Gospel Worship: Being An Attempt to Exhibit the Scriptural View of the Nature,
Obligations, Manner, and Ordinances, of the Worship of God, In the New Testament (2
volumes, 1770)
Hall writes, "I am not ashamed to declare myself a warm conscientious friend of the
reformation-system of doctrine, worship, discipline,and government, which is publicly
professed in the church of Scotland, and delineated in the Confession of faith and
Catechisms, in the Directory for the worship of God, and in the Form of Presbyterial
church-government,--all composed by the Assembly convened at Westminster (1643-1647). But
my attachment to this system arises, neither from the authority of that assembly, nor from
a devoted regard to my connections, whom I honour and esteem in the Lord; but from the
conviction, upon enquiry, that this system, for which our ancestors so nobly contended, is
founded upon, and agreeable to the oracles of God" (preface. iv-v). Chapters cover:
Reading the Scripture; Preaching; Hearing the Word Preached; Singing of Praises; Prayer;
Public Blessing of the Congregation; the Sacraments in General; Baptism; the Lord's
Supper; Observation of the Lord's Day; Times of Thanksgiving; Religious Fasts; Ministerial
Visitations of the Flock; Ministerial Visitation of the Sick; Of Catechizing; Of Social
Religious Meetings; Of Family Religion; Of Personal Religion; Of Liberality to the Poor; Of
Swearing by the Name of God; Of Vowing to the Lord; Of Casting of Lots.
Appendices cover: Love-feasts; the Holy Kiss; Washing the Disciples Feet; and Abstaining
from Blood. 868 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-70%=29.99
(Hardcover photocopy) You pay $49.00 (Canadian funds)
refworsh.htm
Please note the finely crafted explanations of the duties required, sins forbidden and reasons annexed to the second commandment, as found in the Westminster Larger Catechism (adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland July 2, 1648, as a part of the covenanted uniformity in worship required by this Assembly's [international] covenant with Christ as sworn in the "Solemn League and Covenant", August 17, 1643):
Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment? Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee (Deuteronomy 23:21, AV).
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay (Ecclesiastes 5:4,5, AV).
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth (Numbers 30:2, AV).
f. The following excerpts occur in the newspaper that Benjamin Franklin published in Philadelphia (The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser) wherein reference is made to colonies in what is now Canada and the United States as being dominions of the Crown.
In considering of these questions, perhaps it may be of use to recollect; that the colonies were planted in times when the powers of parliament were not supposed so extensive, as they are become since the Revolution: That they were planted in lands and countries where the parliament had not then the least jurisdiction: That, excepting the yet infant colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia, none of them were settled at the expense of any money granted by parliament: That the people went from hence by permission from the crown, purchased or conquered the territory, at the expense of their own private treasure and blood: That these territories thus became new dominions of the crown, settled under royal charters, that formed their several governments and constitutions, on which the parliament was never consulted; or had the least participation. Jan. 6, 1766 (Cited from the World Wide Web page at: gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28, emphases added).
The Colonies had, from their first Settlement, been governed with more Ease, than perhaps can be equalled by any Instance in History, of Dominions so distant. February, 1773 (Cited from the World Wide Web page at: gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/85/28, emphases added).
We would further affirm that just as the lawful covenant of a father binds all his children presently living as well as those yet to be born ("Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" Mal. 2:10), likewise the lawful civil covenants of national parents bind their national progeny. For if one is willing to grant that the lawful covenant of a father can bind any of his descendants, he must be willing to grant that the same lawful covenant binds all of his descendants, for the same moral obligation that rests upon any one descendant rests upon all descendants. Thus, it follows that the United States and Canada as nations (and all other national descendants of Great Britain) are children of Great Britain and are bound by the lawful covenant (i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant) of their national father solemnly sworn with uplifted hands to the living God in 1643 and renewed on various occasions in Scotland and the United States by Reformed Christians. Samuel B. Wylie (17731852), Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, noted the personal, ecclesiastical, and national obligations binding those living in America. He cogently responds to several objections raised concerning the formal obligations of covenants made by fathers on behalf of their posterity.
Objection 2: "But these covenants [i.e. the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant GLP], for which you contend, were only oaths of allegiance [to Scotland and Britain GLP], and, consequently, can have no obligation, when you remove to a foreign land."
Ans. It will be admitted, that they were oaths of allegiance; but it was primarily to the Governor of the universe, and secondarily to the government . . . . With respect to the first, let us examine whether any of those circumstances, which can dissolve allegiance [to God GLP], has actually taken place. Allegiance may cease, by any of the three following means: First, by the dissolution of the dynasty, or government, when things revert to an original state of nature. Second, by emigration. Allegiance and protection being reciprocal, when the latter is no longer necessary, the former, of consequence, ceases. Third, by breach of the mutual compact, on the part of the government. This compact, being necessarily involved in the relation between the governed and the governor, ceases to bind the former, when violated and broken through the latter. Has any of these things taken place, to dissolve our allegiance to the Supreme Ruler? . . . The oath of allegiance to the government of Britain, even were it morally constituted, however, ceases [because we have met the second condition mentioned of above, namely that of emigration from Great Britain to another nation GLP]. The conditions, on which it was entered into, no longer exist. Seeing we have emigrated from that country, the obligation, of course, is null and void. But, our relation to God still remains the same. And even by that part of the covenant, which respects allegiance to government, we hold ourselves still so far bound, that, whenever we find legitimate rulers, in the land where we live, we will consider the duty of subjection, for conscience sake, not only as a moral duty, required by the divine law, but also, as a duty unto which we are bound by covenant.
