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

Jurisdiction...was...Re:The Civil Magistrate (was re: Question Regarding Political Participation)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
      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 2 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
        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 3 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
          --- 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 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
            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 5 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
              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 6 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                --- 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 7 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                  --- 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 8 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                    --- 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 9 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                      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 10 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                        --- 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 11 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                          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 12 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                            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 13 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004

                              >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 14 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004

                                > 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 15 of 30 , Aug 6, 2004
                                  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 16 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004

                                    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 17 of 30 , Aug 12, 2004
                                      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.