. John Herkless, Richard Cameron, Einburgh and London: Oliphant
Anderson & ferrier, 1896, p. 30.

119. Richard Cameron, Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and Death of
these three famous worthies. signal for piety and zeal. whom the
Lord helped and honour'd to be faithful unto the death. viz Mr. John
Semple. Mr. John Weiwood. Mr. Richard Cameron. Ministers of the
Gospel, according as they were taken off the Stage: who were all
shins Lights in this Land. and gave Light to many. in which they
rejoiced for a Season, Edinburgh, 1727, pp. 39-40,46; James Kerr.
Sermons delivered by Times of Persecution in Scotland, op. cit., p.
377; Patrick Walker, Biopraphia Presbyteriana, 2 Vols., Edinburgh,
1827, Vol. I., p. 193. Cf. Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters
1660-1688, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1976, p. 95.

120. Cameron's head was put on display at Edinburgh. Wodrow's history,

Vol. III., pp. 230-232; Howie, Scots Worties, pp. 423-424; William
Steven, History of the Scottish Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas,
1896, p. 390; Keith L. Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1982, p. 434..

121. J. Meldrum Dryerre, Heroes and Heroines of the Scottish Covenanters,

Scotland: Kilmarnock, pp. 84-91; James Renwick, An Informatory
Vindication of a poor. wasted, misrepresented Remnant of the
suffering... Presbyterian Church of Christ in Scotland, Edinburgh,
1687, pp. 129-134; James Barr, The Scottish Covenanters, Glasgow:
John Smith & Son Ltd., 1946, p. 68.

122. Thomas Houston, The Life of James Renwick: A historical sketch of

his life labours and martyrdom and a vindication of his character
and testmono, Edinburgh, 1987, pp. 29-30.

123. Patrick Walker, op. cit., pp. 195-196; D. Hay Fleming (ed. ), Six
Saints of the Covenant, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901, Vol.
I., pp. 291-292.

124. Richard Cameron, Some Remarkable Passages Mr. Richard Cameron.

...
Ministers of the Gospel, according as they were taken off the
Stage: who were all shining Lights in this Land. and Rave Light to
many. in which they rejoiced for a Season, op. cit., p. 193;
Patrick Walker, Ibid., p. 193; D. Hay Fleming, Ibid., p. 333.

125. Maurice Grant, op. cit., p. 77.

126. James Barr., op. cit., p. 55; M'Crie's History Vol. II., p. 113.

127. Maurice Grant, op. cit., pp. 113-114; William Garden Blaikie, The
Preachers of Scotland from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century,
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888, p. 172..

128. James Kerr, Sermons delivered by Times of Persecution in Scotland,

op. cit., p. 431; John Herkless, op. cit., p. 105.

129. John Herkiess, Ibid., pp. 110-111.

130. Thomas Houston, op. cit., p. 34.

-266-
131. Alexander Smellie, Men of the Covenant, London: Andrew Melrose,
1911, p. 483.

132. James Renwick, A choice collection of very valuable prefaces.

lectures. and sermons. Preached upon the mountains and muirs of
Scotland. in the hottest time of the late persecution, Glasgow,
1804, p. vii.

133. Alexander Shields, The Life and Death of James Renwick. with a
Vindication of the Heads of his Dying Testimony, Glasgow: Duncan
Mackenzie, 1806, pp. 173-174.

134. Ibid., p. 174. The raised amount by the estates was 1,800,000
pounds Scots for five years.

135. James Renwick, A choice collection..., op. cit., p. 595; An

Informatory Vindication of a poor. wasted, misrepresented Remnant
of the suffering... Presbyterian Church of Christ in Scotland,
Edinburgh, 1687, p. 35; W.H. Carslaw, The life and letter to James
Renwick, Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1893, pp. 257,260; John
Howie, The Scots Worthies. Containing a Brief Historical Account of
the Most Eminent Noblemen. Gentlemen, Ministers. and Others,
Glasgow and London, 1858, p. 529; James Dodds, The Fifty Years'
Struggle of the Scottish Covenanters 1638-1688, Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1860, p. 380.

136. James Renwick, A choice collection pp. 594-595; Alexander

...,
Shields, op. cit., p. 180.

137. Shield, Ibid., p. 180.

138. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., pp. 257-258.

139. Alexander Shields, op. cit., p. 191.

140. Ibid., p. 157; W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., pp. 258,260; John Howie,
op. cit., p. 529; James Dodds, op. * cit., p. 381; J. Meldrum Dryerre,
op. cit., pp. 108-123.

141. James Renwick, An Informatory vindication..., p. 37; Shield, Ibid.,

p. 191.

142. James Renwick, Ibid., pp. 37,68-69; The Church's choice. or. a
Sermon on Canticles. ch. 1.. 7, Glasgow, 1743, p. 63; There were two
main reasons for this action of defending themselves against their
enemies. The one was the law of God which does allow self-defence
against unjust violence. The other was the indissoluble obligation
of their covenants, to maintain and defend that testimony and one
another in promoting the same.

143. Alexander Shields, op. cit., pp. 157-158,191-192; John H. Thomson,

"James Renwick", Ai Cloud of Witness, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter,
and Company, 1871, pp. 485,489-490; Alexander Smellie, Men of the
Covenant, London: Andrew Melrose, 1911, P. 492; Elizabeth Whitley,
The Two Kingdoms. The Scottish Reformation Society, Edinburgh,
1977, pp. 196-197.

-267-
144. James Renwick, A choice collection..., pp. 304-305; The Church's
choice..., p. 19; W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., pp. 12-14.
145. W.H. Carslaw, Ibid., p. 8.
146. Ibid., p. 211; The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland, June 17th 1646, Sess. 14 and June 28th 1648, Sess. 14.

147. James Renwick, The Last speech and testimony of the Reverend
Mr. James Renwick. Minister of the Gospel. who suffered in the
Glass-Market at Edinburgh. Feb. 17th 1688. emitted from his own
hand the day before his suffering, printed from the Original
Secesion May 1888, by D. Hay Fleming, 1888, pp. 4-5; D. Hay Fleming
(ed. ), Six Saints of the Covenant, London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1901, Vol. I., p. 315.

148. James Renwick, Ibid., p. 4.

149. Ibid., p. 4; The Church's choice..., p. 63; Patrick Walker, op.
cit., pp. 205-221.
150. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., p. 143; Thomas Houston, The Life of James
Renwick: A historical sketch of his life. labours and martyrdom and
a vindication of his character and testmo v, Edinburgh, 1987, p.
41.

151. Ibid., pp. 144-145; John Howie, op. cit., p. 530.

152. James Renwick, The Last speech..., p. 4; John Howie, Ibid., pp.
527-528; Thomas Houston, op. cit., p. 41.
153. James Renwick, Ibid., p. 4; The Church's choice..., pp. 31-32.
154. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., p. 146.
155. Ibid., pp. 147,160.
156. James Renwick, Antipass or. the dying Testimony of Mr. J. R., 1715,
pp. 8-9. The assizers were professors and eminent in the tolerate
meetings. The names of the assizers were James Jume of Kimmergem,
John Hume of Nivewells, John Martin clerk to the manufactory,
Alex. Martin clerk, Robert Haliburton merchant, Tho. Laurie
merchant, Arch. Johnston mercant, Tho. Wylie merchant, James
Hamilto vintner, Wm.Cockburn, merchant, James Jamilton younger,
stationer, Rob. Currie stationer, Jof. Young merchant, John
Cunningham merchant in Glasgow, Ninian Bannantine of Kaims
chancelor. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., pp. 148-149.
157. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., p. 109.
158. James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication..., pp. 30-31; John
Howie, op. cit., pp. 519,533.
159. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., p. 111.
160. Ibid., p. 111.
161. Ibid., pp. 108-110,143,147,183,197,211,214.261.
-268-
162. James, Renwick, A Choice Collection of Very Valuable Prefaces.
Lectures. and Sermons, Glasgow: S. & A. Gardiner, 1804, pp. 184-185,
567,633. Cf. Chris Coleborn, "The Second Reformation in
Scotland", Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches,
Michigan: Grandville, 1981, Vol. 14., No. 1., pp. 21-46, No. 2.,
pp. 12-44.

163. James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication..., pp. 42-43; Alexander'

Shields, op. cit., pp. 82-83; John Howie, op. cit., pp. 523,529.

164. James Renwick, The Church's choice..., pp. 56-57; W.H. Carslaw, op.
cit., pp. 16,39.
165. W.H. Carslaw, Ibid., pp. 16-17.
166. Ibid., p. 40.

167. Ibid., pp. 187-188.

168. Ibid., p. 188.

169. Alexander Shields, op. cit., pp. 50-51.

170. James Renwick, An Informatory Vindication..., pp. 43-44; Patrick

Walker, Biographia Presbyteriana, Vol. II., 1827, pp. 22-29.
Shield, Ibid., p. 51.
171. W.H. Carslaw, op. cit., p. 17. Cf. Adam Loughridge, "James Renwick:
Preacher, Pastor, Patriot", Reformed Theological Journal, Belfast,
1988, November, pp. 20-29.

172. Ibid., p. 214.

173. Ibid., p. 226.

174. Alexander Shields, p. 165.

175. Ibid., p. 164.

176. Maurice Grant, op. cit., p. 206; Thomas Houston. The Life of James
Renwick: A historical sketch of his life. labours and martyrdom and
a vindication of his character and testmony, Edinburgh, 1987, pp.
33-36; Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London:
Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1976, p. 51.

177. Summary of the Testimony of the reformed Presbyterian Church of

Scotland, Glasgow: James Hedderwick & Sons, Ltd., 1932, pp. 32-33.

178. Quoted in Alexander-Shields, p. 169.

179. Ibid., p. 169.

180. Ibid., p. 170.
181. J. H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, op. cit., p. 251.

-269-
 CHAPTERFIVE

REVOLUTIONOF 1688 TO THE MARROW OF 1717-1723

CONTROVERSY

5.1/ Changing Historical Situations and the Development of the Covenant

Thought 1688-1723.

For reasons already indicated by numerous leaders and in various

writings, the Covenanters refused to regard the Covenants (National and

Solemn League) as a matter of emergency or expediency; they were

regarded rather as a perpetual obligation on the part of the nation and

its leaders. The period 1688-1717 in Scotland is a critical period for

appreciating the renewed understanding of the term "covenant" and also a

new awareness of its practical implications especially for the covenant

doctrine of salvation and its practical implications for Christian

living in both Church and State.

Due to changing historical circumstances, covenant thought now took

a major new direction which in turn influenced significantly the civil

and religious life of Scotland. Before examining this development in

detail, I intend first of all to provide an overview and analysis of

this redirection in Scottish covenant thought between 1688-1717.

-270-
 1688-1690: The revolution which started in Scotland in 1688

continued to make progress over many months culminating in 1690 in the

Restoration of Presbyterianism as the polity for the state church. This

was an event of crucial significance in settling the Presbyterian Church

and secured a permanent form of Presbyterian government for the Church

of Scotland. The latter retained the Westminster Confession of Faith, as

its principle subordinate standard of faith; it had been originally

adopted as early as 1648 by the denomination.

In the 1720s the Marrow men professed their adherence to this same

Confession as the theology of the Marrow. The Cameronians disregarded

the modifications by the State when the government failed to endorse the

National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643

within its national laws in 1690. Governing Parliament's decision here

was its desire to avoid extremism and establish political stability. The

Cameronians were bitterly disappointed and now thought that the 1660

Restoration Rod re-appeared in 1690.

In these circumstances, Scottish covenant thought changed

significantly both in its emphasis and its application after 1690. This

is seen in the following issues: (i). the more radical approach of the

Covenanters concentrated on constitutional law in relation' to an

uncovenanted sovereign and the relation of Church-State. (ii). a

stronger focus appeared on the covenant doctrine of salvation and

personal faith in Christ. Reasons for this shift of focus relate to

changed historical circumstances both political and religiously but also

to growing disagreement concerning foundational covenant doctrines in

what was becoming a divided state church of Scotland. (iii). as a

practical consequence of this emphasis, there was a renewed awareness of

the need to maintain and safeguard the covenant doctrine of grace

especially in the light of liberal tendencies such as Erastianism,

-271-
natural theology, and laxness in church government and discipline

following the Toleration Act of 1712.

During this period, there was a tendency to neglect the importance

of the personal covenant (i. e. Salvation and grace) and take them for

granted. The teaching of Prof. Simson with its natural theology together

with political aspects of the covenant emphasised by others led to the

Marrow Controversy focusing on the covenant of grace and emphasising the

crucial importance of personal, salvation in Christ, and holy

experimental Christian living.

From 1715 in particular, natural theology appeared in the divinity

school of Glasgow and the doctrine of salvation was questioned by the

Presbytery of Auchterarder in 1717. The issues raised in the Marrow

Controversy were to some expect inevitable as covenant thought majored

on the central doctrines of the faith. Here then was a major re-

direction for focus within Scottish covenant theology.

1690-1717: The life of the Church of Scotland was now complicated

by a number of different issues such as toleration, Church-State

relationship, natural theology, free grace, and Christian legalism. What

was different now was that some of these issues were debated within the

Church of Scotland, which was the only Presbyterian denomination until

1733. A middle course was required between the "high-flyers"1

Presbyterians and the Jacobites; in addition, traditional theology was

questioned by some members within the Church of Scotland. 2 These

doctrinal issues were highlighted both by the Simson Affair and the

Marrow Controversy. In this period, the following dates were

significant:

1707: The Union of Scotland and England. This represented a major

threat to the Presbyterian state church in Scotland as Queen
-272-
 Anne was an Episcopalian at heart and hostile to
Presbyterianism. Would she use political union to change
church polity? The Cameronians regarded this political union
as a great sin. Clearly, questions concerning church and
state still continued to be discussed.

1712: The Acts of Patronage and Toleration. Two covenanting ideals

of a Church such as freedom from State interference and
freedom of the people to elect their own minister were now
seriously threatened. 3 This resulted in increasing laxity of
Christian faith and in church discipline.

1715: Prof. Simson Affair and the Marrow Controversy of 1717: The
natural theology taught by Simson emphasised human reason in
contrast to the Marrow men's doctrine of grace, which
confirmed the orthodox reformed theology of earlier days.

In order to examine the development of covenant thought in this period,

it is necessary firstly to consider the fundamental documents of 1690,

namely, the "Claim of Right", the "Articles of Grievances" and the

settlement of the Presbyterian church government of 1690, as well as

Auchinsaugh Declaration of 1712 with its developed argument of covenant

thinking in relation to the doctrine of the Church-State relationship.

Secondly, we will examine further the relationship of Church and State

as we assess both the Professor Simson Affair and the "Marrow

Controversy". Both the Simson Affair and the "Marrow Controversy" were

doctrinally related; they also occurred within the same denomination and

at the same time. Significantly, both were also dealt with by the

General Assembly.

5.1.1/ Documents in the Settlement of Presbyterianism.

5.1.1.1/ "Claim of Right" in April 1690.

After the Revolution of 1688-1689, William of Orange and his wife

Mary, before they became the new king and queen of England, agreed to

-273-
 discuss with the Scottish Estates the matter of administering Scotland

until such time as a convention was summoned for the 14th March, 1689.

This Convention condemned Bishops; it also adopted the "Claim of Right"

and -the "Articles of Grievances", both of which were primarily

constitutional.

According to the "Claim of Right", adopted on 11th April, 4 (a). the

ruler must adhere to the Protestant faith, (b). there was to be no

taxation without the consent of Parliament, (c). the royal prerogative

was to be strictly limited and (d). Parliament itself should meet

regularly (e). and guarantee freedom of speech. This declaration

emphasised three main themes: namely, Religion, Laws and Liberties. It

denounced all laws formulated under the power of Episcopal government.

One of the most important things in the documents was the vindication of
the principles and conduct of the oppressed and persecuted Church-of

Scotland. It begins as follows:

"Whereas King James VII., being a professed Papist, did assume the
regal power, and acted as king, without ever taking the oath
required by law, whereby the king, at his accession to the
government, is obliged to swear to maintain the Protestant
religion, and to rule the people according to the laudable laws,
and did, by the advice of wicked and evil counsellors, invade the
fundamental constitution of this kingdom, and altered it from a
legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power; And in a
public proclamation, asserted an absolute power, to cess, annul and
disable all the laws, particularly arraigning all the laws
establishing the Protestant religion, and did exercise that power,
to the subversion of the Protestant religion, and to the violation
of the laws and liberties of the Kingdom". 5

As this declaration of the Scottish Convention of Estates shows, it was

essentially the same in spirit and theology, as the declarations made by

the Covenanters, on account of which they had been maligned and

persecuted as rebels and traitors. The only essential difference between

their declarations and that of the Convention is that the Covenanters

-274-
took religious liberty as their central principle. This meant in turn

that civil despotism challenged and threatened the sole sovereignty of

Christ, as the only King and Head of his free spiritual kingdom, the

Church. This Convention did not repeat all the former declarations but

it gave the same reasons for the tyrant's forfeiture of the crown. 6

5.1.1.2/ "Articles of Grievances" in April 1690.

Two days after adopting the "Claim of Right", the Convention

approved certain "Articles of Grievances". When the "Articles" were

drawn up, it was expected that an oath should be taken by sovereigns on

accession to the throne, binding them to be diligent in eradicating all

heretics.? One of the "Articles" declared the Parliament Committee, a

"great grievance", insisting that only committees of parliament freely

chosen by the estates should exist and then only to prepare motions and

overtures first made in the house. 8

Although brief, these articles are significant for several reasons;
(1). they impose again on civil rulers/ monarchs the duty of restraining

heresy, (2). they emphasise the equality of the people in Scotland, (3).

that it was the prerogative of people, not the crown, to appoint

ministers, and (4). undergirding and justifying all these articles again

was covenant theology.

5.1.1.3/ The Settlement of the Presbyterian Church Government in June

1690 and the Subsequent Declarations of Church Government.

The Parliament which met on 7th June 1690, under the presidency of
the Earl of Crawford, rescinded the Act of Supremacy which was at the

root of the persecution under Charles II and James VII, then revoked the

-275-
 persecuting and oppressive Acts as well as the penalties imposed for

non-conformity. Parliament ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith

"as the public and avowed Confession of this church", and settled

Presbyterianism as "the only government of Christ's Church his

Kingdom". 9

All Acts of Parliament in favour of Episcopacy were rescinded and

the Presbyterian government of the church by kirk sessions,

presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies was revived.

The 'Golden' Act of James VI, passed in 1592, which had permitted the

formation of presbyteries within the kingdom, entitled "Ratification of

the Liberty of the True Kirk", 10 was confirmed.

In addition, Parliament restored to their churches all the

surviving Presbyterian ministers ousted in and after January 1661, and

ordered the removal of the Episcopalian incumbents of these parishes.

Abolishing patronage, they declared Presbyterian church government to be

Scriptural and to be established and exercised by surviving Presbyterian

ministers and such Ministers and others they might receive; they also

appointed a General Assembly to meet at Edinburgh on 16th October 1690.

The Act declared that "the sole power and jurisdiction within the

Church" was the responsibility of the ecclesiastical judicatories and

not the civil magistrate. 11 It was largely the triumph of the

Calvinistic theological-political concept of the sovereignty of the

people over kingly absolutism or, in other words, the victory of

Presbyterian polity.

It was the Revolution Settlement which brought to an end the long,

bitter, and complicated struggle between Church and State which began

with Knox at the Reformation in 1560 and was continued by Andrew

Melville and the Covenanters. In these new circumstances, the Church

-asserted its spiritual independence. In 1698, for example, the General

-276-
Assembly Commission issued a "Seasonable Admonition", emphasising again

the spiritual authority of the Church. "We do believe and own", it

states, "that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of His Church, and

that He has instituted in His Church officers and ordinances, order and

government, and not left it, to the will of man, magistrate or Church to

alter at their pleasure". 12

S. 1.2/ Development of Covenant Thought under Queen Anne's Reign (1702-

1714).

Even after King William's death in 1702, the freedom of the

Scottish Church seemed to be secured under Queen Anne's reign. In 1706,

the Act of Security declared that "the Presbyterian government should be

the only government of the Church within the kingdom of Scotland":

"Therefore Her Majesty (Queen Anne), with advice and consent of the
said Estates of Parliament, doth hereby establish and confirm the
said Protestant religion and the worship, discipline and government
of this Church to continue without any alteration to the people of
this land in all succeeding generations". 13

For Queen Anne, however, the State recognised only one Church which was

Episcopalian in government. Her intention was to have a policy which

united Scotland to England; this was achieved in the 1707 Treaty of

Union14 and carried through in an atmosphere of turbulence. The Union of

the Parliaments ended the separate political existence of Scotland, but

unlike the purpose of the Treaty, it did not alter the religious

situation in Scotland. Presbyterian, like most Scotsmen, the Church of

Scotland disliked the 1707 Treaty; all the influence of Carstairs was

exerted to prevent the Church from becoming an active antagonist. The

security given to the Church did not make the Union any more popular. 15

-277-
 In 1712, two actions outside the Church of Scotland proved to be

the catalyst for strife within. The Acts of 1712 replaced the Acts of

1690 and restored patronage. Parliament also passed the Toleration Act

which opened "a wide door" for laxness in government discipline in'the

Church of Scotland. Although the Oath of Abjuration attached to the

Toleration Act required ministers to swear that the successor to the

Crown "should be of the communion of the Church of England" and was the

cause of the most immediate concern, the restoring of the right of

presentation by patrons to vacant congregations was an "antichristian

usurpation... whereby the Lord Jesus, the only Lord and Lawgiver to his

Church, is dishonoured" and patronage was a source of irritation for the

next two centuries.

Indeed, during the Covenanting times, it had been claimed that the

right of elections of persons to ecclesiastical functions had been

claimed by the Scottish people as their inalienable right, and yielded

to them by the State. Such were the words of the Second Book of

Discipline, and the right claimed had been fully recognised in the

constitution given to the Church at the Revolution Settlement. 1712 saw

this right wrested from the people in an attempt to secularise and

enslave the Church. The enforcement of these Acts of 1712 to the

Covenanters meant that they were a disgrace to themselves as His chosen

people. 16

The Covenanters maintained that the civil magistrate encroached

upon church liberties, the Acts were uncovenanted proclamations contrary

to the Covenants constituted by the State, and they encouraged Episcopal

domination over Church polity. 17 Therefore, the Covenanters protested,

declaring that Scotland should have a "legal limited monarchy" and not

an "arbitrary despotic power". 18 Despite these censures, the

Presbyterians suffered under the Queen's supreme power. Accordingly,

-278-
actions by the State against the Covenanters undermined the headship of

Christ over the Church and theological tensions surfaced as several

General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland considered suspect

doctrines, -such as the doctrine of grace, and those who espoused them.

5.1.2.1/ The Renewal of the Covenant.

The fervour of the Covenanters in this situation increased as they

saw the Church of Scotland accept, always under protest, limitations in

its freedom. The Covenanters were displeased by the omission of the

Covenants in the Revolution Settlement of 1690. As a result, they

disowned the Revolution government, persistently maintaining that they

could only recognise a prince on the basis of the Covenants. They

thought that their allegiance to the Covenants indicated that they

themselves constituted the remnant of God. For them, too, the time had

come to renew the Covenants, both as a means of confirming the church's

faith and testifying publicly in favour of Scotland's Reformation. 19

This inevitably raised the issue of Church and State, particularly the

question of headship. Their concern was intensified by suspicion that

the consideration given to these cases was not equitable.

(1). The Covenanters' response to the Acts. When patronage was

reintroduced, the Moderates quickly accepted it. One reason was its

inevitability since the State would not alter it. Another reason was the

benefit of placing the choice of ministers in the hands of those most

likely to select educated men of their own outlook. Opponents, however,

saw patronage as a restriction of popular rights, affecting the Church

as a spiritual fellowship. Furthermore, they saw it as an instrument for

imposing legalist ministers upon unwilling evangelical congregations.

-279-
Those who opposed the Moderates were thus in a minority, whatever their

popular support.

Despite their protest against this infringement upon the rights of

the Church by the State, William Carstares and a large number of

ministers took the Oath on the final day allowed by legislation. The

breach among the Presbyterians widened as a battle of words followed in

sermons and in pamphlets. In particular, an action by Ebenezer Erskine

in protesting against the Oath brought him into a conflict that plagued

him over the next two decades.

(2). Auchinsaugh Declaration of 1712. Cameronians met at their

"Canterbury" 20 of Sanquhar to protest against a measure they regarded as

sinful for it sanctioned "that English prelatical system which the

Solemn League and Covenant had bound the Scottish nation to extirpate".

The Covenanters called all the Societies to go to Sanquhar on 23 July

1712 for a united meeting for the purpose of excluding any possibility

of recognising an uncovenanted sovereign or a British Parliament. 21 The

occasion for this act was a double one. They objected to the treaty of

union between Scotland and England (1707) and to the Act of Toleration

(1712) which gave legal protection to Episcopalian worship in Scotland.

This meeting lasted three days and was followed by preaching, and an

acknowledgment of their sins such as oaths to the State, neglect of the

Covenant, general compliances with the spirit of the times, etc.

For this renewal of the Covenants, two sermons, preached by

Rev. John McNeile and Rev. John MacMillan, were influential. On the first

day, the Rev. John McNeile delivered a sermon from Jer. 50: 4-5: From this

text he brought out and applied two relevant observations; the first

implicitly assumed that a people in covenant with God may forget and
break their covenant. 22 The other more explicitly affirmed the duty of a

-280-
people who have broken covenant with God to engage themselves in

renewing their covenant again.

There are four aspects of McNeile's-sermon which merit underlining

here. One, he emphasised that all ranks of people in the State and

Church - including ministers, professing Christians and even themselves

as dissenters - had sinned in breaking their covenant with God. 23 The

second aspect is McNeile's reasons or motives for covenanting; there are

five24: (i). the turning away of the Lord's anger from a people for

covenant breaking is a motive for renewing a covenant with God with

biblical precedents like King Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29: 10) and Nehemiah

(Neh. 9: 38). (ii). revival and progress in reformation are the

consequence of genuine covenanting by individuals and a nation with the

Lord25 (iii). this genuine renewal of covenant procures both spiritual

and temporal mercies from the Lord. 26 (iv). the malice and opposition

against the covenants is also a motive to adhere publicly to the

covenants. (v). a genuine renewal of covenant with God, is a sovereign

medicine for healing a nation; the covenant is like a cement uniting the

friends of reformation, as with Israel and Judah.

A third aspect concerns the manner of how to renew a covenant with

God: McNeile advises in seven ways: First, that it must be done with

understanding and judgment (Neh. 10: 28-29). Second, with sincerity of

heart (Joshua 14:; Psalm. 78: 36-37. Third, with a due awareness of the

solemnity of the work (Joshua 24: 19; Jer. 34: 18; Neh. 5: 12-13). Four,

with much tenderness and heart-melting (Mic. 7: 18-20). Five, with

dependency upon the Lord, for strength to perform covenant engagements

(Isa. 27: 5; 66: 4). Six, with affection to God and in the duties

whereunto we engage (2 Chron. 15: 12,15) resolute in adhering to

covenant commitments, despite opposition, difficulties and discourage-

-281-
ments which may arise from those who prove unfaithful to or forsake

their covenant (2 Chron. 34: 32; Psalm 119: 106). 27

From this doctrine, McNeile inferred lastly that 'there is a

necessity for covenant breakers to return again to the Lord by entering

anew into covenant, whether personally in baptism or at the Lord's

table, or under affliction and trouble, or corporately in national

vows/covenants entered into by themselves or their fathers. He also

urged them to perform the duties implicit in the National Covenant and

the Solemn League and Covenant for the reason that they were religious,

just, and holy covenants made between God and the three kingdoms.

On the second day, the 24th July, Rev. John MacMillan preached on

Isaiah 44: 5: He made two observations on the text: firstly, that the

Lord is graciously pleased sometimes to privilege his people with very

remarkable tokens of his presence. 28 Secondly, the Lord's Spirit poured

out in plenty upon his people will quickly bring them to embrace him and

publicly acknowledge the covenant.

For the Covenanters, it created the impression of fervid Scottish-

Israelitism. 29 He gives Advice and directions for the right managing of

covenanting. First, a covenant with God must be on God's terms; in other

words, an acceptance of Christ in the new covenant by making or renewing

a personal covenant with God. This was the only condition of entering

acceptably into national covenants. It is a profanation of the covenant

to have hand and tongue involved in it without the heart. Secondly,

those renewing their covenant must be clear concerning their motives.

The central point came under the third head emphasising permanent

covenant behaviour:

"that it excludes all coming and going... the ebbing and flowing of
worldly interests... [he] must not, like the Samaritans, be an

-282-
 Israelite only in the time of Israel's prosperity, but he must be
one in adversity too". 30

Fourthly, such people must be resolute concerning the cost ivolved in

permanent, observance of covenant obligations. ' Fifthly, they must be

prepared concerning the separating, uniting nature of the covenant,

distinguishing between friends and foes. Both McNeille and MacMillan

emphasised genuine covenant renewal and observance as the way to a holy

life and a holy nation. 31 After the sermon, the Acknowledgement of Sins

was read, and MacMillan called upon those conscious of defection to make

public avowal of their sins. He himself set an example by confessing

with great sorrow his own public failures with regard to the Covenants,

particularly regarding recent perjurious oaths and present defections.

The Auchinsaugh declaration was based on the National Covenant of

1638 and Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 which had been omitted in

the Revolution of 1690; to the declaration were added lists of their

sins as well as the duties of a covenanted people. Here the Covenanters

assumed themselves to be the True Church of Scotland, protesting against

all schism and sinful separation from it as well as the oath of

allegiance, assurance, and abjuration. They also bound themselves to

remove prelacy and related rites, ceremonies, and heresies. The

declaration consisted of two parts, namely, the confession of sins and

solemn duties of the Scottish people. The first part was lengthy with

more than twenty thousand words, referring to all the offences of all

groups of people in the nation. After acknowledging God's glory and

confessing sin generally on behalf of various groups and dignitaries, it

declares:

"by a perpetual backsliding, we have most sinfully and shamefully

broken the National Covenant, and all the articles of the Solemn

-283-
 League and Covenant, which our fathers swore before God, angels and
men". 32

The Covenanters' confession made, they bound themselves as one under the
Two Covenants and retained their main ideas as the basis of their

declaration of faith. The "sins" mentioned ranged mainly from

Erastianism, Arminianism and toleration of prelacy to offences which no

clause in the Covenants could possibly have covered. They alleged that

the Church of Scotland had been invaded by the civil powers who

exercised an Erastian supremacy over her assemblies thus damaging

Christ's supremacy and kingly dignity in His Church.

In addition, they insisted that the idolatrous mass and promoters

of Quakerism and Arminianism were being set up in several places of the

kingdom without punishment and enjoyed protection from the state. 33 The

Covenanters thought that the civil government ignored sound doctrine and

practice. They recalled that true religion and liberty were established

under the reigns of Stuart sovereigns who signed the covenant with their

subjects. Focusing on themselves, they confessed their sins:

"In times of hazard, many ministers left off preaching, and the
people hearing. We have been negligent and remiss in family worship
and instead of preserving, many have done much to discourage and
hinder it. And in secret we have been formal and careless. Many
have satisfied themselves with the purity of the ordinances,
neglecting the power thereof, yea, some have turned aside to
crooked ways destructive to both. "34

Sins of toleration, a lack of discipline in congregations and families,

church censures ignored or only partially applied. Scandalous persons

were allowed to bring their children for baptism, partake of the Lord's

supper without respect to the rules of Christ. The discipline of the

church had also been limited by Acts of Parliament. Therefore, this

-284-
lengthy confession of sins was followed by a "Solemn Engagement",

directed mainly against union with England, of which Cameronians were

among the most bitter opponents. 35

According to them, the nation's sovereignty and independency had

been surrendered, and the right of Parliament entirely lost by the

treaty of Union. They felt that conditions made in the treaty were

inconsistent with covenanted union and that their liberties had been

eroded by arbitrary government.

Subjects had also been oppressed in their consciences, persons,

and estates by all the oaths and bonds demanding conformity to the

government of church and state. 36 Their concern was the subjects'

liberties as Christians (1 Sam. 14: 25; Acts 22: 25,25: 11; Gal. 5: 1).

They desired the purity of the true church.

For the defence of Christ's evangel, liberties of country,

ministration of justice and punishment of iniquity, and defence of the

true religion and laws of the kingdom, their duty was required. Civil

duties consist of two parts: firstly, a commanded duty to these

unfaithful in covenant to confess their iniquity. Secondly, that public

offences should be confessed publicly.

