Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Question Regarding Political Participation

Expand Messages
  • Glenn Ferrell
    Do Covenanters participate in the political process today in nations not holding the SL&C or its equivalent?
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Do Covenanters participate in the political process today in nations not
      holding the SL&C or its equivalent?
    • gmw
      ... not ... Dear Glenn, Good question, thanks for asking it! The answer is no, as Covenanters hold that No Christian can bear true allegiance to Zion s King
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Glenn Ferrell
        <gferrell@m...> wrote:
        > Do Covenanters participate in the political process today in nations
        not
        > holding the SL&C or its equivalent?

        Dear Glenn,

        Good question, thanks for asking it! The answer is no, as Covenanters
        hold that "No Christian can bear true allegiance to Zion's King and
        Governor among the nations, and at the same time take an oath of
        allegiance or fidelity to the government of the United States, or any
        other immoral government; hold civil or military office under them;
        enlist to wage war in their defence; exercise the elective franchise;
        or act as a juror, thereby incorporating with the national societies
        in their persistent rebellion against God; or use language
        appropriating any of their institutions" (from the Act, Declaration,
        and Testimony, Supplement to Part IV). The meaning of this being that
        we cannot, without great (sinful) conflict, be in Covenant with God to
        "have no other god" and yet simultaneously swear to uphold a
        Constitution that allows and defends the worship of false gods, nor
        can we vote a man in office in order that he can swear the same as our
        representative. At least that's my understanding of it, perhaps
        others can provide some more information.

        gmw.
      • covie1646
        I am wondering about taking part in government in order to reform it back to God and re-establish the True Religion. How does the WCF Chapter 23 fit
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I am wondering about taking part in government in order to reform it
          back to God and re-establish the True Religion. How does the WCF
          Chapter 23 fit especially articles 2 and 4?

          "2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of
          a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they
          ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to
          the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may
          lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and
          necessary occasions."

          "4. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor
          their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their
          lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for
          conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
          make boid the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
          people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons
          are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction
          over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least
          of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge
          them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. "

          Would participation be possible if the person does not take an oath
          of office or allegiance? Is there any great probability for a Third
          Reformation considering the godless state of government the US (and
          perhaps other SLC countries) are in? If infinitesimal probability,
          do we then not participate in government but continue to testify the
          truth?

          Yesterday on sermonaudio.com, SWRB has Pastor Price's
          sermon "Unlawful Taxes and Unlawful Civil Government". Perhaps that
          would shed more light on our participation and duties toward the
          Magistrate. I am listening to it as I type this.

          Whit

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
          <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Glenn Ferrell
          > <gferrell@m...> wrote:
          > > Do Covenanters participate in the political process today in
          nations
          > not
          > > holding the SL&C or its equivalent?
          >
          > Dear Glenn,
          >
          > Good question, thanks for asking it! The answer is no, as
          Covenanters
          > hold that "No Christian can bear true allegiance to Zion's King and
          > Governor among the nations, and at the same time take an oath of
          > allegiance or fidelity to the government of the United States, or
          any
          > other immoral government; hold civil or military office under them;
          > enlist to wage war in their defence; exercise the elective
          franchise;
          > or act as a juror, thereby incorporating with the national societies
          > in their persistent rebellion against God; or use language
          > appropriating any of their institutions" (from the Act, Declaration,
          > and Testimony, Supplement to Part IV). The meaning of this being
          that
          > we cannot, without great (sinful) conflict, be in Covenant with God
          to
          > "have no other god" and yet simultaneously swear to uphold a
          > Constitution that allows and defends the worship of false gods, nor
          > can we vote a man in office in order that he can swear the same as
          our
          > representative. At least that's my understanding of it, perhaps
          > others can provide some more information.
          >
          > gmw.
        • J. Parnell McCarter
          ... make boid the magistrate s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him. It is upon this point in the WCF quoted above that I
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment

            >"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
            make boid the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
            people from their obedience to him…"

             

            It is upon this point in the WCF quoted above that I think Richard Cameron erred.  While he had a right to point out the wickedness of King Charles II, and even to encourage the Parliament to restrain him and bring him to justice, Richard Cameron had no right to declare King Charles II the illegitimate ruler of Britain .  Richard Cameron was not the Parliament.

             

            This issue too comes to bear on the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, etc.

             

            So, today too, though George W. Bush be a very wicked man in many respects, it is not the place of those of us on this list to pronounce him the illegitimate ruler.  President Bush's infidelity does not make void his status as President, until such time as God or a God ordained agent like Congress removes him.

             

            This goes to the heart of the difference between the FPCS and the RPNA, both denominations of which profess to adhere to the WCF and want nations covenanted to Christ according to the principles of the WCF.

             

            - Parnell McCarter

          • gmw
            ... Was it helpful? gmw.
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 28, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, covie1646
              <no_reply@y...> wrote:

              > Yesterday on sermonaudio.com, SWRB has Pastor Price's
              > sermon "Unlawful Taxes and Unlawful Civil Government". Perhaps that
              > would shed more light on our participation and duties toward the
              > Magistrate. I am listening to it as I type this.

              Was it helpful?

              gmw.
            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
              Parnell, Just a quick note, I have not ignored this post of yours. It has caught my attention. I do want to answer this with intelligence and Biblically.
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 28, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Parnell,

                Just a quick note, I have not ignored this post of yours. It has
                caught my attention. I do want to answer this with intelligence and
                Biblically. Let me look into the context of this, I know of
                Cameron's stand on this, and I want to give you a good answer to this
                great question/comment you made. I just don't want you to think that
                I, as a member of the RPNA, may/have brushed it off, I haven't.

                Thanks for your understanding here. Hopefully other Covenanters
                will also give you a good answer on this as well.

                Yours in Christ,

                Edgar

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
                McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
                > >"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
                > make boid the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
                > people from their obedience to him."
                >
                >
                >
                > It is upon this point in the WCF quoted above that I think Richard
                Cameron
                > erred. While he had a right to point out the wickedness of King
                Charles II,
                > and even to encourage the Parliament to restrain him and bring him
                to
                > justice, Richard Cameron had no right to declare King Charles II the
                > illegitimate ruler of Britain. Richard Cameron was not the
                Parliament.
                >
                >
                >
                > This issue too comes to bear on the Boston Tea Party, the American
                > Revolution, etc.
                >
                >
                >
                > So, today too, though George W. Bush be a very wicked man in many
                respects,
                > it is not the place of those of us on this list to pronounce him the
                > illegitimate ruler. President Bush's infidelity does not make void
                his
                > status as President, until such time as God or a God ordained agent
                like
                > Congress removes him.
                >
                >
                >
                > This goes to the heart of the difference between the FPCS and the
                RPNA, both
                > denominations of which profess to adhere to the WCF and want nations
                > covenanted to Christ according to the principles of the WCF.
                >
                >
                >
                > - Parnell McCarter
              • covie1646
                ... that ... It was very helpful. In a nutshell, it started with a re-visitation of the Reformed/biblical view of Civil Government and use that as a
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 30, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                  <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, covie1646
                  > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Yesterday on sermonaudio.com, SWRB has Pastor Price's
                  > > sermon "Unlawful Taxes and Unlawful Civil Government". Perhaps
                  that
                  > > would shed more light on our participation and duties toward the
                  > > Magistrate. I am listening to it as I type this.
                  >
                  > Was it helpful?

                  It was very helpful. In a nutshell, it started with a re-visitation
                  of the Reformed/biblical view of Civil Government and use that as a
                  transition to unlawful taxation of godless civil governments (e.g,
                  USA, Ireland, etc.) especially in Covenanted States. It seems to say
                  that it is unlawful especially due to the sinful items and policies
                  of such governments on which they spend God's money. I am
                  relistening to it to-day to make sure I don't miss any major points.

                  I also down loading "Fanning the Flame of Your First Love" since I am
                  in need of God and of repentance in that area.

                  I am partial to Pastor Price as he is very humble yet is bold in
                  testifying the Truth for the edification of the saints and and the
                  war against heresy.

                  Whit
                  >
                  > gmw.
                • Edgar Ibarra
                  Brother Parnell McCarter & brethren, I write this post to answer the objections raised and to demonstrate that Pastor Richard Cameron and the Covenanters do
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 30, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brother Parnell McCarter & brethren,
                     
                       I write this post to answer the objections raised and to demonstrate that Pastor Richard Cameron and the Covenanters do not go against the WCF 23.4 but that it is the Neo-Presbyterians, i.e. the FPCOS, RPCNA, & etc that go against this part of the Confession or at best mis-understand the application of it.
                     
                       I do not answer for mere academics, but to establish & uphold the truth behind this part of the Confession and as the Lord wills to convince those that are opposed or are ignorant of the issue.  Since many have already written and answered this objection very well, I will draw from the wisdom of these ministers of the Gospel to refute Parnell's objection.  I do this with respect to him as a Christian and I write this with bold humbleness, please do not take it any other way.  Yet the Truth must be defended and upheld and if the Truth offends, then that is out of my hands.  Please advise me if I personally offend, so that I may make amends and learn to avoid the same in future writings/posts.
                     
                    Let me first cite the section, taken from WCF 23.4 1647:
                     
                    IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistratesh, to honour their personsi, to pay them tribute or other duesk, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sakel. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to themm: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exemptedn, much less hath the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoevero.
                     
                    (h) I Tim. 2:1, 2. (i) I Pet. 2:17. (k) Rom. 13:6, 7. (l) Rom. 13:5; Tit. 3:1. (m) I Pet. 2:13, 14, 16. (n) Rom. 13:1; I Kings 2:35; Acts 25:9, 10, 11; II Pet. 2:1, 10, 11; Jude ver. 8, 9, 10, 11. (o) II Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:15, 16, 17.
                     
                    Please notice the phrases: to obey their lawful commands & doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority...least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoevero.
                     
                    If the Magistrate has been exposed and nutured in the Christian faith, then he knows God's requirements and cannot pleed ignorance of them nor can we say he is an outright pagan, i.e. one who has never heard the Word. When he becomes a Tyrant and begins to pass laws to openly persecute the ministers and the flock of God and to wage war against him, he no longer is a lawful magistrate and his laws are not lawful commands.  He has by his actions usurped his own just & legal authority, not because of his religion or indifference, but due to his constant and blatant tyranny.  That is a very brief sum. Now I refer the reader to the following.
                     
                    First, an actual Commisioner of the Westminster Assembly wrote much on this subject. I refer the reader to Samuel Rutherford's "LEX REX or the Law and the Prince".  To quote, I would have to include huge portions and that would be tedious to both the writer & reader and would rob you of the joy of reading it all in context.  Therefore see Chapters 28-31.  The example of King David for the objectors answered, ch. 32.  For those who look to the primitive church as infallible or somewhat close to it, see his answer to the objectors in Ch. 35.  On this last poin, as an aside, many of the faithful martyrs from the heathen persecution did things that may not have been all that wise.  Reading Eusebius many of them would willing walk into the magistrate/judge and without anyone bringing them in or accusing them, they would say "I'm a Christian" just to be martyered.  This I believe is not wise either, it borders on works-righteousness!
                     
