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

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

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