The Covenanters particularized the duties incumbent on those who

would stem the course of defection. The distinctive note is sounded in

dealing with their civil allegiance to an uncovenanted Government. It

begins as follows:

"Albeit God, in His righteous judgment, hath left the nation so far
to the counsels of their own hearts... as to give up the rights and
privileges of Parliament and Kingdom to the will and lust of the
English, and so to betray the interest both of Religion and Civil
Liberty for unworthy ends; yet we purpose and promise that we shall
always bear witness against these courses, and shall not by any
means corroborate them, or encourage and countenance the
maintainers and abettors of them". 37

-285-
But "bearing witness against these courses" was not enough; "they

engaged themselves not to uphold the regime by paying cess (war tax)

which was being used to support corrupt courts and armies employed in an

unjust and anti-Christian quarrel". -38 -Also, most of the other

engagements might have been taken by, the most loyal members of the

Church of Scotland, who would have been wholeheartedly with them in

their final pledge:

"Therefore, denying ourselves and our own things, and laying aside
all self-interests and ends, we shall, above all things, seek the
honour of God, the good of His cause, and the wealth of His people;
and that, forsaking the counsels of flesh and blood, and not
leaning upon Carnal Confidences, we shall depend upon the Lord;
work by the rule of His word; and hearken to the voice of His
servants". 39

No one was to be admitted to the Communion Table who had not thus

renewed the Covenants. They believed that covenanting was related to the

quality of Christian living. The declaration maintained that in order to

fulfil their agreed covenants several things had to be kept in mind

which can be summed up in two ways: firstly, the Christian and a holy

life; secondly, the Christian's holy life and the way of performance.

In the latter especially, it was necessary to perform all things which

they had pledged themselves to do within the covenants, whatever the

cost but also with cheerfulness and joy. Such covenanting action was

involved in preparation for Holy Communion.

The Covenanters, then, declared themselves to be the true Church;

the Establishment which God, not man, had established. The major

difference now was that the former Covenanters had protested against the

errors of Prelacy while their successors were equally concerned about

the "backs 1idings " of Presbytery40 in neglecting its responsibility of

ensuring that adherents honoured their covenant with God, that is, their

-286-
 acceptance of salvation in Christ through faith and the promise to serve
Him. All these permanent obligations were expressed clearly in national

promises, vows, oaths, covenants and laws relating to all kinds of

people under a curse to preserve and promote reformation according to

the Word of God, and remove what was contrary. The Covenanters focused

on the totality of moral and social life within the nation. At

Auchinsaugh there was a "renewal of the Covenants" with the historic

Covenants particularly the covenant of grace dominating all that was

said and done there. Individuals in the assembled crowds felt they had

publicly renewed their personal Covenant with God; the dominant feeling

was that they had pledged themselves in the same Covenants as part of a

united nation or, at least, an organized minority.

5.1.2.2/ The Doctrine of Church and State.

According to the Covenanters, God ruled over both Church and State

for his own glory and the public good. They maintained that God's rule

over these two institutions was exercised in two different ways. God the
Creator ruled according to eternal law over His essential kingdom (ie.

the State) and Christ the Redeemer ruled according to grace over His

mediatorial kingdom (i. e. the Church). In Scotland these separate rules

and kingdoms were bound together by the National Covenant and the Solemn

League and Covenant, e. g. the crowning of Charles II at Scone. 41 But

having broken the conditions on which the king had received the crown

viz., adherence to the Covenants, the Covenanters could no longer regard

him as a constitutional sovereign for he had forfeited all right to

their obedience.
Declining to take the oath of subjection to any sovereign who had

not sworn to maintain the Covenants, they nevertheless affirmed their

-287-
 intention had always been to honour the civil constitution and leaders

yet in a way consistent with Christ's headship over Church and State. At

the same time, in opposing Prelacy, Erastianism, and Indulgence, etc.,

the Covenanters were standing for the civil, political and religious

rights of their people. They thought that Scotland since the Reformation

of 1560 had remained a covenanted nation. The Covenanters' doctrine of

Church and State, however, was based upon their understanding of the

headship of Christ over Church.

(1). The Divine Constitution of Church and State. The Covenanters

maintained that covenanting is a duty to be performed or reiterated as

the circumstances of the church or of a nation, may seem to demand, of

which "the right of a people to set up Civil Government, and choose

Magistrates unto themselves" was "a natural moral right; flowing from

the universal sovereignty of God, and the obligation of his eternal

law". 42 Civil government was "not a positive right; flowing immediately

from the divine favour, approbation, or gospel-grace". 43 Instead, the

"institution of civil Magistrates" was by "the preceptive will of God,

as the supreme Lord and King of all the world". 44 Therefore, the right

to set up governments and choose governors could not be forfeited in

this world unless "subjection to the law of God" or "subjection to God"

could be forfeited.

The Covenanters' understanding of the divine constitution of civil

government came from both Scripture and insights from natural law. 45

They also observed that "the constitution of all Governments and

Governors in the world contains, at least, a piece of order". 46 They

then concluded that because God was a "God of order, and not of

confusion" and that "all order in the world" was from God, therefore

civil government was agreeable to God's preceptive will. 47

-288-
 In accordance with their understanding of the divine constitution
ti
of civil government from the sovereignty of God and eternal law, the

Covenanters restricted the jurisdiction of civil magistrates to the

physical realm. The only end of magistracy was "the public good of

outward and common order in all reasonable society". 48 Magistrates were

precluded from "assuming any Lordship immediately over men's

consciences, or making any encroachment upon the special privileges and

business of the Church" because the institution of their office and its

ends were entirely "within the compass of natural principles". 49

Although the Covenanters referred to "natural principles" in their

description of the positive task of magistracy in the State, they

expressed a negative view of "nature" in their description of Christ's

call of individuals out of the world and into the Church. The

Covenanters taught that "the principle seat of Satan's kingdom" was "the

heart of every man and woman by nature". 50 Ebenezer Erskine taught that

"every man by nature comes into this world wearing the devil's livery of

original sin, and of a depraved nature" before being liberated from the

kingdom of this world into the kingdom of Christ and all who became

"subjects of Christ's kingdom and government are originally brought out

of the territories of hell". 51 The view of nature as that which is

closely identified with the devil, hell, and sin appears to be at odds

with the view of "natural principles" as the foundation for "the public

good of outward and common order". The Marrowmen did not state

consistently the relationship between Satan's kingdom, God's essential

kingdom, and Christ's mediatorial kingdom.

In contrast to the civil constitution, the Covenanters taught that

Christ "is constituted the King and Lawgiver of the Church" with all the

laws and promises of God meeting in him. 52 The government of the Church

was committed to Christ by an "unalterable decree", "a covenant

-289-
transacted betwixt him and his eternal Father when the council of peace

was between them both", and an oath of "solemn election and investure".
Christ acquired this kingdom through title by birth, purchase, the

Father's promise and charter, and conquest. 53

Christ's "royal or kingly office" of government over the Church is

founded upon His "sacerdotal or priestly office". 54 This meant that His

rule of the Church is based on His atonement and, therefore, in

consequence of covenant theology's doctrine of limited atonement, is a

limited rule. As the one who alone has the right to rule in the Church,

its courts are "constituted in his name and moulded according to his

appointment, for the government and for the exercise of the keys of

discipline". 55 The Covenanters asserted that Christ ruled over His

Church by a "prerogative Royal". 56 However, Christ's government of His

mediatorial kingdom (people) extended beyond those who were members of

His Church. Ebenezer Eskine taught that "all things in heaven, earth,

and hell, are put under the power of Christ, for the more advantageous

government of his church". Therefore, Christ's rule as Mediator included

"not only the government of the church, but the government of angels,

men, and devils, of all things visible and invisible" which were placed

"in the hand of Christ for the sake of his church". 57

Although the Covenanters acknowledged that the Son as Mediator

ruled in some sense over civil government because "the Father has lodged

the reins of the world's government in his hands", 58 they endeavoured at

the same time to express the difference between His rule over the

essential and mediatorial kingdoms as well as His relationship to them.

The Son had a natural, underived right to rule over all civil government

as second person of the Godhead because He was equal with the Father. 59

"His essential kingdom belongs unto him, as to his divine nature,

or as he is the Son of God, the second person of the glorious and
-290-
 ever-blessed trinity... Christ, considered in this view, is the
great Lord, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things therein,
and the government and disposal belongs unto him by right of
creation. But it is not of this absolute or essential kingdom of
Christ that I now speak, but of his personal and mediatory kingdom,
as he is Immanuel, God-man; and under this consideration he acts by
a'delegated authority, or a power committed', or given him by the
Father, -for the salvation of the elect that were given him". 60

For the Covenanters their acknowledgement that Christ as God-man in some

sense ruled over civil government because nothing was excluded from His

rule as Mediator created a major dilemma. They saw a compelling reason

to describe how Christ ruled over civil government in order to avoid

teaching that the civil magistrate "derived his office properly from

Christ as mediator". 61 The Covenanters thought that if the Magistrate

received his office directly from Christ, then Magistracy "could not

fail to be an evangelical, and so an erastian office". Therefore, they

taught that:

"the kingdom of Christ is not of this world; though a right to have

the kingdoms of this world rendered subservient and tributary to
his spiritual kingdom in the visible Church, belongs to him as
Mediator: And so, in subserviency to his mediatory kingdom, the
management of the kingdom of Providence, throughout the whole
world, was put into the hands of Zion's king, Eph. 1: 22-23;
Matth. 28: 18". 62

The Covenanters recognized that nothing was excluded from Christ's reign

as Mediator. However, according to their understanding of how God

constituted civil governments and governors, the Covenanters maintained

that if Christ as Mediator ruled directly over the State, then His

mediatory power would come directly to civil magistrates. Consequently,

magistrates could legitimately claim authority over the Church

visible. 63 Therefore, the Covenanters introduced the distinction in

order to prevent civil magistrates from exercising authority over the

-291-
Church. They taught that although Christ as Mediator was over all. the

civil magistrate was excluded from being directly under Christ because

Christ's kingdom was spiritual. Nevertheless, the magistrate was under

the physical manifestation of that spiritual kingdom, i. e. "the visible

Church". 64 .

(2). The Human Constitution of Church and State. The Covenanters

taught that in a civil society where Christianity had been introduced it

was not only the right but also the moral responsibility of the civil

community to constitute a civil government which was "run in an

agreeableness to the word of God; subservient unto the spiritual kingdom

of Jesus Christ, and to the interests of the true religion and

reformation of the Church". 65 If the civil state did not undertake this

obligation, it could not expect to "prosper in civil concerns, nor be

enriched by the blessings of the gospel". 66 The Covenanters compared

this duty of Christian nations to "the peculiar duty of the Jewish

nation". 67

The Covenanters specified two parts of this duty of the civil

society. First, the whole people were obliged to join the true Church

and to promote in all of their individual and collective capacities "the

true religion and reformation of the Church". Secondly, these people

considered as a political - not an ecclesiastical - body "by their deed

of civil constitution", were to oblige their Magistrates to concur with

them in their religious endeavours and to rule by laws which were in

conformity with this purpose. Where magistrates fell short of this

standard, the civil body was "effectually to endeavour their information

and reformation". 68

The Covenanters cited Scotland's covenants as examples of

successful endeavours by the people to affect such a "civil

-292-
 reformation". 69 Particularly praised was "the deed of Civil

constitution" by the Parliament in 1659 and the coronation of Charles II

at Scone in 1651. The Covenanters also contemplated the problems posed

for Christians if -the civil state did not undertake its obligation to

constitute itself - in conformity to the interests of the Church. The

Covenanters taught that Christians living "freely intermixed with any

politic body" were also bound "under a moral and indispensable tie unto

civil communion with them" which could not be refused "without refusing

subjection to God". 70

However, this communion extended only to those things which were

lawful and therefore could not involve Christians "in any national

guilt, apostasy or corruption". The civil society in which Christianity

was found had the responsibility to constitute a civil government in

accordance with the Word of God in order to promote Christ's spiritual

kingdom; it also had a similar responsibility to constitute a church

government. The Covenanters thought that this had been done in Scotland

at the Reformation. The Covenanters noted that Parliament not only

abolished the Pope's authority but ratified and approved. the "first

Confession of Faith"; whereby,

"The government and discipline of the Church was established,

according to the pattern shown in the Mount; in a due subordination
of congregational elderships, presbyteries and synods, unto General
Assemblies... 1171

The Covenanters referred to acts and constitutions of the Church coming

from two human institutions, General Assemblies and Parliaments. 72 The

Covenanters taught that the government and discipline of the Church as

set forth in the Second Book of Discipline was "approven and registrate"
by the General Assembly as well as "ratified and approven" by the

-293-
Parliament. 73 The Covenanters especially praised the covenanting period

of 1638 to 1650 when "laudable acts and constitutions" for "the

advancement of reformation" were passed by Assemblies and Parliaments. 74

The Covenanters also blamed both of these human institutions for

undermining the reformation once achieved in the Church. They lamented

that the civil establishment of "Presbyterial Church Government by the

Parliament in 1690 neglected and passed by the constitutional securities

attained during the covenanting period of 1638 to 1650". 75 The

Covenanters' judgment that the judicatories of the Church of Scotland

were not rightly constituted was based upon a philosophical distinction

between the church courts as they were constituted de Jure and de facto.

The basis for their argument was their judgment that the judicatories of

the Church of Scotland were not faithful representatives of rightly

constituted Presbyterian church government. 76

On the basis of this judgment, they constituted themselves as the

Associate Presbytery in 1733. The consequence of the Covenanters'

understanding of the human constitution of the Church was that the

individual's judgment of the purity of the Church became the ultimate

criterion for the constitution of Church. That which was enacted by

General Assemblies and Parliaments was negated by the Covenanters

because of this ultimate criterion. The Covenanters' doctrine of the

human constitution of the Church was a mixture of the acts of civil and

ecclesiastical institutions and the continued pure actions of

ecclesiastical bodies - all of which was subject to individual judgments

of purity.

-294-
5.2/ The Marrow Controversy of 1717-1723 and Covenant Theology.

5.2.1/ Origin and Background to the Marrow Controversy.

In 1712 Queen Anne and her Parliament revived patronage and passed

the Toleration Act which provided a greater degree of religious freedom

for Episcopalians. Desiring assurances that the privileges granted would

not encourage Jacobite sedition, the Whigs attached an oath to the

Toleration Act requiring all who took it to abjure allegiance to the

Stuart Pretender. 77 The sensitive consciences of many Presbyterians,

especially those who maintained a high regard for the National Covenant

and the Solemn League and Covenant, would not allow them to subscribe to

an oath which promised to support the accession of an Episcopalian to

the British throne. 78

In this situation, the Scottish Presbyterians were becoming hostile

to the government, and their only remaining safeguard was the purity of

doctrine. This effected an age of unlicensed early liberalism which had

been succeeded by another age of religious scepticism. The old

Calvinistic creed was formally attacked as the doctrines of grace were

discredited, and to some degree neutralised by the introduction of a

spirit of legality in the Church of Scotland. 79 The two major

controversies which illustrated this change were the one around

Professor Simson's natural theology and the controversy over "The Marrow

of Modern Divinity. "

5.2.1.1/ Prof. John Simson and his Natural Theology.

In 1715, Professor John Simson of the University of Glasgow, 80 was

charged by James Webster, minister of the Tolbooth in Edinburgh, with

-295-
teaching Arminianism and the General Assembly appointed a committee on

purity of doctrine to investigate the charge. Its report was not given

until 1717. The General Assembly of 1717 discussed Professor Simson's

doctrinal teaching, but Simson declared that he had never intended to

deviate in his lectures from the teaching of the Church's Confession of

Faith. According to Webster's charge against Professor Simson, however,

there were two areas of divergence: the one was the federal headship of

Adam, the other concerned the doctrine of the Trinity and both were

related to covenant theology.

According to the Confession, Adam as the federal representative of

the human race had influenced its history by violating the covenant

which he and the Deity had contracted. After Adam's breach of the

covenant, a vicarious sacrifice was eventually offered by Christ, but

the power to avail themselves of this provision was communicated only to

the elect. The latter were to be saved to show that God was merciful,

and the rest were to be damned to show that He was just. 81 In contrast

to the Confession, Professor Simson asserted that God could never have

prejudiced humanity by giving it such a weak representative, and

rejected the idea of Adam as a "federal head", thus dissenting from the

Calvinists in their fundamental assumption. He held that there was no

natural inability in man to seek saving grace, that the heathen had a

glimmering of gospel truth, and would be lost only if they rejected this

"obscure discovery and offer. "

For him, the soul was created pure and became corrupt only when

united to the body inherited from Adam, but not because of federal

headship. Since all who died in infancy would probably be saved, the

elect could be expected to outnumber the damned. Accordingly, a desire

to promote our own happiness should be our chief motive in serving God,

and punishment must be eternal, not as a tribute to God's offended

-296-
majesty, but because no lighter penalty - since even this was not enough

- could deter from sin. 82

Moreover, he departed from the orthodox conception of the Trinity

to teach that the three Persons were not numerically one in substance or

essence. He understood that the Son was not necessarily preexistent

before the incarnation, and that the term supreme deity might be used in

a sense which applied only to the Father but not to the Son. 83 He owned

in conversation that he did not think the Son's Independence, his Self-

Existence, and His Self-Origination were consistent with his being

begotten. 84

He was acquitted by the Assembly with a warning that this teaching

should not be taught in the divinity hall, because he had adopted some

assumptions that tended to emphasize natural reason in the power of

corrupted nature more than was acceptable. 85 What Professor Simson

insisted in his lectures was that by the light of nature, and the works

of creation and providence, God has given an obscure objective

revelation of the gospel, so that none would be excluded from the

benefit of the remedy for sin provided by God. He taught that they are

sinners and yet, rejecting the clearer light of the gospel proclaimed by

the church, would still be saved.

Even the heathen would seek from God the knowledge of the way of

reconciliation, necessary for their acceptable serving of him, and being

saved by him. 86 Professor Simson regarded Christianity in a light that

borrowed little from dogma and mystery, and owed much to reason. In full

accord with the new notions of morals then beginning to be taught, he

declared that happiness here and hereafter was the chief aim and design

of the gospel, the glory of God being a secondary and subordinate

matter. The same benevolent philosophy inclined him to take a hopeful

view of the salvation of the heathen. Professor Simson asserted that if

-297-
they but honestly followed the light they had, and sincerely desired

salvation, the heathen could be saved even without the knowledge of

Christ. 87

In a statement of further-charges in 1727, Professor Simson was

accused not only of teaching Arminian and Pelagian -doctrines88 as

before; but also of holding and proclaiming Arian views in regard to the

Trinity and Person of Christ. 89 This was clearly opposed to Scripture

and to the doctrine taught in the Confession of Faith yet members of the

Assembly thought that the teaching of such a liberal theology was a fair

and intelligent method of inquiry, and therefore did not remove him from

office. Rather they terminated Professor Simson's case declaring "he had

vented some opinions not necessary to be taught in divinity, and that

had given more occasion to strife than to the promoting of

edification. "90 The same Assembly, however, softened Professor Simson's

censure by giving a decided blow to the opposite party, namely, the

Marrow men.

5.2.1.2/ The Presbytery of Auchterarder and its Creed.

One consequence of the proceedings against Prof. Simson was that the

Presbytery of Auchterarder became concerned about the theology being

taught to their candidates for the ministry. To guard against unorthodox

teaching they required additional affirmations from those seeking to be

licensed by the Presbytery. With the intention of checking the progress

of Arminian sentiments, the Presbytery had drawn up certain

propositions, to which they required an assent to be given by candidates

for licence. One of these propositions was - "I believe that it is not

sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin, in order to our

coming to Christ, and instating us in covenant with God. "91 The purpose

-298-
was to guard against Arminian and Pelagian theology which taught that a

person's own efforts qualified or prepared him for grace.

Reformed theology taught that a sinner could forsake his sins only
by the grace of Christ and through the enabling of the Holy Spirit. The

crisis began when, the Auchterarder Presbytery refused to licence

Mr. William Craig, a student, because he refused to subscribe to the

proposition. Mr. Craig then brought the matter, by appeal, before the

Assembly in 1717. This court expressed abhorrence of the proposition

believing it to be unsound. They further ordered the presbytery to give

Mr. Craig an extract of his licence, and prohibited them from using all

such expressions in the future.

By this condemnation of the "Auchterarder Creed", the Assembly was

considered by an Assembly Committee as sanctioning the doctrine that

persons could save themselves from the love and power of sin, by coming

to Christ. It meant that in coming to Christ we come with all our sins

that they may be forgiven, without the presupposition of any meritorious

preparation on our part. It threatened the doctrines of grace with

legalistic orthodoxy and moralistic philosophy. The Auchterarder

proposition was regarded as the root of the matter and led to a serious

controversy between two rival groups in the Church. The conflict was no

longer focused on the relationship between church and state, between

monarchical absolutism and Presbyterian polity but rather on the central

doctrines of grace which belonged to the heart of covenant theology. The

Marrow controversy was inevitable.

5.2.2/ The Controversy on "The Marrow of Modem Divinity. "

5.2.2.1/ The Origin of the Marrow and its Significance to the Scottish

Divines.

-299-
 While the Westminster Assembly was in session in the year 1645, an

English man, Edward Fisher, M. A., of Brazenose College, Oxford,

published a treatise entitled "The Marrow of Modern Divinity. " This book

does not claim originality, 92 but is a collection of the most "marrowy"

passages of acknowledged divinity masters. The book was, published in

17th century England where there were many controversial expressions of

Christian theology which had arisen during the Civil War. The professed

intent of the work was to mediate the perfect freeness of Gospel

salvation and to open wide "the middle path" between Legalists and

Antinomians. Other significant doctrines, such as the assurance of

salvation, the law and the gospel, and the free offer of the gospel,

were expressed in "terms of their relationship to grace and the writings

of the Reformers. "93

Desiring to bring the Church of Scotland back to its Reformation

heritage, Thomas Boston, James Hog, Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine and

others began to emphasize the doctrine of the free grace of God (sola

gratia). These evangelicals became known as "Marrow men" because of the

stimulation given to their theology by Edward Fisher's "The Marrow of

Modern Divinity. " They saw the Marrow as providing a corrective to the

"legal preaching" of their day.

5.2.2.2/ Edward Fisher's "The Marrow of Modern Divinity. "

The book is in Dialogue form, and is divided into two parts: the

first part touching the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace,

with their use and end, both in the time of the Old Testament and in the

time of the New. The dialogue is between Evangelista, a minister of the

gospel, Nomista, a legalist, Antinomista, an Antinomian, and Neophytus,

a young Christian. A second part was added, showing the Christian uses

-300-
 of the law and was carried on by Evangelista and Neophytus together with
Nomologista who represents a prattler about the Law. The design of the

whole book is to "elucidate and establish the perfect freeness of the

gospel salvation; to throw wide open the gates of righteousness; to lead

up the sinner *straight to the Saviour; to introduce him as guilty,

perishing, and undone; and persuade him to grasp, without a moment's

hesitation, the outstretched hand of God's mercy. "94

The introduction to the "Marrow" sets forth various differences

concerning some aspects of religion and the law. The law is said to

have a threefold distinction in Scripture: "the law of works, the law of

faith, and the law of Christ (Rom. 3: 27; Gal. 6: 2). 95 The ten

commandments (or moral law) form the substance of both the law of works

and the law of Christ. 96 The difference between these two laws was that

(1) the ten commandments as the law of works came directly to

unbelievers with duties, burdens, and curses but (2) as the law of

Christ it came to believers in and through Christ who had fulfilled all

its duties, borne all its burdens, and received all its curses.

Therefore, the ten commandments came to believers as a rule of life

without threats and demands. Believers were obliged to follow this rule

of life (the ten commandments), not out of fear of punishment or hope of

reward but out of gratitude to Christ.

The threefold distinction of the law in chapter one formed the

basis for the three remaining chapters of the Marrow. The law of works

and the law of Christ are in substance one law, including the moral law.

The distinction between the law of works and the law of faith cannot be

denied, since the apostle clearly distinguishes them ( Rom. 3: 27). As

the dialogue progressed, Evangelista taught Neophitus the middle ground

of right belief through these distinctions.

In the Marrow's conclusion, Nomista was converted and Antinomista

-301-
 acknowledged the proper function of the law.

(i). Chapter One: Of the Law of Works, or Covenant of Works. We

have seen something of the historical development of the covenant

concept - in Chapter One of this dissertation, whereby federal theology

with its emphasis upon the covenant was embraced by the Church of

Scotland in the 17th and 18th centuries. There were, however, diverse

expressions and views within this covenant theology. For example, most

federal theologians taught that the covenant of works was made with Adam

and the covenant of grace was made with Christ for the elect. Yet, some

created a third covenant by dividing the covenant of grace into two

parts - the covenant of redemption made between the Father and the Son

before the world began and the covenant of grace made with the elect in

time. 97 The -Marrow used a variety of concepts in describing the

covenant. 98

At one point the "Marrow" details the importance of the covenant

which God made with Adam before the fall. The covenant God made is of

grace, for God provided and promised to Adam eternal happiness, and

called for perfect obedience, which appears from God's threatening in

Genesis 2: 17.99 God revealed His grace to Adam who had been created

after God's own image. Therefore, it could not but be perceived as the

equity and benefit of God, and so heartily approve, embrace, accept, and

consent to it, because God had furnished his soul with an understanding

mind, whereby he might discern good from evil, and right from wrong. 100

And yet, the first man was a creature who could choose his way. A

covenant made with him by which that he would serve God after a

reasonable manner. Adam's life was originally one of joyful fellowship

with his Creator and obedience. 101 Adam willingly accepts this covenant

made with him by God: certainly, he did not object. Though it should be

-302-
 understood that as God had entered in to this covenant he had done so by

revealing His will, and even more, He had bound Adam to his word that he

might enjoy more of God's grace. The covenant of works can be understood

as a natural' response by Adam to God's goodness, but not as' a

requirement for 'salvation. After discussing the nature of the covenant

of works, the first chapter of the Marrow proceeded to unfold the

conventional understanding of this covenant:

Adam by his own free choice disobeyed God and breached the
covenant"; "by Adam's breach of covenant, all mankind was brought
into a miserable condition"; "the covenant of works was a covenant
no way capable of renovation" because by breaking it Adam both
alienated himself from God and "lost his former power to obey"; and
because man was the party who failed in this covenant, "the
obligation to obedience remains still. "102

(ii). Chapter Two: Of the Law of Faith, or Covenant of Grace.

According to the Marrow, the covenant of grace is necessary because the

covenant of works had been broken by Adam's sin. According to the law,

salvation demanded that God's justice be satisfied. Whereupon there was

a special covenant made between God and Christ. Christ entered "into the

covenant of works that Adam did. "103 However, when aspects of the

covenant of works were brought into the covenant of grace, Christ freely

and voluntarily bore the wrath of God in His flesh. Therefore, Christ

was not only called "the surety of the covenant for the elect" but also

the covenant itself. 104 God laid His wrath against sin upon Christ so

that He satisfied the demands of divine justice so that God might be

just and the justifier of the ungodly who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:

26). It was only because of divine grace that Christ entered into the

same covenant of works that Adam did to deliver those promised Him by

the Father, in so far as the fulfilling of that covenant in their stead

was part of the condition of their salvation (Gal. 4: 4-5).

-303-
 In respect of Christ, it was strictly a covenant of works, in that

he made proper, real and full satisfaction on behalf of the elect; yet

in respect to them, that is, the elect, it is purely a covenant of

richest grace, in as much as God accepted the satisfaction from a

surety. Christ entered into covenant, and became surety for man, and so

became liable to man's engagements. 105 The implication was that Christ

had to be perfectly obedient to God for man, by succeeding in the work

which Adam had failed to perform.

The Marrow called Genesis 3: 15 the first promise of grace and the

only comfort of the patriarchs until the promise was turned into a

covenant with Abraham and his seed. Later Fisher described the giving of

the ten commandments to Moses at Mt. Sinai as "a new edition and

publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect

unbelievers to come to Christ. "106 Yet, Evangelista was careful to

insist to Nomista that this renewal of the covenant of works was only as

a rule of righteousness to show man the righteousness which God

required. 107 The purpose of the covenant at Sinai was not for men to

obtain eternal life but "to drive them out of themselves to Christ. "108

The Marrow also noted the relationship between the revelation of

the covenant of grace in the Old Testament and its fulfilment in the New

Testament. Before Christ's coming the promises were "sealed by his

blood in types and figures. "109 The law "came from the mercy-seat"

foreshadowing Christ's putting an end to the law. 110 To the degree that

Old Testament believers apprehended the Messiah by faith, "they yielded

obedience to the law freely, without fear of punishment or hope of

reward. "111 Thomas Boston, in his notes on the Marrow, was anxious to

explain one point which Fisher made concerning the covenant of grace in

both the Old and New Testaments. 112 Fisher called "faith the condition

of both. "113 Boston responded that this was to be understood "not in a

-304-
 strict and proper sense" as a condition because "Christ's fulfilling of

the law, by his obedience and death, is the only condition of the

covenant of grace, in that sense. "114

The legal tendency within" the heart made the covenant of grace

necessary in both Testaments. Evangelista quoted Luther, "the law is so

deeply rooted in man's reason, and all mankind so wrapped in it, that

they can hardly get out. "115 Even after recognizing the need for

Christ, the legal tendency caused some to mix law with grace by

concluding that Christ only made up what was lacking in the believer. 116

Nomista said, "In what man cannot do, God will accept the will for the

deed and wherein man come short, Christ will help us out. " Evangelista

responded that this was the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that "If a

man exercise all his power, and do his best to fulfil the law, then God,

for Christ's sake, will pardon all his infirmities, and save his

soul. "117

Fisher displayed his concern for balance by refuting the opposite

extreme, namely, lack of concern for righteousness. Evangelista said to

Antinomista that "true faith is produced by the secret power of God,

little by little. So that sometimes a true believer himself neither

knows the time when, nor the manner how, it was wrought. " Also he warned

Antinomista that true faith "produces holiness of life; but it seems

yours does not so. "118

In section III of this Chapter Fisher deals with "Of the

Performance of the Promise" where he put seven headings. (1). Christ's

fulfilling of the Law in the room of the Elect. The Marrow presented

Christ as putting himself under the covenant of works as man's surety.

By this substitutionary work Christ completed every part of the

believer's salvation. Not even the smallest particle remained for the

believer to complete. 119 (2). Believers dead to the law as the Covenant

-305-
of Works. Evangelista explained to Nomista that "all true believers are
dead unto (the law), and it is dead unto them; for they being

incorporated into Christ, what the law or covenant of works did to him,

it did the same to them. "120 The Marrow's summary of this subsection

was intended to exhibit the completeness of the salvation that Christ

had provided:

"This then is perfect righteousness, to hear nothing, to know

nothing, to do nothing of the law of works; but only to know and
believe that Jesus Christ is now gone to the Father, and sitteth at
his right hand, not as a judge, but is made unto you of God,
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Wherefore,
as Paul and Silas said to the jailor, so say I unto you, 'believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved; ' that is, be
verily persuaded in your heart that Jesus Christ is yours, and that
you shall have life and salvation by him; that whatsoever Christ
did for the redemption of mankind, he did it for you. "121

Fisher's purpose at this point in the Marrow was to demonstrate how

Christ had performed every condition of the covenant of grace.

(3). The warrant to believe in Christ. Every individual may now be

told that he will be saved if he believes in Christ (John 3: 16; 1 John

3: 23). This free offer of the gospel was expressed as the "deed of

gift and grant" and "the warrant to believe in Christ. "122 (4).

Evangelical Repentance is a consequent of Faith. The Marrow taught that

man did not have the ability to repent until he had believed. After

receiving salvation "he leaves sin, and will forsake his old course,

because it is displeasing to God, and will do that which is pleasing and

acceptable to him. "123 (5). Believers as spiritually wedded to Jesus

Christ. Because individuals lacked the power to come to Christ, Christ

has to enable them to come to him with the resolution to embrace him. 124

As Neophitus resolved to apply the warrant, Evangelista pronounced him

to be a believer and told him:

-306-
 "the marriage union betwixt Chri; ;t and you is more than a bare
notion or apprehension of your mind; for it is a special,
spiritual, and real union: it is an union betwixt the nature of
Christ, God and man, and you; it is a knitting and closing, not
only of your apprehension with a Saviour, but also of your soul
with a Saviour. 125

(6). Justification before Faith refuted. In correcting Antinomista,

Evangelista stated that the individual did not receive justification

until he beheld Christ with the eye of faith. Evangelista said:

"And therefore it is true in respect of God's decree, he was

justified from all eternity; and he was justified meritoriously in
the death and resurrection of Christ; but yet he was not justified
actually, till he did actually believe in Christ... "126

(7). Believers were freed from the commanding and condemning Power of

the Covenant of Works. The General Assembly's Act V of 1720 charged

passages from this subsection with teaching that "Holiness is not

necessary to Salvation" and "That the Believer is not under the Law as a

Rule of Life. "127 The concluding subsection in the Marrow's chapter, "Of

the Law of Faith, or Covenant of Grace, " was intended to console the

believer. Because the believer was now married to Christ, he was dead to

the law which could neither profit nor harm him. That the Marrow did not

advocate Antinomianism is made clear in Chapter three.

(iii). Chapter Three: Of the Law of Christ. Having concluded in

Chapter II that the believer was set free from the law as a covenant of

works, the task of Chapter III was to state the believer's new

relationship to the law. The ten commandments, commonly called the moral

law, retained a significant place in the believer's life because they

were "given of God to be a true and eternal rule of righteousness. "128

Lack of concern for holiness and contempt for the law which is the law

-307-
of Christ was "a shrewd sign you are not yet in Christ (Isa. 33: 22). "129

A proper place was admitted for evidencing "your justification by your

sanctification" or self-examination of marks and signs.

