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 11:27 AM
      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 


    • 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 2 of 30 , Aug 2 11:53 AM
        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 3 of 30 , Aug 2 11:55 AM
          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 4 of 30 , Aug 2 12:12 PM
            --- 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 5 of 30 , Aug 2 12:15 PM
              --- 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 6 of 30 , Aug 2 3:22 PM
                --- 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 7 of 30 , Aug 2 3:48 PM
                  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 8 of 30 , Aug 2 6:08 PM
                    --- 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 9 of 30 , Aug 2 6:14 PM
                      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 10 of 30 , Aug 2 6:22 PM
                        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 11 of 30 , Aug 2 7:59 PM

                          >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 12 of 30 , Aug 2 7:59 PM

                            > 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 13 of 30 , Aug 6 8:03 PM
                              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 14 of 30 , Aug 9 3:34 PM

                                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 15 of 30 , Aug 12 7:53 PM
                                  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.