In these critical circumstances, and to order at once to guard themselves from the perils which were sure to overtake them individually if severed, and exposed at once to the obstinate displeasure of the King and the revenge of the prelates, the nobles resolved to consolidate their union by a solemn engagement, such at those which had been entered into by the Lords of the Congregation and first Protestants, to the dawn and during the progress of the Reformation to its earlier stages.[17] The positions in which they stood were similar; and the example of the fathers and founders of the Protestant Church in Scotland, naturally prompted the Tables to imitation, independently of the ancient usage which existed to Scotland, of entering into “Bands” for mutual protection and support in troubled times. The model, however, which they had chiefly in view was a “Confession” framed under the auspices and instructions of King James VI., in which the errors of Popery were abjured, and to which there was subsequently added a bond, or obligation, to maintain the true religion, and protect the King’s person, as well as for the general defence.[18] Taking that document as the basis and model of the Covenant, the leaders of the Presbyterian’s superadded to it an obligation to defend each other against all persons whatsoever, and a pointed denunciation of the innovations recently attempted to be forced upon the country. For the course thus adopted, they had precedents in the conduct of the first Reformers—in that of King James himself, who had signed the “Confession,” and sought the signature of all his subjects—and in the terms of the early “bands” for mutual defence and maintenance of the reformed doctrines. Nor is it necessary to resort to any casuistry to justify the adoption of such an engagement. Dr Cook justly remarks, that the vindication of the Covenant is to be rested “upon this great principle, that when the ends for which all government should be instituted are defeated, the oppressed have a clear right to disregard customary forms, and to assert the privileges without which they would be condemned to the degradation and wretchedness of despotism.”[19] That such was the predicament in which the Church and people of Scotland were placed, by the reiterated proclamations and edicts issued by the King and the Scots Privy Council for several years prior to February 1838, and that these amounted to an unqualified assumption of arbitrary and absolute power, paramount to the authority of Parliament, and the sanctions of the ecclesiastical authorities established by law, are points which do not admit of the slightest doubt; and no alternative remained but that the nobles, clergy, and people of Scotland, should combine, in the most constitutional manner that was practicable, for maintaining the law, and for mutual defence, or tamely submit their necks to the yoke which most assuredly would have been