                      Back to the subject.  Pastor Samuel Wylie, Covenanter in the 1800's, wrote a book called, "Two Sons of Oil; or the Faithful Witness for the Magistracy and Ministry Upon a Scriptural Basis" see http://www.covenanter.org/Wylie/twosonsofoil.htm#10thheadanswerobjections to read it in its entirety.  In it he puts to rest the objections made by the Neo-Presbyterians and the Resolutioners.  I quote the following that deals directly with Parnell's objection:
                     

                    "Objection 1. The apostle, Rom. 13:1, informs us that all power is of God�a"There is no power but of God," consequently we owe conscientious obedience to every power. To this it may be answered, there are two kinds of power, viz. physical and moral, both are of God, for "in him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28.

                    By the exercise of the first, all actions, just and unjust, are performed. In the exercise of this physical power, Paul persecuted the church of Jesus; by the same power, he laboured, with unwearied industry, in the propagation of the doctrines of the cross. This power, therefore, is common to all actions, whether moral or immoral, that come to pass in the providence of God. The

                    Second is not only providential, but also moral and preceptive, and respects those things which God in his law requires as the duty of moral subjects to perform.

                    Is it the first, or the second, of those that every soul is commanded to be subject unto, under the penalty of damnation, mentioned in the passage now under consideration?

                    If the first, then it is a damnable sin to resist the devil! for he is a "power," and in the providence of God, as prince of this world, he rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience. Eph. 2:2. But this cannot be the case, for God has strictly charged us "to resist him." James 4:7. Were this the case, then we would incur Jehovah's wrath, in resisting lions, tigers, and other beasts of prey; for in the providence of God they possess more physical power than we do, and have also derived it from God.

                    Then, at the risk of damnation would tyrants and usurpers be resisted, and the justly exploded doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance would be recognised under pain of Jehovah's high displeasure! And to crown all, the people of these States, who justly and valiantly resisted the wicked domination of the British tyrant, would have thereby rendered themselves obnoxious to damnation!

                    This doctrine, however, is too grossly ridiculous to merit much serious attention. I conclude, therefore, that the power in question is of the moral and preceptive kind, unto which obedience is enjoined under such heavy penalties. To this we heartily subscribe, and believe that none else can bind the conscience, or be entitled to conscientious subjection.

                    This will, moreover, appear evident, by attending to the qualifications of that power unto which we are commanded to be subject, in the passage alluded to. See Rom. 13:1-7."

                    Notice the paragraph in red, (or if it didn't come out red, the 3rd paragraph from the last).  So, are the the objectors stating that even tyrannts cannot be rejected and their authority dis-missed?  WCF 23.4 does not state that, neither do the Scriptures.

                    More directly answered, again from Pastor Wylie,

                    "Obj. 12. "Your principles are contrary to the fourth section of the twenty-third article of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which teaches, "that infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him."

                    Ans. The sense in which the General Assembly, as also the current of reformers and martyrs of the seventeenth century, understood this passage, is fully stated in our Testimony [of 1761], as also in the letter from Stirling, by the Rev. John M'Millan, jun. They distinguished between reformed and enlightened lands, and those that were unreformed and unenlightened. In the latter, many things may be borne with, which ought not to be suffered in the former; particularly, when be a solemn national act, they have made scriptural qualifications essential to the civil constitution. This our ancestors did in their Covenants National and Solemn League. All ranks and conditions in the realm solemnly swore to use every lawful endeavour to extirpate popery, prelacy, &c. It might have been inquired, would swearing allegiance to a constitution afterwards erected upon the ruins of this, of which the support and establishment of any of these abjured abominations was made an essential part, have been a means well calculated to promote the intention of their oath? This was exactly the situation of the lands of our nativity.

                    Prelacy, which had been nationally abjured, was made essential to the British constitution, and the king solemnly swore, in his coronation oath, to support it.

                    Were not these two oaths, viz. one, to extirpate prelacy, and another, to support it, flatly contradictory? To swear the latter, is a declaring the former unobligatory, and, consequently, criminal, when originally entered into. Can any one, professing friendship to the reformation of these times, thus barefacedly pronounce its sentence of condemnation!!

                    Let the authority of the magistrate be just and legal, we will then hold ourselves conscientiously bound to yield obedience.

                    No authority can be just and legal, with which a contradiction to the moral law is essentially incorporated. Simple infidelity will not render it unjust, either in a heathen country, or in one emerging from Pagan darkness. Neither will simple difference in religion make it void, when the nation have not, by their own solemn act and deed, made conformity an essential article of their constitution.

                    There may be many defects in a civil constitution , and yet is morally binding upon a nation: but where plain immorality, or a solemn obligation to support what the Legislator of the universe prohibits under the severest penalties, is essentially incorporated therewith, it cannot bind the conscience."

                    Let the reader notice and meditate upon the above.

                    This answers Parnell's objections and puts them to rest.  Now whether he or others are convinced is another matter.  It is not for us to convert the mind, but up to the Holy Spirit and He may choose to use such writings to do so.  Are the above contra Scripture?  One will be hard pressed to show it.  Are they against the WCF 23.4, on the contrary.  Even Rutherford would go against the Neo-Presbyterians on this matter in particular.

                    I now quote from Pastor James Renwick, the last Covenanted minister to suffer at the hands of a tyrannical king.  From his book, "Informatory Vindication  OF A Poor, wasted, misrepresented, Remnant of the Suffering, Anti-Popish, Anti-Prelatick, Anti-Erastian, Anti-Sectarian, True Presbyterian Church of Christ in S C O T L A N D":

                    "But more particularly, because our principles are most suspected upon the Ordinances of Magistracy & the Ministry; Therefore we shall plainly unbosom our hearts about these also. We profess then concerning Magistracy (to obviate the suspicion of any unfriendliness towards that Ordinance, & disloyalty to rightful Magistrates) & Declare our minds in these Assertions. (1.) As we distinguish between Magistracy, or the Office (in the abstract) & the Persons invested with the Office; so of Magistracy in itself considered, we say, that as it is not subjectively founded upon grace, so it is a holy & Divine institution, for the good of human Society, the encouragement of Virtue & Piety, & curbing of Vice & Impiety, competent unto & honourable amongst both Christians & Heathens. (2.) As for such Magistrates as, being rightly and Lawfully constitute over us, do act as the Ministers of God, in a direct line of subordination to God, in the defence of our Covenanted Reformation, & the subjects' Liberties; We declare, whensoever we can obtain & enjoy such rulers, we will own, embrace, obey, & defend them to the utmost of our power, & prove encouraging, subject, & obedient to them in our places & stations. (3.) In things Civil, though we do not say that every Tyrannical act or action doth make a Tyrant, yet we hold, that habitual, obstinate, & declared opposition to, & {30} overturning of Religion, Laws & Liberties, & making void all contracts with the Subjects, or when he usurps a power without any compact, or giving any security for Religion & Liberties, or when he is such as the Laws of the Land do make incapable of Government; These do sufficiently invalidate his Right & Relation of Magistracy, & warrant subjects, especially in Covenanted Lands, to revolt from under & disown allegiance unto such a power. In such a case, when the body of a Land collectively considered, or the more faithful & better part of that Land, in the time of National & universal Apostacy, & complete & habitual Tyranny, adhering closely to the fundamental constitutions & Laudable practices of that Covenanted Land (when the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are directly overturned, & the essential conditions of the mutual Compacts are broken, & such as cleave closely to the Reformation & Liberties of the Kingdom are accounted Rebels, & prosecuted as such) may reject and refuse the Magistratical Relation between the Tyrant & them: yet, before the erection of formal Magistracy, they may not Lawfully arrogate to themselves that Authority which the Tyrant hath forfeited, or claim to themselves the Authority of Judges; though radically they have the Authority of the Law, by their Natural right, & fundamental power, which God allows & is Nature's attendant; & the Municipal privilege of these subjects; but they cannot act judicially, in either Civil or Criminal Courts, only in the interim they may Lawfully do that which may most conduce to the securing of themselves, Religion, & Liberty. (4.) In Church affairs, we allow the Magistrate a power over the outward things of the Church, viz. {31} what belongs to the bodies of Church officers & members; but not over the inward things of the Church, such as Doctrine, worship, discipline, & Government: We own he may & ought to preserve both Tables of the Law, & punish by corporal & temporal punishment, whether Church officers or members, as openly dishonour God by gross offences, either against the first or second Table; but this he may not do every way, but after his own manner, not intrinsically, but extrinsically, not under consideration of a scandal, but of a crime: We grant he may order such things as are for the well-being & subsistence of the Church, & for that end may Convocate Synods in some cases of the Church, pro re nata [according to exigences], beside their ordinary Meetings (according as that part of Article 2, chapter 31, of our Confession of Faith, is fully and clearly explained by the Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, convened at Edinburgh, Aug. 27, 1647, Session 23, approving the foresaid Confession of Faith) & may be present there in external order; but not preside in their Synodical debates & resolutions; He may add his Civil Sanction to Synodical results, but we deny him any power to restrain Church Officers in Dispensing of Christ's ordinances, or forbid them to do what Christ has given them in Commission: We own that as he ought to take care of the maintenance of the Ministry, Schools, & poor, so imperatively he may Command Church officers to do their duties; yet we deny him an elicitive power, either to do himself what is incumbent to Church officers, or to Depute others to administer Ordinances in his name, or by any Ministerial power received from him: Finally we allow him a Cumulative {32} power, whereby in his own way he assisteth, strengtheneth, & ratifieth what Church officers do by virtue of their office; but we deny unto him a Privative power, which detracteth any way from the Church's Authority, for he is a Nursing father & not a step-father. In sum, we grant this to be the full extent of the Magistrate's Supremacy in the Church affairs, to order, whatsoever is commanded by the God of Heaven that it be diligently done for the house of the God of Heaven, Ezra 7.23. And what further he may Usurp, we Disown & Detest.

