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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Civil Magistrate (was re: Question Regarding Political Participation)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 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 2 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
      • 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 3 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
        • 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 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
          • 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 5 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
            • 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 6 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
              • 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 7 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                • 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 8 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                  • 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 9 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                    • 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 10 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                      • 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 11 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                        • 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 12 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                          • 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 13 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                            • 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 14 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                              • 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 15 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                                • 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 16 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                                  • 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 17 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                                    • 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 18 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                                      • 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 19 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                                        • 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 20 of 30 , Aug 6, 2004
                                          • 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 21 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                                            • 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 22 of 30 , Aug 12, 2004
                                              • 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.