Back to Defense Departed

A Correction Accepted to Zachary Boyd’s never signing the National Covenant

Richard Bacon

[9-10-97. The PRCE has begun dribbling out "responses" to Pastor Bacon’s Defense Departed via posts that Reg Barrow is sending out over the internet. Below, Pastor Bacon is responding to what Barrow has styled "Bacon Bits #3." After seeing the drivel which had previously been issued in response to Defense Departed, it was with some initial interest that we noted Pastor Greg Price had authored "Bits 3." This interest quickly turned to disgust when it became clear that Price had imbibed all too freely of the "spirit" of the other "apologists" for the PRCE Steelites. All too similar to Reg Barrow’s style of argumentation, Mr. Price calls into question Pastor Bacon’s scholarship and truthfulness, based upon an error in fact (which Bacon owns below), while at the same time exhibiting carelessness in his own post (See Westcott, and Bacon below). Now, is Price a liar, or not a serious scholar for this carelessness? No, he simply made mistakes which he should have caught before going public. Neither is Mr. Bacon a poor scholar, or a liar for his mistake. As far as Mr. Bacon’s scholarship is concerned, the impartial can judge themselves from not only his Defense Departed, but also his Visible Church, What Mean Ye, Westminster Bibliography, and the many other pieces he has written for The Blue Banner and FPCR web site, as well as other Reformed publications. Concerning Mr. Bacon’s truthfulness, Mr. Price evidently finds it easier to attack the messenger rather than offering up substantial objections to the message. Now, it would be preferable if Mr. Price would respond to the entire Defense Departed, rather than dribbling out his thoughts through Barrow’s "bits." In either case, I hope in future we can expect from Mr. Price something dealing more with the substance of Bacon’s objections, though this initial offering would seem to portend otherwise. For while it is incorrect to say that Boyd never signed the covenant, it is immaterial to Bacon’s argument whether Boyd actually signed the covenant in six months, a year, or whenever. After all it is not the RPCp that raises a stream of human history to the level of Scripture. To date the PRCE Steelites have not addressed the crucial Scriptural objections raised against their error. Rather, they have on the whole settled for exaggerating smaller faults and imperfections while ignoring the central issues, as well as relying on tactics of intimidation, abusive ad hominem, and extortion. Correction is welcome from whatever quarter; character assassination and attempts at intimidation are not. CMC]

Actually, "never" is an overstatement, and providing the Johnston quote would have clarified this. Thus, as Pastor Greg Price has brought to my attention, using the word "never" with Zachary Boyd constitutes false evidence. I apologize to anyone who was misled by this error which I should have caught before the final draft was issued. The evidence is, in reality, far too vague to use the term "never." What I should have written at that time was that there was no further evidence available to me that Zachary Boyd ever signed the National Covenant . . .

Pastor Price's research has uncovered some interesting information, however, that bears directly on this question. He quotes Johnston's Treasury of the Covenant as stating that Zachary Boyd did not sign the covenant in 1638. He then adds "Johnston is accurate. Bacon is inaccurate." The puzzling thing is that Price then goes on to quote from Robert Baillie's Letters & Journals to the effect that Boyd did, in fact, sign the National Covenant in 1638 (sometime by July 22, going by the date of the letter). So is Johnston accurate or is Baillie accurate? Further, it should be noted that even in the Baillie citation, the name "Boyd" has been added by a later redactor. Baillie actually referred to "Mr. Zachary."  Because of the association with John Bell, however, it seems that this would indeed have been Zachary Boyd. Boyd and Bell both served in Glasgow presbytery, and later that year would be commissioners from there to the famous 1638 Glasgow Assembly.