                    But considering the God-contemning & Heaven-daring wickedness, Usurpation, & Tyranny, of the present & latter pretended Rulers over this Land, & what grievous affronts, bold & open defiances, they have given to the Most High God, & what unparalleled abuses they have done to the Ordinance of Magistracy; Therefore We disown, detest, & abhor the corruption, perversion, & eversion of that Ordinance in this Land; And in the first place, for the late Tyrant; As we do abhor the memory of his first erection, & unhappy restoration, after by many evidences he was known to be an Enemy to God & the Country; his nefarious wickedness in ejecting the Ministers of Christ from their Charges, & introducing abjured Prelacy; his atrocious arrogance, in rescinding all Acts of Parliament for the works of Reformation; his unparalleled perfidy & Perjury, in making void, & burning the Covenants; his Heaven-daring Usurpation, in arrogating to himself that Blasphemous & Christ dethroning Supremacy; his audacious & treacherous exerting of that usurped power, in giving Indulgences to outed Ministers, to divide & destroy the Church; {33} his arbitrarian & manifest Tyranny, over the consciences of poor people, pressing them to conformity with the time's abominations, contrary both to Religion & reason, & imposing upon them conscience-debauching Oaths; His absolute domination over the whole Land, in levying Militia & other Forces, Horse & Foot, for carrying on his wicked designs, of advancing himself to an arbitrary power, & bearing down the work of Reformation, & enslaving the people; particularly in sending an Host of Savage & barbarous High-landers several times, upon a poor innocent people, to waste & destroy them; And imposing wicked taxations for the maintenance of these forces, professedly required for suppressing Religion & Liberty, & preserving & promoting his Absoluteness over all matters & persons sacred and Civil; His cruelty over the bodies of Christians, in chasing, catching, & killing upon the fields, many, without sentence past upon them or time previously to deliberate upon death, yea & without taking notice of any thing to be laid against them, according to the worst of their own Laws; Drowning Women, some of a very young & some of an exceeding old age; Imprisoning, Laying in irons, exquisite torturing by Boots, Thumbkins, & Firematches, Cutting pieces out of the ears, Banishing & selling as Slaves old & young, men & women, in great numbers, bloodily butchering upon Scaffolds, Hanging some of all Sexes & ages, Heading Mangling, dismembering alive, Quartering dead bodies; oppressing many others in their Estates, Forfeiting their Possessions, Robbing, Pillaging their goods, Casting Men, Women, & Children out of their Habitations, Interdicting any to reset [receive, harbour] them, under the pains of {34} being treated after the same manner; & all this for their adherence unto the Covenanted work of Reformation, while in the mean time many murderers, Adulterers, & incestuous persons, Sodomites, witches, & other malefactors, were pardoned or passed without punishment: So for the continued & habitual tract of these, & many other, Acts of Tyranny, we have disowned, & yet adhere to our revolt from under, the yoke of the Tyranny of Charles the Second, & Declare that his whole Government was a complete & habitual Tyranny, & no more Magistracy than Robbery is a rightful possession. And in like manner, in the Next place, we disown the Usurpation of James Duke of York, succeeding & insisting in the same footsteps of Tyranny, Treachery, & Cruelty; with the same domineering over men & Women's Consciences, & cruelty towards their bodies, & Estates, & oppression over the Land; arrogating to himself an absolute power, more declaredly than any other formerly; & labouring to bring these Lands again in Subjection to the yoke of Anti-Christ; being a professed Papist; & therefore, what ever right he may pretend by lineal succession, suffrage of Iniquitous Laws & packed Parliaments, he hath no legal or lawful right to the crown; especially, seeing many Acts of ancient Parliaments, declare Papists altogether incapable of bearing any Rule, or any other whomsoever, except they be maintainers of the true Protestant Religion, according to the National Covenant, as it is Statute by the 8 Act. Parl. 1. repeated in the 99 Act. Parl. 7. ratified in the 23 Act. Parl. 11. & 114. Act. Parl. 12 of K. James 6. & 4. Act of K. Charles the first. And here we stand as to the point of Magistracy. {35} "

                    See: www.TrueCovenanter.com  to read all of it.

                    What more should I say or quote?  The Covenanters/RPNA stand vindicated and are shown to be faithful adherents to the WCF and the Neo-Presbyterian (FPCOS, RPCNA, etc) to be working against what the Covenanted Reformation sought to accomplish via the Westminster Standards.

                    Parnell it is you and the back-slidden Presbyterians that need to repent of this sin of ommission and return to the Truth that God gave to His Church in the 1600's through the Covenanters.  Like I said in a previouspost every doctrine has consequences.  If you hold to one in contrast to the Word, then it is sinful,  or an error at best, and will lead to schism, as we now see all around us.  If you hold fast that which has been given, we shall be blessed by our Lord and King!

                    I end with the following wise and Biblical based words of Pastor Renwick:

                    "Therefore we hold it as our duty, that when a backsliding or defection is embraced, avowed, & obstinately defended, in such things as have been Reformed, either expressly or equivalently, especially being witnessed against doctrinally, & further confirmed by other Testimonies; We judge it Lawful, reasonable, & necessary; in a declining, backsliding, & troubled state of the Church, to leave that part of the Church which hath made such defection, whether Ministers or Professors, as to a joint concurrence in carrying on the publick work (according as it is given in Command to Jeremie, chapter 15, verse 19: Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them) & to adhere unto the other part of the Church, Ministers & Professors, whether more {37} or fewer, who are standing steadfastly to the defence of the Reformation, witnessing against others who have turned aside & declined therefrom; until the defections of the backsliding party be confessed, mourned over, & forsaken: This is no separation from the Church of Scotland, but only a departing & going forth from her sins, backslidings, & defections, as we are commanded by the Lord."

                     

                    For His Glory,

                     

                    Edgar

                     

                     "J. Parnell McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
                    > >"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
                    > make boid the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
                    > people from their obedience to him."
                    >
                     
                    > It is upon this point in the WCF quoted above that I think Richard Cameron
                    > erred.  While he had a right to point out the wickedness of King Charles II,
                    > and even to encourage the Parliament to restrain him and bring him to
                    > justice, Richard Cameron had no right to declare King Charles II the
                    > illegitimate ruler of Britain.  Richard Cameron was not the Parliament.
                    >

                    >
                    > This issue too comes to bear on the Boston Tea Party, the American
                    > Revolution, etc.
                    >

                    >
                    > So, today too, though George W. Bush be a
                    very wicked man in many respects,
                    > it is not the place of those of us on this list to pronounce him the
                    > illegitimate ruler.  President Bush's infidelity does not make void his
                    > status as President, until such time as God or a God ordained agent like
                    > Congress removes him.
                    >

                    >
                    > This goes to the heart of the difference between the FPCS and the RPNA, both
                    > denominations of which profess to adhere to the WCF and want nations
                    > covenanted to Christ according to the principles of the WCF.
                    >

                    >
                    > - Parnell McCarter




                    www.albanycrpc.org                        www.ecn.ab.ca/prce
                     


                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
                  • Dan Fraas
                    ... Cameron ... Dear Parnell, What I am about to express may not be in agreement with the opinion of any other listmember, but this is my understanding. It is
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 2 1:08 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
                      McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:
                      > >"Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not
                      > make boid the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the
                      > people from their obedience to him."
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > It is upon this point in the WCF quoted above that I think Richard
                      Cameron
                      > erred.

                      Dear Parnell,

                      What I am about to express may not be in agreement with the opinion
                      of any other listmember, but this is my understanding. It is my
                      understanding that the true Knoxian position asserts that all rulers
                      are ordained of God, but that they are ordained on the condition of a
                      covenant between the people and their government. They must rule on
                      the basis of the laws of their nation (covenant) which may restrict
                      the magistrate's power. If in any point the ruler appropriates to
                      himself authority in violation of that covenant and the law of the
                      land, in that point he is a usurper. Then he remains yet the
                      rightful ruler in those matters where he wields lawful power, but not
                      in those areas where he is unlawfully usurping authority from the
                      lesser magistrates, the church, or the people. In such cases the
                      people ought to seek redress to the ruler and then to lesser
                      magistrates, remaining obedient in all things where he wields lawful
                      authority. They may take up arms as a last resort to defend their
                      lives and liberty if all other avenues of redress have been exausted,
                      with or without the aid of lesser magistrates. The principle that
                      the magistrate is bound by law (both God's and civil law) as well as
                      the people is what distiguishes the Presbyterian doctrine of civil
                      government from the Anglican "divine right of kings."

                      While he had a right to point out the wickedness of King Charles II,
                      > and even to encourage the Parliament to restrain him and bring him
                      to
                      > justice, Richard Cameron had no right to declare King Charles II the
                      > illegitimate ruler of Britain. Richard Cameron was not the
                      Parliament.

                      Well in Cameron's case Charles II's session to the throne combined
                      with his covenant-breaking status ipso facto was a violation of law.
                      Right?

                      Blessings in Christ,

                      Riley Fraas
                    • J. Parnell McCarter
                      ... wicked domination of the British tyrant. Interesting. King George III never allowed Romanists to vote in Britain. Can the same be said for Washington,
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 2 4:41 AM
                      • 0 Attachment

                        >Wylie: "… the people of these States, who justly and valiantly resisted the wicked domination of the British tyrant…"

                         

                        Interesting.  King George III never allowed Romanists to vote in Britain .  Can the same be said for Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in the USA ?

                         

                        And how did the tax rate of King George III on the American colonists (to reimburse some of the costs of the French and Indian War) compare to the tax rates imposed by modern American Presidents on the American people? 

                         

                        May I trade the "wickedness" of George III for the "righteousness" of American presidents from George W. to George W. Bush?

                         

                        > No authority can be just and legal, with which a contradiction to the moral law is essentially incorporated. Simple infidelity will not render it unjust, either in a heathen country, or in one emerging from Pagan darkness. Neither will simple difference in religion make it void, when the nation have not, by their own solemn act and deed, made conformity an essential article of their constitution.

                        What is essentially being stated here is that this section of the WCF was irrelevant in the nation for which the WCF was written.  This is surely an implausible interpretation of the section of the WCF.

                         

                        But lest I be misunderstood, I want to state that I believe it is the duty of the body politic (Parliament in the instance of England ) in a covenanted nation to bring a religiously unfaithful king to justice.  But what I deny is that a minister (whether that minister be Cameron or the Pope), or any other individual citizen, may pronounce a king illegitimate.  A minister may urge the Parliament to do so, but he may not pronounce it himself.  The church may not take the role of the Parliament; as the Parliament may not take the role of the church.  And we must distinguish the individual from the body politic.

                         

                        I would encourage list members to read Calvin's Institutes on this issue of obedience to the sovereign.

                        - Parnell McCarter

                        www.puritans.net

                         

                         

                      • Dan Fraas
                        ... the duty ... covenanted ... Isn t that the duty of each and every person in the body politic according to his or her station? Don t we all have an
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 2 10:05 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > But lest I be misunderstood, I want to state that I believe it is
                          the duty
                          > of the body politic (Parliament in the instance of England) in a
                          covenanted
                          > nation to bring a religiously unfaithful king to justice.

                          Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
                          according to his or her station? Don't we all have an obligation to
                          uphold the law?

                          But what I deny
                          > is that a minister (whether that minister be Cameron or the Pope),
                          or any
                          > other individual citizen, may pronounce a king illegitimate.

                          The beauty of Presbyterianism and rebublicanism is that we have
                          objective standards. Any man armed with the Scriptures and the
                          constitution may declare unlawful usurpations in breach of the same
                          to be unlawful.

                          A minister may
                          > urge the Parliament to do so, but he may not pronounce it himself.
                          The
                          > church may not take the role of the Parliament; as the Parliament
                          may not
                          > take the role of the church. And we must distinguish the
                          individual from
                          > the body politic.

                          So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes power
                          in violation of standing law is illegitimate? Does that hold for
                          such usurpers as Absalom and Cromwell too? Did the prophets and
                          ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?

