in the matters of God. Covenants made with God are more abfolute, and lefs clogged with conditions, and fo more obliging. The covenants of which we now treat, being about indifpenfible duties of morality, upon which dependeth the glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jefus Chrift, the honour and happiness of magiftrates, and the public liberty, fafety and peace of the nation, and the good of posterity in all time coming, ought to have their obligation allowed to fix, wherever any ground can be found, while Chrift hath a kingdom, and the covenanters a pofterity, particularly in Scotland; for,

1. Our civil Representatives by thefe covenants devoted themselves in their station, and their subjects, in fo far as under their power, to the fervice of God. In 1581 and 1590, King James and his privy council took the National Covenant, and required their fubjects to follow their example. In 1638, the privy council again took it, as it stood in 1581. In 1640, the members of Parliament took it, as explained by the Affembly 1638, to abjure Prelacy and the five articles of Perth, and appointed it to be fworn by all the members of every future Parliament. It was fworn by the members of Parliament 1644. In 1649, the national covenant, and the Solemn League which was materially the fame, were renewed by the members of Parliament, with folemn fafting and humiliation. The oath framed in 1641, to be fworn by members of Parliament, at taking their feats, exprefsly approved the -national covenant. King Charles I. gave a folemn approbation of it. King Charles II. and other magiftrates took the covenants in 1650 and 1651. Now, if a covenant made by the princes of Ifrael with the representatives of the Gibeonites, in a matter which concerned the Lord's land and the

remote fervice of his altar, extended its obligation to the whole nation of Ifrael, who confented to it, no otherwise, than by filence at the final stating of it, and to their pofterity, for many generations,that four hundred years after, they were punished with a famine on account of Saul's breach of it, Jofh. ix. with 2 Sam. xxi. and to the Gibeonites and their posterity;Why not allow the covenanting deed of our Princes to extend its obligation in like manner? If magiftrates be the minifters of God for good to men. Why fhould they not be capable to furreader themfelves and their fubjects to the fpecial care and fervice of God, their common and beneficent Superior? If they poffefs the powers afligned them in our excellent Standards, Why may they not, as nurfing fathers of the church, devote themselves and their fubjects of the fame true religion, to the enjoyment of God himself in his oracles and ordinances, and to ferve Him regularly in Chrift? If Joshua could bind himself and his family to ferve the Lord, why may not magiftrates bind themfelves and their fubjects of the fame true religion, to receive and hold faft the like honour and happiness? If for the benefit of their fubjects, magiftrates may, in a time of need, fubject themselves and their people to fome powerful Monarch, whofe fury is terrible, but his favour extremely profitable, or may approve and ratify fome former grant of that kind,Why may they not for the fame end, devote themselves and fubjects to the Great GOD our Saviour, and Prince of the kings of the earth? Why may they not bring their glory.. into the church? and as judges kifs the Son of God, folemnly approving and in their station ratifying that grant which his Father made to him, of the outermoft ends of the earth? Rev. xxi. 24. & xi. 15. Prov. viii. 15, 16. Pfal. ii. 8-120

2. In these covenants our Representatives in the Church, in their station, devoted themfelves and their people to the faith, profeffion and obedience of Chrift. In April 1581, the General Affembly unanimously approved the national covenant, and then in October enfuing, in the name of Chrift, appointed it to be fubfcribed by all Proteftants. În 1588 and 1590, they made further acts for promoting this fubfcription. The General Affemblies of 1596, 1638, 1639, and the Commiffions or Affemblies of 1643, 1641, 1648, 1649, enjoined the fwearing of the covenant by all adult Church-members. I do not know of one Presbyterian minifter or ruling elder in Scotland, who, in any of the covenanting periods of 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1643, 1648, declined taking it. Now, if civil reprefentatives may bind their fubjects and their pofterity by civil contracts, Why ought not the harmonious dedication of themfelves and people to God, by Church-rulers to have a like binding force? If, in public prayers, minifters may devote themselves and congregations to Chrift, why may not they and ruling elders conjunctly do it, by public covenant? But we do not chiefly reft the matter on these grounds; for,