However, the Marrow warned the individual against concluding

assurance from signs "as they are in-him, and come from him without

having reference to Jesus Christ, as the root and fountain of them, then

are they deceitful marks and signs. But if he look upon them with

reference to Jesus Christ, then are they not deceitful, but true

evidences and demonstrations of faith in Christ. "130 Chapter III of the

Marrow was concerned to expose improper motives for repentance such as

self-love and to stress that "only by faith in Christ, a man is enabled

to exercise all Christian graces aright. "131 Fisher excluded the entire

range of improper motives in the following dialogue:

Nomista - "... would you not have believers to eschew evil and do
good, for fear of hell or for hope of heaven? "

Evangelista - "Non, indeed, I would not have any believer to do

either the one or the other; for so far forth as they do so, their
obedience is but slavish. "132

The centrality of faith was shown by the dependence of all other graces

upon faith's "fetching a supernatural efficacy from the death and life

of Christ; by virtue whereof it 'metamorphosises' (transforms or

changes. Rom. 12: 2) the heart of a believer, and creates and infuses

into him new principles of action. "133 Legal preachers during the

Marrow Controversy were like the preacher whom Fisher described as

ignorant of "the mystery of faith" by not exhorting and persuading

"sinners to believe their sins were pardoned, before he saw their lives

reformed, for fear they should take more liberty to sin. "134

However, this emphasis upon the full sufficiency of faith did not

-308-
 exclude the use of the means of grace in improving faith because "as the

means will not do it without the Spirit, neither will the Spirit do it

without the means, where the means may be had. "135 At this point in the

discussion, Nomista asked Evangelista-'to show him what truth there was

in the six Antinomian Paradoxes, 136 'as-explained and -defended in the

Marrow by applying the distinction between the Law as a Covenant of

Works and the Law of Christ. He complained that he found nine

expressions excerpted from the Marrow "exceeding Harsh and Offensive. "

After referring to the Antinomian Paradoxes, Fisher continued in

Chapter III to explain his belief that the believer was in a new

relationship to the law in and through Christ. Although the believer was

no longer to have regard to the promises and threats of the covenant of

works, he was to "both hope for what the law of Christ promises, in case

of your obedience, and... to fear what it threatens, in case of your

disobedience. "137 The Marrow described the promises as promising

enjoyment of communion with God, and the threats as warnings of loss of

fellowship and "a liableness to all temporal afflictions, as fruits and

effects of the transgressing of that law. "138 A believer should not

"make any question" of his faith once he had grounded it upon the firm

foundation of "the promise of God in Christ. "

Instead, he should "conclude assurance" by a direct act of faith

which "directly lays hold upon Christ. "139 Once a person has grounded

his faith in the promise of God in Christ, reflection was useful as a

ground "for your believing that you have believed. "140 If a believer

lost sight of outward evidences, the way "to get your assurance again"

was "to look to Christ; that is, go to the word and promise, and leave

off and cease awhile to reason about the truth of your faith; and set

your heart on work to believe, as if you had never yet done it ... 11141

Then this chapter of the Marrow ended with an explanation of how Christ

-309-
evidenced himself in the believer by executing "his prophetical,

priestly, and kingly offices. "142

(iv). Chapter Four: Of the Heart's, Happiness, or Soul's Rest. In

the final, chapter of the Marrow, Edward Fisher made an evangelical plea

based upon the doctrine of the first three chapters. Man's soul would

never be at rest until it came to God. Because of man's corruption and

blindness, however, he remained ignorant of God and his "soul is kept by

violence (corruption or disorder) from its proper centre, even God,

himself. "143 Souls were kept from turning to God and finding true rest

by Satan, who "if he cannot keep us in Egypt by the flesh-pots of

sensuality, then will he make us wander in the wilderness of religious

and rational formality... 11144

The Marrow's climax came when a convicted Nomista said, "Then, Sir,

it seems to me, that God in Christ, apprehended by faith, is the only

true rest for man's soul. " (Matt. 11: 28; Heb. 4: 3). 145 Every major

doctrine contained in the "Marrow of Modem Divinity" was in stark

contrast to the legal preaching which was precipitated by a confusion

over the covenants. The evangelicals, like Thomas Boston and the Erskine

brothers, recognized that the Marrow's emphasis on free grace and the

instrumentality of faith was the corrective which the preaching of their

day needed.

The Marrow emphasis on the doctrine of grace relating to personal

salvation was, to them, a providential confirmation of the need to re-

emphasise the personal covenant with God as the central requirement in

redemption and the necessary basis for participation in other covenants

such as these with the Church and the Nation.

5.2.2.3/ Thomas Boston and the Marrow of Modern Divinity.

-310-
 Boston had found the volume full of spiritual comfort and profit,

and during the Auchterarder debate in the assembly he praised it to a

neighbour as a book that handled the problem fully and admirably. 146 The

"Marrow" passed from the hands of John Drummond to James Webster and

James , Hog. -In 1718, James Hog =of Carnock, one of Boston's friends,

published a new edition of part I of the Marrow with a highly

commendatory preface. 147

5.2.2.4/ Development of the Marrow Controversy.

The republication of the book in 1718 created a controversy which

lasted for a further six years. It became the focal point of a clash

between the different theological perspectives within the Church of

Scotland. This book had hardly got into circulation when Principal Hadow

of St. Andrews, in a sermon preached before the Synod of Fife, made an

assault on the Marrow. 148 The popularity of the Marrow led to the 1719

General Assembly's recommendation to its Commission:

"that they inquire how the prohibition has been observed in the
bounds of the Presbytery of Auchterarder, or elsewhere, whereby the
using of the prohibition emitted by that Presbytery, and condemned
by the General Assembly, anno 1717, was discharged; and that they
inquire into the publishing and spreading of books and pamphlets
tending to the diffusion of that condemned proposition, and
promoting a scheme of opinions relative thereto, which are
inconsistent with the Confession of Faith... "149

To implement these instructions, the Commission established a Committee

for Preserving Purity of Doctrine. 150 James Hog and others were called

before the Committee on Purity of Doctrine. When the Assembly met in

1720, the Purity Committee laid before them a report containing a

variety of extracts from the Marrow, which were considered by them as

-311-
 inculcating unscriptural sentiments. The Assembly charged "the Marrow of

Modern Divinity" with teaching "Five Errors": 151 (1). that Assurance of

Salvation is essential to be a Christian which means that saving faith

Is a man's persuasion that Christ is his and died for him; ''(2). - that the

Atonement of Christ and the Divine Pardon-are of universal extent; (3).

that in order to be saved it is not necessary to live a holy life; (4).

that the fear of future punishment and the hope of eternal reward are

not right motives for the regulation of a believer's life and conduct;

(5). that the believer is not under the Divine law as a rule of life.

The Committee also drew the attention of the Assembly to "Six

Antinomian Paradoxes"152 defended in the Marrow, by the application of a

distinction drawn between the law of works and the law of Christ. The

Assembly found the charges proved, and passed an Act declaring the

teaching of the book unsound and unscriptural and contrary to both the

Holy Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Assembly

prohibited the ministers of the Church from recommending it to their

hearers or saying anything in its favour, and commanded them to warn and

exhort their people into whose hands the said book might come, not to

read or use the same. 153 Acting on the recommendation of "the Committee
for Preserving Purity of Doctrine" and "the Commission, " the 1720

General Assembly's decision on the Marrow was severely critical. 154

Hurt by this decision a group of twelve ministers155 termed the

Marrow "a bundle of sweet and pleasant Gospel truths", 156 and they drew

up a strongly worded representation in which they challenged the report

and expressed their adherence to the National Covenant and Solemn League

and Covenant, and to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They refused

to submit to the Act of 1720 or the present Act, but decided to "preach

the truths forbid" by these Acts. They thought that denouncing the

Marrow was rejecting the Word of God, and the foresaid standards of

-312-
 doctrine and covenants. 157

Against the decision of the Assembly, Ebenezer Erskine was

designated to prepare a "Representation and Petition" to. the General

Assembly, 158 clearing up the misunderstandings on which the Assembly's

Act was founded. In-the,, report, the Representers (ie.. Erskine and-those

who agreed with him) stated that their consciences obliged them to lay

these matters which are grievous to them before the venerable Assembly.

They believed that "Gospel truth has suffered, and it is likely, will

suffer more in the rising and succeeding generations, unless a remedy is

timely provided". 159 The Representation forcefully requested the repeal

of the 1720 General Assembly's Act V, concerning the Marrow and Act VIII

for "Preaching Catechetical Doctrine. "160 Moreover, in the

representation, the Marrow Men vindicated the gospel that:

"the Father has made a free, unlimited offer of Christ and of

salvation to all men, by virtue of which every individual who hears
the gospel has a warrant to take hold of said offer, and to apply
salvation to his own soul; that an assured persuasion of the truth
of God's promise in the gospel, with respect to one's self in
particular, is included in the very nature of saving faith; that
the believer's holiness is in no way the price nor condition of his
salvation; that believers, in yielding obedience to the law as a
rule of life, ought not to be influenced, either by mercenary hopes
of heaven, or by slavish fears of hell; that the believer is not,
in any respect, under the law as a covenant of works, and that it
is a just and Scriptural distinction which is made betwixt the law
as a covenant of works, and the law as a rule of life in the hand
of Christ. "161

Furthermore, they pointed out that its quotations from "The Marrow" were

highly selective, and urged that the Assembly's decision should be

reversed. They thought that the Assembly had departed from the purity of

the faith, and had become, if not the avowed champions of error, at

least indifferent to the cause of truth. In this crisis, the twelve

ministers united their efforts to check the progress of error, and to

-313-
diffuse more extensively among the people the influence of sound,

scriptural doctrine.

The Assembly of 1721, however, was forced to adjourn soon after it

opened due to the illness 'of' the King's Commissioner. ' The Assembly's

Commission'met, following, the adjournment, in November 1721, to consider

the Representation and other unfinished business. Before the Commission

Ebenezer Erskine declared that he was willing to retract anything in the

Representation contrary to the Westminster Confession or Scripture. 162

The Commission met with the Representers several other times during the

year. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the contents of the

Representation and to prepare an overture for the 1722 General Assembly.

The August meeting of the Commission drew up twelve queries163 to be put

to the twelve brethren.

Then, the answers were prepared by Mr. Ebenezer Erskine and

Mr. Wilson of Maxton and forwarded to the Commission that met in March

1722,164 but their answers were rejected by the Assembly which censured

them for disobe'ience. The Assembly reaffirmed its former decision, and

refused to receive a protest in which the Marrow men declared their

inability to comply with the Act. 165 The Representers made it clear that

they would not submit. After being admonished and rebuked they handed in

a Protestation declaring that "it shall be lawful for us, agreeable to

the Word of God, and Standards... to adhere, to profess, preach, and

still bear Testimony unto the Truths condemned. "166

Having done this, they felt that they had done their duty in

testifying for the truth and were content to take no further

ecclesiastical action. Although the Assembly ignored the Protestation,

this was not a tacit consent that the Representers were free to preach

Marrow doctrine. The Assembly instructed its Commission to inquire into

the publication of books and pamphlets "inconsistent with Our Confession

-314-
of Faith" and to call any promoters of such opinions or books before

them. 167 It remained the subject of debate over the next decade. Indeed,

some of the Marrow men at last departed from the main denomination, and
founded the First-Secession Church in 1733. They adopted the theology of

the Marrow as-their own. 168 They did this not because they accepted the

Marrow was contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith but because

of the ecclesiastical pressure which was being put upon them by the

Assembly and its Commission.

5.2.3/ The Marrow Controversy and its Doctrinal Issues.

During the seven years' controversy from 1717 to 1723, both parties

- the "Marrow men" and the "Purity Committee" - advocated "The Marrow of

Modern Divinity". The Marrow men supported it fully while the "Purity

Committee" only did so with qualifications such as the necessity to

prepare for salvation. This was rejected by the Marrow men. The General

Assemblies (influenced by the "Purity Committee) of 1720 and 1722

decided that there were inherent tensions in the twofold covenant scheme

of works and grace in Scottish theology. As we have seen above, the

doctrinal controversy was caused by the decision made by the General

Assembly of 1720. Under the heads of doctrine, Act V quoted eleven

passages from the Marrow and made reference to several others. Eight of

the eleven quotes came from Chapter II, Section iii of the Marrow.

Ignoring Edward Fisher's outline and development, the Act

Condemnatory condemned these passages for teaching Arminian and

Antinomian principles. The groups taking part in the debate were the

"Purity Committee" and the "Marrow men. " The controversy saw two parties

charging each other respectively with defection from the truth, each

equally confident of being supported by Scripture and by the Westminster

-315-
Confession of Faith. Among the prominent figures in the controversy were

Principal James Hadow and James Hog. The issues discussed in the

controversy can be stated in five ways.

5.2.3_. 1/ "Doctrine of; Atonement: " "Of Universal Atonement and Pardon".

Since the Synod of Dort, most Reformed and Calvinistic theologians

all over the world have insisted that central to Calvin's theology was

the sovereignty of God. Under the doctrine of the sovereignty of God,

the doctrine of the atonement was discussed and developed by Calvin's

successors to became one of the crucial issues in theology. A century

later, after the Synod of Dort, this doctrine of atonement was debated

again by the members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

From that time on, the "Marrow" controversy ensued, including debate on

the atonement. 169

Turning to the Marrow Controversy, we must notice that although the

first subsection of Chapter II, Section III in the Marrow, was entitled

"Christ's fulfilling of the Law in the room of the Elect, " on the basis

of the free grace of God, the General Assembly condemned several of its

expressions for teaching universalism:

"God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with

nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of
gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall
believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life.
And hence it was, that Jesus Christ himself said unto his
disciples, Mark 16: 15, "Go and preach to every creature under
heaven: " that is, Go and tell every man without exception, that
here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will
take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him. "170

The Assembly's contention against the Marrow men was that the offer of

salvation must be founded on a certain view of "the extent of Christ's

-316-
death. " They viewed the free grace and vast love of God, for which all
Calvinists contend, as relating only to those who are actually saved,

being elected and set apart by God for that every end. The Assembly was

led in this way to assign a"lower value and attach lesser importance to

the general love of God to all men than to the singling out and special

love that He has for his own chosen people.

The Marrow men maintained that it is necessary to proclaim the

warrant sinners have to believe in Christ, namely, that the offer of

Christ is general, the deed of gift or grant is to every man. This

necessarily supposed Christ crucified to be the ordinance of God for

salvation, to which lost mankind is allowed access. The ministers of

the gospel, then, are warranted to invite all, without exception or

qualification, to embrace the Saviour and all saving benefits in Him. 171

The authoritative ground on which the general call of the gospel is

based is the divine command. Christ has enjoined us to preach the

gospel to every creature.

This command whether given in express words or involved in the

examples and metaphors of Scripture, is our proper, and our only warrant

for addressing to every sinner the offer of salvation through Christ,

but "not fallen angels (Tit. 3: 4). "172 Because election was secret and

unrevealed, no one was excluded from the outward call except the person

who excluded himself by not believing. These evangelicals were convinced

that all who would give "faith's assent and consent to the covenant"

were "elect before the foundation of the world (2 Tim. 1: 9, Tit.

1: 2). "173

On the ground of this deed and grant they held there is warrant to

make a full, free, and unhampered "SOLA FIDE" offer of Christ, His

grace, righteousness, and salvation is to every rational soul. There is

warrant on the part of all to receive Christ, who is "a common Saviour, "

-317-
and whose salvation is a "common salvation. "174 In his notes upon

Fisher, Boston made it clear that he held the sufficiency of the

sacrifice of Christ for all, but not a universal atonement. He stressed

the'suitableness of the Gospel offer to"all - "there is no exception of

any. of-all. mankind in the grant, " while holding, at the same time, that

the Saviour died for, and took upon Him the sins of, the elect only.

Boston testifies:

"This is the good old way of discovering to sinners their warrant

to believe in Christ: and it doth indeed bear the sufficiency of
the sacrifice of Christ for all, and that Christ crucified is the
ordinance of God for salvation unto all mankind, in the use-making
of which only they can be saved, but not an universal atonement or
redemption. "175

The Marrow men believed in particular atonement so they could not be

accused of teaching universal redemption. 176 They were firm believers in

the doctrine of election, and they affirmed that the purchase and

application of redemption is confined to the elect, who are given by the

Father to Christ. But along with this they taught that God the Father

has made a deed of gift and grant unto mankind lost, so that whosoever

of them all shall believe in His Son shall not perish, but have eternal

life (John 3: 16). 177 It was the free offer of the Gospel which should

be understood in terms of the ministerial application.

Yet, the Assembly did not understand the Marrow men's view of the

doctrines of grace. Despite the Marrow men's insistence that they

believed in particular atonement and that Christ did not die savingly

for all mankind, the Assembly continued to charge them with

universalism. In contrast to the Assembly, however, the Marrow men

asserted that there was an indiscriminate freeness to the offer based

upon the promises of God. 178

-318-
 5.2.3.2/ "Concerning the Nature of Saving Faith": "the Doctrine of

Assurance. "

The first quotation from the Marrow which Act V cited was, "There
is no more for him to do, but only to know and believe that Christ hath

done all for him. " This quotation omitted the first half of the

Marrow's sentence, "And in this covenant there is not any condition or

law to be performed on man's part, by himself; no, there is no more for

him to do, but only to know and believe that Christ hath done all for

him. 179 And yet, the Assembly asserted that the Westminster Confession

of Faith and Catechisms did not teach that assurance was of the essence

of faith.

The Marrow men countered this argument by asserting that their

teaching was in no wise contrary to these doctrinal standards of the

Church of Scotland. Given the full sentence in context, the "Marrow men"

stated that salvation was by a faith which rested entirely in the

sufficiency of Christ and the covenant of grace. In all justifying faith

the "Marrow men" maintained there must be an assurance of Christ's

sufficiency and willingness to save, and also an appropriating

persuasion or a persuasion with application to oneself that Christ is

his. 180 This is the appropriating persuasion of faith which all the

Reformed Churches and Confessions contended for. 181 It was the "Marrow

men" who found a place for and reaffirmed in their theology, the

teaching of full persuasion and assurance but they did not hold it to be

of the essence of faith. However, the Condemnatory Act V summarized Head

I by quoting several Scripture passages and commenting:

"... all which passages show that assurance is not of the essence of
faith, whereas the passages cited from 'The Marrow', etc., appear
to assert the contrary, making that saving faith commanded in the
Gospel a man's persuasion that Christ is his, and died for him; and
-319-
 that whoever hath not this persuasion or assurance hath not
answered the Gospel call, nor is a true believer. "182

The Marrow men in their insistence on Assurance were misunderstood by

the Assembly and were accused of undermining-virtue and destroying the

foundations of reverence, at least among the commonpeople. But the fact

was that when the "Marrow men" insisted on assurance, it was from a

desire to see religion less of a form and more a reality than was

customary. For them Christ alone could save sinners. They made a

distinction between the assurance of faith and the assurance of

sense. 183 The one they asserted is an objective type of assurance (or

direct act of faith) whereby a believer recognises Christ as his

Saviour. This looks to Christ, the promise and covenant of God. 184 The

other was the subjective type of assurance whereby a believer knew that

he knew Christ by an indirect or reflex act of faith.

The General Assembly did not acknowledge that there were two types

of assurance. On that occasion, the'Assembly may have been voicing a

legitimate concern for those individuals who waver in their faith and do

not have what the Westminster documents called "infallible assurance"

(or what the Marrowmen called "the assurance of sense"). However, even

if this were granted, the Assembly's understanding of faith must be

questioned. In condemning the Marrow's teaching on the nature of faith,

the General Assembly intimated that salvation was by faith plus

"something else", for instance, works and holy living. 185

Also, the "Marrow men" insisted that every sinner ought to be

taught to forsake sin, and that no sinner can come to Christ but by

forsaking it. The meaning of the good men of Auchterarder Presbytery was

very clear; they meant to guard against that legal strain of preaching

which insists on repentance as an indispensable condition to qualify the

-320-
sinner for coming to Christ. Repentance, which is first in the call of
the gospel, is last in the obedience of the sinner and though God begins

by inviting "the wicked to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
thoughts", well does he know that not one of them will move a step till

the words that follow, ring in his ears, and meet the response of faith,

"For he will have mercy, and will abundantly pardon. "186

To lead the sinner directly to the Saviour, to Him who alone can

"give repentance and remission of sins", must be the ultimate aim of the

gospel minister, even when he calls upon him to forsake his sins. It

means that a man should seek nothing in himself upon which to build his

coming to Christ. Though it be true no man can come to a Saviour till he

be convinced of sin and misery, yet no man should seek conviction as a

warrant to come to Christ for salvation. 187

In order to save himself, therefore, he should not spend time in

reflecting on and examining himself till he find something promising in

himself, but from discovering sin and misery pass straightway over to

the grace and mercy of Christ, without any intervening search for

something in himself to warrant his coming. There should be nothing

before the eye of the soul except sin and misery and absolute need,

compared with the superabounding grace and righteousness of Christ. 188

It is possible, therefore, that a soul can receive Christ by grace

without any preparatory convincing work of the law to discover sin and

misery. But to look for any such preparation to find encouragement or

motive therefrom to believe in Christ is wrong. 189

The "Marrow men" represented God as a King, who had issued a

proclamation, and commanded it to be made known universally throughout

the length and breadth of His kingdom, offering amnesty to all rebels

and banished men, provided only they agree to lay down their arms and

return peaceably to their homes, and if, in spite of this. the question

-321-
of election and foreordination obtrude itself, darkening all our life,
the reply of the Marrow was that so-icing as names are concealed pardon

is offered to all:

"it is 'great. folly =in any man to' say, it may be I am not
elected... therefore, I will not accept of it nor come in... Do not
you say it may be I am not elected and therefore I will not believe
in Christ, but rather say I do believe in Christ, and therefore I
am sure I am elected; and check your heart for meddling with God's
secrets and prying into His hidden counsel, and go no more beyond
your bounds as you have done in this point... Say then, I beseech
you, with a firm faith, the righteousness of Jesus Christ belongs
to all that believe, but I believe, therefore, it belongs to me.
Yea, say with Paul, 'I live by the faith of the Son of god, who
loved me, and gave Himself for me. ' 'He saw in me', 'nothing but
wickedness going astray and fleeing from Him. Yet this good Lord
had mercy on me, and of His mere mercy He loved me, yea, so loved
me that He gave Himself for me. Who is this me? Even a wretched
and damnable sinner, was so dearly beloved of the Son of God that
He gave Himself for me. "190

In the answers prepared and forwarded by the "Marrow men" to the

Commission in March 1722 the case was well presented. According to

Wilson, one of the "Marrow Men, " their doctrine of salvation was the

same as that of the first Reformers in Scotland and compatible with the

manner in which saving faith was described in the Westminster Confession

of Faith and Catechisms. It was substantially the same as the doctrine

formerly taught that "receiving and resting on Christ for salvation"

implies that assurance which it had been customary for divines to

describe as the fiducial act or appropriating persuasion of faith. 191

The other question raised by the Assembly was, "Is not the

believing man bound by the authority of the Creator to personal

obedience to the moral law though not in order to justification? " The

answer of the Marrow men was: "Man ceases not to be a creature by being

made a new creature: he is and ever must be bound to personal obedience

to the law of the Ten Commandmentsby the authority of Father, Son, and

-322-
 Holy Ghost, his Creator. "192

5.2.3.3/ "Holiness not Necessary to Salvation. "

Evangelista - "And. if the Law say good works must be done, and the
commandment must be kept, if thou wilt obtain salvation, then
answer you, and say, I am already saved before thou Gamest;
therefore, I have no need of thy presence - Christ is my
righteousness, my treasure, and my work. I confess, 0 Law! that I
am neither godly nor righteous; but this yet I am sure of, that he
is godly and righteous for me. " and "good works may rather be
called a believer's walking in the way of eternal happiness than
the way itself. "193

The Act's first quotation under this head came from the Marrow's section

on the finished work of Christ (John 14: 6; Col. 2: 6). Christ had done

all for believers and they were therefore set free from the law of sin

and death. When taken out of context, these statements appeared to

despise the law and to spurn holiness. In context they confessed that

Christ has done for man what he could not do for himself and that

salvation could never be supplemented by human efforts such as good

works or personal righteousness. 194

The Assembly maintained that "This doctrine tends to slacken

people's diligence in the study of holiness... " However, the Marrowmen

believed that there would be no holiness until the Spirit applied the

death of Christ to the soul and enabled the believer to exercise

faith. 195 The Marrowmen taught that any qualifications or conditions

required of man detracted from the glory of God in the salvation of

sinners. Ebenezer Erskine saw the need to maintain the view that

holiness was not necessary to salvation:

".. if faith and repentance be enjoined by a new law, it is

equitable that a new fund of strength be given, in order to our
obeying it: and thus the Pelagian universal grace bestowed on every

-323-
 man that hears the gospel is introduced. "196

As the concluding subsection in the Marrow's chapter, "Of the Law of

Faith, or Covenant of Grace, " it was intended to console the believer.

Because the believer was now married to Christ, he was dead to the law

(i. e. the former husband) who could neither profit nor harm him:

"Believe it, God never threatens eternal death, after he has given
to a man eternal life. Nay, the truth is, God never speaks to a
believer out of Christ; and in Christ he speaks not a word in the
terms of the covenant of works. And if the law should presume to
" come into your conscience... then answer you and say, '0 law! be it
nown unto thee, that I am now married unto Christ, and so I am
under covert; and therefore if thou charge me with nay debt, thou
must enter thine action against my husband, Christ, for the wife is
not suable at the law, but the husband. "197

5.2.3.4/ "Fear of Punishment and Hope of Reward: Not Allowed to be

Motives of a Believer's Obedience. "

Under its fourth head of doctrine, Act V again quoted the Marrow

out of context. 198 After excluding the fear of hell and the hope of

heaven as proper motives for a believer's obedience, the Marrowmen went

on to explain that these motives for obedience were "slavish". 199 The

Marrow employed the parable of the Prodigal Son to illustrate the proper

motive for obedience and sonship:

Evangelista - "... yet when by the eye of faith they see the mercy
and indulgence of their heavenly Father in Christ, running to meet
them and embrace them; I would have them with him, to talk no more
of being hired servants, Luke 16. "200

However, the Assembly's view of the motives for a believer's obedience

flowed logically from their previous head of doctrine. Under their third

-324-
head the Assembly had implied that the believer must obey the law if he

will "obtain salvation. " Here in the fourth head, the Assembly implied

that believers were motivated to do good works in order to gain heaven

and avoid hell.

Proceeding with this line of thought into their-fifth head, the

Assembly affirmed that the believer was not "set free from the

commanding and condemning power of the covenant of works. " The

Assembly's theology demonstrated a logical consistency throughout. Once

they had departed from the foundation of grace, however, their

consistency took them deeper and deeper into legalism. 201

5.2.3.5/ "The Believer is not under the Law as a Rule of Life. "

Here Act V disregarded the Marrow's affirmation that the law was

not a "rule of life" to believers. 202 The Assembly defined rule of life

from a different theological perspective and would not accept the

Marrow's statement as being valid. 203 The Marrow men's intention was to

say that believers were dead to the covenant of works after they

accepted the covenant of grace. Therefore, Evangelista denied that the

law contained a promise of life or a threat of death to believers.

However, because the law came to believers in and through Christ by the

covenant of grace, Evangelista affirmed that believers were obliged to

obey the ten commandments in response to Christ's grace as a rule of

life. 204

In contrast to a legal obedience, Evangelista said, "you will do

that which the Lord commandeth, only because he commandeth it, and to

the end that you may please him; and you will forbear when he forbids,

only because he forbids it to the end that you may not displease

him. "205 Out of context, the words which the Assembly quoted might

-325-
easily be construed as an Antinomian statement despising the law. Yet,

in context it was a statement encouraging obedience to the law upon the

highest motive.
But the Assembly condemned the Marrow men's 'Six Antinomian

Paradoxes. Although these expressions were controversial, Thomas. Boston

noted that each one could be defended from the Scripture. 206 However,

the Act Condemnatory misrepresented the Marrow by ignoring the context

in which the Paradoxes were presented. Immediately after they were

stated, Evangelista, said:

"These points which you have now mentioned have occasioned many
needless and fruitless disputes; and that because men have either
not understood what they have said, or else not declared whereof
they have affirmed; for in one sense they may all of them be truly
affirmed, and in another sense they may all of them be truly
denied; whereof if we would clearly understand the truth, we must
distinguish betwixt the law as it is the law of works, and as it is
the law of Christ. "207

The Marrow men believed that the 1720 Assembly in its attempt to

emphasize the duty of holiness had not "sufficiently adverted" the

danger of the natural "Byass of the Heart of Man" to seek righteousness

"by the Works of the Law".

Therefore, they laid before the 1721 Assembly a Representation

highlighting several things in Act V of the 1720 Assembly which were

"stumbling to many others in this Church. " The Representation did not

proceed according to the order of Act V. Instead, it began by

emphasizing the threefold distinction of the law which was crucial to

the proper understanding of the Marrow. Three of the five things which

distressed the Representaters about Act V of the 1720 General Assembly

were specifically related to the Act's failure to appreciate the

Marrow's threefold distinction of the law:

-326-
 First - that the believer had been set free from the law as it
was the covenant of works. 208

Second - that the Marrow's "distinction of the Law as it is the

Law of Christ" was groundless. (Although a believer was
not under the Covenant of Works, the Representation argued
that this "carrieth no Prejudice unto the indispensable
the Creature to the strictest Obedience. "209
-Obligation-of-
Third- "the true Spring of Evangelical Obedience to the Holy Law
as a Rule. "(Here the Marrowmen stressed that "Believers
being united to Christ... the Demand, which the Law makes
upon them for Works, if they will obtain Salvation, is
cut off. "210

Fourth - the Reformers' concept of the Nature of Faith "by which a

person appropriates to himself, what before lay in common
in the Gospel Offer. "211

Fifth - the warrant "to offer Christ to all" and "unto all to
receive him. "212

At this point the Representers gave an indication why they were

compelled to petition the Assembly - "seeing that the Interest of Truth,

and of that condemned Book, are so much linked together". Then in the

last half of the "Representation, " five charges were listed which these

Marrowmen believed to be unjust:

(1). "That the Believer is not under the Law as a Rule of Life... as
if the Law could not be a Rule of Life, but as it is the
Covenant of Works. "

(2). The Charge of maintaining Holiness, not to be necessary to

Salvation" when the Author taught "the Believer to plead the
Obedience of Christ, in Answer to the Law Demand of good
Works, for obtaining Salvation... "

(3). "Fear of Punishment, and Hope of Reward, not allowed to be

motives of A Believer's Obedience" when the Author's emphasis
was that these were not to be considered in and of themselves
as distinct from God.

(4). the Assembly's failure to comment on the quotations which they

condemned.

(5). the Assembly's charge that the Marrow denied "the Necessity of
Holiness to Salvation" when the second part of the Marrow was
"an Explication and Application of the holy Law, in its Ten
Commandments."

-327-
In closing, the Representers expressed their belief that the action of

the 1720 Assembly was "an Oversight. " However, in view of "the growing

Humour in this generation, for turning that Religion left among us into

were Morality, " they felt compelled to-seek a timely remedy. Therefore,

they petitioned the1721 Assembly to repeal Act ,V and two clauses of Act

VIII of the 1720 Assembly. 213

The Marrow men insisted that true holiness is through Christ alone

and it is the only true kind of holiness. To them holiness was heaven,

and heaven holiness. 214 "To ask them", as Walker has described, "Whether

they thought holiness requisite in the saved, seemed to be equivalent to

asking them if a man could be saved without being saved, if a man could

have enjoyment of heaven without entering the Golden City. "215 There

can be no doubt that these men intended to encourage holiness, not to

depreciate it, but their language gave ample opportunity for

misunderstanding. Henry F. Henderson summed up the views of the Assembly

as being based upon the semi-rationalism of a utilitarian theory of

morality and religion. "God knows, and yet I do something for His glory

on earth, and then endure the torments of the lost, `than live a life of

sin on earth and then have for ever the bliss of the ransomed. "216

5.3/ Summary of this Chapter.

The primary task of the Covenanting party during the time of

Revolution, 1689-1690, was the settlement of Presbyterianism in Britain.

The Covenanters thought that it could be secured. They considered

themselves to be the legitimate representatives and continuation of the

Church of Scotland as it existed before the Restoration of 1660. They

identified their faith as being within the Reformation tradition and

appealed to the nation as the covenant people of God. They also refused

-328-
 to give up their covenant tradition and upon this principle they

continued to denounce the usurper.

Moreover, the Revolution opened a new era which gave to Scottish

Presbyterianism a Protestant nation and changed not only the atmosphere

of Scottish politics but also Christian religion. Due to this. Scottish

covenant thought was very much at the heart of the life of the Scottish

people in religious matters. It is apparent that the settlement of

Presbyterianism in Scotland was based upon the covenant thought which

effectively influenced the Scottish people and nation. As Dr. Andrew

McGowan has remarked, during this period, "the 'covenants' and the

'covenant theology' were intermingled in this struggle, and the triumph

of Presbyterianism meant also the triumph of covenant thought. "217 And

yet, regrettably, the Bloodless Revolution was only one chapter in the

continuing battle over who would control the Church of Scotland.

During Queen Anne's reign, the minority of the Covenanters who had

followed Richard Cameron disowned the Revolution government and

persistently maintained that they could recognise no prince except on

the basis of the Covenant. Rather, they ranked such recognition as

disloyalty both to their fathers who had joined themselves in a

perpetual Covenant with God and to the God to whom they had then as a

nation bound themselves.