Obj. 3. "But these covenants were local, and required the performance only of local duties, and consequently, are not obligatory in other lands."
Ans. The objection is virtually answered, in removing the one immediately preceding [i.e. objection 2 GLP]. It is admitted, there are local peculiarities connected with the substance of these covenants. For these local peculiarities, we do no contend. In our terms of communion, adapted to our existing circumstances, in the United States, when recognising the obligation of these covenants, we declare, that "This obligation is not to be considered as extending to those things which are peculiar to, and practicable only in, the British isles; but only to such moral duties, as are substantially the same in all lands." Whatever things in these bonds were of a circumstantial nature, as we have hinted above, may vary with a change of circumstances. But our relation to GOD, is not a circumstantial or local thing. Love to GOD, and our neighbour, will still continue obligatory, though some circumstances, connected with the expression and exercise of it, may, and often do, vary.
Obj. 5. "These covenants were national, and so have no obligation on individuals, when they cease to be members of the national community who entered into them."
Ans. Had the duties, contained in these covenants, been only of a temporary, local, or circumstantial nature, this objection would be relevant. But we have endeavoured, above, to shew, that these bonds contemplated the duties of the moral law, which is obligatory upon all men.... But here we might enquire, of what is a nation composed? Is it not of individuals? Can a nation be nationally bound, and the individuals not be individually bound? To what is the nation nationally bound? Is it not, to yield a cheerful obedience to all GOD's holy and divine commandments, in their national character? Is not the individual individually bound to do the same, in his individual character? If he is thus bound in Britain, does the soil of Colombia loose him of all obligation to, and make him independent of, the Moral Governor? In as far as this moral obligation is concerned, between national and personal covenanting, there is only a numerical difference. In the latter, one individual is personally bound; in the former, three, four, or five millions of individuals, are personally bound. If individuals are not personally bound, they are not bound at all. To talk of an individual being [only GLP] nationally bound would be a solecism [i.e. an error GLP] worthy of the greatest blunderer (Samuel B. Wylie, A Sermon on Covenanting, SWRB, 1997, pp. 109112).
Rev. John Cunningham, a Reformed Presbyterian minister from Scotland also drew attention to the perpetual obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant upon the nations and churches descending from the Scotland, England, and Ireland.
Being scriptural in its [i.e. the Solemn League and Covenant GLP] matter, and not yet implemented, and besides, having been acquiesced in by the civil power, it is to this day binding on the nations; to this day it binds the Churches in the three kingdoms, the Church of Scotland, and all those who have seceded from it as an establishment, as well as those Presbyterians who never were connected with that Church since the Revolution [the Revolution of 1689 in which William and Mary came to the throne of Britain GLP] (John Cunningham, Ordinance of Covenanting, 1843, SWRB, 1997, pp. 374, 375).
The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America at its meeting in 1855 clearly elaborated the binding obligation of the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant upon the posterity in the United States. Although the Reformed Presbyterian Church had by this time defected from some of the testimony of its forefathers (the Auchensaugh Renovation, and the Act, Declaration, and Testimony as terms of communion), nevertheless, it yet maintained at this point in time a faithful testimony to the binding obligation of these covenants.
These federal deeds [i.e. the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms GLP] 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 [i.e. Great Britain GLP], 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).
Pastor Thomas Houston, D.D., pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Knockbracken, also confirms the perpetual obligation of these solemn covenants upon posterity when he writes,
On the ground of the moral character of our fathers' federal deeds [namely, the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant GLP], they may be regarded as, in some sort, obligatory upon other Churches and nations, besides those that can trace their descent directly from the original covenanters. And certainly, those who have sprung from the same stock, and who in America, or in the distant colonial dependencies of Britain, owe much of the scriptural light and freedom which they enjoy to the principles developed in the sacred vows of Britain, and to the blessing that has remarkably rested upon a nation, which was married to the Lord, have peculiar reasons to view these covenants as worthy of all admiration, and devoted regard (Thomas Houston, A Memorial of Covenanting, 1857, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 68).
And finally, we would draw the attention of our readers to the following words which demonstrate the attitude of faithful Reformed Presbyterians in the United States as it relates to their moral obligation to own formally the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant.