Even while using the contradictory data from Johnston & Baillie, Price seemed not to notice that in addition to contradicting my "never," they also contradicted one another. Johnston claimed that Boyd did NOT sign the Covenant in 1638. Baillie claimed that "Mr. Zachary" DID sign the covenant in 1638. Why do we see no parenthetical statements which "call into question the level" of Johnston's scholarship," or "calls into question" Baillie's commitment to stating the truth accurately?  Could it be that the reason Mr. Price wishes to call scholarship and truthfulness into question in my case, but not in the case of his sources, is that he has no bone to pick with them? Whatever Mr. Price's motives may have been for wanting to call into question my own scholarship or truthfulness, I am thankful to God that a correction to the historical record has been made, and apologize again to the reader for the careless handling of this point.

Additionally, Mr. Price was mysteriously silent about the six months between Boyd's refusal to sign to the Covenant at Greyfriar's and his apparent later signing by July 22, 1638. Is there any evidence whatever that during those six months the Glasgow presbytery suspended Boyd from the ministry or that they forbade church members from "occasional hearing" of Mr. Boyd?  I am not aware of any such evidence. Even those who were zealous of signing the covenant as King Charles readied an army against them, allowed more time and contemplation than do these modern zealots of the covenant.  Remember that the RPCp, though it was the proper court to be making this decision, was not consulted nor given a moment to consider these documents in a non-intimidating and reasoned atmosphere.  It is not the documents to which we object  - it has always been the tactics used by the PRCE and their claim that the covenants are a necessity to which we have objected.

R.E.B.

Post from Greg Price Referred to above.

From: Reg Barrow

Subject: #3 Bacon Bits (A Defence Misrepresented: Boyd & Covenanting)

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:05:28 -0600 (MDT)

#3 Bacon Bits: Richard Bacon's Straw Man "Steelite Controversy" Torched

By Faithful Covenanters (Sometimes Called Cameronians, Steelites, etc.)

************************************************************

A Defence Misrepresented (Boyd & Covenanting)

by Greg L. Price

September 1997

Mr. Bacon states the following in his _A Defence Departed_ (p. 9):

Even in PRCE's [i.e. Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton's--GLP] use of

Hewison they are somewhat selective and arbitrary. Though the Kirkcaldy

Presbytery enacted censures against those who refused to sign the National

Covenant of 1638, not all presbyteries followed suit. For example, in

Johnston's Treasure of the Covenant we learn that Zachary Boyd (1589-1653)

never signed the National Covenant of 1638.8 We do not suggest that Boyd's

failure to sign his church's Confession of Faith was commendable. It was

not. Yet significantly we see Boyd being assigned to committees (and

apparently even heading up those committees) of the General Assembly as

late as 1647 and following. We find it more than curious that not only was

Boyd apparently not censured by his presbytery (which was admittedly one of

the weaker in the entire church), the General Assembly, as the highest

court in the church, not only refrained from censuring him-- they placed

him in a position of some considerable honor.9

Footnotes

8. Rev. John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant (Edinburgh:

Andrew Elliot, 1887), p. 319.

9. A true copy of the whole printed acts of the Generall Assemblies of the

Church of Scotland microform: beginning at the assembly holden at Glasgow

the 27. day of November 1638, and ending at the assembly, holden at

Edinburgh the 6. day of August. 1649: diligently compared, and exactly

reprinted conforme to the foresaid printed acts / by a welwisher of the

Church of Scotland, who (if he find encouragement by which is now done)

intends to publish the rest of the acts not heretofore printed, a part of

which he hath by him. (Edinburgh, 1682), p. 354.

The paragraph above illustrates the serious problem of scholarship and

accuracy encountered throughout Mr. Bacon's _A Defence Departed_. Mr.

Bacon has obtruded upon the session of PRCE that it has a "somewhat

selective and arbitrary" use of historical documents. However, let us

observe for the sake of accuracy who has in fact been not only "selective"

and "arbitrary", but who has grossly misstated the historical document

cited and misconstrued the actual events as they occured. For the record,

I take no personal offence to objections and criticisms to the stated

positions of our church, for I do believe that such exchanges can promote

our own sanctification in the truth. However, I do take offence at the

many misrepresentations, misstatements, and misconstructions that abound in

Mr. Bacon's _A Defence Departed_. This is simply one example of the many

that will follow in weeks to come.