Moreover, they issued the doctrine of Church and State during the

time of trial. In 1712, they adopted former Covenants and reconfirmed

them as their beliefs for the renewal of the Covenants at Auchinsaugh.

At the same time, traditional beliefs and theology were both

reconsidered by some members within the Church of Scotland. Certain

doctrines were debated in a lively way and this was started by Professor

Simson's natural theology via the "Marrow Controversy" and finished with
Prof. Simson 15 years later. During the controversy, the traditional

-329-
 theology seemed to be reconfirmed and also misunderstood by the

Assembly.

The central point in the controversies concerned the sovereignty of

God and human responsibility in the work of salvation and the free grace

of God for, mankind. The. Marrow ministers emphasized God's free grace

while their opponents held that something must be done to obtain and

prepare for salvation. The Marrow men spoke of the covenant of grace as

a "testament", with promises of grace in Christ, which was to be freely

offered to all. Assurance was in Christ, and a believer's obedience was

seen as a response of love and gratitude. Their opponents spoke of the

covenant as a contract with mutual obligations, with the gospel offer

made only to the "prepared" sinner. Assurance was based on a believer's

good works, and obedience was obtained by threats of God's wrath. In

this the Marrow and its defenders were more in harmony with pre 1650

Reformed orthodoxy and, on balance, the Westminster Standards, while

their opponents reflected the legalizing tendencies of late seventeenth

century Reformed theology rather than Reformed thought as a whole. 218 In

a word, the Marrow men's contention during the controversy was that it

is God who by his free grace elects his people. As a corrective, the

Marrow men re-emphasized the great Reformation truth of "SOLA GRATIA",

that salvation comes as a gift from God alone.

All the matters we are considering during this period of turmoil,

however, were bound up with the Westminster Confession of Faith which

had a profound influence not only on State affairs - the Government

system - but also on the religious settlement of Presbyterianism in

Scotland. The settlement of Presbyterianism, the Claim of Right, the

Articles of Grievances, and Auchinsaugh Declaration of 1712, the

Professor Simson affair and the "Marrow Controversy", show us that it

was covenant thought which influenced Scottish minds in a pattern of

-330-
 Biblical thinking. If the early period was focused on the

nationalisation and independence of religion in Scotland, the later

period was focused on individual Christian salvation and on a stronger

regard and desire for-personal religion.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, since. the General Assembly of

the Church of Scotland adopted it as the principal subordinate standard

of the denomination in 1648, played a major part in the debate. The

"Marrow men" believed it to be the same theology as the "Marrow" and

stood firmly upon it. But the Moderates suspected the Marrow men of

Antinomianism, the heresy which argues that, because men are justified

by faith rather than by works, God's elect are not bound by any moral

law. To the enthusiasts of Covenanting times this had been a very real

danger.

It is interesting to realize that all parties recognized the

Confession as a "standard of orthodoxy"219 and there can be no doubt

that its fundamental doctrines were based upon covenant thought. The

doctrine of the "Marrow men", however, was condemned as unbiblical and

contrary to the Scripture and to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Part of the reason for this condemnation lay in the paradoxical style

often used by its writer rather than in the substance of the book and

part of the reason must also be found in the personalities of the men

who published it. As history has shown us, the Assembly's assertion that

the Marrow men were Antinomians was not true for they did not deny the

obligation of God's law binding upon all. The Marrow men did not teach

that the elect were justified from eternity, or that believers are

sanctified only by the holiness of Christ being imputed to them without

holiness being infused into them, or required of them, or that sinless

perfection is attainable in this life.

The controversy concerning the Marrow excited a great ferment among

-331-
 the Scottish people. The effects which it produced did not pass away

when the controversy ceased. One of the more direct effects of it was

that the attention of ministers throughout the Church was more

immediately turned- to those leading doctrines which formed the main

basis for :discussion and the line of separation between the parties

gradually became broader and broader. In particular, many of the

ministers acquired a clearer and better understanding of the system of

revealed truth. Also, the doctrine of free grace was better understood,

and more faithfully preached by them. Consequently their ministrations

among the people were attended with a greater degree of success. 220

As a consequence of the dispute over the "Marrow", which ended

without any good result, secession (which finally took place in 1733)

seemed inevitable. The liberty which was claimed by the Marrow men, and

was claimed constitutionally and correctly, the Assembly was in no

humour to allow. The party of high-flying enthusiasm, as it was

recklessly named, and that of Moderation, as it came afterwards to be

rather unkindly called, went their separate ways. 221

On the whole, Simson's case revealed the rise of rationalism in

theology and the dispute over "The Marrow" was the first sign of the

rise of an evangelical party in contrast to the moderates. 222 For very

different reasons the party in control of the Assembly, soon to be known

as the Moderates, had little sympathy with Evangelicals. Explicit

rationalism, whatever their private estimate of it, was an open assault

on the traditional pattern of doctrine which was bound to stir unwanted

controversy, and the evangelical movement had a popular character with

which the Moderates were ill at ease. They were men who held that the

disputes and divisions of the seventeenth century had much less to do

with the Christian gospel than their participants had supposed. They

were concerned that the minds of congregations should be turned, not to

-332-
theological debate and doctrine, but to the practical duties of the

Christian life. For them, the Church should not permit herself to be

carried away by the prejudices of the illiterate, and that it was

necessary to make a deliberate attempt to secure the allegiance of the

educated and thoughtful. 223..

Covenant thought in the period 1688-1723 developed significantly

but took a major new direction in the "Marrow" controversy. Following

the Presbyterian settlement of 1690, the more radical but minority group

of Covenanters continued to focus their attention on constitutional law

with regard to an uncovenanted sovereign. After 1690, too, the Church of

Scotland - now established as Presbyterian - was troubled by a number of

doctrinal controversies touching on natural theology, free grace and

legalism. The church became more divided and, in the light of

liberalizing tendencies, there was a need to discuss, articulate and

contend for foundational doctrines of sin, grace, atonement, faith,

assurance, etc which were integral to the covenant concept. Through the

"Marrow" controversy, the church was called back from discussions of

church/state questions to a consideration of teachings which were

primary in that they dealt with man's right relationship to God in

Christ; in other words, the need for sound, experimental religion

issuing in holiness rather than nominalism and rationalizing ideas was

at the heart both of the "Marrow" controversy and also covenant

theology.

-333-
 TO CHAPTERFIVE
ENDNOTES

1. John Macleod, Scottish Theology, B. O. T., 1974, p. 155; A. Ian Dunlop,

William Carstares and the Kirk by Law Established, Edinburgh: The
Saint Andrew Press, 1964, p: 100.

2. Stewart Mechie, "The Theological Climate in Early Eighteenth Century

Scotland", Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan Shaw, Edinburgh:
The Saint" Andrew Press, 1967, pp. 258-272.

3. Hector Macpherson, Scotland's Battles for Spiritual Independence,

London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905, p. 146.

4. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 1690, IV. 37; A Compendium of the

Laws of the Church of Scotland, Ibid., pp. 22-23. Cf. Gordon
Donaldson, Scottish Historical Documents, Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press, 1974, pp. 252-258.

5. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 1690, IX. 37; A Compendium of the

Laws of the Church of Scotland, ed. Walter Steuart, Edinburgh: Robert
Buchanan, 1830, pp. 22-24.

6. W.M.Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland, from the

Introduction of Christianity, to the Period of the Disruption, May
18,1843, Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1843, pp. 185-186.

7. Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 1690, IX, 45. Cf. Gordon

Donaldson, op. cit., pp. 258-259.

8. Ibid., 1690, IX, 45.

9. Alexander Taylor Imes, The Law of Creeds in Scotland, A Treatise on

the Legal Relation of Churches in Scotland Established and not
Established, to their Doctrinal Confessions, Edinburgh: William
Blackwood and Sons, 1867, pp. 69-78; Compendium of the Laws of the
Church of Scotland, op. cit., pp. 24-28; Robert Wodrow, The History
of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to
the Revolution, 1829-1835, Vol. IV., p. 486; Pearson Madam Muir. The
Church of Scotland: A Sketch of its History, Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark,
1907, p. 56; A. Ian Dunlop, William Carstares and the Kirk by Law
Established, op. cit., pp. 71-73,149-151.

10. Acts of Parliament of Scotland, 1690, IX, pp. 133-134. Cf. A. Ian
Dunlop, Ibid., pp. 149-151; Historical Part of the Testimony of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp. 156-
169; John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh:
Andrew Elliot, 1887, pp. 152-154.

11. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church

in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp. 164-165.

12. Thomas Brown, Church and State in Scotland, Edinburgh: MacNiven &
Wallace, 1891, pp. 171-172.

13. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church

in Scotland, op. cit., pp. 172-180: James Barr, The Scottish
-334-
 Covenanters, Glasgow: John Smith & Son Ltd., 1946, p. 60.

14. The idea of a union was not new. J. M.Reid, Kirk and Nation: The
Story of the Reformed Church of Scotland, London: Skeffington, 1960,
pp. 105-106.
15. Andrew J. Camphell, Two Centuries of the Church of Scotland 1707-
1929,. Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1930, p. 21.

16. Andrew Thomson, Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession

Church, Edinburgh, 1848, pp. 7-8. In course of time, after
undergoing various modifications, it was more extensively taken, but
there were those who, like Thomas Boston and Ebenezer Erskine, were
content to run all hazards, and even suffer joyfully the spoiling of
their goods, rather than do violence to the convictions of
conscience. Boston's Memoirs, p. 275.

17. Andrew J. Camphell, op. cit., p. 32

18. However, there were those (Radical Covenanters or Cameronians) who

refused to accept the Settlement mainly because the Solemn League
and Covenant and other Acts connected with the Second Reformation
were not restored. Prof. John Eadie has pointed out that William did
not believe in the divine right of any form of church government.
He says further that King William was himself a Presbyterian at the
Hague, and an Episcopalian at Whitehall. Therefore, he was willing
that any form of spiritual jurisdiction which the people preferred
should be secured to them, provided it yielded to the royal
superintendence and control. Prof. Eadie suggested that the Church
of the Revolution Settlement was founded in compromise. John
C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, op. cit., p. 150;
J. Moir Porteous, The Presbyterian Church: Its World-Wide History and
Extent, London, 1888, p. 158.

19. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church

in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, p. 201.

20. John C. Johnston, op. cit., p. 163.

21. J. M.Reid, op. cit., p. 116.

22. Where in prosecuting the former, he showed by what gradual steps of

declension a people usually come to deal falsely in God's covenant.
He pointed out seven steps of declension in relation to this. (1).
By forgetfulness (Deut. iv. 23). There being a connecxion between
forgetting and forsaking, or dealing falsely in God's covenant, so
the church intimates (Psam. 64: 17-18). (2). By seeking shifts and
arguments to elude and evade the obligation of the covenant and to
defend the breaches therefo which is after vows to make inquiry.
(3). By despising the bond of it (Ezek. 14: 59). (4). By defection
to the iniquities which are sworn and engaged against in the
covenant (Jer. 11: 10). (5). By changing the government, laws, and
ordinances sworn to be maintained in the covenant, either the
government of the state, without consulting divine direction, and
due inspection into the qualification of the persons set up (lins. 8:
1,4; 2 Chron. 13: 6,10. (6). By an entire forsaking and disowning
the obligation of the covenant (Dan. 11: 30). (7). By a stated
opposition to the covenant, and persecuting of these who adhere
-335-
 thereunto. Thus Elijah justly charges Israel (1 Kings 19: 10). The
National Covenant. and Solemn League and Covenant: with the
Acknowledgement of Sins; at they were renewed at Auchinsaugh, Near
Douglas, 24th July 1712, pp. vi-viii.

23. Ibid., p. viii. There are severaly examples. Duet. 24. by Joshua; 2
Chron. 15: 13-14 by Asa; 2 Kongs 11: 17 by Jehoiada; 2 Chron. 29: 10
by Hezekiah; 2 Kings 13: 2 by Josiah; Ezra 10: 3 and Neh. 9:, 10:
28-29 by Ezra and Nehemiah).

24. Ibid., pp. ix-xi.

25. In personal: Psalm 119: 106 and national: 2 Chron. 15: 12-19,29: -
31:; 2 Kings 11: 17-18,20.

26. Spiritual mercies: Deut. 29: 12-13. Temporal mercies: Deut. 29: 9; 2
Chron. 15: 15.

27. Ibid., pp. xi-xiii.

28. There are six remarks as follows: (1). That a time of God's
privileging his people with-his gracious presence, and with a shower
of gospel grace, is a very inviting and alluring time; wherein, as
the Lord invites his people to their duty, by engaging their hearts
and souls, through his Spirit's gracious influences, to fall in love
with him and his commandments, so they mutally invite one another to
covenant with God. (2). That such a time proves demanding, wherein
souls are engaged to fall in love with the covenant, and with Christ
the Mediator of the covenant, and are taken in the net of the
gospel. (3). That a time of the letting out of God's gracious
presence is ordinarily a time of many sweet and excellent
resolutions, the people of God resolving to walk more accurately and
circumspectly in the ways of new obedience. (4). That this usually
is a time of ridding marches, and clearing of evidences. (5). That
it is a time of many and special confirmations of God's love to the
soul. (6). That this time of God's letting out much of his gracious
presence to his people, is a very uniting and healing time to them
amongst themselves. Ibid., pp. xvi-xvii.

29. The concept of the identification of the Covenanters with the

Israelites as God's chosen people. Hugh Watt, Recalling the
Scottish Covenants, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD., p. 71.
Cf. Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation,
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, Vol. 4., 1907, pp. 160-162.

30. The National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant: with
the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to Duties: as they were
Renewed at Auchinsaugh, Near Douglas. 24th July, 1712, p. xxv.

31. Ibid., p. 24.

32.. Ibid., p. 57.

33. Ibid., p. 60.

34. Ibid., p. 61.

35. Ibid., pp. 74-75.
-336-
36. Ibid., p. 75.
37. Ibid., p. 101.

38. C. Stewart Black, The Scottish Church, Glasgow: William MacLellan,

1952, pp. 203-204; John MacPherson, A History of the Church in
Scotland, Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1901, p. 305.

39. The National Covenant. and Solemn League and Covenant: with
the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to Duties: as they were
Renewed at Auchinsaugh. Near Douglas. 24th July. 1712, pp. 104-105.

40. W.Stephen, History of the Scottish Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas,

1896, p. 473.

41. James Kerr, The Covenants and the Covenanters, Edinburgh, 1895, pp.
385-390).

42. "Declaration and Defence of the Associate Presbyter's Principles

Anent the Present Civil government" (1744), in Adam Gib, The Present
Truth: A Display of the Secession-Testimony, Edinburgh, 1774, p.
334. Hereinafter cited, "principles anent Civil Government".

43. Ibid., p. 334.

44. Ibid., p. 333.

45. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church

in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, p. 210-211. As proof of their assertion
that civil magistrates were instituted by God and were to be obeyed
by those under their authority, the Associate Presbytery referred to
passages such as Proverbs 24: 21; Ecclesiastics 10: 4; Luke 20: 25;
Romans 13: 1-7; Titus 3: 1; and I Peter 2: 13-17. Ibid., pp. 293-321.

46. Ibid., p. 333.

47. The Covenanters rejected the distinction made by some between the
preceptive and providential will of God. According to that
distinction, a civil magistrate might be over the State de facto
according to God's providence but not over the State de Jere
according to God's preceptive will. The Covenanters taught that in
spite of the fact that some magistrates were less able to rule, "all
providential Magistrates are also preceptive" because "the office
and authority" of all Magistrates arose equally "from the preceptive
will of God". Ibid., p. 332.

48. Ibid., p. 311. Cf. Moncrieff, Works, Vol. II., p. 92.

49. Ibid., p. 311. Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 23., II and
III.

50. James Fisher, The Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained by Way of

Question and Answer, Edinburgh, 1771,102.26. Cf. Ebenezer Erskine,
Works, Vol. II., p. 155.

51. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 5; Vol. I., p. 377.

52. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 248. Cf. Vol. III., p. 72.
-337-
 53. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., 9. Cf, Fisher's Catechism, 20.
12-19.

54. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 462.

55. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. III., p. 77. Cf. Vol. III., p. 153.
.56.::'Ebenezer Erskine, ' Works; ' Vol., I., p. 63. Cf. Vol. II.; 345. -

Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 7. Cf. Vol. I., p. 5; Vol.

II., p. 216.

58. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 265.

59. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 440. "It is true his mediatory
kingdom is committed to him by his Father, but his essential kingdom
is as independent as that of God the Father, he being in the form of
God, and thinks it no robbery to be equal with God".

60. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 444.

61. "Principles Anent the Present Civil government", op. cit., p. 333.

62. Ibid., p. 333. Cf. Moncrieff, Works, Vol. II., P. 90.

63. Fisher's Catechism, 26.21.

64. Cf. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 447.

65. "Principles Anent the Present Civil government", op. cit., p. 280.
Cf. Moncrieff, Works, Vol. II., p. 99.
66. Ibid., p. 280.
67. Ibid., p. 280.

68. Ibid., p. 280.

69. Ibid., p. 282.

70. Ibid., p. 334.

71. Judicial Testimony, p. 55.
72. Ibid., p. 157. Cf. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 347.
73. Ibid., p. 56.
74. Ibid., p. 57.
75. "Act for Renewing the Covenant", p. 230. Cf. Judicial Testimony, p.
86.

76. "First Testimony", pp. 46,48,67.

77. Andrew Thomson, op. cit., pp. 1-9; Andrew L. Drummond & James
Bulloch, The Scottish Church 1688-1843, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew
Press, 1973,, pp. 17-19. Cf. A. Ian Dunlop, William Carstares and
-338-
 the Kirk by Law Established, op. cit., pp. 103-105,136-138,154-
157; David Boorman "Ebenezer Erskine and Secession", Diversities of
Gifts, The Westminster Conference Paper, 1980, pp. 90-91.

78. AGA, 1712, XVI, "... we do faithfully promise, to the utmost of our
power, to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the crown
in the Protestant line against the said Pretender, and all other
persons whatsoever, understanding the foresaid Oath of Abjuration in
the fullest sense, wherein it can be understood... But seeing we
cannot dissemble with your Majesty, that there remains a scruple
with many, as if the conditions mentioned in the acts of Parliament
establishing the succession, referred to by the said oath, were to
be understood as a part thereof, and that to swear to something in
these conditions seems not consistent with our known principles... "

79. Andrew Thomson, cit., pp. 9-11; John Brown, "The Occasion of the
'Marrow' Controversy, " The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher,
with notes by Thomas Boston, U. S. A: Still Waters Revival Books,
1991, pp. 344-345; William Garden Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland
from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1888, p. 189. Cf. Stewart Mechie, "The Theological Climate in Early
Eighteenth Century Scotland", Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan
Shaw, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1967, pp. 258-272.

80. H. M. B. Reid, The Divinity Professors in the University of Glasgow,

1640-1903, Glasgow, 1923, pp. 222-223; C. G. M'Crie, "Studies in
Scottish Ecclesiastical Biography: II. Prof. Simson, the Glasgow
Heresiarch, " The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, XXXIII,
1884, pp. 256-258.

81. William Law Mathieson, Scotland and the Union: A History of Scotland
from 1695 to 1747, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1905, p. 225.

82. Andrew Thomson, op. cit., p. 11; Wodrow Correspondence, Vol. I., p.
493; William Law Mathieson, Ibid., pp. 225-226.

83. H. M. B. Reid, The Divinity Professors in the University of Glasgow.

1640-1903, Glasgow, 1923, pp. 222-223. Prof. Simson's teaching
linked to the Arian position. Arian: one who denies the equality of
the Son to the Father in the Godhead; so called, from one Arius, who
in the fourth century, disturbed the church by his heretical
opinions on the subject of the Trinity; Wodrow' Correspondence, Vol.
III., p. 235,261. Cf. Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold
State, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964 (first edition of
1720), p. 23.

84. William Law Mathieson, op. cit., p. 232.

85. Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
in Scotland, Glasgow, 1839, pp. 180-181; Thomas M'Crie, "'The
Marrow' Controversy: with Notices of the State of Scottish Theology
in the beginning of last Century", The British and Foreign
Evangelical Review, Vol. II., Edinburgh, June, 1853, pp. 422-423.

86. Andrew Thomson, op. cit., p. 11; John M'Kerrow, History of the
Secession Church, Glasgow, 1841, pp. 7-8.

87. Andrew Thomson, Ibid., p. 11. "That heathens have an obscure

-339-
 objective discovery of redemption through Christ; that the light of
nature, including tradition, is sufficient to teach men the way of
salvation; that the souls of children are as pure and holy as the
soul of Adam was in his original condition, being inferior to him
only as to those qualifications and habits which he received as
being created in a state of maturity; that no proper covenant of
works was made with Adam as the representative of his posterity;
that our own happiness ought to be our chief end in the service of
God; that there is no immediate precourse of God attending and
influencing the acts of his reasonable creatures; and that there
will be no sinning in hell after the last judgment. " Cf. Henry
F. Henderson, The Religious Controversies of Scotland, Edinburgh: T&
T Clark, 1905, pp. 4-5.

88. T. M. M'Crie, "Account of the Controversy respecting the Marrow of

Modern Divinity, " The Edinburgh Christian Instructor, 1831, Vol.
XXX., p. 543.

89. G. D. Henderson, "Arminianism in Scotland, " London Quarterly and

Holborn Review, CLVI, pp. 499-500; John Macpherson, A History of the
Church in Scotland, London: Alexander Gardner, 1901, p. 314.

90. Acts of the General Assembly, 1717, IX; John M'Kerrow, Ibid., pp. 8-
9.

91. Thomas Boston, Memoirs, p. 317; W.M. Hetherington, History of the

Church of Scotland, Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1843, Vol. II.,
p. 275. According to Wodrow, "this proposition had made a dreadful
noise. " Robert Wodrow, Correspondence, Vol. II., p. 269.

92. Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold State, Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1964, p. 26.

93. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes by Thomas
Boston, U. S. A: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991, P. 6,20; Andrew
Thomson, Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession Church,
op. cit., p. 14; William Garden Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland
from the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century, op. cit., p. 190. Cf.
David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723, Edinburgh:
Rutherford House, 1988, p. 5; Thomas M'Crie, "'The Marrow'
Controversy: with Notices of the State of Scottish Theology in the
beginning of last Century", The British and Foreign Evangelical
Review, Vol. II., Edinburgh, June, 1853, pp. 426-427.

94. Thomas M'Crie, "'The Marrow' Controversy: with Notices of the State
of Scottish Theology in the beginning of last Century", The British
and Foreign Evangelical Review, Vol. II., Edinburgh, June, 1853, pp.
427.

95. Marrow, pp. 22-23.

96. Marrow, pp. 22,25. Boston's comment on the law. Cf. Ralph Erskine,
Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1840,
Vol. II., pp. 250-254.
97. James Durham, The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in The Confession of
Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture proofs
at Large: together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, Edinburgh:
-340-
 1836, pp. 445-478; Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants
between God and Man: Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity,
Escondido, Calliformia: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990
(edition of 1822, London), Vol. I., pp. 41-455., Vol. II., pp. 1-
444. For Boston, however, this doctrine seemed to be used in two
covenant terms in his writings. "as the first Adam, standing as head
and representative of all his natural seed, entered into the first
covenant with God, accepting the promise thereof, upon the terms and
condition therein proposed, which he engaged to fulfil: so our Lord
Jesus, standing as second Adam, head and representative of the
particular persons of lost mankind, by name elected to life, and
given to him as his spiritual seed, entered into the second covenant
with his Father; accepting the promises thereof, upon the terms and
condition therein proposed; consenting and engaging to fulfil the
same, for them. And thus the covenant of grace was made, and
concluded, betwixt the Father, and Christ the second Adam, from all
eternity; being the second covenant, in respect of order and
namifestation to the world, though it was first in being (1 Cor.
15: 47). " Samuel M'Millan, The Beauties of Thomas Boston, Christian
Focus Publication, 1979, pp. 491-493. Cf. Sinclair Ferguson, "The
Doctrine of the Christian Life in the Teaching of Dr. John Owen
(1616-1683)", Ph. D thesis, Aberdeen University, 1979, p. 484., "the
necessity for (the covenant of redemption) is a logical consequence
of seeing the original relationship between man and God as a
covenant and defining it in conditional terms. " Cf. Testimony. by
the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, Glasgow, MDCCCXLI, pp.
125-126; John Macleod, Scottish Theology, The Banner of Truth Trust,
1974, p. 147; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal
Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster
Assembly, Ph. D. thesis, Glasgow University, 1988, p. 66.

98. Marrow, pp. 20,31. For example: the covenant of law and nature, the
law of works, faith, moral law, and the law of grace, and the
covenant of gospel, word, faith, grace and the law of Christ. Edward
Fisher listed sixty-four theologians in "A Catalogue of those
Writers' names, out of which I have collected much of the matter
contained in this ensuing Dialogue. "
99. Marrow, pp. 27-28; Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine,
Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1840, Vol. I., pp. 157,516-522. Andrew
L. Drummond and James Bulloch, The Scottish Church 1688-1843,
.
Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1973, p. 37; Ralph Erskine,
Works, Free Presbyterian Publications, 6 Vols. 1991 (ed)., of 1865,
Vol. I., p. 133.

100. Marrow, p. 30. Cf. Ralph Erskine, Works, Vol. I., p. 453;
J. B. Torrance, "Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological
Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland", Scottish
Journal of Theology, 1970, Vol. XXVI.

101. Marrow, pp. 31-32.

102. Marrow, p. 39.

103. Marrow, p. 43.

104. Marrow, p. 42.

-341-
105. An absolute and unilateral expression of the covenant of grace
would stress Christ's perfect, willing obedience as Son of God and
Son of man in a sinful world for a sinful race. In doing so He
demonstrated not only His love for His Father, but also the love of
God for man. That which He accomplished was freely offered to
mankind to be freely received by faith.

106. Marrow, pp. 57-65; Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine,
op. cit. Vol. I., pp. 156-175.

107. Marrow, pp. 59-63; Ralph Erskine, Ibid., pp. 178-181.

108. Marrow, p. 63.

109. Marrow, pp. 67-68,71.

110. Marrow, p. 67.

111. Marrow, pp. 70-72.

112. Marrow, p. 71.

113. Marrow, p. 72

114. Marrow, p. 72. Boston interpreted the Westminster standards as

using condition "in a large and improper sense. " Larger Catechism,
Quest. 32.

115. Marrow, pp. 85-86.

116. Marrow, p. 91.

117. Marrow, p. 92.

118. Marrow, p. 97.

119. Marrow, pp. 101-108.

120. Marrow, pp. 89-125. Cf. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralj
Erskine, Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1840, Vol. I., pp. 58-73.

121. Marrow, p. 118.

122. Marrow, pp. 126-142.

123. Marrow, pp. 145-146.

124. Marrow, p. 150.

125. Marrow, p. 152.

126. Marrow, pp. 156-157.

127. AGA, 1720, V. Cf. Calvin's Institutes, IV. XV. 12.

128. Marrow, p. 172.

129. Marrow, p. 186.

-342-
130. Marrow, p. 187.

131. Marrow, p. 194.

132. Marrow, p. 200. See also Boston's notes as reference for that. pp.
200-203.

133. ý-Marrow, p. x"210:

134. Marrow, p. 213.

135. Marrow, p. 217.

136. Antinomian Paradoxes are as follows: He hath endeavoured to

persuade me (1). "That a believer is not under the law, but is
altogether delivered from it. (2). That a believer does not commit
sin. (3). That the Lord can see no sin in a believer. (4). That the
Lord is not angry with a believer for his sins. (5). That the Lord
doth not chastise a believer for his sins. (6). That a believer
hath no cause neither to confess his sins, nor to crave pardon at
the hands of God for them, neither yet to fast, nor mourn, nor
humble himself before the Lord for them. " Marrow, p. 217; Acts of
the General Assembly, 1720, pp. 534-536; John Cunningham, op. cit.,
p. 251.

137. Marrow, p. 222.

138. Marrow, p. 226.

139. Marrow, p. 235.

140. Marrow, p. 235.

141. Marrow, p. 240.

142. Marrow, p. 240

143. Marrow, p. 247.

144. Marrow, p. 250.

145. Marrow, p. 254.

146. Boston was explaining to John Drummond "my sense of the gospel
offer. " Thomas Boston, A General Account of My Life, London, 1908,
p. 219; Andrew Thomson, Historical Sketch of the Origin of the
Secession Church, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
147. Marrow, p. 7. Hog's preface begins as follows: "This book came into
my hand by a merciful and most unexpected disposure of providence,
and I read it with great and sweet complacence. It contains a great
deal of the marrow of revealed and gospel truth... "

148. James Hadow, "The Record of God and the Duty of Faith Therein
Required, " April, 1719. A prolific pamphlet battle began which
lasted for several years.

149. Acts of the General Assembly, 1719, XI.

-343-
150. M'Crie said that this Committee was "entirely one-sided in its
composition. " C. G. M'Crie, "Studies in Scottish Ecclesiastical
Biography: III. Rev. James Hog of Carnock and Principal Hadow of
St. Andrews, " The British and Foreign Evangelical review, 1884, Vol.
XXXIII, p. 694.

151. Acts of the General Assembly, 1720, act v; Andrew Thomson,

Historical Sketch of the'Origin of the Secession Church, op. cit.,
p. 19; John M'Kerrow, History of the Secession Church, Glasgow,
1841, pp. 9-20; Wodrow. s Correspondence, Vol. II., pp. 269-271;
Robert Herbert Story (ed. ), The Church of Scotland, London: William
Mackenzie, 1890, p. 621; William Stephen, History of the Scottish
Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1896, Vol. II., p. 487.

152. See footnotes No. 136.

153. Charles G. M'Crie, op. cit., Vol. 33., pp. 696-697; Henry F.
Henderson, op. cit., p. 27.

154. AGA, 1720, V. The criticism against the Marrow was that the said
passages and quotations, which relate to the five several heads of
doctrine above mentioned are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, our
Confession of Faith and Catechisms; and that the distinction of the
law, as it is the law of works, and as it is the law of Christ, as
the author applies it, in order to fence and defend the six
Antinomian paradoxes above written, is altogether groundless; and
that the other expressions above set down, excerpted out of the
said book, are exceedingly harsh and offensive; and, therefore, the
General Assembly do hereby strictly prohibit and discharge all the
ministers of this Church, either by preaching, writing, or
printing, to recommend the said book, or, in discourse, to say any
thing in favour of it; but, on the contrary, they are hereby
enjoined and required to warn and exhort their people, in whose
hands the said book is, or may come, not to read or use the same. "
According to Boston, the terms of this Act were rigidly carried out
by the Anti-Marrow men. Boston's Memoirs, p. 420. John Brown, "The
Occasion of the 'Marrow' Controversy, " The Marrow of Modern
Divinity, op. cit., pp. 344-345.

155. The twelve ministers were: the Rev. Messrs. James Hog of Carnock,
Thomas Boston of Etterick, John Bonar of Torphichen, John
Williamson of Inveresk, James Kid of Queensferry, Gabriel Wilson of
Maxton, Ebenezer Erskine of Portmoak, Ralph Erskine of Dundermline,
James Wardlaw of Dunfermline, Henry Davidson of Galashiels, James
Bathgate of Orwell, William Hunter of Lilliesleaf. Boston, &
General Account of My Life, pp. 250-254; John M'Kerrow, op. cit.,
p. 14; W.M. Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland,
Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1843, Vol. II., pp. 286-287;
William Cunningham has summed up of the Marrow men as "the twelve
apostles of the Modern Divinity. " Historical Theology, The Banner
of Truth trust, 1979, p. 252.

156. John M'Kerrow, Ibid.,, p. 10.

157. Andrew Lang, A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation,
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1907, Vol. IV., p. 287;
Wodrew's correspondent, Vol. II., pp. 652-654.

-344-
158. Boston, A General Account of My Life, pp. 250-254.
159. "Representation and Petition, " 1721,3-5.

160. AGA, 1722, VII. Cf. AGA, 1720, VIII, which recommended that
ministers "insist upon the great and fundamental truths. according
to our Confession of Faith, " and went on to list among these truths
two of the disputed points in the Marrow Controversy, "free
-
justification through our blessed surety the Lord Jesus Christ,
received by faith alone" and "the necessity of a holy life, in
order to the obtaining of everlasting happiness. "

161. Andrew Thomson, Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession

Church, op. cit., pp. 19-20; John M'Kerrow, op. cit., p. 14.

162. Lachman, op. cit., pp. 297-303.

163. Marrow, pp. 345-370. The seriousness with which the Marrowmen
contemplated their plight was revealed in Boston's reasoning that
they "were to lay our account with parting with our brethren, as
being cast out by them; and, in that event, it would be safest,
both for the cause of truth, and our own reputation... " Thomas
Boston, Memoirs of the Life, Time, and Writings of the Reverend and
Learned Thomas Boston, Edinburgh, 1899, p. 364. Lachman, Ibid., pp.
303-313.

164. John M'Kerrow, op. cit., p. 15.

165. M'Crie in the Christian Instructor for 1831 and 1832; William Law
Mathieson, Scotland and the Union: A History of Scotland from 1695
to 1747, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1905, p. 230.