                          Blessings in Christ,

                          Riley
                        • jparnellm@usxchange.net
                          Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the difference between the FPCS and the RPNA: Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 2 10:49 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the difference between
                            the FPCS and the RPNA:

                            "Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just
                            and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from
                            which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any
                            power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their
                            people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he
                            shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever."

                            Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of the Parliament
                            in a constitutional govt. The people (represented in their Parliament) may
                            impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power of the body
                            politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual citizens (inc
                            if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church. The
                            pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon Parliament to
                            restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual minister,
                            inc. the Pope.




                            Quoting Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...>:

                            > > But lest I be misunderstood, I want to state that I believe it is
                            >
                            > the duty
                            >
                            > > of the body politic (Parliament in the instance of England) in a
                            >
                            > covenanted
                            >
                            > > nation to bring a religiously unfaithful king to justice.
                            >
                            > Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
                            >
                            > according to his or her station?  Don't we all have an obligation to
                            >
                            > uphold the law?   
                            >

                            No, the prerogatives of the Parliament as a body do not lie in the hands of
                            individual citizens, any more than the prerogatives of the church as a body do
                            not lie in the hands of individual members. A mere individual cannot impeach a
                            monarch or president, nor can a mere individual dispense the sacraments.


                            > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes power
                            >
                            > in violation of standing law is illegitimate? 

                            The issue in question is a monarch (like King Charles II) or a President (like
                            G.W. Bush)- the powers that be in their day and in their country.


                            >Did the prophets and
                            >
                            > ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?
                            >

                            Let's consider some history:

                            1. Did Elijah pronounce Ahab not to be the king, or did he exhort him for being
                            a wicked king?


                            2. Did John the Baptist pronounce Herod not to be the king, or did he exhort him
                            for being a wicked king?


                            3. Did John Knox pronounce Mary Queen of Scots not to be the legitimate
                            monarch, or did exhort her for being a wicked monarch (and called upon
                            Parliament to restrain her)?

                            - Parnell
                          • gmw
                            ... To the contrary, is it not required of a faithful preacher to cry down public sin wherever the infection may be? And did not Jehoiada the priest
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 2 11:00 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                              <fraasrd@y...> wrote:

                              > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes
                              > power in violation of standing law is illegitimate? Does that hold
                              > for such usurpers as Absalom and Cromwell too? Did the prophets
                              > and ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?

                              To the contrary, is it not required of a faithful preacher to cry
                              down public sin wherever the infection may be? And did not Jehoiada
                              the priest orchestrate the slaughter of the usurper Athaliah,
                              notwithstanding her cries of "Treason!"?

                              My understanding is that Charles II was installed with the
                              understanding that he would do what he indeed swore to do:

                              "I CHARLES, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, do assure and
                              declare, by my solemn oath, in the presence of Almighty God, the
                              searcher of hearts, my allowance and approbation of the National
                              Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant above written, and
                              faithfully oblige myself to prosecute the ends thereof in my station
                              and calling; and that I for myself and successors, shall consent and
                              agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the national covenant and
                              the solemn league and covenant, and fully establishing presbyterial
                              government, the directory for worship, confession of faith, and
                              catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as they are approven by the
                              General Assemblies of this Kirk, and Parliament of this kingdom' and
                              that I shall give my royal assent, to acts and ordinances of
                              parliament passed, or to be passed, enjoining the same in my other
                              domnions: and that I shall observe these in my own practice and
                              family, and shall never make opposition to any of these, or endeavour
                              to any change thereof."

                              But instead, he had the Solemn League and Covenant burned by the
                              hangman, unlawfully struck down the civil laws establishing the
                              Reformation in the land, and actively persecuted the Church refusing
                              to acknowledge his lawful right to do these things. In such a case,
                              I see no way that a minister is under obligation to remain silent
                              about the matter. That's my understanding, anyway.

                              I would be interested in some material on how the Covenanters
                              specifically addressed the WCF article concerning the authority of
                              the civil magistrate. If anyone has some good stuff, please post!

                              Here's some stuff from the Cloud of Witnesses, from various martyrs
                              who were tortured and killed, accused of treason and of violating the
                              very Confession they died testifying to:

                              ---
                              David Hackston's testimony before the privy council:

                              "The authority that disowns the interest of God, and states itself in
                              opposition to Jesus Christ, is no more to be owned; but so it is, the
                              King's authority is now such, therefore it ought not to be owned."
                              [snip]

                              Then, being interrogated by the Bishop of Edinburgh, what he would
                              answer to that article of the Confession of Faith, that difference of
                              religion doth not make void the Magistrate's right and authority? He
                              answered, that he would not answer any perjured Prelate. The Bishop
                              replied, he was in the wrong to him, because he never took the
                              Covenant, therefore he was not perjured, and so deserved not that
                              name. But some of them asking him how he would answer that question,
                              he answered, "That question was answered long ago, by the Solemn
                              League and Covenant, which binds us only to maintain and defend the
                              King in the defense of the true religion: but now the king having
                              stated himself an enemy to religion, and all that will live
                              religiously, therefore it is high time to shake off all obligation of
                              allegiance to his authority."
                              ---

                              The testimony of James Skene:

                              "I adhere to Presbyterian Government, and the whole work of
                              Reformation of the Church of Scotland; the Confession of Faith, and
                              Larger and Shorter Catechisms, consulted well, and written by the
                              Assembly of Divines; except that article about Magistracy, when ill
                              expounded, in the 23d chapter; because our magistracy is but pure
                              tyranny, exercised by the lustful rage of men, yea, rather devils in
                              shape of men, whom God has permitted, in His holy and spotless
                              wisdom, for a trial to His people, and a snare to some others, to
                              oppress, tyrannize, and blasphemously tread under foot His truth,
                              interest, and people; yea, that article is expounded in the National
                              Covenant, where we have vowed to the Almighty God, not to maintain
                              the king's interest, when he disowns the Covenant, and well-settled
                              Church-government by Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies of
                              the Church of Scotland.[* Note from the compiler of the 1st edition
                              of the Cloud of Witnesses: "Let none mistake this sentence as if
                              this worthy gentleman thereby disowned that unshaken principle of the
                              Protestant religion; viz., that infidelity or difference in religion
                              does not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority; for it
                              is plain, he rejects only the false sense that was then put upon it,
                              to make it an argument for defense of tyranny and arbitrary power."]
                              ---

                              The testimony of Isabel Alison before the Privy Council:

                              They asked, If I could read the Bible? I answered, Yes. They asked,
                              If I knew the duty we owe to the civil magistrate? I answered, When
                              the magistrate carrieth the sword for God, according to what the
                              Scripture calls for, we owe him all due reverence but when they
                              overturn the work of God, and set themselves in opposition to Him, it
                              is the duty of His servants to execute His laws and ordinances on
                              them.

                              [snip]

                              They asked, What think you of that in the Confession of Faith, that
                              magistrates should be owned, though they were heathens? I answered,
                              It was another matter, than when these, who seemed to own the truth,
                              have now overturned it, and made themselves avowed enemies to it.
                              They asked, Who should be judge of these things? I answered, The
                              Scriptures of truth, and the Spirit of God and not men that have
                              overturned the work themselves.
                              The testimony of James Robertson before the Council:
                              Question 1. "Is the king your lawful prince, yea, or not?
                              Answer "Since ye have made your questions matters of life and death,
                              ye ought to give time to deliberate upon them; but seeing I am put to
                              it, I answer, As he is a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them
                              that do well, he is; or he is not.
                              Question 2. "Were Pentland and Bothwell acts of traitory?
                              Answer "They being in their own defense, and the defense of the
                              Gospel, they are not acts of traitory or rebellion, self-defense
                              being always lawful; which I prove by the Confession of Faith, in
                              that article whereon you ground yourselves, which is, that subjects
                              may resist unjust violence and tyranny.
                              Question 3. "But wherein lies his tyranny?
                              Answer. "If robbing the privileges of the Church be not an act of
                              tyranny, I refer it to be judged.
                              Question 4. "Is the king a tyrant?
                              Answer "I refer it to his obligation in the Coronation Oath, and his
                              present actings and practices in robbing the privileges of the
                              Gospel, with the usurpation of the Church's liberties, and the
                              prerogatives royal of Jesus Christ, the anointed of the Father, in
                              making himself supreme; and I refer it to persons at home, and
                              nations abroad.
                              ---

                              The last testimony of John Main:

                              "I testify my adherence to the Confession of Faith (saying nothing to
                              that fourth article of the twenty-third chapter, but only that it is
                              misconstructed, and made use of for another end than ever the honest
                              and faithful ministers of Christ had before them, when they gave
                              their approbation of the same), and Catechisms Larger and Shorter,
                              our Covenants National and Solemn League, Acknowledgment of Sins and
                              Engagement to Duties, the Sum and Practical Use of Saving Knowledge."
                              ---

                              Like I said, I'd love to see some more Covenanter stuff posted
                              addressing specifically the 23rd article of the Confession in
                              question.

                              gmw.
                            • Glenn Ferrell
                              Isn t it a matter of jurisdiction? As a minister, or a Christian who reads the Scriptures, I may declare abortion sinful and unlawful. I do not have
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 2 11:27 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Isn't it a matter of jurisdiction?  As a minister, or a Christian who reads the Scriptures, I may declare abortion sinful and unlawful.

                                I do not have jurisdiction as a magistrate to start convicting and executing abortionists.

                                I may declare magistrates complicit in the crime in their failure to act.  I may call on other magistrates, lesser magistrates, to act to defend life, convict and execute murders, and remove or hinder those sinful magistrates.

                                As a private citizen or minister, I do not have the power of the sword to overthrow the magistrate or execute murders. 

                                I do have the right and obligation to protect my life, property, the lives of my family, neighbors and innocent persons in immediate danger and under my protection.

                                Glenn

                                Dan Fraas wrote:
                                > But lest I be misunderstood, I want to state that I believe it is
                                the duty
                                > of the body politic (Parliament in the instance of England) in a
                                covenanted
                                > nation to bring a religiously unfaithful king to justice.

                                Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
                                according to his or her station?  Don't we all have an obligation to
                                uphold the law?   

                                But what I deny
                                > is that a minister (whether that minister be Cameron or the Pope),
                                or any
                                > other individual citizen, may pronounce a king illegitimate. 

                                The beauty of Presbyterianism and rebublicanism is that we have
                                objective standards.  Any man armed with the Scriptures and the
                                constitution may declare unlawful usurpations in breach of the same
                                to be unlawful. 

                                A minister may
                                > urge the Parliament to do so, but he may not pronounce it himself. 
                                The
                                > church may not take the role of the Parliament; as the Parliament
                                may not
                                > take the role of the church.  And we must distinguish the
                                individual from
                                > the body politic.

                                So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes power
                                in violation of standing law is illegitimate?  Does that hold for
                                such usurpers as Absalom and Cromwell too?  Did the prophets and
                                ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?