Mr. Bacon states, "For example, in Johnston's Treasure of the Covenant we

learn that Zachary Boyd (1589-1653) *never* signed the National Covenant of

1638" (emphasis added). Not only is Bacon's absolute statement

historically false (which calls into question his level of scholarship in

this area), but of greater concern is the fact that the source Mr. Bacon

cites (Johnston's _Treasury of the Scottish Covenant_) does not say that

Zachary Boyd *never* signed the National Covenant of 1638 (which calls into

question his accurate representation of the truth). Johnston's exact

biographical remark concerning Zachary Boyd is this: "He was one of the

few ministers who refused to take the Covenant in 1638" (John C. Johnston,

_Treasury of the Scottish Covenant_ [Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887], p.

319). Johnston's statement is accurate. Bacon's statement is inaccurate.

It is true as Johnston notes that Zachary Boyd did refuse to take the

covenant in 1638--at least when it was first offered to the ministers of

Glasgow. Hewison observes that the influence of John Cameron, professor at

the college of Glasgow, did affect a few of the ministers in Glasgow in

opposing the National Covenant. Among these ministers was Zachary Boyd,

"the poetic pastor of the Barony Parish, whom a Committee of The Tables,

including [Robert--GLP] Baillie, in vain tried to win over to the popular

side *at this time*" (James King Hewison, _The Covenanters_ [Glasgow:

John Smith and Son, 1908], I:275, emphases added). It should be carefully

noted that Hewison limits Boyd's refusal to take the covenant by these

words: "at this time." Mr. Bacon states that Boyd *never* took the

covenant. Credible historians disagree with Mr. Bacon and indicate that

Boyd refused to take the covenant "at this time."

The National Covenant was first presented to ministers for their signature

at Greyfriars Church, Edinburgh, February 28, 1638. However, by July 22,

1638, Zachary Boyd had indeed taken the National Covenant as indicated by

Mr. Robert Baillie's letter to his cousin, Mr. William Spang (dated July

22, 1638):

I pray you come over, if ye desire to keep your old estimation; but come

over resolute to subscribe [the National Covenant--GLP], as now all among

us inclines to do. At our townsmen's desire, Mr. Andrew Cant, and Mr.

Samuel Rutherford, were sent by the nobles to preach in the High Kirk, and

receive the oaths of that people to the Covenant; my Lord Eglintone was

appointed to be a witness. There, with many a sigh and tear by all that

people, the oath was made; Provest, James, and Mr. Archibald, held up their

hands; *Mr. Zacharie [Boyd,] and Mr. John Bell younger, has put to their

hands* (Robert Baillie, _The Letters And Journals_ [Edinburgh: Robert

Ogle, 1841], I:89, emphases added and antiquated spelling modified).

Thus, Baillie corroborates that by July 22, 1638, Zachary Boyd had put his

hand to (i.e. lifted his hand to swear to) the National Covenant. However,

Mr. Bacon erroneously states that Boyd *never* took the covenant.

This historical truth is further confirmed in the _Dictionary of Scottish

Church History & Theology_ where the following biographical account is

given concerning Mr. Zachary Boyd:

Hesitantly signing the National Covenant in 1638, he was appointed to a

commission for maintenance of Church discipline by the Glasgow Assembly

(_Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology_ , Nigel M. de S.

Cameron, ed. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1993], p. 92).

A classic dictionary of Scottish history states that Boyd "hesitantly"

signed the National Covenant in 1638. Mr. Bacon makes the unconditional

statement that Boyd "never" signed the National Covenant of 1638.