To some it may appear strange, that a Church located in the United States of America should give such prominence as it did to the British Covenants [i.e. the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant GLP]. Living in another continent, and having no political [present GLP] connection with Britain, on what ground was this matter embodied in the Testimony, and acknowledgment of the Covenants made obligatory on the members [i.e. members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church which was established as its own church court in 1798 GLP]? In answer to this it will be sufficient to quote the fourth term of Communion, as adopted by the American Church. It is to this effect: "An acknowledgment that public covenanting is an ordinance of God, to be observed by Churches and nations under the New Testament Dispensation, and that those Vows, namely, that which was entered into by the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, called the National Covenant, and that which was afterwards entered into by the three kingdoms, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and by the Reformed Churches in those kingdoms, usually called the Solemn League and Covenant, were entered into in the true spirit of that institution; and that the obligation of these Covenants extends to those who were represented in the taking of them, although removed to this or any other part of the world, in so far as they bind to duties not peculiar to the Church in the British Isles, but applicable to all lands." This amounts, we presume, simply to this that the essential principles of the Covenants concerning liberty and religion, the reciprocal duties of nations and rulers, and the obligation which both owe to Christ as Governor among the nations, were binding on American Churches and on American citizens who were of British origin (Matthew Hutchison, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 1893, SWRB reprint, 1997, pp. 406, 407, emphases added).
(This ends Pastor Price's faithful contribution to this particular question. This writer would like to publicly thank him for his gracious assistance in this regard.)
misrep3.htm
If you are familiar with the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Larger & Shorter Catechisms) you may also be familiar with the Solemn League and Covenant which is appended to the more popular editions of the Westminster Standards. The Solemn League was a public vow to taken by England, Scotland and Ireland to adhere to the Reformed Faith. A great deal has been written about oaths and vows, but most Christians are utterly unaware of this body of theology.
Each of these documents contains something about vows. (Click then search for "vow")
Appendix A in The Covenanted Reformation Defended
Reformation Worship, the Regulative Principle, Iconoclasm, etc. (Summaries by Reg Barrow)
Appendix B in The Covenanted Reformation Defended
A Warning Against the False and Dangerous Views of James Jordan Concerning Worshipp
NEW ARRIVALS (March./98 to today) at Still Waters Revival Books (Summaries by Reg Barrow & Others)
The Decline of American Presbyterianism
Close Communion, the Lord's Supper, etc. (Summaries by Reg Barrow)
NEW ARRIVALS (March/97 to June/97) at Still Waters Revival Books (Summaries by Reg Barrow & Others)
NEW ARRIVALS (Oct./97 to Feb./98) at Still Waters Revival Books (Summaries by Reg Barrow & Others)
Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting... by Clarkson at SWRB
UP FROM RECONSTRUCTIONISM by Michael Wagner
EXCERPT OF A COVENANTER'S PLEA TO AN INQUIRERR
Publisher's Preface (Reg Barrow) in The Covenanted Reformation Defended
THE UNITED STATES, THE COVENANTERS AND THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANTT
Permanence of Covenant Obligationn
WHEN IS CIVIL GOVERNMENT SO CONSTITUTED THAT CHRISTIANS CAN SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO IT??
Taking of the Solemn League and Covenant by George Gillespie
A CONTEMPORARY COVENANTING DEBATE;
A TESTIMONY AGAINST THE UNFOUNDED CHARGES OF ANABAPTISM by Greg Price
The Duty and Perpetual Obligation of Social Covenanting
4 Government with Confessional Standards
TOLERATION AND COVENANTING (JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON & Reg Barrow)
New Resources at Still Waters Revival Books -- FIRST HALF OF 1996
Faithful Admonition (1554) by John Knox
Foreword (Larry Birger, Jr.) in The Covenanted Reformation Defended
Biblical Civil Government Versus the Beast; and, the Basis of Civil Resistance by Greg Price
Debate on the US Constitution (Sandlin vs. Barrow)
The Duty of Covenanting, and the Permanent Obligation of Religious Covenants (1853)
Excerpted from the Reformed Presbyterian Catechism below, this book deals with an almost
forgotten ordinance of God. It explains what covenants are, while contrasting them with
oaths, vows and law. Furthermore, it distinguishes between civil and religious covenants
and shows how the individual, family, church or nation can (and should) enter into
covenants -- especially religious covenants. Explains why, when and how covenants are
binding on posterity, citing abundant Scriptural proof for each assertion made. Here is a
sample argument from this book, demonstrating how even covenants made between men are
viewed as binding upon posterity by God himself: "Another instance in which posterity
is recognized in covenant obligation is found in Joshua 9:15. This covenant was made
between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites. Between four and five hundred years
after that time, the children of Israel are visited with a very severe famine, in the days
of David. 2 Sam. 21:1. And it is expressly declared by the Lord that, 'It is for Saul, and
for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.' And at the same time, v. 2, that
very covenant is recognized, and the breach of it is stated, as being the formal reason of
the divine displeasure. Now, had it not been for this covenant, the extirpation of the
Gibeonites would not have been imputed to Israel as a thing criminal; for they were
comprehended in Canaanitish nations, which God had commanded them to root out" (pp.
139-140). Take the time to look these verses up. This subject has great bearing on the
unity of the church, the Christian's response to godless covenant-breaking nations,
hermeneutics, the family and general faithfulness to God (because many today --
individually, ecclesiastically, and nationally -- are breaking covenants which God still
views as binding though they are oblivious to this obligation). Great price too!
(Rare bound photocopy) $5.95-70%=1.78
plaintoc.htm