                                Blessings in Christ,

                                Riley 


                              • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                GMW, did you see my earlier post responding to Parnell? I cited Two Sons of Oil and Informatory Vindication that uphold the Biblical position that the
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 2 11:28 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  GMW, did you see my earlier post responding to Parnell? I
                                  cited "Two Sons of Oil" and "Informatory Vindication" that uphold
                                  the Biblical position that the Covenanters believe re: the Civil
                                  Magistrate against the unbiblical position held by most neo-Presbies.

                                  I will offer up many more soon...

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  Edgar

                                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                                  <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
                                  > <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes
                                  > > power in violation of standing law is illegitimate? Does that
                                  hold
                                  > > for such usurpers as Absalom and Cromwell too? Did the prophets
                                  > > and ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?
                                  >
                                  > To the contrary, is it not required of a faithful preacher to cry
                                  > down public sin wherever the infection may be? And did not
                                  Jehoiada
                                  > the priest orchestrate the slaughter of the usurper Athaliah,
                                  > notwithstanding her cries of "Treason!"?
                                  >
                                  > My understanding is that Charles II was installed with the
                                  > understanding that he would do what he indeed swore to do:
                                  >
                                  > "I CHARLES, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, do assure
                                  and
                                  > declare, by my solemn oath, in the presence of Almighty God, the
                                  > searcher of hearts, my allowance and approbation of the National
                                  > Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant above written, and
                                  > faithfully oblige myself to prosecute the ends thereof in my
                                  station
                                  > and calling; and that I for myself and successors, shall consent
                                  and
                                  > agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the national covenant
                                  and
                                  > the solemn league and covenant, and fully establishing
                                  presbyterial
                                  > government, the directory for worship, confession of faith, and
                                  > catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as they are approven by
                                  the
                                  > General Assemblies of this Kirk, and Parliament of this kingdom'
                                  and
                                  > that I shall give my royal assent, to acts and ordinances of
                                  > parliament passed, or to be passed, enjoining the same in my other
                                  > domnions: and that I shall observe these in my own practice and
                                  > family, and shall never make opposition to any of these, or
                                  endeavour
                                  > to any change thereof."
                                  >
                                  > But instead, he had the Solemn League and Covenant burned by the
                                  > hangman, unlawfully struck down the civil laws establishing the
                                  > Reformation in the land, and actively persecuted the Church
                                  refusing
                                  > to acknowledge his lawful right to do these things. In such a
                                  case,
                                  > I see no way that a minister is under obligation to remain silent
                                  > about the matter. That's my understanding, anyway.
                                  >
                                  > I would be interested in some material on how the Covenanters
                                  > specifically addressed the WCF article concerning the authority of
                                  > the civil magistrate. If anyone has some good stuff, please post!
                                  >
                                  > Here's some stuff from the Cloud of Witnesses, from various
                                  martyrs
                                  > who were tortured and killed, accused of treason and of violating
                                  the
                                  > very Confession they died testifying to:
                                  >
                                  > ---
                                  > David Hackston's testimony before the privy council:
                                  >
                                  > "The authority that disowns the interest of God, and states itself
                                  in
                                  > opposition to Jesus Christ, is no more to be owned; but so it is,
                                  the
                                  > King's authority is now such, therefore it ought not to be owned."
                                  > [snip]
                                  >
                                  > Then, being interrogated by the Bishop of Edinburgh, what he would
                                  > answer to that article of the Confession of Faith, that difference
                                  of
                                  > religion doth not make void the Magistrate's right and authority?
                                  He
                                  > answered, that he would not answer any perjured Prelate. The
                                  Bishop
                                  > replied, he was in the wrong to him, because he never took the
                                  > Covenant, therefore he was not perjured, and so deserved not that
                                  > name. But some of them asking him how he would answer that
                                  question,
                                  > he answered, "That question was answered long ago, by the Solemn
                                  > League and Covenant, which binds us only to maintain and defend
                                  the
                                  > King in the defense of the true religion: but now the king having
                                  > stated himself an enemy to religion, and all that will live
                                  > religiously, therefore it is high time to shake off all obligation
                                  of
                                  > allegiance to his authority."
                                  > ---
                                  >
                                  > The testimony of James Skene:
                                  >
                                  > "I adhere to Presbyterian Government, and the whole work of
                                  > Reformation of the Church of Scotland; the Confession of Faith,
                                  and
                                  > Larger and Shorter Catechisms, consulted well, and written by the
                                  > Assembly of Divines; except that article about Magistracy, when
                                  ill
                                  > expounded, in the 23d chapter; because our magistracy is but pure
                                  > tyranny, exercised by the lustful rage of men, yea, rather devils
                                  in
                                  > shape of men, whom God has permitted, in His holy and spotless
                                  > wisdom, for a trial to His people, and a snare to some others, to
                                  > oppress, tyrannize, and blasphemously tread under foot His truth,
                                  > interest, and people; yea, that article is expounded in the
                                  National
                                  > Covenant, where we have vowed to the Almighty God, not to maintain
                                  > the king's interest, when he disowns the Covenant, and well-
                                  settled
                                  > Church-government by Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies
                                  of
                                  > the Church of Scotland.[* Note from the compiler of the 1st
                                  edition
                                  > of the Cloud of Witnesses: "Let none mistake this sentence as if
                                  > this worthy gentleman thereby disowned that unshaken principle of
                                  the
                                  > Protestant religion; viz., that infidelity or difference in
                                  religion
                                  > does not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority; for
                                  it
                                  > is plain, he rejects only the false sense that was then put upon
                                  it,
                                  > to make it an argument for defense of tyranny and arbitrary
                                  power."]
                                  > ---
                                  >
                                  > The testimony of Isabel Alison before the Privy Council:
                                  >
                                  > They asked, If I could read the Bible? I answered, Yes. They
                                  asked,
                                  > If I knew the duty we owe to the civil magistrate? I answered,
                                  When
                                  > the magistrate carrieth the sword for God, according to what the
                                  > Scripture calls for, we owe him all due reverence but when they
                                  > overturn the work of God, and set themselves in opposition to Him,
                                  it
                                  > is the duty of His servants to execute His laws and ordinances on
                                  > them.
                                  >
                                  > [snip]
                                  >
                                  > They asked, What think you of that in the Confession of Faith,
                                  that
                                  > magistrates should be owned, though they were heathens? I
                                  answered,
                                  > It was another matter, than when these, who seemed to own the
                                  truth,
                                  > have now overturned it, and made themselves avowed enemies to it.
                                  > They asked, Who should be judge of these things? I answered, The
                                  > Scriptures of truth, and the Spirit of God and not men that have
                                  > overturned the work themselves.
                                  > The testimony of James Robertson before the Council:
                                  > Question 1. "Is the king your lawful prince, yea, or not?
                                  > Answer "Since ye have made your questions matters of life and
                                  death,
                                  > ye ought to give time to deliberate upon them; but seeing I am put
                                  to
                                  > it, I answer, As he is a terror to evil doers, and a praise to
                                  them
                                  > that do well, he is; or he is not.
                                  > Question 2. "Were Pentland and Bothwell acts of traitory?
                                  > Answer "They being in their own defense, and the defense of the
                                  > Gospel, they are not acts of traitory or rebellion, self-defense
                                  > being always lawful; which I prove by the Confession of Faith, in
                                  > that article whereon you ground yourselves, which is, that
                                  subjects
                                  > may resist unjust violence and tyranny.
                                  > Question 3. "But wherein lies his tyranny?
                                  > Answer. "If robbing the privileges of the Church be not an act of
                                  > tyranny, I refer it to be judged.
                                  > Question 4. "Is the king a tyrant?
                                  > Answer "I refer it to his obligation in the Coronation Oath, and
                                  his
                                  > present actings and practices in robbing the privileges of the
                                  > Gospel, with the usurpation of the Church's liberties, and the
                                  > prerogatives royal of Jesus Christ, the anointed of the Father, in
                                  > making himself supreme; and I refer it to persons at home, and
                                  > nations abroad.
                                  > ---
                                  >
                                  > The last testimony of John Main:
                                  >
                                  > "I testify my adherence to the Confession of Faith (saying nothing
                                  to
                                  > that fourth article of the twenty-third chapter, but only that it
                                  is
                                  > misconstructed, and made use of for another end than ever the
                                  honest
                                  > and faithful ministers of Christ had before them, when they gave
                                  > their approbation of the same), and Catechisms Larger and Shorter,
                                  > our Covenants National and Solemn League, Acknowledgment of Sins
                                  and
                                  > Engagement to Duties, the Sum and Practical Use of Saving
                                  Knowledge."
                                  > ---
                                  >
                                  > Like I said, I'd love to see some more Covenanter stuff posted
                                  > addressing specifically the 23rd article of the Confession in
                                  > question.
                                  >
                                  > gmw.
                                • gmw
                                  ... I just found a letter by John McMillan III, addressed to the Seceeders, on Civil Magistracy. The entire letter can be read here:
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 2 11:33 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                                    <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:

                                    > I would be interested in some material on how the Covenanters
                                    > specifically addressed the WCF article concerning the authority of
                                    > the civil magistrate. If anyone has some good stuff, please post!

                                    I just found a letter by John McMillan III, addressed to the
                                    Seceeders, on Civil Magistracy. The entire letter can be read here:
                                    http://truecovenanter.com/mcmillan/mcmillan_letter1781.html

                                    The following is a section dealing with the WCF and the Covenants:

                                    ---
                                    I am happy to meet you upon the field of our Covenants and
                                    Confessions. As you and I profess to own the propriety of these for
                                    subordinate standards, it is superfluous to attempt a proof of their
                                    orthodoxy. The controversy betwixt us turns upon the sense in which
                                    our pious reformers understood these standards. You allege, that
                                    these Covenants and that Confession, in the sense of the reformers,
                                    allow a Christian reformed people, such as the reformed lands of
                                    Britain, to acknowledge for God's ordinance any magistrates, whatever
                                    religion they may profess, whether it be Heathenish, Mahometan,
                                    Jewish, Popish, Prelatic, &c.; and whatever are the terms on which
                                    such persons are vested with such power, providing always their
                                    installment is by the voice of the people. That this was their
                                    meaning, I refuse; and do maintain it was the general current
                                    sentiment of our most eminent reformers, from the first dawn of
                                    reformation, to its brightest splendor; was the spirit of all their
                                    exertions in favours of a civil reformation; and is the true sense of
                                    these Covenants, and that Confession, to acknowledge none as God's
                                    ordinance, in such lands, but those who settled upon scriptural
                                    constitutions, possess scriptural qualifications, are installed into
                                    office in an agreeable manner, and employ their power in defence of
                                    the true religion.