Finally, Mr. Bacon has not only misquoted his source (Mr. Johnston), not

only misrepresented the actual historical event surrounding Mr. Boyd's

taking of the covenant, but has also misrepresented the position of the

faithful Church of Scotland by alleging: "We find it more than curious

that not only was Boyd apparently not censured by his presbytery (which was

admittedly one of the weaker in the entire church), *the General Assembly,

as the highest court in the church, not only refrained from censuring

him--they placed him in a position of some considerable honor*" (p. 9,

emphases added). Here we see how from one seemingly insignificant

historical inaccuracy (i.e. Boyd "never" signed the covenant), Mr. Bacon

has imposed upon the faithful covenanted Church of Scotland a position they

fully repudiated and considered absolutely inconsistent with the view of a

covenanted reformation. From the very Acts of the General Assembly of the

Church of Scotland meeting in Glasgow (Dec. 20, 1638), we learn that it was

in no way optional for ministers of the Church to sign the National

Covenant:

The Assembly considering that for the purging and preservation of religion,

for the King's Majesty's honor, and for the public peace of the Kirk and

Kingdom, the renewing of that National Covenant and oath of this Kirk and

Kingdom, in February 1638, was *most necessary* . . . The Assembly alloweth

and approveth the same in all the heads and articles thereof, And ordaineth

that *all Ministers*, Masters of Universities, Colleges, and Schools and

all others who have not already subscribed the said Confession and

Covenant, shall subscribe the same with these words prefixed to the

subscription (_The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of The Church Of

Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649, Inclusive_, "In the Assembly

at Glasgow 1638, concerning the confession of Faith renewed in February,

1638", Session 26, December 20, 1638, pp. 61,62, emphases added and

antiquated spelling modified).

Hewison also notes concerning the acts of this Assembly (1638), "Another

Act (64) ordained 'the Covenant subscribed in February last to be now again

subscribed, with the Assembly's declaration thereof, and this to be

intimated by *all ministers in their pulpits*' (James King Hewison, _The

Covenanters_ [Glasgow: John Smith and Son, 1908], I:313, emphases added).

Even the National Covenant itself is quite clear as to the perpetual

obligation that rests upon all those living at that time and all the

posterity of succeeding generations to own the moral duties contained

therein as well: "And finally, being convinced in our minds, and

confessing with our mouths, *that the present and succeeding generations in

this land are bound to keep the foresaid national oath [i.e. The National

Covenant--GLP) and subscription inviolable*" ("The National Covenant" 1638,

emphases added). The Acts of the General Assembly, historians, and even

the National Covenant unmistakably declare the official position of the

Church of Scotland to have been one of requiring the taking of the National

Covenant. Mr. Bacon has rewritten history so as to state that such was in

fact not the position of the Church of Scotland if indeed Zachary Boyd were

permitted to serve on the Assembly's Commission without having signed the

National Covenant.

The reader must evaluate for himself whether such misrepresentations,

misstatements, and misconstructions on the part of Mr. Bacon (and this is

one of many which will be exposed in weeks to come) warrant the trust and

confidence of those who read _A Defence Departed_. Just as Mr. Bacon has

slanderously misrepresented the position of the General Assembly of the

Church of Scotland, I must regretfully declare he has likewise

misrepresented the position of the PRCE throughout his diatribe. Although

love for this brother compels me to grant to him a charitable judgment,

neverthless, such misrepresentations compel me (from a love for him and for

the truth) to expose his error praying for his reconciliation in the truth.

************************************************************

Correction of another Price error by Stephen Wescott, Ph.D.

Brethren:

A quick point re 'Bacon Bits' 3. We read: "Thus, Baillie corroborates that
by July 22, 1638,
Zachary Boyd put his hand to (i.e. lifted his hand to swear to) the
National Covenant.

The comment in parentheses is not correct. Although just prior to this we
read of Provost James and Mr. Archibald 'holding up their hands' to affirm
the Covenant, the difference in wording for Zachary Boyd is important. In
seventeenth-century writing to PUT or SET one's HAND TO something ALWAYS
means to SIGN in writing. Without chasing up the sources I this is a
speculation, but the difference MAY be that Provost James and Mr. Archibald
were LAYMEN, and Zachary Boyd and John Bell jnr were MINISTERS. However
that may be, this statement says emphatically that Boyd SIGNED the
Covenant.

Yours in His bonds,

Stephen P.Westcott, Ph.D,
BRISTOL,
ENGLAND.