 |
July 5, 1996. Reg Barrow to many.
From: Dave Seekamp To: Richard Bacon
Subject: FW: Covenanting etext for distribution...
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 18:24:53 -0700
fyi..this came from Reg.
>----------
>Sent: Friday, July 05, 1996 4:44 PM
>To: Price
>Subject: Covenanting etext for distribution...
>Dear Friends:
>Here is a short (copyright free) introductory article that lays out *some*
>of the *foundations* for my assertion that countries such as the USA and
>Canada are still bound (as nations [i.e. moral persons] in the eyes of God)
>to the Solemn League and Covenant. I hope that you find it helpful (and be
>sure to check out the Scripture references).
>
>In Christ,
>Reg Barrow
>
>This article is also at:
>
[snipped]
>**************
>Permanence of Covenant Obligation
>
>Our fourth term of ecclesiastical communion recognizes and asserts the
>binding force of the National Covenant of Scotland and of the Solemn League
>and Covenant of Scotland, England and Ireland; subject to the restriction
>of moral duties-duties not peculiar to the British Isles, but applicable in
>all lands. [It reads as follows: "That public, social covenanting, is an
>ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New
>Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an
>exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of
>continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with this-
>that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712, was agreeable
>to the word of God."] These well known documents are referred to as
>furnishing a special exemplification of a general truth: and the
>recognition of their obligations more than any other fact, marks our
>identity with the church of Scotland during the halcyon period of the
>Second Reformation. Forming, as they do, an essential part of the
>attainments reached at that time, as the issue of an active, earnest and
>long continued struggle with despotism in the state, and lordly supremacy
>coupled with the foulest corruption in the church, the disowning of her
>covenants stands connected with a practical rejection of her standards of
>doctrine, government and worship. They who offend in one point here, are
>guilty of all. There is a principle, however, involved which cannot be
>surrendered without opening the way for pernicious consequences, and the
>deeds in question cannot be repudiated otherwise than by ignoring this
>principle or proving its falsity. It is the principle that posterity may
>be, and in many cases are, rightfully and inviolably bound by the
>engagements of ancestors. Let us look at the question in this general
>aspect and bearing of it. Are the obligations assumed by the church in
>covenanting with God, imperative on succeeding generations till the object
>contemplated in the covenant has been secured and all its conditions
>fulfilled?
>
>The doctrine that covenant obligation binds posterity is entirely consonant
>with some of those natural relations that exist among men. It is founded in
>the natural and unquestionable right of parents to represent their children
>in various forms of social transaction. Parents, in almost countless
>instances and ways, act in the name and on behalf of their children;
>children are bound by the promises and engagements of parents, and to this
>arrangement, human laws, equally with divine, give their sanction and
>approval. The principle is illustrated and exemplified in the institution
>of Christian baptism, in which parents assume vows and make engagements for
>their children. The exercise of this right is seen to be eminently
>reasonable, when it is considered that the interests of parents and
>children are so connected and identified that they cannot in any case be
>absolutely disjoined. When men choose representatives in the persons of
>civil or ecclesiastical functionaries, the basis of representation is their
>own choice; but, in the case of parents, the right of representation rests
>upon a higher, more solid and enduring ground; it is a prerogative of the
>parental relation-a God-given right-and has for its basis, a divinely
>authorized constitution. Levi paid tithes in Abraham, because he was in the
>loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Here the constitution
>established by God, and on the ground of which children are identified with
>their parents in certain social transactions, is recognized with a
>distinctness that puts its existence beyond the reach of doubt. It seems,
>therefore, to be a just and obvious inference from these views, that no
>objection can be brought against the permanently binding force of religious
>covenants entered into by t he Church, that does not lie ultimately against
>that appointment of God by which parents are constituted the
>representatives of their children. And this fact, of itself, ought to be
>held as an ample vindication of the doctrine against the charges of
>unreasonableness and injustice.
>
>The principle that covenant obligation binds posterity, is as ancient as
>human society, and has been constantly recognized by men and by communities
>in transactions of a civil kind. Scripture history furnishes several apt
>illustrations. The case of Joseph and his brethren is in point. Shortly
>before his death he exacted from them a sworn promise and engagement that,
>on leaving Egypt, they would carry with them his bones for the purpose of
>interment in land covenanted to his fathers. "And Joseph took an oath of
>the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall
>carry up my bones from hence." Gen 50:25. What is the subsequent history of
>this transaction? Did the children of Israel in their haste to leave Egypt
>forget or dishonor the promise of their ancestors? The religious observance
>of the oath is a subject of distinct record by the sacred historian. "And
>Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had straitly sworn the
>children of Israel, saying, God will surely vis it you; and ye shall carry
>up my bones away hence with you." Ex. 13:19. The ground upon which the
>transportation of the patriarch's bones is distinctly put, is the oath
>taken by the representatives of the nation generations prior to their
>actual removal. Besides, as Joseph certainly knew that all his brethren and
>all that generation would die [before] God would visit his people with
>deliverance, it is evident that he must have regarded those immediately
>addressed by him as the representatives of their successors and have
>considered the oath exacted of them as binding on their posterity. The
>covenant made with the Gibeonites shortly after the entrance of Israel into
>Canaan, supplies another apposite illustration. The history of the
>transaction is recorded in the 9th chapter of the book of Joshua, and is
>familiar in its detail to Bible readers. That wily people, by pretences and
>false representations, imposed upon the elders of Israel, and induced them
>to become parties to a league stipulating the safety of the Gibeonites,
>engaging to preserve them alive. The Hebrews, on discovering the fraud,
>expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of their rulers, in that they
>had acted with culpable incautiousness; at the same time as the treaty has
>been ratified by the proper representatives of the nation, the people held
>themselves bound by its stipulations. "And the children of Israel smote
>them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by
>the Lord God of Israel." There is unquestionable significance, too, in the
>fact that near four hundred years subsequent to the conclusion of this
>treaty, the violation of it by the bloody house of Saul, was visited with
>the severe and manifest judgments of heaven; God thus attesting in a manner
>unequivocal and awful, that He holds posterity sacredly bound by the
>covenanted engagements of their ancestors, remote as well as immediate.