3. It is beyond all contradiction, that the lawful and public covenants civil or religious, which are made by parents. do bind their pofterity. The oath of Efau, in which he refigned his birth-right to Jacob, bound his pofterity never to attempt recovering the privileges of it from Jacob or his defcendants. Hence Efau, and his family, after the death of Ifaac, removed intirely from Canaan, Gen. xxv. 33. & xxxvi. 6. Even the public curfe, which the Jews took upon themselves and their children, hath been manifeftly binding on them thefe feventeen hundred years past, Mat. xxvii. 25, The vow of parents in

the ancient circumcifion, or the Chriftian baptifm of their infants, extends to these children,-nay according to the extent of God's covenant and promise to all their future feed, Gen. xvii. 7. Acts ii. 38, 39. Hence, whatever any of them do contrary to that vow, must at once be perfidy and rebellion against God. Nor will their wilful or flothful ignorance of that obligation, or their non-confént to it, when grown up, free them from that guilt, any more than ignorance of Adam's covenant, or of the breach of it, can free his pofterity from the guilt of his firft fin, or from perfidy in their personal violations of that covenant of works. In Deut. v. 2, 3. God, by Mofes declares, that the covenant made with the Ifraelites at Sinai, was not made with them only, but with all that new generation of their children and grand-children, who furvived them, Num. xxvi. 64.In Deut. xxix. 14, 15. he declares, that the covenant taken by that new generation in the plains of Moab, did not only bind them who were alive and prefent at the entrance into it, but also others, even their pofterity. Their covenant with the Gibeonites did not only bind the immediate engagers and confenters, but also their pofterity, many ages afterward, Jofh. ix. 15, 19. with 2 Sam. xxi. 1.Now, thefe covenants of allegiance to God and duty to men, of which we are treating, were fworn and subscribed by our own natural, though now mediate parents, and when it is confidered, how FREQUENTLY that covenant, the fame in fubftance in the feveral Bonds, was fworn or fubfcribed, and how GENERALLY;— and how readily fome covenanted on one occafion, whofe ancestors had not on a pceceding;-and how families have been fince intermixed, it will scarce remain probable, that there is a Scotchman, at least on the continent of Britian or Ireland, who is not defcended from fome covenanter. If any, to his

own difgrace, will contend that in all thefe and different periods of covenanting 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1639, 1643, 1648, &c. all his progenitors were fuch mere neutrals, or malignant oppofers of the true religion and liberties of the country, that none of them took the covenant, let him take heed, left, after all, God his creditor find him a perjured tranfgreffor of the covenant of his fathers, or at leaft, of the covenant made by his Church and nation, and their respective Representatives.

4. That lawful covenants, made by the greater part of a fociety bind the whole, and every future acceder to it, at least, unless the minority or acceders have, by a proper diffent, diverted the obligation from themselves; and that, if remarkably calculated to promote the common advantage, they bind the members of it, while it continues a fociety, Common fenfe will not allow us to doubt. That the exact fulfilment of our covenants with God, is remarkably calculated to promote the honour of Chrift and his Father, and the welfare of both Church and State, hath been formerly hinted. No person therefore could, or can, by any iawful diffent, divert their binding force from himfelf. Nor do I remember of any, who regularly attempted it in Scotland.

Without doubt, the majority, nay body of the Scotch nation entered into their Solemn Covenant with God. In 1581, both the privy council and the General Affembly, in their refpective acts enjoined the taking of the National Covenant. "In this year, in the month of March, was the National Covenant folemnly taken by the king, his council and court, and afterwards by the inhabitants of the kingdom *." "The National Covenant (was) fubfcribed by the

Brown's Apologetical Relation, P. 17.