166. Thomas Boston, A General Account of My Life, op. cit., p. 260.

M'Kerrow has suggested that in this Representation the Marrowmen
express their grief at the severe blow the Assembly has given to
evangelical truth in condemning as unsound (1) that the Father has
made in the Gospel a free and unlimited offer of Christ and of
salvation to all men, by virtue of which every individual who hears
the Gospel has warrant to take hold of the said offer and apply it
to his own soul; (2) that an assured persuasion of the truth of
God's promise in the Gospel, with respect to one's self in
particular, is included in the very nature of saving faith; (3)
that the believer's holiness is in no way the price or condition of
a salvation; (4) that believers in yielding obedience to the law as
a rule of life ought not to be influenced either by mercenary hopes
of heaven or by slavish fears of hell; (5) that the believer is not
in any way under the law as a covenant of works: (6) and that it is
a just and scriptural distinction which is made between the law as
a covenant of works and the law as a rule of life in the hands of
Christ. John M'Kerrow, History of Secession Church, op. cit., p.
18.

167. AGA, 1722, art. viii.

168. David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723, Edinburgh:
Rutherford House, 1988, p. 1; John L. Carson, The Doctrine of the
Church in the Secession, Ph. D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1987,
p. 15.
-345-
169. In resent days, however, R. T. Kendal, the author of Calvin and
English Calvinism, has rejected the traditional view which has been
accepted since the Synod of Dort, and asserted that Calvin
maintained the universal atonement as related to the doctrine of
faith and assurance. R. T. Kendal, Calvin and English Calvinism to
1649, Oxford, 1979, p. 13. Cf. Iain H. Murray, D. Marten Lloyd-Jones:
The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990, pp.
721-726. Since then, three reactions to Kendal's this view have
been appeared. R. W.A. Letham, Saving Faith and Assurance in
Reformed Theology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort, Ph. D. thesis,
Aberdeen University, 1979; Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists,
Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982; A. N. S. Lane, "Calvin's
Doctrine of Assurance, " Vox Evangelica 11,1979. M. Charles Bell,
"Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement, " The Evangelical
Quarterly, 1983, Vol. LIV, no. 4., pp. 115-123 and Calvin and
Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance, Edinburgh: The
Handsel Press, 1985.

170. Marrow, pp. 101-102,126. AGA, 1720, V, "Of Universal Atonement and
Pardon, " which said, "Here is asserted an universal redemption as
to purchase... "

171. The message we should proclaim is that, as Boston has suggested,

"not, 'Tell every man Christ died for him; but, Tell every man
'Christ is dead for him; ' that is, for him to come to, and believe
on; a Saviour is provided for him; there is a crucified Christ for
him, the ordinance of heaven for salvation for lost man... " Marrow,
pp. 127-128. Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, ed. Samuel M'Millan,
Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1840, Vol. I., pp. 287-297; The
Beauties of Thomas Boston, op. cit., pp. 594-600; William Garden
Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland from the Sixth to the Nineteenth
Century, op. cit., p191-194. Cf. Thomas McCrie, The Story of the
Scottish Church: From the Reformation to the Disruption,
London: Blackie & Son, 1875,459; David Boorman, "Ebenezer Erskine
and Secession", Diversities of Gifts, The Westminster Conference,
1980, pp. 87-103; John Colquhoun, "The Free Offer of the Gospel",
The Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol. 97. No. 11. Nov. 1992, pp.
337-343 and Vol. 98. No. 1. Jan. 1993, pp. 17-23; Herman Hanko, The
History of the Free Offer, Theological School of the Protestant
Reformed Churches, Grandville, Michigan, 1989, pp. 1-190.

172. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace from the Sacred
Records, Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1990, p. 31; Ralph
Erskine, Ibid., Vol. I., pp. xxi, and 183-198.

173. Marrow, pp. 126-127; Ralph Erskine's Works, I., pp. 134-142;
According to Thomas Boston, "God left not all mankind to perish in
the state of sin and misery, but having from all eternity elected
some to everlasting life, brings them into a state of salvation by
a Redeemer. " Boston's Works, Vol. I., p. 302. And, Boston further
says that "Christ accepted the office of a Redeemer, and engaged to
make his soul an offering for sin. He cheerfully undertook this
work in that eternal transaction that was between the Father and
him. He was content to stand in the elect's room, and to submit
himself to the terrible strokes of vindictive justice. " Ibid., p.
310. Therefore, Boston preached the gospel and invites all who
would to come to Christ. Samuel M'Millan, The Beauties of Thomas
Boston, Christian Focus Publication, 1979, pp. 491-493.
-346-
174. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, Ibid., Vol. II., p.
226; The Beauties of Thomas Boston, Ibid., pp. 491-493.

175. See Boston's notes on this. Marrow, p. 126.

176. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace from the Sacred
Records, op. cit., pp. 32-33.

177. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 7., art. 3; Larger

Catechism,. quest. 63; Use of Saving Knowledge, pp. 446-447 in the
Confession.

178. Queries, VIII-X in the Marrow. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern
Divinity, with notes by Thomas Boston, U. S. A: Still Waters Revival
Books, 1991, pp. 358-368..

179. Marrow, p. 116.

180. The Beauties of Thomas Boston, op. cit., pp. 592-594.

181. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, op. cit., Vol. I., p.
xxi; Charles G. M'Crie, op. cit., Vol. 33., pp. 710-711.

182. APA, act. V.

183. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, I., p. 136; Ralph Erskine, Works, Vol. p.
163. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, Vol. I., op.
cit., pp. 91-94,150-154,332-338,455-478. Ralph Erskine carefully
distinguished a twofold persuasion. The assurance of faith is the a
fiducial persuasion, and in the nature of it; the assurance of
sense is the assurance of an evidential persuasion, and is
consequential to faith, and is not properly faith at all but sense.

184. It says, "This is all my salvation; God has spoken in His holiness,
I will rejoice, " while the latter looks inward at the work of God,
such as the person's graces, attainments, and experiences, and
says, "I feel His is mine, He has brought me forth to the light,
and I do behold His righteousness. " Ralph Erskine, Beauties of
Rev. Ralph Erskine, Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 94-102; The Beauties of
Thomas Boston, op. cit., pp. 600-616; Testimony, by the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in Scotland, Glasgow, MDCCCXLI, pp. 126-127.

185. Query II in the Marrow. op. cit., pp. 349-350, Erskine's Beauties,
Ibid., Vol. I., p. 113.

186. Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 323-325,338-344, Vol. II., pp. 148-159.

187. Ibid., pp. 180-183,198-213. Cf. John Colquhoun, Repentance,

Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp. 9-159.

188. Ibid., pp. 115-116.

189. Ibid., pp. 297-302; The Works of the Rev. Hggh Binning, Edinburgh:
White and Co., 1840, Vol. I., pp. 285-287.

190. Marrow, pp. 131-133; Henry F. Henderson, The religious

controversies of Scotland, op. cit., p. 39.

-347-
191. Henry F. Henderson, Ibid., pp. 30-31.

192. Ibid., p. 32.

193. Cf. Calvin's Institutes, III., xviii. 4., "... we regard holiness of
life to be the way, not indeed that gives access to the glory of
the Heavenly Kingdom, but by which those chosen by their God are
led to its disclosure. "

194. Calvin's Institutes, III., xiv, 21. Calvin taught that although
good works may sometimes be spoken of as if they were the cause of
divine benefits, yet "whenever the true cause is to be assigned,
(the Lord) does not enjoin us to take refuge in works but keeps us
solely to the contemplation of his mercy. "
195. Ralph Erskine's Works, Vol. V., p. 419; Ralph Erskine, Beauties of'
Rev. Ralph Erskine, op. cit., Vol. I., p. xxii.

196. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. I., p. 454. Ebenezer Erskine believed
that confusion over this point united Papists, Pelagians,
Baxterians, and others in a common error. Queries III, IV, VI, and
VII in the Marrow, pp. 350-358.

197. Marrow, pp. 162-163; Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. I. 101; Ralph
Erskine's Works, pp. 109-128. "Indeed (believers) are not, and
cannot be above (the law) as a rule of duty... But considering the
law as a covenant of works, demanding the debt of obedience as a
condition of life, or threatening eternal wrath in case of
disobedience, the believer is indeed exalted above it by the
righteousness of Christ (our bridegroom). And if the law at any
time attempt to bring the believer in bondage to it, he is to stand
fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free. "

198. Marrow, pp. 200-207. Cf. Calvin's Institute, III., xviii. 2, The
Westminster Confession of Faith, on Adoption Chap. 12;
Lar. Cat. q. 74, "Liberty... Chap. 20 art. 1&3, and Justification..,
Lar. Cat. q. 77.

199. Marrow, p. 200.

200. Marrow, pp. 202-203.

201. Queries III & IV; Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine,
Vol. I., p. 132-135, Vol. II., pp. 191-193,202-205. Cf. Boston
sees the rewards of the believers as in terms of the covenant and
in the course of their obedience (Psal. 19: 11), The Beauties of
Thomas Boston, op. cit., pp. 578-583.

202. Marrow, p. 177; Ralph Erskine, Ibid., pp. 58-73,126-131.

203. This was the same course of action which was taken against the
Marrow under the heading "Of Universal Atonement and Pardon. " The
Assembly posited their opinion that the free offer of the gospel
demanded universal atonement and rejected the Marrow's words.

204. Marrow, pp. 177-183.

205. Marrow, pp. 185,231.

-348-
206. Marrow, p. 217.

207. Marrow, p. 233.

208. Queries III & IV; "A Friendly Advice, For preserving the Purity of
Doctrine and Peace of the Church, " AGA, 1721,18. Here in after
cited "Friendly Advice. "

209. Friendly Advice, 26,34; Cf. Marrow, pp. 197-199.

210. Friendly Advice, 42.

211. Friendly Advice, 50.

212. Friendly Advice, 82.

213. Query VII.

214. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of Rev. Ralph Erskine, op. cit., Vol. I.,
pp. 340-341.

215. Ibid., pp. 515-522; Walker, Theologians of the Seventeenth and

Eighteenth Centuries, p. 174.
216. Henry F. Henderson, op. cit., p. 42.

217. Andrew McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, Aberdeen

University, Ph. D thesis, 1990, p. 26.

218. David C. Lachman, "Marrow Controversy", Encyclopedia of the Reformed

Faith, eds. Donald K. McKim and David F. Wright, Saint Andrew Press,
1992, pp. 236-237.

219. Andrew McGowan, op. cit., p. 78.

220. John M'Kerrow, op. cit., p. 17; Ibid., p. 39.

221. Henry F. Henderson, The religious controversies of Scotland, op.

cit., pp. 34-35.

222. Andrew L. Drummond and James Bulloch, The Scottish Church 1688-
1843, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1973, p. 37.

223. Ibid., p. 37.

-349-
PART THREE: CONCLUSION
AND APPRAISAL
 CHAPTERSIX

AND EVALUATION
CONCLUSION

As we have seen, the central issue in Scottish theology from 1643

to 1723 was that of covenant thought. Other issues, like those of the

authority of kings, Christian Worship, Church Government, Toleration,

Patronage and "Marrow" theology etc., stemmed from, and became mixed

with this theme of "covenant" which was at the heart of the theology of

the Scottish Covenanters. During the century after John Knox's

Reformation of Scotland in 1560, this central theme was zealously

preached, and became effective in exposing the errors of Popery.

Covenant theology also had a powerful impact in promoting and

consolidating the Protestant cause. 1 At the same time, however, covenant

thought was recognised as underlying ecclesiastical conflict and

contributing to theological problems in the Church of Scotland.

The years 1643 to 1723 formed the main period of controversy and it

has been necessary to clarify the shift in the meanings and application

of "covenant" between the significant dates of 1638 and 1723. The period

outlined (1643-1717) of this dissertation can be divided into three

periods.

-350-
 1643-1648: The first period from 1643 to 1648 was concerned with

the nature of covenant doctrine in its biblical, historical, theological

aspects, including church polity. During this period the Covenanters

insisted that their form of church government was the only one which had

a Scriptural foundation and the right administration of the authority

Christ had invested in the church. They held that any deviation from

covenant theology brought with it serious implications for the doctrine

of Christ's Headship and Church government as a whole, as well as having

consequences for other related doctrines. These implications have been

explored in earlier chapters.

They asserted that God, in his grace, established a covenant

relationship with man which was contingent upon obedience to God's

revealed will. The main aim of the Scottish Divines at the Westminster

Assembly in London was to address the importance and implications of

God's people being in this covenant with its two significant elements of

grace and works. The latter was regarded as man's response to manifest

grace which God lavished upon him in Christ. The Scots debated various

aspects of covenant theology with the English Puritans, Independents and

Erastians for a period of six years. They battled victoriously against

the English Puritans before they could present the results of their

efforts to their own people.

By adopting the Solemn League and Covenant together with the

Westminster Confession of Faith, the Scottish Covenanters reaffirmed

their spiritual independence and encouraged the Scots further to regard

themselves as a covenanted people and nation in relation to God. While

Cromwell's advocacy of independency weakened the Presbyterian cause in

England, Presbyterianism was re-affirmed and strengthened in Scotland

although, over the following forty years, the Scottish Covenanters had

to struggle hard in order to resist episcopacy. Undergirding and

-351-
 motivating this struggle was covenant theology.

During this period, "covenant" was used primarily to refer to God's

covenant of grace with His elect. Alongside this use of the term, there

was a strong emphasis, on Christ's sole headship of the church with a

related -Presbyterian church government. This understanding of the

covenant concept had serious implications for Church-State relationships

and from 1648-1688 the Covenanters placed an increasing emphasis on

political, social aspects of the covenant as they fought to resist

episcopacy.

1648-1688: The second part from 1649 to 1688, includes the period

of persecution and killing. The Covenanters approved the formal

documents concerning worship and discipline but they had to face a

period of grief when they were cast out of their churches and homes

because of their loyalty to covenant thought. Despite the Conventicle

Acts, they met and worshipped secretly in remote places. They also made

several declarations concerning the Covenant during this period. Through

these various declarations, such as The Rutherglen Declaration of May

29th, 1679, The Queensferry Paper and Sanquhar Declaration of 1680, The

Act and Apologetic Declaration of the True Presbyterians of the Church

of Scotland, on January, 1682 and the Apologetical Declaration and

Admonitory Vindication of the True Presbyterians of the Church of

Scotland of 1684 etc., their covenant thought was expounded, including

its implications for the Christian's involvement in politics.

In this period, the term covenant was used in several related ways.

For example, the term was used by many in the context of a personal

covenant with God and also for a Church's covenant with God. Covenant

was also used as in Rutherford's Lex Rex for the relationship between

rulers and people; it was employed widely, too, in the rejection of cess

-352-
 and the raising of an army against the king in a "holy war". The

different uses of the covenant concept in this period made it difficult

at times to distinguish precisely in which sense the term was being used

by people. However, those who held to a multiplicity of covenants

(personal, church, state) also held to the doctrines of grace as part of

their covenant theology. Increased emphasis on the political covenant

reduced the interest of people in the more important spiritual,

experiential and theological aspects of the covenant of grace. The work

of the Marrow men was necessary in order to recall the Church back to

the central doctrines of the covenant of grace.

1689-1723: The third part extends from 1689 to 1723. During this

period, Covenant theology was expounded in a more individualistic

manner, especially in the application of theology by the Marrow men.

Despite the numerical weakness of their party, unlike their opponents,

the Marrow men retained their covenant thought throughout this period

and developed it for years in their respective ministries. They

contended for the free grace of God and God's salvation of His people

from sin, boldly emphasising the authority of God and His offer of the

gospel, but also the necessity of an assurance of saving faith in

Christ. These ideas dominated the Scottish Church for a long time. In

this period, questions concerning Church-State relationships and church

polity had little relevance in a changed political situation. Attention

was now focused on the main aspects of soteriology and assurance.

Covenant thought in this period took a radical new direction in its

focus on purely spiritual, theological matters relating to the covenant

of grace. With the Marrow men, the wheel had turned full circle,

returning to the dominant emphasis of the Reformers on the spiritual

aspects of the covenant of grace.

-353-
 6.1/ "For Christ's Crown and Covenant. "

The cause for which the Covenanters fought against the state was

"For Christ's Crown and Covenant" which meant also "For the Glory of

Christ and His Word". Inseparably connected were matters such as the

supremacy of Holy Scripture, the spiritual independence of the Church,

and the subjection of rulers and national legislation to the sceptre of

the reigning Mediator. On these grounds, they not only rejected infamous

rulers, but condemned and rejected the royal supremacy. The Scottish

Reformers developed the idea of covenant as a fundamental principle for

their reformation. The conflicts over the doctrine of the supremacy or

Headship of Christ were rooted in the doctrine of nature and grace

inherent in Scottish covenant theology. Throughout these struggles the

Covenanters made a conscious effort to confirm their actions by

Scripture and also Scotland's Reformation tradition.

During this period, the Covenanters lifted up a banner for Christ's

Kingdom and their nation, particularly, during persecution. The

Covenanters maintained that they were bound to resist and suffer.

Covenant thought was developed by the Marrow men who fought against the

establishment of their day mainly on the issue of the interpretation of

covenant theology.

6.1.1/ The Headship of Christ over the Church and State.

One of the central issues was that of the headship of Christ and

his authority over Church and State. While some of the Reformed Churches

on the Continent saw no harm in an Erastian establishment of religion in

the 16th century, and while the Church of England, since the

Reformation, had always been an Erastian establishment, this idea became

-354-
 a controversial issue in Scotland. From the time of Knox the history of

the Church of Scotland became the history of a struggle to maintain the

Church's spiritual independence and the principle of the sole headship

of Christ over the Church, in the face, of Erastian encroachments on the

part of the civil power. The Covenanters adopted the idea of their

senior reformers and insisted as a core doctrine that God ruled over

both Church and State.

The Covenanters were zealous to assert that Christ as Mediator had

ordained Church officers to govern the church without interference from

the State. At the same time, they understood Scotland to be a covenanted

nation whose King swore to uphold Presbyterian and Reformed principles.

Therefore, they gave the civil magistrate - who was in covenant with God

and the people - an external power over the church visible according to

the word of God as interpreted by church officers. Church officers were

given an internal, ministerial power over the church visible for the

purpose of calling the church invisible to Christ. The legacy of the

Covenanters was that human princes should not usurp the prerogative

which belonged to Christ alone to govern His church.

God's rule over these two institutions was exercised in two

different ways. God the Creator ruled according to eternal law over the

world and Christ the Redeemer ruled according to grace over His

mediatorial kingdom - the Church. (This was the view of Andrew Melville,

Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie). Through this idea. Scotland was

by sacred covenant bonds constituted a Christian and Reformed nation.

The claim of the Covenanters was that the Covenants were binding upon

both Church and State. In Scotland these separate kingdoms were bound

together by the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant.

These covenants were sworn on behalf of the generations to come by the

people of Scotland and even by the covenanted king Charles II in 1651.

-355-
 Therefore, the Covenanters thought that Scotland in their day remained a

covenanted nation. 2

Nevertheless, the Covenanters could not convince the Erastians and

the King of the principle of the sole headship of Christ over the

Church- The Stuart Kings wanted to rule equally over Church and State.

As the Covenanters understood the Scriptures, supreme power did not

belong to the King but to the nation, the will of the nation being

expressed in free Parliaments representing the people. Over and over

again the Covenanters stressed the fact that they stood for

Parliamentary government, and not autocracy. The Covenanters believed

that Christ's headship was one of the fundamental principles derived

from the Scriptures.

The Covenanters' view of the relation between Church and State was

that both are divine institutions, each independent and supreme in its

own sphere, united in an alliance of mutual support and helpfulness -

the Church to teach the Christian doctrine concerning the civil

magistrate, and the State to establish the Church by appropriate

legislation and to provide for its financial support out of the national

resources. "Yet, the church has a sphere and jurisdiction distinct from

and independent of the State, because Jesus Christ is the sole King and

Head of the Church, and any extraneous authority is usurpation and

rebellion against his Divine Majesty. Under Him all ministers or pastors

are equal in rank and power, and all dominion, popish or prelatic or of

whatsoever kind, is unscriptural and anti-Christian. Those who performed

symbolical rites and ceremonial modes of worship believed they were the

dispensers of Divine grace". 3 But "there is no other head of the church

but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head
thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition

that exalted himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called

-356-
 God". a

Therefore, even the King should recognise who he is, and obey the
Lord in ruling his subjects. The King is not the supreme ruler over

Church and State, but servant of both institutions which means that the

King can not be over the people, but rather he is an equal among his

subjects. In a word, there is no absolute power. Accordingly, the King

should take care of his subjects as a servant of the Lord.

6.1.2/ Government and the Life of the Church.

The Covenanters stressed the importance of Church government,

including the form of Worship and Church Discipline, summarized in "The

Westminster Confession of Faith" and "The Form of Presbyterial Church

Government". They emphasised the Headship of Christ and Presbyterian

church government in the Westminster Documents; these views occupied the

central position in the Reformed Church practice in Worship and

Discipline, particularly after the Presbyterian settlement of 1690. The

Covenanters tried to make Scotland a theocratic rather than a democratic

country.

Johannes G. Vos points out that "The Covenanters were not primarily

interested in civil and religious liberties considered as rights of

man". 5 They never contended for civil freedom on a purely political

basis, nor for religious freedom as it is understood today in the sense

of universal liberty to follow any creed. Their basic principle was not

political or humanitarian but theocratic. They recognised the rights of

God revealed in Scripture and wished these to be practically recognized

and respected in every sphere of life, including the State and Church. 6

They had been forced either to obey God or obey the king. Hence the

animosity and intolerance which prevailed were not altogether owing to

-357-
 theological rancour, but rather to the political passions engendered in

the fury of the war which had broken out between the king and his

subjects.

Covenanters in Scotland were striving against absolutism and for a

limited monarchy and government by popular representation. The

antagonists against whom they were pitched in deadly combat, not only

theologically, but politically were the Romanists, the Episcopalians of

the Church of England and the Independents as well.? They were against

Romish supremacy, and against Episcopalianism for their belief in the

absolute power of the King both in Church and State. For the

Covenanters, Presbyterian Church government was seen to be the only form

that Christ had instituted in his house and taught in Scripture. 8 They

found support for this conclusion from Scripture as well as in

Scotland's confessions, covenants, and civil and ecclesiastical

authorities. The form of Christ's kingdom was not optional but

mandatory. Consequently, those who did not advocate divine right

presbyterianism were seen as enemies of Christ and the Church. They

identified their formulation of the Church with the one true church. 9

While Erastians maintained the divine right of kings, the Covenanters

consistently emphasised the divine right of Presbyterianism. The

Covenanters tended to ignore other churches, and over-emphasised the

divine right of Presbyterianism.

Also, in the context of the church the covenant concept included

believers and their children. This led to the acceptance of a mixed

congregation as advocated by Samuel Rutherford:

"Nor can it be a way approven by the Lord in Scripture, to

excommunicate from the Visible Church, all the multitudes of non-
converts, baptized, and visibly within the Covenant of Grace, which
are in Great Britain, and all the reformed churches; and so to shut
the gates of the Lord's gracious calling upon all these, because
they are not, in your judgment, chosen to salvation, when once you
-358-
 are within yourselves". lo

And he goes on further that:

"We look upon this Visible Church, though black and spotted, as the
hospital and guest-house of sick, halt, maimed, and withered, over
which Christ is Lord, Physician, and Master; and we would wait upon
those that are not yet in Christ, as our Lord waited upon us and
you both". 11

This was in marked contrast to the concept of "visible saints" adopted

by the Independents; the latter also accepted the covenant concept but

applied it in the local congregation situation, as members covenanted

with each other in the presence of God. Yet, most of them, until 1660,

were willing to accept the concept of a National Church.

6.1.3/ Christians and their Liberty of Conscience.

The Covenanters hoped to see Presbyterianism triumphant in

Scotland. They fought for liberty of conscience. What the Covenants and

the Covenanters, consciously or unconsciously, aimed at was civil and

religious liberty, and that was what their fifty years' struggle and

their twenty eight years' sufferings achieved. The king's authority

should not overrule the people of God yet there is no guarantee that at

any moment whether in civil or religious matters, oppression and

persecution will not occur. The Covenanters secured freedom from

despotic rule and freedom of association for any purpose that did not

menace the Commonwealth. They stirred up the nation of Scotland to

understand that there must be no opposition to God's Word and that, to

an honest conscience, no violence must be done.

Furthermore, by their courage, persistence, and faith, the

-359-
 Covenanters not only put an end to absolute monarchy, so securing their

national independence, freedom, and peace, but they also won religious

liberty. It was at the Revolution Settlement of 1690 that Parliament

adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith as the Church's principal

subordinate standard and declared that the Church is spiritually

independent. 12 There is no real ground for the allegation sometimes

made that the Confession was drawn up by the State and imposed upon the

Church. Rather it was decreed that a man is responsible to God alone for

what he believes, and may worship his Maker in such manner as his

conscience prompts him. 13

The Covenanters worked hard to defend the Reformed religion against

Popish ascendency and Erastian encroachments, to defend the constitu-

tional laws of the realm and the liberties of all subjects against

tyrannical aggression. 14 Accordingly, their involvement in politics was

necessary to defend and maintain their freedom of conscience and faith.

They found God's will clearly expressed and taught in Scripture and

believed they should obey and conform to.

It was also in the Marrow controversy, for the first time since the

Revolution, that the country saw a small band of respected church

ministers unite to oppose the Church's policy, as they could not act

contrary to consciences. Yet, they would not go as far as Oliver

Cromwell who allowed freedom- to the sectaries (such as Quakers to

worship freely) of the day. Although the Marrow controversy did not

result immediately in rupture, it made the strained relationship evident

to the people and the possibilities of separation so that they were

prepared to some extent for the notable secessions of the next forty

years. 15 The Marrow men insisted that the grace of God and faith in

Christ were the primary emphases of Reformed theology and stressed that

they were free gifts given by God. They were condemned by their

-360-
 brethren, but they stood firmly for their conviction.

6.1.4/ The Scottish People and Covenant Theology.

All the events which took place during the period can be summed up

briefly as "the Scottish people and their tradition of Covenant

Thought". The twofold covenant scheme, unilateral and bilateral, had

been used not only in religion but also in politics throughout the

period. As we have seen in the previous chapters, the original meaning

of the covenant concept is unilateral, that is, God related and God-

centred, emphasising also the free grace of God. When it was applied in

the historical context which the Covenanters faced, it was coloured in

various ways by the people. When applied in a religious context, the

concept of covenant emphasised the free grace of God and divine

sovereignty.

When applied to mankind it meant submission to the revealed will of

God. Accordingly, the Covenanters rejected any kind of human rites or

ceremonies which were in opposition to Biblical doctrine. For the

Covenanters, the doctrine of atonement, the nature of Saving Faith and

the principle of a just-rebellion etc., were central to covenant

theology. The Covenanters insisted that salvation is dependent only upon

the sovereign grace of God. The free offer of the gospel did not mean

that everyone is a member of God's family. The elect are only saved by

His eternal plan and grace; this emphasised the sovereignty of God in

relationship to His people.

For the Covenanters, the Presbyterian form of church government and

the covenant relationship of God and His people by faith in Christ, was

clearly founded upon the word of God. 16 In exercising their power

collectively, officers were to act "in a regular subordination to one

-361-
 another, and all of them in subordinating to the Lord Jesus Christ. "

Another subordination that was to be observed was that of the lower

Presbyterian church courts to the higher courts, e. g. sessions were

subordinate to Presbyteries. '? They stressed that the Presbyterian

church government to which they were obligated by these covenants was

also established by civil and ecclesiastical authorities. 18 William

Wilson said:

"We are not for any new Confession or Standard, but Scotland's
covenanted Standard; and where you see the covenanted Order of the
Kirk of Scotland, I am not afraid to say, there you may see
Christ's Standard... I do not say, you must approve of every Step we
take; no, but clear to the covenanted Order and Government of the
covenanted Kirk of Scotland, in Opposition unto a Course of
defection from the same. "19

The Scottish Covenanters maintained that the term "covenant" was a true

biblical theme emphasising the sovereignty of God which combined not

only Church and State, but also the church government system for

discipline, including Christian living and worship. The Covenant

underlay the whole struggle between Church and State and also within the

Church concerning the doctrines of grace thus affecting the church at

its very centre. The efforts of the Marrow men to redirect the theology

of the Church brought them into conflict with the Church leadership.

Admittedly, their responses were marred by extreme zeal. However, the

heart of the cause that issued in this period from the Church of

Scotland was its concern for the biblical doctrine of grace. They

thought that free grace ensured and proclaimed that Christ had completed

every part of man's salvation and summonedman to believe in Christ. 20

The Committee men insisted that the gospel could only be offered to

the elect and individuals must discover evidences of election within

themselves before they could embrace the gospel with assurance. It was

-362-
 legal preaching which not only made grace conditional but also

restricted the proclamation of grace. By contrast, the Marrow men

contended for a free gospel offer. Christ must be preached to everyone,

this is the command of Christ Himself as seen in John 6: 37; "All that

the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will

never drive away. " The elect will respond and be saved. 21 All the Marrow

men advocated the preaching of the free grace of God and the free offer

of the Gospel. Their concern to assert the doctrine of grace was the

root cause of a series of conflicts.

The central pattern linking this period in theology is formed in

the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Confession was adopted by the

Assembly of the Scottish Church; it was supported by the Covenanters

during the killing times, it was re-established by law and also it was

held by the Marrow men as their theological standard. The central

theology of the Confession was known as covenant theology and Scottish

Covenanters used the theme to express their faith in God. They

identified themselves with the Israelites in covenant context. The

Scottish Covenanters desired that Scotland as a covenanted nation should

realize the "theocratic goal" of God's rule in Church and State working

together for the physical and spiritual well being of the country. 22 In

developing the doctrine they depended too much, as many had done. on the

Old Testament. They were also idealistic as they expected nominal

Christians to accept their teaching.

6.2/ Some Points of Application and Appraisal.

The manner in which the Covenanters lived and suffered is a

challenge to the modern Christian Church. They loved God, Christ, the

bible and his church and worship. They tried to impose Presbyterian

-363-
 uniformity upon the three kingdoms of Great Britain. Their conviction

was that the people in the Church should be governed by fixed laws

passed by assemblies representing the church as the embodied organ of

individual beliefs. 23 The people should be assured of spiritual

independence and freedom in order to worship and serve Christ.

Unlike the opposition, the Covenanters and Marrow men remained a

minority in number and were driven into the wilderness and away from

their brethren. The suffering of the Covenanters and Marrow men reveal

their zeal for the nation, the glory of God and His kingdom. Their

supporters demonstrated that temporal security and hope of worldly gain

were no substitutes for conviction and conscience. It is still

remarkable to think how they could overcome the situations they faced.

In conclusion, therefore, it is appropriate to relate and apply this

study of covenant thought to our contemporary situation while at the

same time appraising the assumptions and approach of the Scottish

Covenanters. Four areas need to be explored further, albeit briefly.

The first is the relationship between God and His people and the

attitude of the Scottish Covenanters towards God and Worship. Because of

the covenant relationship with God, they thought it was essential for

Christians, to reflect about the nature of true worship and the

essentials of the Christian faith. In this respect, the Covenanters had

a great zeal for God and His kingdom, living for the glory of God. For

the Covenanters, godliness was the distinctive characteristic of their

religious life. Furthermore, the Covenanters never intended to tolerate

un-biblical religions or government systems. Yet, if the Covenanters are

to be blamed for intolerance, their fault was the "blindness of their

times", 24 in which their opponents and other sects and parties, were as

much, if not more, involved than themselves. However, there is always

need for tolerance, 25 especially within the family of faith.

-364-
 The Covenanters were prepared to depose an unjust ruler but all the

time this was bound up with defending the faith. Both went hand in hand.

but we need to question this: Should not civil government be separated

from matters-relating to the purity of faith? Should we not defend the

faith by -the,. word. only? In what sense can religion make a -war, just?

There are "-just" wars so-called in our day, as many fundamentalist

groups fight for what they believe to be the only religion. These groups

can be Hindu, Islamic or Protestant and Roman Catholic.

The Scottish Covenanters were in no doubt concerning their response

and the rightness of it. Church and State were distinct although each

was ruled over by God. Christ's sole headship over the Church meant that

the monarchs were usurping their authority in attempting to rule over

the Church by imposing episcopacy and thus threatening or disregarding

the crown rights of Christ. Understandably, the Covenanters found this

to be intolerant and felt there was no alternative but to resist the

king by force.

The second area concerns the principle of Christian diversity and

unity. As we have seen throughout this dissertation, the Covenanters

held firmly to the principle and doctrine of the "covenant", but, at

times, they lost sight of the principle of Christian diversity and unity

within the body of Jesus Christ in the Covenanted kingdom. John

Cunningham may be right in suggesting that, "narrow notions of Church

polity and religious liberty had long reigned in Scotland. It was well

they were now forcibly widened by an influence from England". 26 We

understand, of course, the difficult situation which arose at that

period. Doctrinal and political problems faced both Church and State;

the Covenanters could and would not tolerate fellowship with Christian

groups, which they regarded as being unbiblical. The Covenanters thought

the Word or Covenant of God covered every aspect of the Christian life,

-365-
 and they justified, for example, removing idolatrous and oppressive

rulers.

