Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

new to group/ question re: Solemn League Covenant

Expand Messages
  • gabrielle8080
    Hi, I am new to the group, and was reviewing some of the posts. I read the Solemn League and Covenant and the questions posed regarding swearing an oath to
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, I am new to the group, and was reviewing some of the posts. I
      read the Solemn League and Covenant and the questions posed
      regarding swearing an oath to this covenant. Maybe I'm missing the
      boat on this one, but why would one swear an oath to an outdated
      covenant? (eg. "...to preserve and defend the king's majesty's
      person and authority...") If we are to be covenanted, why not
      update the convenant. One more thing, if you will, holding to
      tradition, it doesn't appear that women took this oath of the
      Biblically woman took oaths, that their husbands could excuse them
      from, but it doesn't appear that women took this oath. I'd be glad
      to read on the subject if I'm simply misunderstanding, if so, feel
      free to send me a link. Thanks, Gabrielle
    • thebishopsdoom
      I ve gotta head for work pretty quick, so I ll see what I can do in a rush job... ... It consisted of two things, a league, which represented the current
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I've gotta head for work pretty quick, so I'll see what I can do in a
        rush job...

        > Maybe I'm missing the
        > boat on this one, but why would one swear an oath to an outdated
        > covenant? (eg. "...to preserve and defend the king's majesty's
        > person and authority...")

        It consisted of two things, a league, which represented the current
        interests of the day, and a covenant, of a religious nature, to which
        the subscribers were bound to moral duties owed to God.
        "If there is any thing in these instruments [the National Covenant
        and the Solemn League and Covenant], of a circumstantial nature, we
        admit it may vary with the circumstances which produced it: but
        whatever is moral, will remain as permanent as these nations, and as
        unchangeable as the great Legislator" (Samuel B. Wylie. A Sermon on
        Covenanting).


        >If we are to be covenanted, why not
        > update the convenant.
        "And in the keeping of a Covenant we are not found to keep only these
        same words that were before, but we must renew it; and in the
        renewing thereof we must apply it to the present time when it is
        renewed, as we have done, renewed it against the present ills"
        (Alexander Henderson [the guy who drafted the SL&C]. Sermons,
        Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses. 1638).

        It was renovated with changes to apply to changed situations at least
        twice that I am aware of, once in Scotland (actually, may have been
        more, because the back of my mind says there was a renewal in 1648,
        but I forget if anything had been altered to suit a new
        circumstance), and once (possibly twice) in the American colonies. It
        was up for further renovation in Synod RPCNA, but ended up in a new
        bond in 1871 instead, which confused members and officers alike as to
        whether it was being owned as an additional bond (previously rejected
        by committee of synod), as a replacement bond (which had not been the
        intent of Synod when commissioning for such, and does not agree with
        earlier sentiments of Synod, which were for a renovation of the
        church's covenants, and expressed clearly that they still bound the
        church, though removed to a foriegn land), or a renovation of the
        covenants (which many officers pointed out it was not, because it
        failed to agree to the form of covenant renovations, which
        renovations are in fact renovated texts of a previous covenant,
        upholding duties but updating anything that has changed with respect
        to applying those duties in a new situation).
        The renovation at Scotland was in 1712 (there appears to have been
        another one performed by a small group at Crawford John later, but I
        know nothing of it, there are no authentic records left of the
        proceedings I think, and it did not embody the whole of the RPs at
        the time, was probably just a local gathering just to reaffirm the
        covenant). The one in British North America was in 1743. Both only
        involved a minority of presbyterians who regarded their covenants
        still binding. I mentioned there may have been two in the American
        colonies. There is a mention I have seen to a Boston renovation in
        1644. I have very little info on this, except to state that a very
        few sources have made mention of the covenants being sworn en masse
        in Boston in 1644 and from there being sworn in churches in New
        England. I don't think there were any alterations made at that time,
        and it appears to have been soon forgotten or replaced, though the
        churches had some expectation of receiving the Westminster Standards,
        though making some determination at some point to modify it by
        dropping out any clear reference to presbyterianism (I did read once
        that the colonies were apparently invited, presumably by Parliament,
        to send representatives to the Westminster Assembly but no
        representatives actually went from any of the colonies).

        > One more thing, if you will, holding to
        > tradition, it doesn't appear that women took this oath of the
        > Biblically woman took oaths, that their husbands could excuse them
        > from, but it doesn't appear that women took this oath.
        That deals with the taking of a rash oath, and the oath must be
        renounced by the husband on the day he hears of it.
        Question:
        Who was the husband of the church that could release the church from
        the oath on the day he heard of it, and how was he to communicate
        that to the church?
        Question 2:
        If the husband in question is Christ, would you expect Christ to
        release people from an oath to perform those moral duties which they
        recognized as moral duties taught in Scripture?

        >I'd be glad
        > to read on the subject if I'm simply misunderstanding, if so, feel
        > free to send me a link. Thanks, Gabrielle

        You may find interest in the following:

        http://www.covenanter.org/Wylie/obligationofcovenants.htm
        (Especially the head on "objections")

        -thebishopsdoom

        "These federal deeds we hold to be moral in their nature and
        scriptural in their character, and that they descend with unabated
        obligation from the original covenanters to their posterity who were
        represented in the taking of them; and whilst we abjure any fealty or
        subjection to the government of that nation with which they were
        originally connected, we now joyfully own and take for ourselves the
        God­honoring and God­honored place which such obligations impose, as
        the priceless legacy of our pious ancestors, whose faith we would
        follow, and whose noble example we would imitate... We approve,
        moreover, the devotion and faithfulness of our pious predecessors,
        who, amidst weakness and reproach, from time to time, renewed these
        sacred bonds, and so contributed to perpetuate and transmit them to
        us, their posterity. Deploring, therefore, the sin of the profane
        rejection of these covenants, and their subsequent wide­spread
        neglect, desiring to be free from any participation in its guilt,
        seeking to confirm our own souls in a godly purpose of devotion to
        the service of our God Most High, and to encourage all who shall
        follow us in our testimony, to hold fast in his ways, we resolve to
        renew the National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant, in all
        their obligations, not peculiar to the church in the British Isles,
        but applicable in all lands, and essentially interwoven in the
        immutable law and word of our God (The Reformed Presbyterian Church
        of North America. Form of Covenant Renovation. 1855. pp. 8, 9).
      • thebishopsdoom
        ... That should be read COVENANT, not plural, covenants. -doom
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, thebishopsdoom
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >I have very little info on this, except to state that a very
          >few sources have made mention of the covenants being sworn en masse
          >in Boston in 1644

          That should be read COVENANT, not plural, "covenants."
          -doom
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.