Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
... I find, that at the first taking of the covenant, they swear to maintain the King’s authority: as also, when, with additions, it was renewed in the year 1638, they swear to stand to the defence of his majesty’s person and authority. How agrees our dissenters’ principle, rejecting the authority of the Queen, with this part of the covenant? O, say they, “she is not a covenanted Queen, and therefore cannot be Queen of a covenanted land.”
Strange prejudices! Was not Scotland a covenanted land long ere the Solemn League and Covenant was heard tell of? Was not king Charles I. King of a covenanted land at that time when the covenant was renewed, and his authority sworn to be defended? But was he a covenanted king? Did he own their covenant? No, no; upon the contrary; he obliged some of their nobles at London to abjure it, declared the covenanters rebels, and brought down an army against them to force them from it. See Apologetical Relation, page 53.
As for the Solemn League and Covenant, we find them guilty the same way. It binds us expressly against schism, as well as Prelacy, superstition, and heresy. And that they are guilty of schism has been proven before. It also bound to the maintaining of the king’s authority, it being far from the mind of the covenanters to cast off the authority of the magistrate, though it was entered into without the king’s consent. ...
For more, see Thomas Boston on the original Covenanters and the hyper-Covenanter error of political dissent.
N.B. This post is not automatically relevant to the RPCNA's view, as that is a more complex discussion owing to the role of the U.S. Constitution.
Strange prejudices! Was not Scotland a covenanted land long ere the Solemn League and Covenant was heard tell of? Was not king Charles I. King of a covenanted land at that time when the covenant was renewed, and his authority sworn to be defended? But was he a covenanted king? Did he own their covenant? No, no; upon the contrary; he obliged some of their nobles at London to abjure it, declared the covenanters rebels, and brought down an army against them to force them from it. See Apologetical Relation, page 53.
As for the Solemn League and Covenant, we find them guilty the same way. It binds us expressly against schism, as well as Prelacy, superstition, and heresy. And that they are guilty of schism has been proven before. It also bound to the maintaining of the king’s authority, it being far from the mind of the covenanters to cast off the authority of the magistrate, though it was entered into without the king’s consent. ...
For more, see Thomas Boston on the original Covenanters and the hyper-Covenanter error of political dissent.
N.B. This post is not automatically relevant to the RPCNA's view, as that is a more complex discussion owing to the role of the U.S. Constitution.