Their, teaching, however, was far removed from present day

Liberation Theology, which radically interprets the gospel-in terms of

social,. political liberation. Liberation Theology is perhaps the most

influential theological trend in the twentieth century and the most

widely discussed theological movement in contemporary Christendom. While

it has been expressed in various forms and in different contexts, it is

among the exploited masses of Latin America that Liberation Theology

began and continues to proclaim its message of liberty. Various terms

have been used to describe Liberation Theology. It has been described as

Political Theology, for example, or as Revolutionary Theology with its

roots firmly in Latin American history together with some adaptation of

Marxism as well as some refinements from European theologians and

philosophers.

On the surface, there appear to be points of similarity between the

Scottish Covenanters and Latin American Liberation theologians. For

example, both have been concerned for the ordinary people and wanted the

voice of the people to be respected and dominant. Also, both groups

criticised severely political and spiritual leaders for not grappling

satisfactorily with key issues affecting society and church. Both

groups, too, used Scripture in support of their convictions and had a

particular interpretation of Scripture distinguishing themselves from

others. Again, both groups have been prepared for revolutionary

political as well as church action in order to secure what each regarded

as primary objectives. Furthermore, while one group is dominantly Roman

Catholic and the other Protestant and Presbyterian, yet both groups are

concerned for their respective churches and have sought to remedy in

different ways the ills arising from the vexed Church-State

-366-
 relationship.

While there may be other similarities yet the differences between

Covenant theology in Scotland and Liberation theology are profound. For

example, Covenant theologians in Scotland remained fiercely loyal to

orthodox biblical doctrines whereas Liberal theologians have radically

interpreted these doctrines so as to incur on occasions the wrath and

opposition of Roman Catholic leaders. Secondly, their view of, and

approach to, the Scriptures differed enormously. This is seen, for

example, in their radically different hermeneutical approaches. Gustavo

Gutierrez, the founder of Latin American Liberation Theology, chose

existing social and political conditions as the focus for interpreting

Scripture. In this respect, it is prejudiced from the outset and faith

is given an almost exclusively political dimension and role.

By contrast, while the Scottish Covenanters were not in any way

perfect in their hermeneutical methodology yet they genuinely attempted

to interpret Scripture against the framework of the biblical revelation.

In other words, they moved from Christ and the Bible to existing

situations rather than import contemporary views into Scripture. There

is a subtle but significant shift in focus and methodology. Furthermore,

the Covenanters proclaimed salvation by grace through faith, and

rebellion was only justified in occasional, particular situations as

allowed by Scripture.

Nevertheless, did the Covenanters neglect Christian unity and the

grace of love? While there is a danger in being too open and

consequently allowing anything into the church yet orthodoxy can easily

become traditionalism. D. M.Lloyd-Jones maintained that there are primary

truths, such as the deity of Christ and the way of salvation, which must

be adhered to. 27 On the other hand, there are secondary truths, such as

baptism and church government which should not bar the way to unity. The

-367-
 Scottish Covenanters would not allow this and tended to elevate the

secondary truths they had adopted to a primary position. This was

produced by their conviction that only the Presbyterian system was

warranted in Scripture; therefore, any other form was unbiblical and

even intolerable.

Thirdly, the Covenanters had a particular hermeneutical principle

which almost exclusively focused on covenant theology; all that related

to doctrine and practice was viewed in terms of covenant, particularly

Old Testament covenant theology. As a result, they neglected other

Scriptural themes in concentrating on the one subject such as, for

example, God's sovereignty, God's names and redemptive acts. According

to Gehardus Vos and Walter Kaiser, one is wrong to interpret the Bible

in only one exclusive way. Many themes contribute to, and constitute Old

Testament unity, 28 themes which can be used as major hermeneutical

principles such as God's dealings with His people. Vos claims that the

main theme of the Bible is God's redemptive events in history, 29 not

covenant. The discussion needs to be widened at this point. It has been

an extremely difficult, even impossible, task to isolate and justify a

single, unifying theme for either Old Testament or New Testament

theologies. The sixteenth-century Reformers even failed to agree on a

solution and this is illustrated in the different approaches adapted by

Luther and Calvin. For Luther, the unifying principle is salvation by

grace through faith as compared with the law whereas for Calvin it was

Christocentric with a pronounced emphasis on the underlying concept of

covenant. Even in recent studies in biblical theology some like

W. Eichrodt have insisted on "covenant" as the dominant concept of the

Old Testament. 30

Further, although slightly different, support comes from W.J.

Dumbrell in his "Covenant and Creation". 31 Such an approach has not met

-368-
 with universal support. Far from it. G. Hasel, for example, in his "Old

Testament Theology: Basic issues in the Current Debate", 32 illustrates

different, alternative themes adopted by modern scholars and he himself

chooses "God" as the unifying, controlling principle of Scripture rather

than covenant. One major objection to covenant as a controlling

.

principle of the Old Testament is that it does not fit into and explain

the non-historical material such as Proverbs, the Song of Solomon. 33 One

major problem here concerns the precise understanding of the relation

between unity and diversity in Old Testament theology. Is there a

"centre" for Old Testament theology? If there is, the goal appears

somewhat elusive. McConville offers one way forward. To identify "God"

as the "centre" of Old Testament theology is not bland but it is

"probably better to postulate some complex of ideas or "centres" as a

way of doing more justice to the whole Old Testament". 34

We can conclude from this that it is dangerous to interpret

Scripture in only one way or use one controlling principle of

interpretation as the Covenanters did. It is important to see God's

dealings in a broader context. As we considered in chapter one of the

dissertation, "covenant" is one of the important themes of Scripture but

there are also many others such as "sacrifice", "worship" "salvation",

"God" etc,. The Covenanters' choice of "covenant" as a controlling

principle may be questioned today but for them it was biblical, unifying

and relevant; it was also the teaching of their Protestant fathers.

Lastly, we should recognize that the National Covenant and the

Solemn League and Covenant, and the Westminster Confession of Faith were

projected very much into religion and politics and inseparably bound up

together over many centuries. The Marrow Controversy helped further to

constitute covenant theology as central to Christian theology. The

primary aim was the glory of God and the security of His people by faith

-369-
 in Christ. The Church of Scotland needed to recapture the Reformation's

great emphasis upon free grace freely offered to all. Grace was a free

gift given by a God who also loves the world. It is a tribute to the

Marrow, men that a contemporary writer can say that "they wished to

return to what they considered, perhaps rightly, true Reformed

Orthodoxy". 35

The aims, method and spirit of the Covenanters are well expressed

in the preface to the Scottish Confession of 1560 "If any man will note

in this our confession any article or sentence repugnant to God's holy

work, that it would please him of his gentleness and for Christian

charity's sake to admonish us of the same in writing; and we upon our

honour and fidelity by God's grace promise him satisfaction from the

mouth of God, that is from his holy scriptures or else reformation of

that which he shall prove to be amiss". 36 These sentiments were

sincerely expressed; however, -did the Scottish Covenanters apply these

standards they sought to uphold?

-370-
 TO CHAPTERSIX
ENDNOTES

1. Ralph Erskine, Beauties of the Rev. Ralph Erskine, Glasgow, 1840, p.

viii.

2. John L. Carson, The Doctrine of the Church in the Secessiot,

University of Aberdeen(Ph. D)., 1987, PP. 167-168.
3. James Dodds, The Fifty Years' Struggle of the Scottish Covenanters
1638-1688, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1860, p. 14.

4. G. D. Henderson, The Claims of the Church of Scotland, Hodder and

Stoughton Ltd., 1951, p. 15. Cf. R. W.Dale, History of English
Congregationalism, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906, p. 111.

5. Johannes G. Vos, The Scottish Covenanters: Their Origins. History and

Distinctive Doctrines, Crown and Covenant Publications, Pennsylvania.
1980, P. 118.

6. Ibid., P. 119.

7. James Dodds, op. cit., pp. 15-18.

8. Alexander Moncrieff, The Practical Works of the late Reverend
Alexander Moncrieff, Edinburgh, 1779, Vol. I. p. 292, Vol. II., p.
28.

9. John L. Carson, The Doctrine of the Church in the Secession, Ph. D

thesis, Aberdeen University, 1987, p. 23.

10. Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed. A. A. Bonar, New York: Robert Carter
and Brothers, 1861, pp. 552-553.

11. Ibid., p. 553.

12. Thomas Brown, Church and State in Scotland, Edinburgh: Macniven &
Wallace, 1891, p. 164.

13. John Beveridge, The Covenanters, Edinburgh: T. & T. Crack, 1905, p.

135.

14. Ibid., p. 136; G. N. M. Collins, "The Scottish Covenanters", The

Christian and the State in Revolutionary Times, The Westminster
Conference Paper, 1975, pp. 45-59.

15. Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold State, Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1964, p. 30.

16. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. III., p. 68.

17. William Wilson, Sermons, Edinburgh, 1748, Vol. IV. p. 5,8.

18. Ebenezer Erskine, Works, Vol. II., p. 347.

19. William Wilson, "The Day of a Sinner's believing in Christ a most

remarkable Day", Edinburgh, 1741, p. 59.
-371-
 20. Ralph Erskine, Works, Vol. I., p. 137.
21. Ebenezer Erskine, The Whole Works of the Late Rev. Ebenezer Erskit&,
Edinburgh, 1871, Vol. II., p. 283.
22. Alexander Moncrieff, The Practical Works of the late Reverend
Alexander Moncrieff, Edinburgh, 1779, Vol. II., p. 92. "And these
governments, - though distince and collateral, being of different
kinds, are not inconsistent one with another; and being both God's
ordinances, they are not prejudicial the one to the other, but
corroborate and strengthen one another".
23. James Dodds, The Fifty Years' Struggle of the Scottish Covenanters
1638-1688, Einburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1860, pp. 392-393.

24. Ibid., p. 52.

25. As Prof. Knox has suggested, toleration here does not mean that one
party approves the policies of another tolerated party, it does mean
that one party agrees or is forced to agree that another party has
the right to exist and organise even if there are fears that its
policy may be inimical to social order and well-being. R. Buick Knox.
"A Scottish Chapter in the History of Toleration". Scottish Journal
of Theology, Vol. 41, p. 57.

26. John Cunningham, The Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Adam &
Charles Black, 1859, Vol. II., P. 355.

27. I Cor. 1: 17,2: 2,5: '10.

28. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, 1979, p. 7; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Toward an Exegetical Theology, Michigan, Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1981, pp. 17-40.

29. Geerhardus Vos, Ibid., pp. 5-6; Peter Misseblrook, "The Importance
of Biblical Theology", Foundation, 1979, pp. 10-19.

30. W.Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, London, Vol. i, 1961,

Vol. ii., 1967. Cf. "The Hermenuetics of the Reformers", Calvin
Theological Journal, pp. 121-152.

31. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old

Testament Covenants, New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Exeter,
1984.

32. Grand Rapids, 1972.

33. See G. Hasel, p. 79; also "Using Scripture for Theology: Unity arid
Diversity in Old Testament Theology", J. E. McConville. pp. 39-51; The
Challenge of Evangelical Theology: Essays in Approach and Method.
ed. Nigel M.de. s. Cameron, Rutherford House, 1987.
34. McConville, Ibid., p. 55. Another criticism with regard to the
Scottish Covenanters has been voiced by Professor J. B. Torrance. lie
insists that a confusion was made between a covenant and a contract.
The criticism is two-pronged. First of all, the historical situation
was clearly formative in the development of federal theology.
Alongside the collapse of feudalism and the emergence of the
-372-
 doctrine of the divine rights of kings and the consequent struggles
for liberty, the Scots made "bands", "pacts", "covenant",
"contract", "political leagues" etc., in order to defend or obtain
their freedom and to preserve the rights of the people in relation
to the king. In the background of this theological controversy was
an emerging socio-political philosophy of "social contract",
"contract of government", with the theory of the "rights of man
founded in""natural law"; this was guided by reason and confirmed by
divine revelation. Prof. Torrance argues that "the federal
--Secondly,
scheme was built upon a deep-seated confusion between a covenant and
a contract, a failure to recognise that the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ is a covenant-God and not a contract-God. A
covenant brings its obligations, its promises and its warnings. But
the obligations of grace are not conditions of grace, and it is
false in Christian theology to articulate moral obligation in
contractual terms. To do so, is to obscure the unconditional
freeness of grace as illustrated in the Marrow Controversy. These
are important points to note but we should also note that his
intention is to undermine traditional Scottish covenant theology.
See his "Calvin and Puritanism in England and Scotland - some basic
concepts in the development of "Federal Theology", pp. 264-277,
Calvinus Reformator, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher
Education, 1982.

35. David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723, Rutherford House,

Edinburgh, 1988, p. 491.

36. Preface of the Scottish Confession of 1560. Shaffs Creed of

Cristandom.

-373-
 SELECTEDBIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARYSOURCES.

The Acts of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1638-1842,

-General -
ed. the Church Law Society.
The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson, 12 vols.,
Edinburgh, 1816-1874.

The Acts and Procedings of the General Assemblies, Bannatyne Club,

Edinburgh, 1839-1845.

The Acts of the Privy Council, ed. David Nassib, Edinburgh, 1881.

Anderson, William., The Scottish Nation: or the Surnames. Famillies,

Literature. Honours and Biographical History of the People of
Scotland, A. Fullarton and Co., 3 Vols., 1864.
Augustine, "The Confession of St. Augustine", A Select Library of the
Necene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed.
Philip Schaff, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Vol. III., 1886
(reprinted in 1988).

"City of God", A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, Vol. III., 1886 (reprinted in 1988).

St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine", Select

Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Vol. II.,
1886 (reprinted in 1988).

"De Baptismo", A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, Vol. IV, VI, VII, and XVIII., 1886 (reprinted in
1988).

"Aeneid", A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, Vol., 1886 (reprinted in 1988).

"Answer", A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, Vol. II and III., 1886 (reprinted in 1988).

Letters of St. Augustine, A Select Library of the Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip
Schaff, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Vol. I., 1886 (reprinted in
1988).

Baillie, Robert., "Original Letters and Papers", Baillie's Letters and

Journals, ed. David Laing, Edinburgh, Vol. II., 1841.
-374-
 The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, ed. David
Laing, Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, Vol. I-III., 1841-1842.

A Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time: wherein the

Tenets of the Principall Sects, especially of the
Independents, aredrawn together in one Map, for the most part,
in the words of their ownAuthours, and their main principles
are examined by the Touch-Stone of the Holy Scriptures,
Authority, London, November, 1645.

An Historical Vindication of the Government of Church of

Scotland: From the manifold base calumnies which the most
Malignant ofthe Prelats did invent of old, and now lately have
been published withgreat industry in two Pamphlets at London,
Samuel Gellibrand, London, 1646.

The Life of William Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury,

examined (London), 1643.

Ball, John., A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, London, 1645.

Bettenson, Henry (ed. ), Document of the Christian Church, Oxford

University Press, 1967.

Beza's Icones. Contemporary Portraits of Reformers of Religion and

Letters, Int. C. G. M'Crie, London: The Religious Tract Society,
1909.

Blaikie, William Garden., The Preachings of Scotland: From the Sixth to

the Nineteenth Century, Edinburgh: T. &. T. Clark, 1888.

Boston, Thomas., The Works of Thomas Boston, 12 vols., ed. Samuel

McMillan, Aberdeen, 1848-1853, reprinted by Richard Owen
Roberts Wheaton 1980.

A View of the Covenant of Grace from the Sacred Records

wherein the Parties in that Covenant, the making of it, its
parts, conditionary and promissory, and the administration
thereof are distinctly considered together with the trial of a
Saving Personal Inbeing in it, and the way of instating
sinners therein, unto their eternal salvation, Focus Christian
Ministeries Trust, 1990.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity, with notes by Thomas Boston,

Still Waters Revival Books, 1991.

A General Account of My Life... printed for the first time from

the Original Manuscript, London, 1908.

Memoirs of the Life of Thomas Boston of Ettrick, Edinburgh,

1813.

Queries to the Friendly Adviser, to which is Prefix'd a letter

to a friend, concerning the affair of the Marrow, N. D., 1722.
The Life and Death of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Boston, late
minister of the Gospel at Ettrick, with an Elegy upon him and
his son Thomas Boston, late minister of the Gospel at
-375-
 Jedburgh; who died 13th of February 176'?, being about the 54th
year of his age, and 34th of his ministry, to which is added,
A Funeral Sermon, preached on that occasion, Falkirk, 1782.
Browne, Robert and Robert Harrison., The Writings of Robert Harrison
and Robert Browne, Peel, Albert and Carlson, Leland lI
(eds. ), London: George Allen and Unwin LTD., 1953.

Buchanan, George., De Jure Regni Apud Scotos: A Dialogue concerning

the rights of the Crown in Scotland, trs, R. MacFarlan,
Edinburgh, 1843.

Bullinger, Henry., The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding,

Cambridge: The Parker Society, 4 Vols., 1848-1851.

Sermons of the Sacraments, Cambridge University Press, 1840.

Calderwood, David., The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. T. Thomson,

Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, Vols. I-VIII., 1842-1849.

Calvin, John., John Calvin on God and Political Duty, ed. John
T. McNeill, New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1950.

The Sermons of M. Iohn Calvin upon the Fifth J3ooke of Moses

called Deuteronomy: Faithfully gathered word for word as he
preached there in open pulpit; together with a preface of the
Minister of the Church of Geneva, and an admonishment made by
the Deacons there, tran. by Arthur Golding, London: Henry
Middleton, 1583, reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in
Edinburgh, 1987.

Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Grand

Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

The Institute of the Christian Religion, Edinburgh, Vol. I-

IV., 1865.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Embracing almost the

whole sum of piety, & whatever is necessary to know of the
doctrine of salvation: A work most worthy to be read by all
persons zealous for piety, and recently published. 1536
Edition, Trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1989.

Commentary on Daniel, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,

Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.

trans. J. K. S. Reid, London: James Clarke & Co. LTD., 1961.

Cameron, James K (ed. ), The First Book of Discipline, Edinburgh: The

Saint Andrew Press, 1972.

(ed. ), Letters of John Johnson and Robert Howie, Edinburgh:

Oliver & Boyd, 1963.

Cameron, Richard., Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and Deati o

these three famous Worthies. Signal for piety and Zeal. whom
-376-
 the Lord helped and honour'd to be faithful unto the Death.
viz Mr. John Semple, John Welwood, Mr. Richard Cameron.
Ministers of the Gospel, according as they were taken off the
Stage; who were all shining Lights in this Land. and Rave
Light to many, in which they rejoiced for a Season, Edinburgh,
1727.

An Essay to Discover who are the true Fools and Fanaticks in

the World, 1708.

Cargill, Donald., A few of the many remarkable Passages of the Long life
(being past sixty years) and at his bloody Death. of Mr. Daniel
Cargill, a Man greatly beloved indeed, who was born in the
North, and was eldest son of a Singular Godly Gentleman. and
Heritor in the Parish of Rattrav, some miles from Dunkeld. He
was commonly called Donald, but his baptized Name was Daniel,
May 1660.

The Last Word of Mr. Donald Cargill, when on the Scaffold July
27 1681, Einburgh, 1719.

Lectures and Sermons Preached at Different Times by Mr. D. C.,

Concerning Jehosaphat, his Association with Achab, and
Difficulty where to make Recourse, when staged before the
Tribunal of God, Edinburgh, 1681.

A Letter to his Parish of the Barony-Kirk in Glasgow, to

which are added two Letters by Mr. John Dickson, Edinburgh,
1734.
...
Passages in the Life and Death of Donald Cargill,
Edinburgh, 1732.

Being the Lecture and Discourse going before, and the

afternoon sermon following; which the Action of Excommunica-
tion itself, pronounced at Torwood September 1680 upon king
Charles II, Edinburgh, 1741.

A Collection of Lectures and Sermons. Preached upon Several

Subjects, mostly in the time of the Persecution, Wherein a
Faithful and Doctrinal Testimony is Transmitted to Posterity
for the Doctrine. Worship, Discipline and Government of the
Church of Scotland, against popery, Erastianism, Kilmarnock,
1809.

Some Remarkable Passages in the Life and Death of that

Singular Exemplary holy life. zealous and faithful unto the
death, Mr. Daniel Cargill, Edinburgh, 1732.

Carslaw, W.H., The life and letter to James Renwick, Oliphant Anderson &
Ferrier. 1893.

Cartwright, Thomas., Cartwrightiana, (eds. ), Albert Peel and Leland

H. Carlson, London: George Allen and Unwin LTD., 1951.

Chambers, Robert., Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotman with

Numerous Authentic Portraits, Blackie and Son, Vols. I-III.,
1855.
-377-
 Domestic Annals of Scotland, Edinburgh: W&R Chambers, 1874.

Charnock, Stephen., The Works of Stephen Charnock, Nichol's series of

standard divines, puritan period, Vol. V.

Discourse of God's being the author of Reconciliation,

Nichols edition of the Puritans, Vol. III.,

Crooksank, William., The History of the State. and Sufferings of the

Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution,
Perth: James Dewar and Son, 2 Vols., 1846.

Dale, R. W., History of English Congregationalism, London: Hodder and

Stoughton, 1906.

A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practical in the

Congregational Churches in England; agreed upon and Contented
unto by their Elders and Messengers in their Meating at the
SAVOY, October 12,1658, London.

Defoe, Daniel., Memoir of the Church of Scotland, Perth: James Dewar,

1844.

Dering, Master., "A Sermon Preached before the Queen's Majesty",

M.Dering's Works, London, 1597.

Dickinson, William Crift and Donaldson, Gordon (co-eds. ), A Source Book

of Scottish History, Edinburgh: Nelson, 4 Vols., 1961.

"Directory for the Public Worship of God", The Confession of Faith,

Edinburgh: D. Hunter Blair and M. T. Bruce, 1836.

Disruption Portrait of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland,

Glasgow, 1863.

Donaldson, Gordon., Scottish Historical Documents, Edinburgh: Scottish

Academic Press, 1974.

Earl of Rothes, John., A Relation of Proceedings Concerning the Affairs

of the Kirk of Scotland from August 1637 to July 1638,
Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1830,7: 3-4.

Elton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary,

Cambridge, 1972, p. 356.

Erskine, Ebenezer., Being the Substance of three Sermons Preached in the

New Church of Bristow, at Edinburgh, at. and after. tIL
Celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there.
October 10.11 and 17 1742., Glasgow, 1743.

The Whole Works of the late Rev. Mr. Ebenezer Erskine Minister
of the Gospel at Stirling consisting of Sermons and Dis ourses
on the most important and interesting subjects, Edinburgh, 3
Vols., 1798.

-378-
 Erskine, Ralph., The Sermons and Other Practical Works of the Late
Rev. Ralph Erskine, Aberdeen 7 Vols., reprinted 1991.

Beauties of the Rev. Ralph Erskine, ed. Samuel M'millan,

Glasgow, 2 Vols., 1840.

Fairweather, Eugene R., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Oackham. The

Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1956.

Fisher, E., The Marrow of Moderne Divinity: Touching both the Covenant
of Works and the Covenant of Grace... In a Dialogue, London,
1645.

Foxe, John., The Acts and Monuments of the Church: Containing the
History and Sufferings of the Martyrs: Wherein is set forth at
large the whole race and course of the Church. from the
primitive age to these later times, with a preliminary
dissertation, on the difference between the church of Rome
that now is and the ancient church of Rome that then was.,
ed. M. Hobart Seymour, London: printed for Scott, Webster, and
Geary, (revised), M. Hobart Seymour, 12 Vols in one., 1838.

Gillespie, George., "Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie", Presbyterian's

Armoury, Vol. I., 1844.

"An Assertion of the Government of the Church of

Scotland", The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh, Vol. I.,
1846.

"A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies",

The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver
and Boyd, Vol. I., 1846.

"A Brotherly Examination", Presbyterian's Armoury, Robert

Ogle, and Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1844.

"Nihil Respondes", Presbyterian's Armoury, Robert Ogle, and

Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Vol. I., 1844.

"The Ordinance of Parliament Calling the Assembly which met

at Westminster", Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the
Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster,
The Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh, Vol. II., 1846.

Notes of the Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of

Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster, February 1644
to January 1645, ed. David Meek, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and
Oliver and Boyd, 1846.

"Aaron's Rod Blossoming", The Presbyterian's Armoury,

Edinburgh, Vol. II., 1846.

Gillespie, Patrick., Ruler, sins the cause of National Judgements, or a

Sermon, Glasgow, 1711.

-379-
 An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland,
Edinburgh, 1641.

Goodwin, Thomas., The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Vol. XI., The Constitu-
tion, Right Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ,
Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1845.

Gordon's Scots Afairs 1637-1641, Aberdeen, Vols. I-III., 1861.

Guthrie, James., A cry from the dead: or, the Ghost of the famous
Mr. James Guthrie appearing being the last sermon he preached
in the pulpit of Stirling, before his Martyrdom at Edinburgh,
June 1661, Glasgow, 1738.

Guthrie, John., A Sermon preached upon Breach of Covenant, 1710.

Hadow, James., The Antinomianism of the Marrow of Modern Diyinit

Detected, Edinburgh, 1721.

"The Record of God and the Duty of Faith Therein Required",

April, 1719.

Henderson, Alexander., The Government and Order of the Church of

Scotland, London, 1641.

The Covenant: with a Narrative of the Proceedings and Solemn

manner of Taking it by the Honourable House of Commons, and
Reverent Assembly of Divines, the 25th day of September, at
Saint Margaret in Westminster, London, 1643.

A Solemn League for Reformation, and defence of Religion,

London, 1643.

Reformation of Church Government in Scotland, cleared from

some mistakes and prejudices, by the Commissioners of the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, London, 1644.

Sermons. Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses, 1638, Edinburgh: John

Maclaren, ed. R. Thomson, Martin, 1867.

Henderson, G. D (ed. ), Scots Confession 1560, Edinburgh, 1960.

Hetherington, W. M., History of the Church of Scotland: From the

Introduction of Christianity to the Period of the Disruption,
May 18,1843, Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 2 Vols., 1852.

Hewitt, George R., Scotland under Morton 1572-1580, Edinburgh: John

Donald Publishers Ltd., 1982.

Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in

Scotland, Glasgow, 1839.

Hobbes, Thomas., Leviathan, London, 1962.

Hog, James., Abstract of Discourses on Psalm XLI. 4., Edinburgh, 1716.

-380-
 The Memoirs of the Public Life of Mr. James Hog, and of the
Ecclesiastical Proceedings of his Time; Previous to his
Settlement at Carnock, Edinburgh, 1798.

Howie, John., A Collection of Lectures and Sermons, Glasgow, 1779.

The Scots Worthies. containing a brief historical account of

the most eminent noblemen, gentlemen, ministers, and others.
who testified or suffered for the cause of reformation in
Scotland, from the beginning of the sixteenth century. to the
year 1688, Glasgow and London, 1858.
Hutchison, Henry., Scottish Public Educational Documents, The Scottish
Council for Research in Education, Series 3, No. 1., 1973.

Irenaeus., "Irenaeus Against Heresies", The Ante - Nicene Fathers:

Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325,
ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Michigan: Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, Vols. I-IV., 1979.

Johnston, John C., Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, Edinburgh: Andrew

Elliot, 1887.

Kenyon, J. P (ed. ), The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688: Documents and

Commentary, London, Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Kerr, James., Sermons delivered by Times of Persecution in Scotland,

Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and company, 1880.

The Covenants and The Covenanters: Covenant. Sermons, and

Documents of the Covenanted Reformation, Edinburgh, 1895.

Kirk, James (ed. ), The Second Book of Discipline, Edinburgh: The Saint
Andrew Press, 1980.

Kirkton, J., The Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland, ed.
by Sharpe, Edinburgh, 1817.

Knox, John., The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 Vols.,
Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1846-1848.

The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, with

which are included Knox's Confession and the Book of
Discipline, ed. Cuthbert Lennox, London: Andrew Melrose, 1905.
John Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed.
William Croft Dickinson, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons
LTD, 2 Vols., 1949.

Select Practical Writings of John Knox, Edinburgh, 1845.

The Political Writings of John Knox, ed. M. A. Dreslow,

Washington, 1984.

-381-
Lightfoot, John., The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of
Divines. from January 1st, to December 31.1644, and letters
to and from Dr. Lightfood, ed. John Robers Pitman, London:
J. F. Dove, 1824.

The Whole Works, 13 Vols, ed. J. R. Pitman, London, 1822-1825.

Lumsden, John:, The Covenant of Scotland; Paisley: Alexander Gardner,

1914.

Luther, Martin., The Works of Martin Luther, eds. J. Pelikan and

H. T. Lehman, St. Louis and Philadelphia, Vol. 25 and 35., 1963.

Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, Michigan: Grand

Rapid: Kregel Publications, 1982.

MacKenzie, George., Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland from the

Restoration of King Charles II to 1691, Edinburgh, 1821.

The Martyrs and Wrestlers: their Testimony and declarations at

Rutherglen Sanguhar and Lanak, together with the bond of
mutual defence which was found upon Mr. Cameron at Airdsmoss
after he was killed also the Queensferry Paper. for the Truth
and royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ King of Saints and
Nations, Glasgow, 1770.

Maxwell, Willam D., John Knox's Genevan Service Book 1556: The Liturgi-
cal Portions of the Genevan Service Book, Used by John Knox
while a minister of the English Congregation of Marian Exiles
at Geneva. 1556-1559, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1931.
McKerrow, John., History of the Secession Church, Edinburgh and Glasgow,
1841.

M'Crie, C. G., Beza's Icones, Contemporary Portraits of Reformers of

Religion and Letters, Intro. C. G. M'Crie, London: The Religious
Tract Society, 1909.

M'Crie, Thomas., Life of Andrew Melville, Edinburgh: William Blackwood

and Sons., 1855.

Lives of Alexander Henderson and James Guthrie, Edinburgh,

1866.

Minutes of the Sessions of the Assembly of Divines: from August 4.1643

to April 24.1652, in three volumes.

Mitchell Alex. F and Struthers, John (co-eds. ), Minutes of the Sessions

of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, while engaged in
writing their Directory for Church Government. Confession of
Faith. and Catechisms, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons,
1874.

Cathechisms of the Second Reformation, London: James Nisbet

and Co., 1886.

-382-
Moncrieff, Alexander., The Practical Works of the late Reverend
Alexander Moncrieff, Edinburgh, 1779, Vol. II.

The National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant with the A Solem
Acknowledgement of Publick Sins, and Breaches of the Covenant
and A Solemn Engagement to all the Duties contained therein.
namely these-'which do in a more special-way relate unto the
-
dangers of. these times, March, 1689.

The National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant: with the
Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement to Duties: as they were
Renewed at Auchinsaugh. Near Douglas, 24th July. 1712.

Neal, Daniel., The History of the Puritans or Protestant Non-Conformists

from the Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688,2
Vols, Yew York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1856.

Ogg, David., David Ogg, The Reformation, London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1927.

Owen, John., "The Everlasting Covenant the Believer's Support under

Distress", The Works of John Owen, Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1985.

Salus Electorum. Sanguis Jesu: or, The Death of Death in the

Death of Christ, Goold's edition, Vol. X.,

Peden, Alexander., Some Remarkable Passages of the Life and Death, of

Mr. Alexander Peden, Glasgow: James Duncan, 1734.

Perkins, William., The Work of William Perkins, ed. Ian Breward,

The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 3, Abingdon,
1970.

Peterkin, Alexander (ed. ), Records of the Kirk of Scotland: Containing

the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies, 1843.

Pitcairn, Robert (ed. ), The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill,
Edinburgh: The Wodrow Society, 1842.

Preston, John., Treatise on the New Covenant; or, the Saint's Portion,
London, 1645.

Raleigh, Thomas., Annals of the Church in Scotland, Humphrey Milford,

Oxford University Press, 1921.

Reid, H. M.B., The Divinity Professors in the University of Glasgow,

1640-1903, Glasgow, 1923,

Renwick, James., A Prophecy Concerning the Lord's return to Scotland, by

a plentiful out-pouring of the Spirit upon his Church and
Land. in these Prophetical Sermons, Edinburgh: W.Gray, 1746.

-383-
 An Informatory Vindication of a Poor. wasted. misrepresented
Remnant of the suffering... Presbyterian Church of Christ i11
Scotland, 1687.

The Church's choice, or. a sermon on Canticles. ch

Glasgow, 1743.

A Choice Collection of Very Valuable Prefaces, -Lectures. and

Sermons, preached upon the mountains and muirs of Scotland. ]
the hottest time of the late persecution, Glasgow, 1776.

The Last Speech and Testimony of the Reverend Mr. James

Renwick, Minister of the Gospel. who suffered in the Glass-
Market of Edinburgh. February 17th 1688, emitted from his own
hand the day before his suffering, printed from the Original
Secession May, 1888, ed. D. Hay Fleming, Glasgow, 1888.

Antipass or, the Dying Testimony of Mr. J. R.. Edinburgh, 1715.

The Saint's Duty in evil times, in two sermons preached from

Isaiah XXVI. 20., Edinburgh: D. Duncan, 1745.

Some notes or heads of a preface and sermon at Lintoch - Steps

in the Parish of Stenous in Clydsdale by that great man of
God, and now glorified Martyr Mr. James Renwick, General
Assembly Library, September, 1687.

A Sermon Concerning the Lord's return to Scotland, General

Assembly Library, 1729.

Some notes or heads of a sermon preached in Fyfe. Psalm 45: 10,

Jan. 24.1688.

