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

Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

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