>Analogous to these inspired facts, at least in its bearing on the present
>argument, is the statement in Amos 1:9. "Thus saith the Lord, for three
>transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment
>thereof; because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, and
>remembered not the brotherly covenant." The brotherly covenant, with the
>violation of which the Tyrians were charged, there is reason to suppose,
>was no other than the league that existed between David and Solomon, kings
>of Judah, and Hiram, king of Tyre, and in this view a disregard of the
>principle that covenants bind posterity i s expressly adduced as a reason
>justifying, and a crime calling for the infliction of divine judgments.
>There is nothing hazarded in asserting that a denial of this principle in
>its application to civil society, would unsettle and overturn its
>foundation s, introduce misrule and disaster under every form. Ignore the
>doctrine in question, and it results that national treaties--treaties of
>amity and peace, treaties of commerce, national debts, and every possible
>form of national contract negotiated by one generation, may, without any
>reason beyond a wish to have it so, be disowned and repudiated by the
>generation that follows. A doctrine so pernicious in its tendencies, so
>baleful in its consequences and issues, so repugnant to national justice,
>morality and virtue, cannot be true.
>
>Thus far, the principle that covenant obligation is descending and
>permanent, has been viewed in its more general aspects and bearings. The
>Scriptures are not silent on the subject, nor is their testimony scant,
>ambiguous or obscure. Such declarations as the following occur: "They have
>broken the everlasting covenant." "Come and let us join ourselves to the
>Lord in a perpetual covenant." But on the supposition that the covenants
>mentioned in these cases possessed obligation over one generation only,
>with what propriety are they designated everlasting and perpetual? In this
>view, the use of such descriptive terms amounts to a gross misapplication
>of language--a misapplication too palpable and needless to admit even an
>apology. That which lasts only during the period of a man's natural
>lifetime, is neither perpetual nor everlasting. But on what principle other
>than that of descending and permanent obligation, can posterity be
>rightfully charged with guilt in disregarding the conditions of coven ants
>made with their ancestors? But mark what God has said on this subject. "The
>house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made
>with their fathers." Jer 11:10. Could the house of Israel and the house of
>Judah break a covenant, with the obligation of which they had nothing,
>either directly or indirectly, to do? The inquiry contains its own answer.
>If anything further is necessary to complete the chain of proof, it is
>found in the distinct assertion that posterity were included in the
>original ratification of given federal transactions. The covenant
>established between God and Abraham, embraced the seed of Abraham, in their
>generations, to the end of the dispensation of the Gospel; and if identity
>with Abraham in the making of the covenant, confers a claim to the
>privileges promised and secured in its provisions, it is reasonable,
>surely, to maintain that the same identity brings posterity under its
>obligations and duties. Had the question been one of privilege merely,
>there is little room to doubt that it would have met with universal favor
>and acceptance. Another case, still more apposite to the argument in hand,
>is the statement of Moses, (Deut 5:3), respecting the covenant ratified
>with Israel at Horeb. By this time the entire congregation that stood
>before the Lord at Sinai, with three exceptions, Moses, Caleb and Joshua,
>had been removed by death. They had perished in the wilderness, according
>as God had threatened. Yet, with this fact before him, does Moses say to
>the people, and not a voice was heard in opposition. "The Lord made not
>this covenant with our fathers, but with us, EVEN US, who are all of us
>alive here this day." In the land of Moab, immediately before the tribes
>passed the Jordan and took possession of Canaan, this same covenant, under
>the auspices and direction of Moses, was solemnly renewed. Hear what he
>says on the occasion. "Neither with you only do I make this covenant and
>this oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day, before the
>Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day." Deut
>29:14,15. Unless posterity is meant by "him that is not here with us this
>day," it would not be an easy matter to conjecture its application.
>
>Considerations relevant to this argument, other than those adverted to,
>could be readily adduced. But our single object has been to show that
>nature itself teaches that Scriptural covenants, scripturally entered into,
>bind posterity; that men, individually and socially, practice on the
>principle; and that, on any other hypothesis, the teachings of the Bible
>are unintelligible, contradictory, and calculated to mislead candid
>inquirers after truth. This is our reason, in part, at least, for the hope
>that is in us touching the permanence of covenant obligation; and acting on
>a full conviction of its truth and sufficiency, we hold ourselves bound by
>the vows of witnessing and martyred ancestors in the British Isles.
>
>- Omicron (1856).
>
>***********
>
>
>Excerpted from: _The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness_ [magazine]
>
>[email snipped]
>
>Mail: c/o Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church Pottstown,
[rest of address and subscription info snipped]
>issue today.
>*************
[rest of post snipped]
>Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
| Page Created 08/17/1997 | Page Last Updated: 07/04/99 08:38:03 PM |