The Testimony, of some persecuted Presbyterian Ministers of

the Gospel. unto the Covenanted Reformation of the Church of
Scotland, and to the present experiences of containing to
preach the Gospel in the Fields. and against the present
Antichristian Toleration in its nature of design, Edinburgh,
Jan. 17.1688.

Rollock, Robert., Tractatus de vocatione efficaci (Edinburgh, 1597),

English translation: "A Treatise of God's Effectual Callings",
Select Works of Robert Rollock, ed. William M. Gunn,
Edinburgh, Wodrow Society, Vols. I-II., 1849.

Ross, William., Glempses of Pastoral Work in the Covenanting Times,

London, 1877.

Row, John., The History of the Kirk of Scotland. from the Year 1558 to
August 1637, with a Continuation to July 1639, by His Son,
John Row, Edinburgh: Wordrow Society, 1842.

Rutherford, Samuel., "Sketch of the Life of Samuel Rutherford", Th

Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh, Vol. III., 1846.

"Lex Rex", or "The Law and the Prince"; The Presbyterian's

Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, Oliver and Boyd, Vol. III.,
1846.
-384-
 Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed. Andrew Bonar, Edinburgh,
1863.

Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed. Thomas Smith, London:

Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1876.

The Due Right of Presbyteries or a Peaceable P1j, for

the-Government of the Church of Scotland, 1644.

Scott, Hew (ed. ), Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae: Synod of Lothian and

Tweeddale, Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 9 Vols. 1915-1928.

Sermons delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland. by SU cr s for

the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh: Johnstone,
Hunter & Company, 1880.

Sharp, Philip., (ed. ), The Creeds of Christendom. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 3 Vols., 1878.

Shield, Alexander., Some Notes or Heads of a Preface and of a lecture,

preached at Distinckorn-Hill in the Parish of Glasgow by
Mr. Alexander Shields, preacher of Gospel, April, 1688.

The History of Scotch-Presbytery: Being an Epitome of the Hired

let loose, London, 1642.

An elegy upon the death of Mr. James Renwick, 1688 (reprin.

1723).

An iniquity into Church-Communion, or. a treatise aga'ns

seperation from the Revolution-Settlement of this national
Church, as it was settled anno 1689 and 1690, Edinburgh, 1747.
A History of the Scotch-Presbyterians from the year 1570 to
the year 1692, London.

A Letter Concerning the due boundaries of Chr} amt

fellowship... written to the Prisoners for Conscience, it
Dunnottar-Castle. who then were many. in Summer 1685,
Edinburgh, 1726.

The Scots Inquisition: brief description of the Pets ectktJq1L-Qj

the Presbyterians in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1745.

A hind let loose, or an historical representation of the

Testimonies of the Church of Scotland. for the interest of
Christ. with the true State thereof irk all its Periods,
Glasgow, 1770.

The Life and Death of that eminently Pious. free. and jai tlIf4I>L
minister and martyr of Jesus Christ. ME.James Renwick: with a
vindication of the heads of his dying testimony. Glasgow,
1806.

Some Considerations Contributing unto the Discovery of Dani;ers that,

threaten Religion. and the Work of Reformation in the Chu
of Scotland, Glasgow: William Duncan. 1738.
-385-
A solemn League and Covenant For Reformation and Dgfence of Religion,
The Honoured and Happinesse of the-King-and Peace and Safety
of the Three Kingdomes of England. Scotland and. Irrand,
London, 1643.

Spalding, J., The History of the troubles and Memorable Transactions in

Scotland and England, ed. J. Skene, Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh,
2 Vols., 1828-1829.

Spottiswood, John., History of the Church of Scotland: Beginn' the

year of our Lord 203. and continued to the end of the reign of
King James the VI., Edinburgh, 3 Vols., 1847.

Steuart, Walter (ed. ), A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of

Scotland, Edinburgh: Robert Buchanan. 1830.

A Testimony to the Truths of Christ, agreeably to the Westminster

Standards. as Received by the Reformed Church of o UIand. and
in Opposition to Defections from the Reformation Sworn to ill
Britain and Ireland: together with an Act for RenewltiR_jt.
Covenants, and a Formula, Paisley: J. and R. Parlane, 1877.

Summary of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of

Scotland, Glasgow: James Hedderwick & Sons, LTD., 1932.

The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotjn Paisley,

,
1838.

Terry, Charles Sanford., The Scottish Parliament 1603-1707, Glasgow:

James MacLehose and Sons, 1905.

Thomson, Andrew., Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession

Church, Edinburgh, 1848.

Thomson, John H., A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of

Jesus Christ: Being the Last Speeches and Testimonies of those
who have suffered for the Truth in Scotland since the Yeat
1680, Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and Company, 1871.

Tyndale, William., Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different

Portions of the Holy Scriptures, ed. Henry Walter, Cambridge:
The Parker Society, Vols. I-II., 1848.

Tyndale's Works, The Parable of the Wicked Mammon, ed. Henry

Walter, Parker Society, Vol. I., 1848.

Table Expounding Certain Words ýn Genesis, ed. Henry Walter,

Parker Society, Vol. I., 1848.

William Tyndale, The Courtenay Library of Reformation

Classics, ed. G. E. Duffield, England: The Sutton Courtesy
Press, 1964.

Ursinus, Zacharias., The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursine on-Atle

Heidelberg Catechism, trs. G. W.Willard, Grand Rapids, 1954.
-386-
 Walker, Patrick., Six Saints of the Covonant, London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 2 Vols., 1901.

Biographia Presbyteriana. containing the lives of Donald

Cargill. Richard Cameron and James Renwick, Edinburgh, 2 Vols.
1827.

Welsh; John.; The Great'-Gospel sumons to close' with Christ, under th

pain of the Highest Rebellion against the God of Heaven: beim
the substance of a Preface and Sermon at Hamphlar-bank in the
Parish of Lanrick. Feb. 20.1676.

The Churches Paradox: or the Substance or a Sermon. preached

at the place of Cumbusnethen in a Barn, in the parish of
Cumbusnethen in Clydsdale.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Edinburgh: Hunter Blair and

M.T. Bruce, 1836.

Whyte, Alexander., Samuel Rutherford and Some of his Correspondents,

Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier, 1894.

Witsius, Herman., The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man:
Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, Utrecht, 1693,
Translated from the Latin and carefully revised by William
Crookshank, London, 2 Vols., 1822.

Wodrow, Robert., Wodrow's Correspondence, Wodrow Society, 3 Vols.,

1841.

The History of the Sufferings of the Church Scotland from

the Restoration to the Revolution, Glasgow, 4 .fVols., 1841.

Zwingli, Huldrych., Zwingli and Bullinger, Selected Transtations with

Introductions and Notes by G. W.Bromiley, The Library of
Christian Classics, Vol. XXIV., London: SCM Press LTD., 1953.

Writings, 2 Vols., trs. E. T. Furcha and IH.W.Pipkin, Allison

Park, Pa, 1984.

SECONDARY
SOURCES

Agnew, David C. A., "Presbyterian Covenanting", Catholic Presbyterian,

June, 1881.

Aikman, James., Annals of the Persecution in Scotland from tbe

Restoration to the Revolution, Edinburgh: Hugh Paton. 1842.

Ainslie, J. L., "The Scottish Reformed Church and English Puritanism".

The Scottish Church History Society, Vol. VIII., 1942.

"The Church and, People in Scotland 1645-1660: Influences and

Conditions". RSCHS, Vol. 9., 1947.
-387-
 The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of
the 16th and 17th Centuries, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1940.

Aiton, John., The Life and Time of Alexander Henderson. giving a history
of the second reformation of the Church of-Scotland. and of
the Covenanters. during the reign of Charles I.. Edinburgh,
1835.

Allen, J. W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,

London: Menthuen & Co. LTD., 1928.

Anderson, J., The Ladies of the Covenant, Glasgow: Blackie & Son. 1857.

Anderson, Marvin W., "William Tyndale: A Martyr for All Seasons", The
Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 17., 1986.

Ashley, Maurice., "King James II and the Revolution of 1688: Some

Reflections on the Historiography", Historical Essarys 1600-
1750, eds. H. E. Bell and R. L. Ollard, London: Adam & Charles
Black, 1963.

Avis, Paul D. L., The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, London:
Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1981.

Aylmer, G. E., The Struggle for the Constitution. England in the

Seventeenth Century. 1603-1689, London, Blandford Press, 1963.

Baker, David L., Two Testament. One Bible, Apollos, 1991.

Baker, J. Wayne., Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed
Tradition, Ohio University Press, 1980.

Bannerman, James., The Church of Christ, Edinburgh: The Banner of Trust

Trust, 2 Vols., 1974.

Bartlet, J. Vernon and Carlyle, A. J (co-eds. ), Christianity in History:

Study of Religious Development, London: Macmillan and Co..
LTD., 1917.

Bell, M. Charles., Calvin and Scottish_ Theol The Handsel Press,

,
Edinburgh, 1985.

Berkhof, Louis., Systematic Theol g, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth

Trust, 1984.

Berryman, Phillip., Liberation Theology: The Essential Facts sio tt Le

Revolutionary Movement in Latin--America and Beyond, Tavris,
1987.

Berveridge, John., The Covenanters, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905.

Beveridge, W., A Short History of the Westminster Assembly, Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1904.

Bicknell, E. J., A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Artiglu

of the Church of England, London: Longmans, Green and CO.,
1947.
-388-
Bierma, Lyle D., "Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century", Wu. 45..
1983.

Blair, William., "During the Secession", Religious Life in Srot-ý, c

From the Reformation to the Present Day, London, 1888.

Boersma, Hans., "Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement". ItL

Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. LXIV., 1992.

Bonner, Gerald., St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies, London:

SCMPress, 1963,

Boorman, David., "Ebenezer Erskine and Secession", Diversities of Gifts,

The Westminster Conference, 1980.

Bouwsma, William J., John Calvin: Sixteenth Century Portrait, Oxford

University Press, 1988.

Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, "Federal Theology and the 'National Covenant':

An Elizabethan Presbyterian Case Study", The American Society
of Church Histor , Vol. 61, December, No. 4., 1992.

Bray, Gerald., Creeds. Councils & Christ, I. V. P, 1984.

Brinsmead, Robert D., "Covenant" (part 1), Present Truth, California,

Nov. 1976, Vol. 5, No. 7., pp. 13-57.

"Covenant" (part 2), Present Truth, California, Vol. 5. No.

8., pp, 6-20.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Historical Theology: An Introduction. Edinburgh:

T&T. Clark LTD., 1978.

(ed. ), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand

Rapids, Michigan, 4 Vols., 1980 (second edition).

The Illustrated Bible Dictionar, Inter-Varsity Press. 3

Vols., 1988.

Brotherstone, Terry (ed)., Covenant. Charter. and Party: Traditions of

Revolt and Protest in Modern Scottish History, Aberdeen
University Press, 1989.

Brown, Colin., Christianity and Western Thought: From the Aic t World
to the Age of Enlightenment. Illinois: I. V. F. Vol. I.. 1990.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Thegj v,

The Paternoster Press, 3 Vols., 1975.

Brown, Harold O. J., Heresies: The Inca en Christw jttro,. QQj

Heresy and Orthodoxy from the _S) Grand
psttt_s to the_Pres cIt.
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988.

Brown, John., The English Puritans. Cambridge, 1910.

Brown, P. Hume., John Knox, London: Adam and Charles Black, 2 Vols.,
1895.

-389-
Brown, Thomas., Church and State in Scotland: narrative of tJjr
Struggle for Independence from 1560 to 1843. The third series
of Chalmers lectures, Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1891.

Buchan, John., The Kirk in Scotland, Dunbar: Labarum Publications LTD.,

1985.

Buchanan, Robert., The Ten Years' Conflict: Being the 11'story of tkie
Disruption of the Church of Scotland, Glasgow: Blackie & Son.,
1852.

Buckroyd, Julia., Church and State in Scotland 1660-1681, Edinburgh:

John Donald Publishers LTD., 1980.

Burger, Pierre., "Spymaster to Louis XIV: A Study of the Papers of the

Abbe Eusebe Renaudot", Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of
Jacobitism, 1689-1759, ed. Eveline Cruickshanks. Edinburgh:
John Donald Publishers Ltd., 1982.

Burleigh, J. H. S., A Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh, Hope Trust,

1983.

Burrell, Sidnew A., "The Covenant Idea as a Revolutionay Symbol Scotland

1596-1637", Church History, No. 27., 1958.

Calvinism in Europe 1540-1610: A Collection of Documents, eds. Alastair

Duke, Gillian Lewis and Andrew Pettegree, Manchester Univer-
sity Press, 1992.

Cameron, James K., "The Cologne Reformation and the Church of Scotland",
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University
Press, Vol. 30., 1979.

"Theological Controversy: a Factor in the Origins of the

Scottish Enlightenment", The Origins and Natpre of ti
Scottish Enlightenment, eds. R. H. Campbell and Andrew S. Skinner,
Edinburgh: John Donald Publisher LTD., 1982.

Campbell, Andrew J., Two Centuries of the Church of Scotland: 1707-j929,

Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1930.

Campbell, W. M., The Triumph of Presbyterianism, Edinburgh: The Saint

Andrew Press, 1958.

"The Scottish Westminster Commissioners and of atior4",

RSCHS, Vol. 9., 1947.

Carlyle, Thomas., Heroes. Hero-Worship and the lferojn jt iE iry.

London: Chapman and Hall LTD.. 1897.

Carruthers, S. W., The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembj, with a

Foreward by Thos. C. Peers, Jr.. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian
Historical Society, 1943.

Carson, D. A., "Reflections on Christian Assurance". The Westminster

Theological Journal, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, Vol. 54, No.
1., 1992.
-390-
Chapman, Geoffrey (ed. ), Dictionary of Biblical Theology, London, 1973.

Cheyne, A. C., The Transforming of the Kirk: Victorian Scotland Religious

Revolution, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1983.

Chisholm, Peter M., Defence of Reformation Principles in Relation to the

Free Presbyterian Church Student Case, Glasgow and Edinburgh:
William-Hodge & Company,
-1913.
Christie, G., "Scripture Exposition in Scotland in the Seventeenth
Century", RSCHS, Vol. 1., 1929.

Clark, Gordon H., Faith and Saving Faith, Jefferson, Maryland: The
Trinity Foundation, 1983.

What do Presbyterians believe?: The Westminster Confession:

Yesterday and Today, Philadelphia, Pa: The Presbyterian arid
Reformed Publishing Co., 1965.

Clark, No Macnaughton., A History of Church Discipline in Scotland,

Aberdeen, 1929.

Clark, James., The Life and Works of Samuel Rutherford, Edinburgh,

1986.

Clebsch, William A., England's Earliest Protestants 1520-1535, Yale

University Press, 1964.

Clifford, Alan., "The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645)",

The Westminster Conference Paper, 1989.

Coleborn, Chris., "The Second Reformation in Scotland", Theological

School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Michigan:
Grandville, 1981, Vol. 14., No. 1-2.

Collins, G. N. M., The Heritage of Our Fathers: The Free Church of

Scotland: Her Origin and Testimony, Edinburgh: The Knox Press.
1974.

"The Scottish Covenanters", The Christian and the State in

Revolutionary Times, The Westminster Conference Paper, 1975.

Collinson., The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, Berkeley, 1967.

Colquhoun, John., Repentance, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,

1965.

"The Free Offer of the Gospel", The Free Presbyterian

Magazine, Vol. 97. No. 11., Nov. 1992 and Vol. 98. No. 1. Jan.
1993.

Cook, Faith., Samuel Rutherford - Faithful Pastor and True Friend, The
Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, No. 291, Dec. 1987.

Cook, George., The History of the Church of Scotland from Estar1jishemen

of the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 Vols.. Edinburgh,
1815.

-391-
 Cossar, James., Contending for the Faith, The Annual Lecture of the
Evangelical Library, 1959.

Cowan, Henry, John Knox: The Hero of the Scottish Reformation, London:
G. P. Putnam's Sons., 1905.

Cowan, I. B., "The Five Articles of Parth", Reformation and Revolution,

cored. Duncan-Shaw, Edinburgh, 1967.

The Renaissance and Reformation in Scotland, co. eds. Duncan

Shaw, Scottish Academic Press, 1983.

"The Covenanters: A Revision Article", SHR, Vol. 47,1968.

The Scottish Covenanters 1660-1688, London: Victor Gollancz

LTD., 1976.

"The Apocalyptic Vision of the Early Covenanters", The

Scottish Historical Review, Vol. XLIII., No. 135., 1964.

Cox, G. S. R., "Henry Barrow", The New International Dictionary of the

Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, 1981.

Coxon, Francis., Christian Worthies, Zoar Publications, 2 Vols., 1980.

Cragg, Gerald R., The Church and the Age of Reason 1648-1789, Penguin
Books, 1985

Cunningham, John., The Church History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Adam and

Charles Black, 2 Vols., 1886.
Cunningham, William., Historical Theology, Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 2 Vols., 1988.

The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, Edinburgh:

The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985.

Custance, Arthur C., The Sovereignty of Grace, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

Daniel, Evan., The Prayer Book: its History. Language, and Contents,
London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co., LTD., 1905.

Davies, Andrew., "The Significance of the Toleration Act of 1689", The

Evangelical Magazine of Wales, 1990, Vol. 28, No. 6.

Davies, Horton., The Worship of the English Puritans, Westminster: Dacre

1948. Press

Domaus, Robert., William Tindale, London: The Religious Tract Society,

1871.

Dick, John., A Testimony to the Doctrine. Worship. Discipline, and

Government of the Church of Scotland and Covenanted Work of
Reformation, Edinburgh, 1984.

-392-
Dickinson, W.Croft., Scotland from the Earliest Times to 1603, ed.
Archibald A. Duncan, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1977.

The Dictionary of National Biography, London, Vol. IV., 1890, Vol. 25.,
1891.

Dodds, James., The Fifty Years' Struggle of the Scottish' Covenanters

1638-1688', Edinburgh: - Edmonston'and Douglas, -1860. -

Donaldson, Gordon., Scotland: James V to James VII, Edinburgh: Oliver

and Boyd, 1965.

The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book-of 1637, Edinburgh

University Press, 1954.

Scotland: Church and Nation Through Sixteen Centuries, London:

SCMPress, 1960.

Reformed by Bishop, Edinburgh: Edina Press, 1987.

"The Polity of the Scottish Church 1560-1600", Records of the

Scottish Church History Society, Vol. XI., 1953.

Morpeth, Robert S, (co-eds. ), A Dictionary of Scottish

History, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD., 1988.

Scottish Church History, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,

1985.

Donnachie, Ian and Hewitt, George (co-eds. ), A Companion to Scottish

History: From the Reformation to the Present, London:
B. T. Batsford LTD., 1989.

Douglas, J. D., Loht in the North, The Paternoster Press, 1964.

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed.

The Paternoster Press, 1974.

Doyle, Ian B., "The Doctrine of the Church in the Later Covenanting
Period", Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan Shaw,
Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1967.

Drummond Andrew L and Bulloch, James., The Scottish Church 1688-1843,

Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1973.

The Kirk and the Continent, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press,
1959.

Dryerre, J. Meldrum., Heroes and Heroines of the Scottish Covenanters.

Scotland: Kilmarnock, pp. 56-70.

Dumbrell, William J., Covenant and Creation: A Theology'of Old Testament

Covenants, New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Dunlop, A. Ian., Wiliam Castares and The Kirk by Law Established,
Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, (The Chalmers Lectures),
1964.

-393-
Edgar, Andrew., Old Church Life in Scotland: Lectures on Kirk-Session
and Presbytery Records, London: Alexander Gardner, Paisley,
1886.

Eidsmoe, John., Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our

Founding Fathers, Baker Book House, 1987.

Eliade, Mircea., The- Encyclopaedia of Religion, MacMillan Publishing and

Company, Vol.
-4., -'1987,
Elton, G. R., The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary,
Cambridge, 1972.

Emerson, Everett H., "Calvin and Covenant Theology", Church History,

Vol. 25., 1956.

Erskine-Hill, Howard., "Literature and the Jacobite Cause: Was There a

Rhetoric of Jacobitism?, Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of
Jacobitism, 1689-1759, ed. Eveline Cruickshanks, Edinburgh:
John Donald Publishers LTD., 1982.

Fairbairn, Patrick., The Imperial Bible-Dictionary. Historical.

Biographical. Geographical and Doctrinal, Edinburgh: Blackie
and Son, LTD., 6 Vols., 1890.
Fairweather, Eugene R., "An Excerpt from Eight Questions on the Power of
the Pope", A Scholastic Miscellary: Anselm to Ockhan, The
Library of Christian Clasics: Ichthus Edition, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1956.

Feinberg, John S., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspective on the

Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Crossway
Books, Westchester, Illinois, 1988.

Fensham, F. C., "The Covenant as giving expression to the Relationship

between Old and New Testament", The Tyndale House Bulletin,
ed. A. R. Millard, Vol. 22., 1971.

Ferguson, Sinclair B., "The Teaching of the Confession", The Westminster

Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church
of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, ed. Alasdair I. C. Heron, The
Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1982.

Christian Life of John Owen, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth

Trust, 1987.

Ferguson, William., Scotland: 1689 to the Present. Oliver & Boyd, 1978.

Fielder, Geraint D., "Luther and Salvation", EMW, 1983, Vol. 22, No. 5.

"Luther and the Authority of Scripture", EMW, 1984. Vol. 22,

No. 6.

Figgis, J. N.. The Divine Right of Kings, Cambridge, 1896.

"The Great Leviathan", Churches in the Modern State, London,

1913.
-394-
Fleming, D. Hay., The Story of the Scottish Covenants in Outlin,
Edinburgh, 1904.

The Reformation in Scotland: Causes. Chracteristic,

Consequences, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Fleming, J. R., The Burning Bush, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1925.

Foster, Walter R., Bishop and Presbytery, ' London, 1958.

The Church before the Covenants, Edinburgh, 1975.

French, Allen., Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval: A Study of the

Causes of of the Great Migration, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1955.

Fuhrmann, Paul T., An Introduction to the Great Creeds of the Church,

The Saint Andrews Press, Edinburgh, 1960.

Fuller, Thomas., The Church History of Britain, from the Birth of Jesus
Christ until year MDCXLVIII, London, 1842, Vol. iii.

Furgol, Edward M., "The Military and Ministers as Agents of Presbyterian

Imperialism in England and Ireland, 1640-1648", New
Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early Modern
Scotland, co-eds. John Dwyer, Roger A. Mason and Alexander
Murdoch, John Donald Publishers LTD.

Gardiner, Samuel R., History of the Great Civil War 1642-1649,4 Vols.
New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1965.

Gehman, H., New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1970.

"General Assembly of 1638", The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,

Philadelphia, Vol. 10, No. 3., 1938.

George, Timothy., Theology of the Reformers, England: Apolos, 1988.

Gibellini, Rosino (ed. ), Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, London:

SCM Press Ltd., 1980.

Gilfillan, George., The Martyrs. Heroes, and Bards of the Scottish

Covenant, London: Albert Cockshaw, 1852.

Gillespie, George., "Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie", Presbyterian's

Armoury, Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, Vol. I.,
1844.

Glasse, John., John Knox: A Criticism and an Appreciation, London: Adam

and Charles Black, 1905.

Glover, Janet R., The Story of Scotland, London: Faber and Faber, 1977.

Goldie, Mark., "The Nonjurors, Episcopacy, and the Origins of the

Convocation Controversy", Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of
Jacobitism. 1689-1759, ed. Eveline Cruickshanks, Edinburgh:
John Donald Publishers LTD., 1982.
-395-
 "James II and the Dissenters Revenge: the Commission of
Enquiry of 1688, Historical Research": The Bulletin of the
Institute of Historical Research, Vol. 66, No. 159., February
1993.

Golding, Peter E., "The Development of the Covenant": "An Introductory

Study in Biblical Theology", Reformed Theological Journal,
-Belfast, Northern Ireland, -1993, Vol'. 9. -,
Goldsworthy, Graeme., According to Plan: The unfolding revelation of God
in the Bible, England: I. V. P., 1991.

Graham, Clement., "The Confession of Faith", Hold Fast Your Confession:

Studies in Church Principles, ed. Donald Macleod, Edinburgh:
The Knox Press, 1978.

Graham, H. G., "King, Kirk and Covenant", Scottish History and Life, ed.
James Paton, Glasgow: James MaClehose & Sons, 1902.

Gray, John S., Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination, Bibliotheca

Humanistica & Reformatorica, Vol. 12., 1975.

Greaves, Richard L., Theology and Revolution in the Scottish

Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox, Michigan:
Grand Rapids, Christian University Press, 1980.

John Knox and the Covenant Tradition", Journal of

Ecclesiastical History, No. 24., 1973.

"The Origins and Early Development of English Covenant

Thought", The Historian, Vol. 31., 1968.

Gregg, A. C., Moffett, M. J., and Tweed, J. Boyd (ed. ), Tercentenary of

the National Covenant of Scotland 1638-1938, Blackie and Son
Limited, 1939.

Grierson, Elizabeth., Our Scottish Heritage, London: Society for

Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917.

Grub, George., An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Edinburgh:

Edmonston and Douglas, Vols. I-IV., 1861.

Guhrt, J., "Covenant", The New International Dictionary of N. T Theolggy,

ed. Colin Brown, The Paternoster Press, 1975.

Guthrie, Charles J., "The Solemn League and Covenant. of the Three
Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland", " The c is
Historical Review, Glasgow, Vol. 15., 1918.

Gutierrez, Gustavo., The Power of the Poor in History, London: SCMPress

Ltd., 1983.

Hagen, Kenneth., "From Testament to Covenant in the Early Sixteenth

Century", Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. III., No. 1., 1972.

"The Problem of Testament in Luther's Lectures on Hebrews",

Harvard Theological Review, Vol. LXIII., 1970.
-396-
 A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures ol
Hebrews, Studies in Mecieval and Reformation Thought, Vol.
12., Leiden: E. J. Bill.

Hague, Dyson., The Story of the English Prayer Book, London: Church Book
Room Press LTD., 1949.

Haller, -William., Word of God in the Westminster Assembly", Church

-"The
History, Vol. XVIII., No. 4., 1949.

The Rise of Puritanism, New York, 1957.

Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution, Columbia

University Press, New York, 1963.

Hamilton, Ian., The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy Seceders and Subs-

cription in Scottish Presbyterianism, Edinburgh: Rutherford
House Books, 1990.

Hamilton, Ronald., A Holiday History of Scotland, London: The Hograrth

Press, 1986.

Hanko, Herman.. "The Doctrine of Predestination in Calvin and Beza",

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Grandville, Michigan,
April, Vol. XXI. No. 2., 1988, November, Vol. XXII. No. I.,
1988, April, Vol. XXII. No. 2., 1989, November, Vol. XXIII.
No. 1., 1989.

The History of the Free Offer, Theological School of the

Protestant Reformed Churches, Grandville, Michigan, 1989.

Haller, William., Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolutior,

Columbia University Press, 1963.

Harris, R. Laird (ed. ), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody

Press, Vol. I., 1986.

Harrison, G. S., "The Covenant, Baptism and Children", The Tyndale House
Bulletin, ed. A. R. Millard, Vol. 9., 1961.

Hart, Trevor A., Thomas Erskine, Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1993.

Hastings, James (ed. ), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, T&T.

Clark, Vol. IV.

(ed. ), A Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with its language,

literature. and contents including the Biblical Theology,
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904 (six edition).

Hawkes, R. M., "The Logic of Assurance in English Puritan Theology".

WTJ., Vol. 52. No. 2., 1990.

Healey, Robert M., "John Knox's "History": A "Compleat" Sermon

on Christian Duty" Church History, Vol. 62, No. 3., 1992.

Helm, Paul., "Calvin and the Covenant: Unity and Continuity", hq

Evangelical Quarterly, ed. I. Howard Marshall, Vol. LIV.. 1983.

-397-
 Calvin and the Calvinists, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1982.

Henderson, Henry F., The Religious Controversies of Scotland, Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1905.

Religion in Scotland: Its Influence on National Life and

Character, Paisley: `Alexander Gardner, 1920.

Henderson, G. D., "The Covenanters", Religious Life in 17th Century

Scotland, Cambridge, 1937.

The Claims of the Church of Scotland, Hodder and Stoughton,

LTD., 1951.

The Scottish Ruling Elder, London: James Clarke & Co., LTD.,
1935.

The Church of Scotland, The Church of Scotland Youth

Committee, Edinburgh, 1939.

"The Idea of the Covenant in Scotland", The Burning Bush,

Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Presbyterianism, Aberdeen, The University Press, 1955.

Why we are Presbyterians, Church of Scotland Publications,

Edinburgh.

Henderson, Ian., Power Without Glory: A Study in Ecuinenial Politics,

Hutchinson of London, 1967.

Hendriksen, William., The Covenant of Grace, Michigan: Grand Rapids,

Baker Book House, 1978.

Herron, A., Kirk by Divine Right, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press,
1985.

Hetherington, W.M., History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines,

Edinburgh: John Johnstone and Hunter, 1843.

Hewison, James King., The Covenanters: A History of the Churcis of

Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, Edinburgh, 2
Vols., 1908.

Hill, Christopher., Puritanism and Revolution, 1969.

Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, 1969.

"Covenant Theology", A Turbulent. Seditious. and Factious

People: John Bunyan and his Church 1628-1688, Oxford
University Press, 1989.

Hill, Ninian., Story of The Scottish Church, Glasgow, 1919.

Historical Part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Churctij. 0

Scotland, Glasgow, 1839

-398-
Hodge, A. A., A Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 1878.

Hodge, Charles., Systematic Theology, 3 Vols., 1873.

Hoekema, Anthony A., "The Covenant of Grace in Calvin's Teaching",

Calvin Theological Journal, No. 2., 1967.

Hopkins, Paul., "Sham Plots and Real Plots in the 1690s", -Ideology and
Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689-1759, ed. Eveline
Cruickshanks, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers'LTD. -, 1982.

Horne, A. S., Torchbearers of the Truth, The Scottish Reformation

Society, 1968.

Houston, Thomas., The Life of James Renwick: A historical sketch of his

life, labours and martyrdom and a vindication of his character
and testimon Edinburgh, 1987.
,
Hunt, R. N. Carew., Calvin, London: The Centenary Press, 1933.

Hunter, A. Mitchell., The Teaching of Calvin, London: James Clarke & CO.
LTD., 1950.

Hutchison, Matthew., The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland. 1680-

1876, Paisley, 1893.

Innes, Alexander Taylor., The Law of Creeds in Scotland, A Treatise on

the Legal Relation of Churches in Scotland Established and not
Established, to their Doctrinal Confessions, Edinburgh:
William Blackwood and Sons, 1867.

John Knox, Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier, 1896.

Church and State, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870.

Innes, D. J., "Thomas Boston of Ettrick", Faith and a Good Conscience,

Puritan Papers, 1963.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1862.

Jinkins, Michael., "Theodore Beza: Continuity and regression in the

Reformed Tradition", Evangelical Quarterly, ed. I. Howard
Marshall, Vol. LXIV. No. 2., April, 1992.

Jocz, Jakob., The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny, Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans p. C., 1968.

Johnston, John c., Alexander'Peden, Mourne Missionary Trust, 1988.

Johnson, James T., "The Covenant Idea and the Puritan View of Marriage",
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 32., 1971.

Johnston, James., Pioneers of Protestantism, London: Marshall Brothers

LTD.,

-399-
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology, Michigan, Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981, pp. 17-40.

Kamen, Henry., European Society 1500-1700. Routledge: London, 1992.

Karlberg, Mark W., "Covenant Theology and the Westminster Tradition",

The Theological Journal, Pennsylvania:
-Westminster
Philadelphia. Vol. 54, No. "1., 1992. -

"The Original State of Adam: Tensions Within Reformed

Theology", The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. LIX, No. 4., 1987.

"Covenant and CommonGrace", WTJ., Vol. 50. No. 2., 1988.

"Reformed Interpretaton of the Mosaic Covenant", WTJ, 1980,

Vol. 43..

Keddie, Gordon J., "The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the
Disruption of 1863", Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical
Theology, Vol. 11. No. 1., 1993.

Keen, Ralph., "The Limits of Power and Obedience in the Later Calvin",
Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 27., 1992.

Keller, Adolf., Church and State on the European Continent, London: The
Epworth Press, 1936.

Kennedy, John., Presbyterian Authority and Discipline, Edinburgh: The

Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Kendall, R. T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Oxford, 1979.

Kerr, J., First International Convention of Reformed Presbyterian

Churches, Glasgow: Alex. Malcolm & Co., 1896.

Kerston, G. H., Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed

Doctrine, Netherlands Reformed Book & Publishing Committee,
1980.

Kevan, Ernest F., The Moral Law, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1963.

The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology, Soli Deo Gloria

Publications, 1993.

Kirby, Ethyn Williams., "The English Presbyterians in the Westminster

Assembly". Church History, co-eds. Robert M.Grant, Martin
E. Marty, Jerald C. Brauer, Vol. 33., 1964.

Kirk, J. Andrew, Liberation Theology: An Evangelical View from the Third

World, Basingstoke: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1979.

Kirk. James., Patterns of Reform: Continuity and Change in

Reformation Kirk, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1989. -the

"The Influence of Calvinism on the Scottish Reformation", The

Scottish Church History Society, Vol. 18., 1974.

-400-
Kitchen, Kenneth A., "The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty".
The Tyndale House Bulletin, ed. A. R. Millard, Vol. 40., 1989.

Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: The Tyndale Press,

1966.

Kittel, Gerhard (ed. ), Theologycal Dictionary of the New Testament.

Grand Rapid, Michigan, 10-Vols., 1968-1976.

Kittelson, James M., Luther The Reformer: The Story of the Man and Hs
Career, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1989.

Kline, Meredith G., "Canon and Covenant", WTJ., Vol. 32. No. 2., 1970;
Vol. 32. No. 2., 1970; Vol. 33. Nol. 1., 1970.

Knappen, M.M., Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism,

Chicago, 1936.

Knox, R. Buick., James Ussher Archbishop of Armach, Cardiff: University

of Wales Press, 1967.

"The Presbyterianism of Samuel Rutherford", Irish Biblical

Studies, Vol. 8., July 1986.

"A Scottish Chapter in the History of Toleration", Scotish

Journal of Theology, Vol. 41.

"Establishment and Toleration during the Reigns of William,

Mary and Anne",

Lachman, David C., The Marrow Controversy 1718-1723: An Historical and

Theological Analysis, Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988.

Lane, James., The Reign of King Covenant, Robert Halevin, 1956.

Lane, Tony., The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought, A Lion Book,
1984.

Lane, William L., "Covenant: The Key to Paul's Conflict with Corinth",
The Tyndale House Bulletin, ed. A. R. Millard, Vol. 33., 1981.

Lang, Andrew., A History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation,

Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1907,4 Vols.

Lee, John., Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, ed.

William Lee, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, Vol. II.,
1860.

Lee, Maurice Jr., "Scotland and the 'General Crisis' of the Seventeenth
Century", The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. LXIII., No.
176., 1984.

Leith, John H., Assembly at Westminster: Reformed Theology in the

Making, John Knox Press, Virginia, 1973.

Lenman, Bruce., Scottish Episcopal Clergy and the Ideology of

-"The
Jacobitism", Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism.
-401-
 1689-1759, ed. Eveline Cruickshanks, Edinburgh: John Donald
Publishers LTD., 1982.

Lennox, Cuthbert (ed. ), "The Book of Discipline", The History of the

Reformation of Religion in Scotland, London: Andrew Melrose,
1905.

Letham, Robert., "The Foedüs Operum: 'Some factors according for its
Development", The Sixteenth Century Journal; Vol'. 'XIV. No. -4.,
1983.

Lewis, J., The Reformation Settlement being a Summary of the Public Acts
and Official Documents relation to the Law and Ritual of the
Church of England from 1509 to 1666, Cambridge: 'Deighton, Bell
And CO., 1885.

Lillback, Peter Alan., "Ursinus' Development of the Covenant of

Creation: A Dept to Melanchthon or Calvin", WTJ., Vol. 43. No.
2., 1981.

"The Reformers' Rediscovery of Presbyterian Polity", Pressiman

Toward the Mark, eds. Charles G. Dennison & Richard C. Gamble,
Philadelphia: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986.

Lindsay, T. M., "The Covenant Theology", The British & Foreign

Evangelical Review, London, Vol. 28., 1897.

Livingston, John., A Brief Historical Relation of the Life of Mr. John

Livingston, ed. T. Houston, John Johnston, 1848.

Loane, Marcus., Makers of Religious Freedom, I. V. F. 1960.

Sons of the Covenant, Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1963.

Locher, Gottfried W., Zwingli's Thought: New Perspectives, Leiden:

E. J. Brill, 1981.

Louden, R. Stuart, The True Face of the Kirk, London: Oxford University
Press, 1963.

Loughridge, Adam., "James Renwick: Preacher, Pastor, Patriot", Reformed

Theological Journal, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1988.

Lucas, E. C., "Covenant, Treaty, and Prophecy", Themelios, ed. David

Wenham, September Vol. 8. No. I., 1982.

Lyall, Fransis., Of Presbyters & Kings: Church & State in the Law of
Scotland, Aberdeen University, Press, 1980.

"Of Metaphors and Analogies: Legal Language and Covenant

Theology", Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 32., 1979.

"Metaphors, Legal; and Theological", Scottish Bulletin of

Evangelical Theology, Vol. 10. No. 2., Winter 1992.

Macdonald, Fraser., "Causes and '',Progress , of the Scottish Reformation

until the year `-1560", Quater-Centenary of the Scottish
-402-
 Reformation: as commemorated by the Synod of the Free
Frestyterian Church of Scotland, at Edinburgh. Ma 1960. by
the reading of paters of the Reformation of 1560, Glasgow.

Macgregpr, Janet G., The Scottish Presbyterian Polity: A Study of its

Origins in the Sixteenth Century, Edinburgh: Oliver arid Boyd.
1926.

Macinnes-Allan I., "Scottish Gaeldom, 1638-1651: The Vernacular Response

to the Covenanting Dynamic", New Perspectives on the Politics
and-Culture of Early Modern Scotland, co-eds. John Dwyer, Roger
,
A. Mason and Alexander Murdoch, John Donald Publishers LTD.

Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement,

Edinburgh: John Donald Publisher LTD., 1981.

MacKenzie, Robert., John Brown of Haddington, Edinburgh: The Banner of

Truth Trust, 1964.

MacKelvie, William., Annals and Statistics of the United Presbyterian

Church, Edinburgh: Oliphant and Company, and Andrew Elliot,
1873.

Mackintosh, James., Calvin and the Reformation. London: Longmans, Green,

and CO., 1936.

Mackintosh, John., The History of Civilisation in Scotiand, Aberdeen: A.

Brown & CO, Vol. III., 1884.

Maclean, Donald., Aspects of Scottish Church History, Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1927.

Macleod, Donald., "The Westminster Confession Today", B. O. T, 101,1972.

"Federal Theology - An Oppressive Legalism? ". B. O. T.. 125,

1974.

"Covenant", B. O. T.. 139,141 of 1975.

"Faith as Assurance", Monthly record of the Free Church of

Scotland, Edinburgh, May, 1988.

Hold Fast' Your Confessions: Studies in Church Principles.

Edinburgh, 1978.

Macleod, John.. Scottish Theology: In relation to Church History since

the Reformation, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. 1974.

Macleod, Neil A., "Church and State", Hold Fast Your Confession: StudiiLU
in Church Principles, ed. Donald Macleod, Edinburgh: The Knox
Press, 1978.

MacMillan, D., John Knox: A Biography, London: Andrew Melrose, 1905.

Macpherson, Hector., The Covenanters Under Persecution, Edinburgh, 1923.

Scotland's battles for Saititual Inde endence, London: Hodder

and Stoughton, 1905.
-403-
 "The Covenanters: Their Fight for Freedom", The Evangelical
Quarterly, London: James Clarke and Company, Vol. 4., 1932.

"The Political Ideals of the Covenanters 1660-1688", Records

of the Scottish Church History Society, Vol. I., 1926.

Macpherson, John., The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology,

ed. C. G. M'crie; Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1903.

A History of the Church in Scotland: From the Earliest Times

down to the Present day, Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1901.

The Confession of Faith, T&T. Clark, 1881.

Makey, Walter., The Church of the Covenant - 1637-1651, John Donald

Publishers Ltd., Edinburgh, 1979.

"Presbyterian and Canterburian in the Scottish Revolution",

Church. Politics and Society: Scotland 1408-1929, ed Norman
Macdougall, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD., 1983.

Marshall. G., Presbyteries and Profits: Calvinism and the Development of

Capitalism in Scotland 1560-1707, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1980.

Martens, E. A., Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, I. V. P., 1981.

Martin, Hugh., The Atonement: in its Relations to the Covenant. the

Priesthood, the Intercession of our Lord, Edinburgh: Knox
Press, 1976.

Martin, W. Stanley., I will Maintain: The Story of Glorious Revolution,

Testimony Books, 1991.

Mason, Roger A., "Covenant and Commonwealth: the language of politics

in Reformation Scotland", Church. Politics and Society
Scotland 1408-1929, ed. Norman Macdougall, John Donald
Publishers LTD., Edinburgh, 1983.

"Rex Stoicus: George Buchanan, James VI and the Scottish

Polity", New Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early
Modern Scotland, co-eds. John Dwyer, Roger A. Mason and
Alexander Murdoch, John Donald Publishers LTD.

Mathieson, William Law., Politics and Religion: A Study in Scottisýt

History from the Reformation to the Revolution, Glasgow: James
Maclehose and Sons, Vols. I-II., 1902.

Scotland and the Union: A History of Scotland from 1695 to

1747, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1905.

Maxwell, Thomas., "The Church Union Attempt at the General Assembly of

1692", Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan Shaw. Edinburgh:
The Saint Andrew Press, 1967.

Maxwell William D., A History of Christian Worship: An Outline of Its

Development and Forms, Baker Book House, Michigan, 1982.

-404-
McADOO, H. R., The Spirit of Anglicanism, Charles Scribner's Sons: New
York, 1965.

McComiskey, Thomas Edward., The Covenats of Promise: A Theology of the

Old Testament Covenants, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

McCoy, Charles S:, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian", The Scottish

Journal of Theology, Vol. 16., 1963,
.--
McCoy, F. N., Robert Baillie and the Second- Scots Reformation,
University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,
1974.

M'Crie, C. G., The Church of Scotland: Her Divisions and Her Re-Union,
Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1901.

M'Crie, C. G., Scotland and the Revolution 1688, Edinburgh: Andrew

Elliot, 1888.

"The Covenanting Times", Religious Life in Scotland: From the

Reformation to the Present Day, London, 1888.

M'Crie, C. G. M., The Confession of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh:

Macniven & Wallace, 1907.

M'Crie, Thomas., Sketches of Scottish Church History, Edinburgh,

2 Vols., 1846.

The Story of the Scottish Church: From the Reformation

to the Disruption. London: Blackie & Son, 1875.

"'The Marrow' Controversy: with Notices of the State of

Scottish Theology in the beginning of- last Century", The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Vol. II., Edinburgh,
June, 1853.

McEwen, James S., "How the Confession came to be Written", The

Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared
for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, ed. Alasdair
I. C. Heron, The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh,. 1982.

The Faith of John Knox, London: Lutterworth Press, 1962.

McFarland, H. S. N., The Book of Discipline, Aberdeen Journal: Aberdeen

University Press, Vol., 38., 1959-1960.

McFetridge, N. S., Calvinism in History: Calvin Classics Volume 1, Still

Waters Revival Books, 1989.

McGiffert, Michael., "William Tyndale's Conception of, Covenant". Journal

of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 32. No. 2., 1981.

"Covenant, Crown, and Commons in Elizabethan Puritanism",

Journal of British Studies, Chicago: University of Illinois,
Vol. 20., 1980.

McGoldrick, James Edward., ','Patrick Hamilton, Luther, 's Disciple". he

Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. XVIII. No. 1., 1987.
-405-
 McGowan, Andrew T. B., "Federal Theology as a Theology of Grace", The
Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Edinburgh:
Rutherford House, 1984.

McGrath, Alister E., A Life of John Calvin, Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Reformation Thought: 'An Introduction, Basil Blackwell, 1988.

N.
Il

Justitia Dei, history of the Christian doctrine of

Justification, ,A
the Beginnings to the Reformation and from 1500
to the present day, Cambridge University Press, 2 Vols, Vol. I
of 1989, Vol. II of 1993.

McKay, W.D. J., "The Westminster Assembly and the Solemn League and
Covenant", Reformed Theological Journal, Belfast, Northern
Ireland, 1993, Vol. 9.

McKim, Donald K., Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, Edinburgh: Saint

Andrew Press, 1992.

McMillan, D., The Aberdeen Doctors: Hastie Lectures, London, 1909.

McMillan, William., The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, 1550-

1638, Edinburgh: The Lassodie Press, LTD., 1931.

McNair, Alexander., Scots Theology in the Eighteenth Century, London:

James Clarke and Co., 1928.

McNeill, John T., "Calvin and Civil Government", Readings in Calvin's

Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim, Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1984.

McWilliams, David B., "The Covenant Theology of the Westminster

Confession of Faith and Recent Criticism", WTJ., Vol. 53. No.
1., 1991.

Mechie, Stewart., "The Theological Climate in Early Eighteenth Century

Scotland", Reformation and Revolution, ed. Duncan Shaw,
Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1967.

Meeter, H. Henry., The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Baker Book House, 1990.

Milward, Peter., Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age, London:

The Scholar Press, 1978.

Misseblrook, Peter., "The Importance of Biblical Theology", Foundation,

1979, pp. 10-19.

Mitchell, Alexander F., The Scottish Reformation: Its Epochs. Episodes,

Leaders. and Distinctive Characteristics, ed. D. Hay Fleming,
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1899.

Mitchison, Rosalind., A History of Scotland. Methuen & CO LTD., 1970.

Moir, Porteous J., The Presbyterian Church: Its World-Wide History and
Extent, London, 1888.

Moller Jens G., "The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology", The

Journal of Ecclesiastical History, No. 13., 1963.
-406-
Monaghan, Andrew., God's People?: One hundred and ten characaters in the
story of Scottish Religion, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press,
1991.

Morrill, John (ed. ), The Scottish National Covenant in its British

Context 1638-51, Edinburgh University Press, 1990.

Morris, E. D.; Theology=-"of. the : Westminster Symbols: - a, Commentary,

Historical,; Doctrinal. Practical on the Confession of Faith
and Catechisms and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian
Churches, Columbus, 1900.

Morris, Leon., The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, London, The Tyndale
Press, 1965.

The Cross in the New Testament, Exeter, 1967.

The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance, I. V. P, 1983.

Morton, Alex. S., Galloway and the Covenanters or the Struggle for
Religious Liberty in the South-West of Scotland, Paisley,
1914.

Muir, Edwin., John Knox: Portrait of a Calvinist, London: Jonathan Cape,

1930.

Muir, Pearson M'Adam., "Samuel Rutherford", Scottish Divines - 1505 to

1872, Macniven and Wallace, Edinburgh, 1883.

Mullan, David George., Episcopacy in Scotland: The History of an Idea

1560-1638, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD., 1986.

Muller, Richard A., Christ and the Decree: Christologv and

Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins,
Grand Raphid, Michigan, 1988.

"Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Schools", WTJ.,

Vol. 42. No. 2., 1980.

Murray, Alexander., "The Church from which the Reformation delivered

Scotland", Papers Commemorating the Quater-Centerary of the
Scottish Reformation, W.S. Bissett and Son, The Free
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1960.

Murray, Iain., "Ruling Elders -A Sketch of a Controversy", The Banner

of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, April. No. 235., 1983.

(ed. ), The Reformation of the Church, Edinburgh: The Banner of

Truth Trust, 1965.

The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of

Prophecy, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1971.

Murray, John., The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study,

London, 1954.

"Covenant", The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, London,

1962.
-407-
 "Covenant Theology", The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed.
P. E. Hughes, Delaware, 1972.

"The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith".

Scripture and Confession, ed. J. H. Skilton, Philadelphia, 1973.

Calvin -on Scripture and . Divine Sovereignty, Grand Rapids,.

1960.

"Church and State: Establishment and Spiritual Independence",

B. O. T., No. 32., December 1963.

The Presbyterian Form of Church Government, London:

Evangelical Presbyterian Fellowship,

Nash, Ronald (ed. ), Liberation Theology, Baker, 1988.

Nichols, Robert Hastings., "The Tercentenary of the Westminster

Assembly", Church Histor , ed. Robert M.Grant, Martin E. Marty,
and Jerald C. Brauer, Vol. XIII., 1944.

Nicholson, Ernest W., God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the
Old Testament, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986.

Niesel Wilhelm., The Theology of Calvin, Translated by Harold Knight,

Lutterworth Library, Lutterworth Press, London, Vol. XLVIII.,
1956.

"The Sacrament", Readings in Calvin's Theology, ed. Donald

K. McKim, Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1984.

Nunez, Emilio A., Liberation Theology, Moody Press, 1985.

Nuttall, Geoffrey F., Visible Saints: The Congregatinal Way 1640-1660,

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957.

The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1947.

Ogg, David., The Reformation, London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1927.

Ogilvie, J. N., The Presbyterian Churches; Their Place and Power in

Modern Christendom, Edinburgh: R&R Clark, 1896.

Oliver. Robert., The Assembly of the Lord: Westminster Assembly, Banner

of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, Vol. 293,1987.

Orr, Sheriff Robert Low., Alexander Henderson - Churchman and Statesman,

Hodder and Stoughton, 1919.

Osterhaven, M. Eugene., "Calvin on the Covenant", Readings in Calvin's

Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim, Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1984.

Ouston. Hugh., "York in Edinburgh: James VII and the Patronage of

Learning in Scotland, 1679-1688", New Perspectives on the
Politics and Culture of Early Modern Scotland, co-eds. John
-408-
 Dwyer, Roger A. Mason and Alexander Murdoch, John Donald
Publishers LTD.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross. Oxford,

1966.

Packer, J. 'I., -Among'--God's" Giants: Aspects of Puritan Christianil,

Eastbourne: 'Kingsway Publications, 1991.

Parker, T. H. L., John Calvin, London: J. M.Dent & Sons LTD., 1975.

(ed. ), English Reformers, The Library of Christian Classics,

Vol. 26, London: SCMPress LTD., 1966.

Parker, T. M., Christianity and the State in the Light of History, Adam
and Charles Black, London, 1955.

Patrick, Dale., "Law and Covenant", Old Testament Law, SCMPress LTD.,
1985.

Paul, Robert S., The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the
Westminster Assembly and the 'Grand Debate', Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1985.

"The Atonement: Sacrifice and Penalty", Readings in Calvin's

Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim, Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1984.

Payne, D. F., "The Everlasting Covenant", The Tyndale House Bulletin, ed.
A. R. Millard, Vols. 7-8., 1961.

Payne, J. Barton., The Theology of the Older Testament, Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Pearson. A. F. Scott., Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism 1535-

1603, Cambridge, 1925.

Church and State: Political Aspects of Sixteenth Century

Puritanism, Cambridge: At the University Press, 1928.

Pelikan, Jaroslaw., The Christian Tradition: History of the Development

of Doctrine, Vol. IV., Reformation of Church & Dogma (1300-
1700), The University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Percy, Lord Eustace, John Knox, Hodder and Stoughton, 1937.

Perks, Stephen C., "The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-

Century Reformation Thought" (Review article), Calvinism
Today, Vol. III., No. 4,1993.

Philip, James., The Westminster Confession of Faith: an Exposition. 2

Vols., Edinburgh, 1974.

Pollock, R., Tales of the Covenants, Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson

Ferrier,

Porteous, James Moir., The Government of the Kingdom of Christ,

Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter, and Co., 1873.
-409-
Prestwich, Manna., International Calvinism 1541-1715, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1986.

Provand, W.S., Puritanism in the Scottish Church, Paisley: Alexander

Gardner, 1923.

Pryde; G. S., Scotland from 1603 to the Present-Da y, Edinburgh: Thomas

Nelson & Sons LTD.,. 1962.

Raitt, Jill., "Beza, Guide for the Faithful Life", Scottish Journal of
Theology, 1986, Vol. 39.

The Person of the mediator: Calvin's Christology and Beza's

Fidelity' in Occassional Papers of the ASRR, 1, December,
1977.

Randell, Keith., John Calvin and the Later Reformation, London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1990.

Rankin, James., A Handbook of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh: William

Blackwood and Sons, 1888.

Reardon, Bernard M.G., Religious Thought in the Reformation, Longman

House, 1981.

Reed, Kevin., Biblical Church Government, Dalls: Presbyterian Heritage

Publication, 1983.

Reenen, G. Van., The Heidelberg Catechism, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,

Michigan, 1979.

Reid, D., The Party-Coloured Mind, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,

1982.

Reid, James., Memoirs of the Westminster Divines, The Banner of Truth

Trust, 1982, Reprinted from Paisley of 1811.

Reid, J. M., Kirk and Nation: The Story of the Reformed Church of
Scotland, London: Skeffington, 1960.

Reid, W.Stanford., "The Covenant Interpretation of Culture", The

Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 24., 1954.

"Justification by Faith according to John Calvin", WTJ, 1980,

Vol. 42.

Ridley, Jasper., John Knox, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968.

Riley, P. W.J., King William and the Scottish Politicians, Edinburgh:

John Donald Publishers LTD., 1979.

Robbins, R. D. C., "Life and Character of Theodore Beza", Bibliotheca

Sacra & Theologicall Review, Vol. 7., No. 7., Andover, 1850.

Robertson, O. Palmer., Covenant: God's way with the'people, Philadelphia:

Great Commission Publications, 1987.

-410-
 The Christ of the Covenants, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed P. Co., 1980.

"Current Reformed Thinking on the Nature of the Divine

Covenants", WTJ., Vol. 40., No. 1., 1977.

Rogers, Jack Bartlett., Scripture in the Westminster Confession, William

B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967.

Rolston, Holmes., John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession, John

Knox Press, Virginia, 1972.

Russel, C., "The Scottish Party in English Parliament, 1640-1642",

Historical Research: The Bulletin of the Institute of
Historical Research, Vol. 66, No. 159., February, 1993.

Rutherford, Samuel., "Sketch of the Life of Samuel Rutherford", The

Presbyterian's Armoury, Edinburgh, Vol. III., 1846.

Ryle, J. C., James II and the Seven Bishops, Focus Christian Ministries
Trust, 1988.

Sands, Lord., "The Historical Origins of the Religious Divisions in

Scotland", Records of Scottish Church History Society, ed.
W. J. Couper & Robert M'kinlay, Edinburgh, Vol. III., 1929.

Scott, P. H., 1707: The Union of Scotland and England, Chambers: The
Saltire Society, 1979.

Scott, Walter., Tales of a Grandfather being the History of Scotland

from the Earliest Times, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black,
1869.

Scott-Craig, T. S. K., "On Christian Instruction", A Companion to the

Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W.Batternhouse, Michigan: Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House, 1979.

"Samuel Rutherford", Scottish Divines: 1505-1872, Edinburgh: Macniven

and Wallace, 1883.

Sefton, Henry., "'Neu-lights and Preachers Legall': some observatins on

the beginnings of Moderatism in the Church of Scotland",
Church. Politics and Society: Scotland 1408-1929, ed. Norman
Macdougall, Edinburgh: John Donald Publisher LTD., 1983.

John Konx, Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1993.

Sell, Alan P. F., The Great Debate: Calvinism. Arminianism'änd Salvation;

Studies. in Christian Thought and History, H. E. Walter, LTD.,
1982.

Sharp, Larry D., "The Doctrine of Grace in Calvin and Augustine", The
Evangelical Quarterly, ed. F. F. Bruce, Vol. LII., 1980.

Sharp, Philip (ed. ), & Religious Encyclopaedia, 4 Vols., New York: Funk
and Wagnolls Company, 1891.

-411-
Shaw, Robert., The Reformed Faith, 1845.

An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster

Assembly of Divines. Edinburgh, 1853.

Shedd, William G. T., Calvinism: Pure and Mixed. A Defence of the

Westminster Standards, Edinburgh: The Banner - of Truth Trust,
"1986.

A-Short Account of the Old Presb terian Dissenters, under the inspection
of the Reformed Presbyteries of Scotland. Ireland, and North
America, published by authority of the Reformed Presbytery in
Scotland, 1819.

Simpson, John C., The Banner of the Covenant, Edinburgh: John Johnston,
1847.

Small, Robert., History of the Congregations of the United Presbyterian

Church 1733-1900, Edinburgh: David M.Small, 2 Vols., 1904.

Smellie, Alexander., Men of the Covenant, London: Andrew Melrose, 1909.

Smith, G. Barnett., John Knox and the Scottish Reformation, Edinburgh:

The Religious Track & Book Society of Scotland, 1905.

Smith, Thomas (ed. ), "Preface", in Letters of the Rev. Samuel Rutherford,

Simpkin, Marshall, & CO, London, 1876.

Smout, T. C., A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, Collins /

Fontana, 1973.

Spalding, James C., "Sermons before Parliament (1640-1649) as a Public

Puritan Diary", Church History, ed. Robert M. Grant, Martin
E. Marty, and Jerald C. Brauer, Vol. 36., 1967.

Spear, Wayne R., "A Brief History of the Westminster Assembly", Evangel,
Edinburgh: Rutherford House, Autumn, 1993.

Sprunger, Keith L., Dutch Puritanism: A History of English and Scottish

Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and
Centuries, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982. -Seventeenth

Stalker, James., John Knox: His Ideas and Ideals, London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1904.

Stephen, W., History of the Scottish Church, Edinburgh: David Douglas,

2 Vols., 1896.

Stevenson, David., The Covenanters: The National Covenant and Scotland,

The Saltire Society, 1988.

The Scottish Revolution 1637-1644: The Triumph of the

Covenanters, David & Charles: Newton Abbot, 1973.

Revolution and Counter-Reformation, in Scotland 1644-1651,

London: Royal Historical Society, 1977.

-412-
 (ed. ), The Government of Scotland under the Covenanters 1637-
1651, Edinburgh: Clark Constable, 1982.

"The Financing of the Cause of the Covenanters 1638-1651",

SHR, Vol. 51, April, 1972.

Stephens, -W. P., The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, Oxford, 1986.

Stewart, David., "The Aberdeen Doctors"-and the Covenanters", Record of

the Scottish History Society, Vol. 22., 1986.

Story, Robert Herbert (ed. ), The Church of Scotland: Past and Present,
London: William Mackenzie, 4 Vols., 1890.

Strehle, Stephen., "The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort",
WTJ., Vol. 51. No. 1., 1989.

Struthers, John., The History_of Scotland from the Union to the

Abolition of the Heritable Jurisdictions in 1758, Glasgow,
Vol. I., 1827.

Summary of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of

Scotland, Glasgow: James Hedderwick & Sons, LTD., 1932.

Sutherland, Denis., "The Interface Between Theology and Historical

Geography, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 11.
No. 1., 1993.

Taylor, J., The Scottish Covenanters, Hodder & Stoughton, 1889.

Thomas, Geoffrey., Becoming A Christian-Covenant Theology: A Historical

Survey, The Westminster Conference, 1972.

Thomson, Andrew., Thomas Boston of Ettrick: His Life and Times, London,
1895.

Historical Sketch of the Origin of the Secession Church,

Edinburgh: A. Fullarton and Co., 1848

Thomson, D. P., George Wishart: The Man who roused Scotland, Edinburgh.

Thomson, G. Webster., "Alexander Henderson", The Evangelical Succession,

A course of lectures delivered in St. George's Free Church,
Edinburgh 1882-1883, Second Series, Macniven & Wallace, 1883.

Thomson, T. A., "The Significance of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty

Pattern", The Tyndale House Bulletin, ed. A. R. Millard, Vol.
13., 1963.

Tiller, John., "Robert Bolton", The New Dictionary of the Christian

Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, 1981.

Todd, A. D., Covenanting Pilgrimages and Studies, Edinburgh: Oliphant,

Anderson & Ferrier, 1911.

Toon, Peter., Puritans and Calvinism, Pennsylvania: Reiner Publications,

1973.
-413-
Torrance, J. B., "Covenant or Contract?: A Study of the Theological
Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland",
Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 23. No. 1., 1970.

"The Covenant Concept in Scottish Theology and Political and

its Regacy", Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 34.; 1981.

"The Incarnation and- 'Limited Atonement"',. The Scottish

Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Edinburgh: Rutherford House,
1984.

Torrance, Thomas F., The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed
Church, London: James Clarke & Co., 1959.

Trenchard, Ernest H., "Grace, Covenant and Law", The Evangelical

Quarter ed. F. F. Bruce, Vol. 24, No. 3., 1957.
,
Trevor-Roper, H. R., "Scotland and the Puritan Revolution", Historical
Essays 1600-1750, eds. H. E. Bell and R. L. Ollard, London: Adam &
Charles Black, 1963.

Trinterud, Leonard J., "A Reappraisal of William Tyndale's Debt to

Martin Luther", Church Histor Vol. 39., 1962.
,
"The Origins of Puritanism", Church History, Vol. 20., 1951.

(ed. ), Elizabethan Puritanism, New York, 1971.

Van Zandt, A. B., "The Doctrine of the Covenants considered as the

Central Principle of Theology", The Presbyterian Review, New
York, 1882.

Visser, Derk., "The Covenant in Zucharias Ursinus", The Sixteenth

Century Journal, Vol. XVIII. No. 4., 1987.

Vos, Geerhardus., "Covenant", A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospel, ed.

James Hastings, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Vol. I., 1906.

"Covenant" or "Testament? ", Redemptive History and Biblical

Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey: Netley,
1980.

Biblical Theolg, Edinburgh: The Banner of Trust Trust, 1975.

Vos, Johannes G., The Scottish Covenanters: their origins, history and
distinctive doctrines, Crown and Covenant Publications,
Pennsylvania, 1980 (second printing).

Waar, C. van der., The Covenantal Gospel, Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritan-

ce Publications, 1990.

Walker, John., The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1888.

-414-
Walker, N. L., Scottish Church History, T&T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1882.

Wallace, Robert., George Buchanan, Famous Scots Series, London: Oliphant

Anderson & Ferrier, 1899.

Wallace, Ronald S., Calvin Geneva and the Reformation, Scottish Academic
Press, 1988.

Warf ield, Benjamin Breckinridge., Westminster- Assembly. and Its Work',

-The
Mark Publishing Company, 1972.

Selected Shorter Writn&s of Benjamin B.'Warfield, New Jersey:

Nutley, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Vol. II.,
1973.

Warren, Miss., John Knox and His Times, London: James Nisbet.

Watt, Hugh., Recalling the Scottish Covenants, Thomas Nelson and Sons
Limited, London, 1946.

Watt, Lauchlan Maclean., "The Scottish Covenanters", The Evangelical

Quarterly, London, Vol. 7., 1935.

Wedgwood, C. V., "The Covenanters in the First Civil War", SHR, Vol. 39.,
1960.
The King's Peace 1637-1641, London, Collins, 1978.

Wendel Francois, "Justification and Predestination in Calvin", Readings

in Calvin's Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim, Michigan: Grand
Rapids, 1984.

Wenham, G. J., "Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant", The Tvndale
House Bulletin, ed. A. R. Millard, Vol. 22., 1971.

Westerkamp, M.J., Triumph of the Laid, Oxford University Press, 1988.

Whale, J. S., The Protestant Tradition, Cambridge: At the University

Press, 1960.

Whitley, Elizabeth., The Two Kingdoms, The Scottish Reformation Society,

1977.

Plain Mr. Knox, London: Skeffington, 1960.

Williams, C. Peter., "Robert Browne", The New International Dictionary

of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas, Zondervan, 1981.

Williams, Robert., "Patterns of Reformation in the Theology of William

Tyndale", in Christian Spirituality Essays in Honour of Gordon
Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks, London: SCMPress LTD., 1975.

Williamson, Arthur H., "Scotland, Antichrist and the Invention of Great

Britain", New Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of
Early Modern Scotland, co-eds. John Dwyer, Roger A. Mason and
Alexander Murdoch, John Donald Publishers LTD.

Wormald, Jenny., Court. Kirk, and Community: Scotland 1470-1625 The

New History of Scotland, Edward Arnold, 1981.
-415-
White, Peter., Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and
Concensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the
Civil War, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Wylie, J. A., The History of Protestantism, London: Cassell and Company

LTD., 3 Vols., 1899.

Yule, George., Puritans in Politics: The Religious-Legislation of the

Long Parliament 1640-1647, The Courtenary Library of the
Sutton Courtenary Press, 1981.

The Independents in the English Civil War, Cambridge

University Press, 1958.

Zandt, A. B. Van., "The Doctrine: of the Covenants Considered as the

Central Principle of Theology", The Presbyterian Review, New
York, Vol. 3., 1882.

Zens, Jon., "An examination of the presuppositions of Covenant and

Dispensational Theology", Studies in Theology and Ethics,
Brem, Inc., 1981.

Is there a "Covenant of Grace"? & Crucial Thoughts on "Law" in

the New Covenant, Brem, Inc., 1981.

-416-
 DISSERTATIONS.

Achilles, Marvin Keith., The Solemn League and Covenant: An Experiment

in Religious Uniformity, Suracuse University, New York, 1970.

Carson, John L. -, The, Doctrine of the -Church in , the, Secession, Ph. D.

-
Aberdeen University, 1987.

Holley, Larry Jackson., The Divines of the Westminster Assembly: study

of Puritanism and Parliament, Ph. D. Yale University, 1979.

Letham, Robert W.A., Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology:

Zwingli to the Synod of Dort, Ph. D. Aberdeen University, 2
Vols., 1979.

McGowan, Andrew. A. B., The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, Ph. D.

Aberdeen University, 1990.

Shaw, Mark R., The Marrow of Practical Divinity: A Study in the Theology
of William Perkins, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1981.

Stewart, David., The "Aberdeen Doctors" and the Covenanters, Th. M.

Aberdeen University, 1978.

Su, Yohahn., A Study of the Scottish Covenanters on Church Government

from 1638 to 1648, Th. M. Aberdeen University, 1990.
Weir, David Alexander., Foedus Naturale: The Origins of Federal Theology
in Sixteenth Century Reformation Thought, Ph. D. St. Andrews
University, 1984.

Woolsey, Andrew A., Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study

in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Ph. D.
Glasgow University, 1988.

Worthington, Douglas H., Anti-Erastian Aspects of Scottish Covenanter

Political Thought 1637 to 1647, Ph. D. University of Akron,
1978.

-417-