                                    I am now to adduce my proof of the truth of this assertion: It shall
                                    be taken out of a few quotations from the publications of the
                                    reformers, the meaning of which does no admit of controversy.—But,
                                    previous to this, shall suggest to you a distinction, which the
                                    reformers, and the writers upon their cause, made betwixt Christian
                                    reformed lands, and unenlightened unreformed lands. They allowed that
                                    many things might be borne with in the one, which could not be borne
                                    with in the other; and that the reasons which made it plainly
                                    unlawful to acknowledge, as God's ordinance, persons professing a
                                    false religion, and engaged to support this, as a condition of power,
                                    within a reformed land, did not apply with the same force to reject
                                    authority in the persons of heathens, in an unenlightened unreformed
                                    land: they did not condemn the magistracy of heathenish countries in
                                    itself, but permitted the subjects of reformed lands, when traveling
                                    through, trading with, or residing within heathenish lands, to submit
                                    unto the rulers of the place; and to comply with their constitutions
                                    and laws, insofar as these were not repugnant to any law of God. This
                                    distinction of our reformers, if averted unto, will throw light upon,
                                    and ascertain the meaning of any passage in the writings and
                                    standards of the reformation, the interpretation of which may appear
                                    doubtful.—That this is a distinction of our reformers own making,
                                    those who are versant in their history cannot fail to perceive.

                                    My first quotation is taken from the Rev. Mr. John Knox, an eminent
                                    reforming minister, who lived in the beginning of the reformation of
                                    Scotland, whose sentiments were approved by many of his co-temporary
                                    reformers, and by the propagators of the same cause after him. The
                                    quotation is taken from the contents of his second blast of the
                                    trumpet, distributed into four positions; and pity it is the world
                                    was not favoured with his own explanation of these at large!—"1. It
                                    is not birth only, nor propinquity of blood, that maketh a king
                                    lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus, and his
                                    eternal verity; but in his election must the ordinance which God hath
                                    established in the election of inferior judges be observed.—2. No
                                    manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God's holy precepts,
                                    ought to be promoted to any public regimen, honour, or dignity in any
                                    realm, province, or city, that have submitted themselves to Jesus
                                    Christ, and to his blessed evangel.—3. Neither can oath nor promise
                                    bind any such people, to obey and maintain tyrants against God and
                                    against his truth known.—4. But, if either rashly they have promoted
                                    any manifest wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen any such an
                                    one, as after declareth himself unworthy of regimen above the people
                                    of God, (and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors) most justly
                                    may the same men depose and punish him, that unadvisedly before they
                                    did nominate, appoint, and elect."

                                    My second quotation is taken from a declaration of the General
                                    Assembly of the church of Scotland, concerning the present dangers of
                                    religion, and especially the unlawful engagement in war, against the
                                    kingdom of England, &c. dated at Edinburgh, the last day of July, P.
                                    M. 1648.; wherein, inter alia, they say, "the second article," [viz.
                                    of the Solemn League,] "is violated; because, instead of endeavouring
                                    to extirpate Popery and superstition without respect of persons, (as
                                    is exprest in the covenant,) there is in the late declaration of the
                                    committee of estates, a desire of the Queen's return, without any
                                    condition tending to the restraint of her mass, or exercise of
                                    Popery: We do also conceive there is a tacit condescending to the
                                    toleration of superstition, and the book of common prayer, in his
                                    Majesty's family, because it was reserved by himself in his
                                    concession, brought home by the commissioners of the kingdom; so
                                    these concessions were never plainly declared by the parliament to be
                                    unsatisfactory to their Lordships: howbeit, it hath been often and
                                    earnestly desired; neither can we conceive how the clause concerning
                                    the extirpation of Prelacy, can consist with endeavouring to bring
                                    his Majesty with honour, freedom, and safety, to one of his houses in
                                    and about London, without any security had from him, for the
                                    abolition of Prelacy; it being his known principle, (and publicly
                                    declared by himself, shortly after he went to the isle of Wight) that
                                    he held himself obliged in conscience, and by his coronation-oath, to
                                    maintain arch-bishops, bishops, &c.—Can it be said they are
                                    endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy, who after such a declaration would
                                    put in his Majesty's hand an opportunity to restore it?"

                                    My third quotation is taken from a seasonable and necessary warning
                                    and declaration of the same church of Scotland, unto all the members
                                    thereof, concerning present and imminent dangers, and concerning
                                    duties relative thereto; dated at Edinburgh, 27th July A. M. 1649.;
                                    wherein, inter alia, they say, "In the League and Covenant which hath
                                    been so solemnly sworn and renewed by this kingdom, the duty of
                                    defending and preserving the king's Majesty's person and authority,
                                    is joined with, and subordinate unto the duty of preserving and
                                    defending the true religion, and the liberties of the kingdom: and
                                    therefore, his Majesty standing in opposition to the just and
                                    necessary public desires concerning religion and liberties, it were a
                                    manifest breach of covenant, and a preferring of the King's interest
                                    to the interest of Jesus Christ, to bring him to the exercise of his
                                    royal power, which he, walking in a contrary way, and being compassed
                                    about with malignant counsels, cannot but employ unto the prejudice
                                    and ruin of both."

                                    My fourth and last quotation is taken from the testimony of the Rev.
                                    Mr. James Renwick, left in the hands of Mr. Robert Hamilton,
                                    gentleman, before his entry to the work of the ministry; wherein,
                                    inter alia, when speaking of Charles II. he says, "He cut the neck of
                                    our noble constitution of church and state-government, arrogating to
                                    himself a blasphemous supremacy in matters ecclesiastic, altogether
                                    inconsistent with the kingly office of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.—
                                    By him it is made essential to the crown by the act explanatory of
                                    the supremacy, declaring the same to be essential to the crown, to
                                    him and his successors, so that he cannot be owned or acknowledged as
                                    king, nor any succeeding upon that foundation, be they who they will,
                                    without denying of Jesus Christ, and being guilty of lese-majesty
                                    against the King of kings, who will not give his glory to another.—
                                    None can pretend any distinction, unless they would cheat themselves
                                    out of the truth, and become guilty of his blasphemous robbing of the
                                    Son of God; for he hath no civil power distinct from his supremacy:
                                    that, I say, his supremacy is the foundation of all power he pleads
                                    for, and takes all acknowledging of him as an acknowledgement
                                    thereof, and why may we not? Seeing it is made essential to the
                                    crown?"

                                    These few are all the quotations I judge necessary to adduce at
                                    present. To me they appear fully sufficient to ascertain the point in
                                    question. I now ask you, upon reading them over, Do you think it to
                                    be agreeable to these declarations of our reformers, that persons of
                                    every false religion,—the very worst you can suppose, and engaged as
                                    a condition of government to support that religion, ought to be
                                    acknowledged as lawful rulers in a Christian reformed land,
                                    particularly, in the Christian reformed lands of Britain and Ireland?
                                    Again, Do you think it to be consistent with these declarations of
                                    our reformers to maintain, that our reformers understood the National
                                    Covenant of Scotland, the Solemn League of Scotland, England, and
                                    Ireland, and the Confession of Faith, in a sense in which they could
                                    be bound to Prelatic princes, particularly, to princes circumscribed
                                    by the constitution, and engaged by coronation oath, to profess in
                                    their own persons, and to support within their dominions that false
                                    superstitious religion of prelacy? The truth is, our reformers
                                    thought not so, neither do these covenants and that confession mean
                                    so, in the judgment of the reformers themselves, as expressed by the
                                    General Assembly above, who must be allowed by all, to be the
                                    soundest interpreters of their own standards. Says Mr. Knox, as
                                    above, "No manifest idolater, nor notorious transgressor of God's
                                    holy precepts ought to be promoted to any public regimen in a realm
                                    or province, that have submitted themselves to Jesus Christ: neither
                                    can oath bind any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against
                                    God and his truth known." That worthy minister does not qualify his
                                    doctrine by the limitations of the Secession church, tyrants against
                                    men in their natural lives and civil privileges; but tyrants against
                                    God and his truth known. This doctrine of Mr. Knox exactly agrees to
                                    the doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery; and, upon it as a first
                                    principle, drawn from scripture, the whole fabrick of the civil
                                    reformation was reared. It is much to the honour of the Scotch
                                    nation, that the Father of lights was graciously pleased to discover
                                    this principle to our reformers, in the dawn of reformation. Having
                                    understood it, the reformers employed their most vigorous efforts,
                                    consistent with duty, to erect amongst them a scriptural magistracy.
                                    It ought not to be reckoned a small attainment in the progress of
                                    civil reformation, that our reformers procured Popery and idolatry to
                                    be banished the throne, in the days of James VI. a prince, who,
                                    during his reign in Scotland before his accession to the crown of
                                    England, appeared to be of a changing sentiment in religion,
                                    sometimes favouring Presbytery, and sometimes favouring Prelacy. That
                                    the reformers owned and submitted to James VI. is not denied; but
                                    several things merit our attention in that case, and in that period.
                                    (1.) The reformation was then in its infancy; it had not grown up to
                                    the same stature it did afterwards. The Secession themselves give a
                                    preference to the last reforming period, betwixt the years 1638, an
                                    1650. (2.) The different ranks were not so extensively reformed;
                                    there existed a numerous body in power who did not embrace the
                                    reformation. (3.) There was not an article in the terms of
                                    investiture, obliging king James to be, in his own person and family,
                                    of the Episcopal communion: what profession of Prelacy he made was
                                    purely personal, and it was still lamented as a great grievance by
                                    the reformers. (4.) There was not an article in the conditions of
                                    government, obliging him to support the prelatic religion. (5.) The
                                    oath of allegiance in the National covenant is well-worded, and
                                    properly guarded, and seems to be limited by the king's maintain the
                                    true religion, as contained in the Scotch Confession. The oath of the
                                    jurants runs thus, "We promise with our hearts under the same oath,
                                    that we shall defend his person and authority, with our goods,
                                    bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ his evangel." In the bond
                                    which was subjoined to the National Covenant in the year 1638, the
                                    oath runs thus, "We shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our
                                    means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread sovereign the
                                    king's majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
                                    preservation of the foresaid true religion." (6.) The minds of our
                                    reformers, at this early period, do not seem to have been fully
                                    emancipated from the bondage of the national prejudice, in favours of
                                    the doctrine of hereditary right to the crown: Although they had some
                                    view of the truth of Mr. Knox' doctrine, that propinquity of blood of
                                    itself did not make a king to reign lawfully over a people professing
                                    Christ and his gospel; yet the old Scottish idea of hereditary right
                                    appears to have been a shackle upon the progress of the civil
                                    reformation, till the united force of the enormous immoralities, and
                                    intolerable despotism of the lineal descendants of the royal family
                                    convinced the friends of the reformation, in later times, to their
                                    cost, of the danger and error of such an opinion.

                                    Our primitive reformers, believing the necessity of scriptural
                                    constitutions, and of scriptural qualifications in rulers, and at the
                                    same time acting in part under the influence of the idea of
                                    hereditary right by birth to the crown, it was impossible but the
                                    civil reformation behooved to be retarded, and the reformers
                                    themselves reduced to a perplexing dilemma, particularly, when the
                                    minds of the lineal descendants run cross to the good cause of the
                                    reformation; and if there are any things in their conduct, which do
                                    not appear to quadrate so exactly to the great and leading principle
                                    in the reformation, the necessity of magistrates possessing
                                    scriptural qualifications, and employing the power committed to them
                                    by the state, to the protection of the true religion, perhaps, we
                                    may, without passing censure upon these great and shining lights, our
                                    reformers, impute these to an over-zealous attachment to the persons
                                    of men, or to the Scottish idea of hereditary right in the reigning
                                    family, as the just cause.

