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
    ... 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.