                                    ---
                                    Interesting stuff to ponder, eh?

                                    gmw.
                                  • gmw
                                    I sure did, brother. And I appreciate very much the work you put into your post. What I m looking for in particular, though, are quotes from historical
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 2 11:53 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I sure did, brother. And I appreciate very much the work you put
                                      into your post. What I'm looking for in particular, though, are
                                      quotes from historical Covenanters dealing specifically with the WCF
                                      Article 23:4.

                                      gmw.

                                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
                                      Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
                                      > GMW, did you see my earlier post responding to Parnell? I
                                      > cited "Two Sons of Oil" and "Informatory Vindication" that uphold
                                      > the Biblical position that the Covenanters believe re: the Civil
                                      > Magistrate against the unbiblical position held by most neo-
                                      Presbies.
                                      >
                                      > I will offer up many more soon...
                                      >
                                      > Yours in Christ,
                                      >
                                      > Edgar
                                      >
                                    • jparnellm@usxchange.net
                                      ... Let s not argue against a straw man. I never asserted ministers must be silent when magistrates do wickedly. Rather, I said they ought to follow the
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 2 11:55 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Quoting gmw <raging.calvinist@...>:

                                        > But instead, he had the Solemn League and Covenant burned by the
                                        >
                                        > hangman, unlawfully struck down the civil laws establishing the
                                        >
                                        > Reformation in the land, and actively persecuted the Church refusing
                                        >
                                        > to acknowledge his lawful right to do these things.  In such a case,
                                        >
                                        > I see no way that a minister is under obligation to remain silent
                                        >
                                        > about the matter. 


                                        Let's not argue against a straw man. I never asserted ministers must be silent
                                        when magistrates do wickedly. Rather, I said they ought to follow the example
                                        of men like Elijah and John the Baptist. Neither of these pronounced the
                                        reigning monarch as illegitimate, but rather exhorted them for their
                                        wickedness. And they may call on Parliament to restrain their wickedness (as
                                        John Knox called upon the Scottish Parliament to do in the case of Mary Stuart)
                                        or even urge the Parliament to impeach them, if that is necessary .

                                        Protestant ministers should not err and assume to themselves the power that the
                                        Pope wrongly assumes for himself, of having the power to pronounce which
                                        magistrate is legitimate.

                                        - Parnell McCarter
                                        http://www.puritans.net/
                                      • gmw
                                        ... I must ask that you please excuse me, Parnell. I was not addressing you, and so did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything like that. I m
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 2 12:12 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
                                          wrote:
                                          > Let's not argue against a straw man.

                                          I must ask that you please excuse me, Parnell. I was not addressing
                                          you, and so did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything
                                          like that. I'm quite frankly not up to arguing about anything at all
                                          right now. I was responding off the top of my head to something
                                          Riley wrote.

                                          Rather than argue against opposing view points, I'm more interested
                                          at this point in clarifying and understanding the Covenanter position.

                                          gmw.
                                        • gmw
                                          ... Or even a straw man! lol. gmw.
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Aug 2 12:15 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                                            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:

                                            >did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything
                                            > like that.

                                            Or even a straw man! lol.

                                            gmw.
                                          • Dan Fraas
                                            ... difference between ... What about the OPC;)? ... the Parliament ... No, but they may call a spade a spade. Publicly declaring someone to have unlawfully
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Aug 2 3:22 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
                                              wrote:
                                              > Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the
                                              difference between
                                              > the FPCS and the RPNA:

                                              What about the OPC;)?

                                              > Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of
                                              the Parliament
                                              > in a constitutional govt.

                                              No, but they may call a spade a spade. Publicly declaring someone to
                                              have unlawfully asceded the throne is not to take the power of
                                              Parliament. It's being a good citizen.

                                              The people (represented in their Parliament) may
                                              > impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power
                                              of the body
                                              > politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual
                                              citizens (inc
                                              > if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church.

                                              True. But that doesn't mean they have to remain silent.

                                              The
                                              > pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon
                                              Parliament to
                                              > restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual
                                              minister,
                                              > inc. the Pope.

                                              On the contrary, it lies corporately and individually with every
                                              citizen including the ministers.

                                              > > Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
                                              > >
                                              > > according to his or her station?  Don't we all have an obligation
                                              to
                                              > >
                                              > > uphold the law?   
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > No, the prerogatives of the Parliament as a body do not lie in the
                                              hands of
                                              > individual citizens, any more than the prerogatives of the church
                                              as a body do
                                              > not lie in the hands of individual members.

                                              True, but that's not what I said.

                                              A mere individual cannot impeach a
                                              > monarch or president, nor can a mere individual dispense the
                                              sacraments.

                                              No, but he can recognize if someone is wielding authority without
                                              constitutional right to do so.

                                              > > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes
                                              power
                                              > >
                                              > > in violation of standing law is illegitimate? 
                                              >
                                              > The issue in question is a monarch (like King Charles II) or a
                                              President (like
                                              > G.W. Bush)- the powers that be in their day and in their country.

                                              Charles II became illegitimate when he defied the covenant, which was
                                              a constitutional requirement for the throne. If Bush tried to stay
                                              in power without reelection he would also not be a legitimate
                                              authority.

                                              > >Did the prophets and
                                              > >
                                              > > ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Let's consider some history:
                                              >
                                              > 1. Did Elijah pronounce Ahab not to be the king, or did he exhort
                                              him for being
                                              > a wicked king?

                                              That's different because Ahab ruled by consent of the governed.

                                              > 2. Did John the Baptist pronounce Herod not to be the king, or did
                                              he exhort him
                                              > for being a wicked king?

                                              See above.

                                              > 3. Did John Knox pronounce Mary Queen of Scots not to be the
                                              legitimate
                                              > monarch, or did exhort her for being a wicked monarch (and called
                                              upon
                                              > Parliament to restrain her)?

                                              No, he didn't. Why not? Because Mary Queen of Scots WAS the
                                              legitimate monarch according to the laws of Scotland, unlike Charles
                                              II when he renownced the covenant. There is a such thing as a
                                              rightful ruler who rules unjustly, and there is such a thing as an
                                              unlawful Usurper who has no right to govern. The right to govern is
                                              determined in accordance with the covenantal constitution of the
                                              nation. If one of my commanders made a coup d'etat and took over in
                                              Washington D. C., I would not be obliged to recognize him or her as a
                                              lawful authority nor obey his or her commands. Now, over time, if
                                              the people consented to this arrangement, it could become the
                                              legitimate government. But that means the covenantal constitution
                                              changed. For Charles II, the constitution of the land said that he
                                              could only govern upon the condition that he swear and uphold the
                                              Solemn League and covenant. When he rejected it he completely
                                              undermined his own right to govern since it was the constitutional,
                                              covenantal, precondition of his reign.

                                              Blessings in Christ,

                                              Riley Fraas
                                            • jparnellm@usxchange.net
                                              ... The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which Witherspoon moderated. It was a church which justified the American Revolution, as well as the
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Aug 2 3:48 PM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Quoting Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...>:
                                                >
                                                > > Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the
                                                >
                                                > difference between
                                                >
                                                > > the FPCS and the RPNA:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > What about the OPC;)?
                                                >

                                                The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which Witherspoon
                                                moderated. It was a church which justified the American Revolution, as well as
                                                the US Constitution, as sound. But both the American Revolution and the US
                                                Constitution were unsound.


                                                >
                                                >
                                                > > Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of
                                                >
                                                > the Parliament
                                                >
                                                > > in a constitutional govt. 
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > No, but they may call a spade a spade.  Publicly declaring someone to
                                                >
                                                > have unlawfully asceded the throne is not to take the power of
                                                >
                                                > Parliament.  It's being a good citizen.
                                                >

                                                You will have to show me where Cameron denied that Charles II was not properly
                                                installed into office, because I do not think that was his objection to Charles
                                                II. Rather, Cameron *rightly* recognized the unlawful conduct of Charles II
                                                **as king**. Where I disagree with Cameron is when Cameron took the step of
                                                essentially deposing Charles II by his own judgment, rather than simply calling
                                                upon Parliament to judge Charles II.


                                                >
                                                >
                                                > The people (represented in their Parliament) may
                                                >
                                                > > impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power
                                                >
                                                > of the body
                                                >
                                                > > politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual
                                                >
                                                > citizens (inc
                                                >
                                                > > if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > True.  But that doesn't mean they have to remain silent.
                                                >

                                                I do not urge silence. Rather, I urge that Cameron not play the part of
                                                Parliament, but rather minister. As minister, he should have urged king and
                                                Parliaments to do their duty.



                                                >
                                                >
                                                > The
                                                >
                                                > > pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon
                                                >
                                                > Parliament to
                                                >
                                                > > restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual
                                                >
                                                > minister,
                                                >
                                                > > inc. the Pope.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > On the contrary, it lies corporately and individually with every
                                                >
                                                > citizen including the ministers. 
                                                >

                                                through and in the body politic (which in England and Scotland was their
                                                Parliaments)


                                                > For Charles II, the constitution of the land said that he
                                                >
                                                > could only govern upon the condition that he swear and uphold the
                                                >
                                                > Solemn League and covenant. 


                                                Yes, and the constitution gave to Parliament the power to restrain and judge the
                                                monarch. It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                                                - Parnell McCarter
                                              • covie1646
                                                ... Witherspoon ... Revolution, as well as ... and the US ... I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was the Revolution unsound? ...
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Aug 2 6:08 PM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
                                                  wrote:
                                                  > The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which
                                                  Witherspoon
                                                  > moderated. It was a church which justified the American
                                                  Revolution, as well as
                                                  > the US Constitution, as sound. But both the American Revolution
                                                  and the US
                                                  > Constitution were unsound.

                                                  I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was
                                                  the Revolution unsound?

                                                  > Yes, and the constitution gave to Parliament the power to restrain
                                                  and judge the
                                                  > monarch. It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                                                  The British Constitution I take?

                                                  Whit
                                                  >
                                                  > - Parnell McCarter
                                                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                                  Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/ Read the page on Who were the Covenanters . A brief summary of the tyranny and murderous plot that the
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Aug 2 6:14 PM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

                                                    Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters". A brief summary of the
                                                    tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
                                                    Charles II. And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                                                    legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!


                                                    -Edgar
                                                  • gmw
                                                    Fantastic website! Thanks Edgar. I m going to poke around there a little. gmw. ... From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Aug 2 6:22 PM
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Fantastic website!  Thanks Edgar.  I'm going to poke around there a little.
                                                       
                                                      gmw.
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:14 PM
                                                      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

                                                      Check this site out:  http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

                                                      Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters".  A brief summary of the
                                                      tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
                                                      Charles II.  And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                                                      legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

                                                       
                                                      -Edgar


                                                    • J. Parnell McCarter
                                                      ... Revolution unsound? 1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means. 2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Aug 2 7:59 PM
                                                      • 0 Attachment

                                                        >I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound.  How was the Revolution unsound?

                                                         

                                                        1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means.

                                                         

                                                        2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and Romanists (like the French govt, who subsidized the Revolutionaries, and the Carroll family) .  The real winners from the conflict were the secular heretics and the Romanists.

                                                         


                                                        >> Yes, and the constitution gave to
                                                        Parliament the power to restrain and judge the monarch.  It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                                                        >The British Constitution I take?

                                                         

                                                        Yes.

                                                         

                                                         

                                                        The modern, post-Reformation era has been based on 2 Enlightenment pillars:

                                                         

                                                        1. Revolution

                                                         

                                                        2. Secularism

                                                         

                                                        Both are un-Biblical.  We should distinguish Reformation from Revolution.

                                                         

                                                        - Parnell McCarter

                                                      • J. Parnell McCarter
                                                        ... legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!! These 2 propositions are distinct: 1. Charles II is a wicked king. 2. Charles II
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Aug 2 7:59 PM
                                                        • 0 Attachment

                                                          > And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                                                          legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

                                                           

                                                          These 2 propositions are distinct:

                                                           

                                                          1. "Charles II is a wicked king."

                                                           

                                                          2. "Charles II is not a king."

                                                           

                                                          If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.  But Cameron had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

                                                           

                                                          Contrast Cameron's statements with statements of the following:

                                                           

                                                          1. John the Baptist on King Herod.

                                                           

                                                          2.  John Knox on Queen Mary Stuart.

                                                           

                                                          3.  Andrew Melville on King James.

                                                           

                                                          4. Elijah on King Ahab.

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                          - Parnell McCarter

                                                          www.puritans.net

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                        • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                                          Dear brother Parnell, ... But Cameron ... THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Aug 6 8:03 PM
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Dear brother Parnell,

                                                            You wrote:
                                                            > These 2 propositions are distinct:
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.
                                                            But Cameron
                                                            > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.


                                                            THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of
                                                            religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and
                                                            safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland;

                                                            (And again renewed in Scotland, with an acknowledgement of sins and
                                                            engagements to duties, by all ranks, anno 1648, and by Parliament,
                                                            1649; and taken and subscribed by ***King Charles II.***, at Spey,
                                                            June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.) [emphasis mine]

                                                            Notice that King Charles II swore to the Solemn League & Covenant.

                                                            This is what he swore, I shall quote certain sections of the
                                                            Covenant:

                                                            I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
                                                            grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the
                                                            preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in
                                                            doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common
                                                            enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and
                                                            Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according
                                                            to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches;
                                                            and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three
                                                            kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
                                                            Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for
                                                            Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may,
                                                            as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to
                                                            dwell in the midst of us.

                                                            Kin Charles II was, by way of oath and in upholding his kingly
                                                            duties to preserve and promote the true religion and ensure her
                                                            safety. Did he? Soon after he had the hangman burn the covenant and
                                                            usurped the true religion (Presbyterianism) and replaced it with
                                                            Prelacy, that spawn of Rome! What else, he ensured that all who did
                                                            not get ordained by a bishop, whether that person was a Prelate or
                                                            not, were branded as traitors. Were his laws that he had passed
                                                            after his breach of covenant, "...lawful commands..." therefore
                                                            ensure that he was a "just and legal authority"? A pre-condition
                                                            for his assuming the throne was for him to uphold the Covenant and
                                                            the breach therefrom was in effect his own de-thronement.

                                                            Richard Cameron & Donald Cargill were the brave ones to call him
                                                            on it and to testify to this fact. They followed the example of the
                                                            Old Testament prophets that did the same. Also they were keeping in
                                                            line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described
                                                            in WCF 23.4.

                                                            II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons,
                                                            endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church
                                                            government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and
                                                            commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other
                                                            ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition,
                                                            heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary
                                                            to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in
                                                            other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their
                                                            plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the
                                                            three kingdoms.

                                                            Again, what did King Charles do? Did he extirpate Prelacy?? No
                                                            way, he endeavored to extirpate Presbyterianism, whether, by
                                                            confiscation, bribery, or murder of the non-conforming ministers.

                                                            IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of
                                                            all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil
                                                            instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the
                                                            king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making
                                                            any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and
                                                            Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive
                                                            condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
                                                            deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively,
                                                            or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge
                                                            convenient.

                                                            Richard Cameron was being faithful to the Covenant here, when he
                                                            denounced Charles II. He rightly identified King Charles II as a
                                                            malignant incendiary bent on the use of evil instruments to destroy
                                                            the one true religion and establish his wicked Prelacy over everyone
                                                            else. He (King Charles II), NOT the Covenanters divided the king
                                                            from his people by his murderous and hellish laws and acts!

                                                            I'll stop here and pick it up later. I just realized I have to go...

                                                            but i'll be back (to quote the now famous governator of CA).

                                                            Yours in Christ,

                                                            Edgar

                                                            www.albanycrpc.org

                                                            www.ecn.ab.ca/prce.org

                                                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
                                                            McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:


                                                            > - Parnell McCarter
                                                            >
                                                            > www.puritans.net
                                                          • J. Parnell McCarter
                                                            [I m allowing this post with the same caution about those who are here to argue against Covenanter distinctives: It shall be allowed for a time, that the
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Aug 9 3:34 PM
                                                            • 0 Attachment

                                                              Dear brother Parnell,

                                                              Parnell wrote:
                                                              >> These 2 propositions are distinct:
                                                              >
                                                              >  
                                                              > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                                                              >
                                                              >  
                                                              > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                                                              >
                                                              >  
                                                              > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree. 
                                                              >>But Cameron
                                                              > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

                                                              Edgar wrote:
                                                              "…They followed the example of the Old Testament prophets that did the same.  Also they were keeping in
                                                              line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described in WCF 23.4…."

                                                               

                                                               

                                                               

                                                              Edgar, please prove it.  Please show me the quotes in scripture and in uninspired history where:

                                                               

                                                              1. John the Baptist proclaimed Herod no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                                                               

                                                              2. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                                                               

                                                              3.  Any prophet proclaimed Solomon no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                                                               

                                                              4.  David proclaimed Saul no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                                                               

                                                              5. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                                                               

                                                              6.  John Knox proclaimed Mary Stuart no longer to be the queen, because she was a wicked queen.

                                                               

                                                              7. Andrew Melville proclaimed King James no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                                                               

                                                              - Parnell

                                                               

                                                               

                                                            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                                                              Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution direct by King Charles
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Aug 12 7:53 PM
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would
                                                                not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution
                                                                direct by King Charles II, whose tyranny also usurped Parliment.

                                                                The
                                                                Declaration & Testimony
                                                                of the
                                                                True Presbyterian, Anti-prelatic, Anti-erastian, persecuted party in
                                                                Scotland.
                                                                Published at
                                                                Sanquhar, June 22, 1680.

                                                                It is not amongst the smallest of the Lord's mercies to this poor
                                                                land, that there have been always some who have given their
                                                                testimony against every cause of defection that many are guilty of;
                                                                which is a token for good, that He doth not, as yet, intend to cast
                                                                us off altogether, but that He will leave a remnant in whom He will
                                                                be glorious, if they, through His grace, keep themselves clean
                                                                still, and walk in His way and method as it has been walked in, and
                                                                owned by Him in our predecessors of truly worthy memory; in their
                                                                carrying on of our noble work of reformation, in the several steps
                                                                thereof, from Popery, Prelacy, and likewise Erastian supremacy - so
                                                                much usurped by him who, it is true, so far as we know, is descended
                                                                from the race of our kings; yet he hath so far debased from what he
                                                                ought to have been, by his perjury and usurpation in Church matters,
                                                                and tyranny in matters civil, as is known by the whole land, that we
                                                                have just reason to account it one of the Lord's great controversies
                                                                against us, that we have not disowned him, and the men of his
                                                                practices, whether inferior magistrates or any other, as enemies to
                                                                our Lord and His Crown, and the true Protestant and Presbyterian
                                                                interest in this land - our Lord's espoused bride and Church.
                                                                Therefore, although we be for government and governors, such as the
                                                                Word of God and our covenant allows; ***yet we, for ourselves, and
                                                                all that will adhere to us as the representative of the true
                                                                Presbyterian Kirk and covenanted nation of Scotland, considering the
                                                                great hazard of lying under such a sin any longer, do by these
                                                                presents, disown Charles Stuart, that has been reigning, or rather
                                                                tyrannising, as we may say, on the throne of Britain these years
                                                                bygone, as having any right, title to, or interest in, the said
                                                                Crown of Scotland for government, as forfeited, several years since,
                                                                by his perjury and breach of covenant both to God and His Kirk, and
                                                                usurpation of His Crown and royal prerogatives therein, and many
                                                                other breaches in matters ecclesiastic, and by tyranny and breach of
                                                                the very leges regnandi in matters civil.*** For which reason we
                                                                declare, that several years since he should have been denuded of
                                                                being kind, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to act or
                                                                to be obeyed as such. As also we, being under the standard of our
                                                                Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such
                                                                a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies
                                                                to our Lord Jesus Christ, and His cause and covenants; and against
                                                                all such as have strengthened him, sided with, or anywise
                                                                acknowledged him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastic; yea, against
                                                                all such as shall strengthen, side with, or anywise acknowledge any
                                                                other in like usurpation and tyranny - far more against such as
                                                                would betray or deliver up our free reformed mother Kirk unto the
                                                                bondage of Antichrist the Pope of Rome. And, by this, we homologate
                                                                that testimony given at Rutherglen, the 29th of May, 1679, and all
                                                                the faithful testimonies of those who have gone before, as also of
                                                                those who have suffered of late: and we do disclaim that Declaration
                                                                published at Hamilton, June, 1679, chiefly because it takes in the
                                                                king's interest, which we are several years since loosed from,
                                                                because of the aforesaid reasons, and other which may, after this,
                                                                if the Lord will, be published. As also we disown and by this resent
                                                                the reception of the Duke of York, that professed Papist, as
                                                                repugnant to our principles and vows to the Most High God, and as
                                                                that which is the great, though not alone, just reproach of our Kirk
                                                                and nation. We also, by this, protest against his succeeding to the
                                                                Crown, and whatever has been done, or any are essaying to do in this
                                                                land, given to the Lord, in prejudice to our work of reformation.
                                                                And to conclude, we hope, after this, none will blame us for, or
                                                                offend at, our rewarding those that are against us as they have done
                                                                to us, as the Lord gives opportunity. This is not to exclude any
                                                                that have declined, if they be willing to give satisfaction
                                                                according to the degree of their offence.

                                                                Emphasis mine.

                                                                Scripture proofs forthcoming.

                                                                Humbly,

                                                                Edgar
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.