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

Re: Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I sure did, brother. And I appreciate very much the work you put
      into your post. What I'm looking for in particular, though, are
      quotes from historical Covenanters dealing specifically with the WCF
      Article 23:4.

      gmw.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar A. Ibarra
      Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@y...> wrote:
      > GMW, did you see my earlier post responding to Parnell? I
      > cited "Two Sons of Oil" and "Informatory Vindication" that uphold
      > the Biblical position that the Covenanters believe re: the Civil
      > Magistrate against the unbiblical position held by most neo-
      Presbies.
      >
      > I will offer up many more soon...
      >
      > Yours in Christ,
      >
      > Edgar
      >
    • jparnellm@usxchange.net
      ... Let s not argue against a straw man. I never asserted ministers must be silent when magistrates do wickedly. Rather, I said they ought to follow the
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Quoting gmw <raging.calvinist@...>:

        > But instead, he had the Solemn League and Covenant burned by the
        >
        > hangman, unlawfully struck down the civil laws establishing the
        >
        > Reformation in the land, and actively persecuted the Church refusing
        >
        > to acknowledge his lawful right to do these things.  In such a case,
        >
        > I see no way that a minister is under obligation to remain silent
        >
        > about the matter. 


        Let's not argue against a straw man. I never asserted ministers must be silent
        when magistrates do wickedly. Rather, I said they ought to follow the example
        of men like Elijah and John the Baptist. Neither of these pronounced the
        reigning monarch as illegitimate, but rather exhorted them for their
        wickedness. And they may call on Parliament to restrain their wickedness (as
        John Knox called upon the Scottish Parliament to do in the case of Mary Stuart)
        or even urge the Parliament to impeach them, if that is necessary .

        Protestant ministers should not err and assume to themselves the power that the
        Pope wrongly assumes for himself, of having the power to pronounce which
        magistrate is legitimate.

        - Parnell McCarter
        http://www.puritans.net/
      • gmw
        ... I must ask that you please excuse me, Parnell. I was not addressing you, and so did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything like that. I m
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
          wrote:
          > Let's not argue against a straw man.

          I must ask that you please excuse me, Parnell. I was not addressing
          you, and so did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything
          like that. I'm quite frankly not up to arguing about anything at all
          right now. I was responding off the top of my head to something
          Riley wrote.

          Rather than argue against opposing view points, I'm more interested
          at this point in clarifying and understanding the Covenanter position.

          gmw.
        • gmw
          ... Or even a straw man! lol. gmw.
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:

            >did not intend to argue against a strong man or anything
            > like that.

            Or even a straw man! lol.

            gmw.
          • Dan Fraas
            ... difference between ... What about the OPC;)? ... the Parliament ... No, but they may call a spade a spade. Publicly declaring someone to have unlawfully
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
              wrote:
              > Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the
              difference between
              > the FPCS and the RPNA:

              What about the OPC;)?

              > Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of
              the Parliament
              > in a constitutional govt.

              No, but they may call a spade a spade. Publicly declaring someone to
              have unlawfully asceded the throne is not to take the power of
              Parliament. It's being a good citizen.

              The people (represented in their Parliament) may
              > impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power
              of the body
              > politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual
              citizens (inc
              > if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church.

              True. But that doesn't mean they have to remain silent.

              The
              > pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon
              Parliament to
              > restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual
              minister,
              > inc. the Pope.

              On the contrary, it lies corporately and individually with every
              citizen including the ministers.

              > > Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
              > >
              > > according to his or her station?  Don't we all have an obligation
              to
              > >
              > > uphold the law?   
              > >
              >
              > No, the prerogatives of the Parliament as a body do not lie in the
              hands of
              > individual citizens, any more than the prerogatives of the church
              as a body do
              > not lie in the hands of individual members.

              True, but that's not what I said.

              A mere individual cannot impeach a
              > monarch or president, nor can a mere individual dispense the
              sacraments.

              No, but he can recognize if someone is wielding authority without
              constitutional right to do so.

              > > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes
              power
              > >
              > > in violation of standing law is illegitimate? 
              >
              > The issue in question is a monarch (like King Charles II) or a
              President (like
              > G.W. Bush)- the powers that be in their day and in their country.

              Charles II became illegitimate when he defied the covenant, which was
              a constitutional requirement for the throne. If Bush tried to stay
              in power without reelection he would also not be a legitimate
              authority.

              > >Did the prophets and
              > >
              > > ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?
              > >
              >
              > Let's consider some history:
              >
              > 1. Did Elijah pronounce Ahab not to be the king, or did he exhort
              him for being
              > a wicked king?

              That's different because Ahab ruled by consent of the governed.

              > 2. Did John the Baptist pronounce Herod not to be the king, or did
              he exhort him
              > for being a wicked king?

              See above.

              > 3. Did John Knox pronounce Mary Queen of Scots not to be the
              legitimate
              > monarch, or did exhort her for being a wicked monarch (and called
              upon
              > Parliament to restrain her)?

              No, he didn't. Why not? Because Mary Queen of Scots WAS the
              legitimate monarch according to the laws of Scotland, unlike Charles
              II when he renownced the covenant. There is a such thing as a
              rightful ruler who rules unjustly, and there is such a thing as an
              unlawful Usurper who has no right to govern. The right to govern is
              determined in accordance with the covenantal constitution of the
              nation. If one of my commanders made a coup d'etat and took over in
              Washington D. C., I would not be obliged to recognize him or her as a
              lawful authority nor obey his or her commands. Now, over time, if
              the people consented to this arrangement, it could become the
              legitimate government. But that means the covenantal constitution
              changed. For Charles II, the constitution of the land said that he
              could only govern upon the condition that he swear and uphold the
              Solemn League and covenant. When he rejected it he completely
              undermined his own right to govern since it was the constitutional,
              covenantal, precondition of his reign.

              Blessings in Christ,

              Riley Fraas
            • jparnellm@usxchange.net
              ... The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which Witherspoon moderated. It was a church which justified the American Revolution, as well as the
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Quoting Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...>:
                >
                > > Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the
                >
                > difference between
                >
                > > the FPCS and the RPNA:
                >
                >
                >
                > What about the OPC;)?
                >

                The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which Witherspoon
                moderated. It was a church which justified the American Revolution, as well as
                the US Constitution, as sound. But both the American Revolution and the US
                Constitution were unsound.


                >
                >
                > > Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of
                >
                > the Parliament
                >
                > > in a constitutional govt. 
                >
                >
                >
                > No, but they may call a spade a spade.  Publicly declaring someone to
                >
                > have unlawfully asceded the throne is not to take the power of
                >
                > Parliament.  It's being a good citizen.
                >

                You will have to show me where Cameron denied that Charles II was not properly
                installed into office, because I do not think that was his objection to Charles
                II. Rather, Cameron *rightly* recognized the unlawful conduct of Charles II
                **as king**. Where I disagree with Cameron is when Cameron took the step of
                essentially deposing Charles II by his own judgment, rather than simply calling
                upon Parliament to judge Charles II.


                >
                >
                > The people (represented in their Parliament) may
                >
                > > impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power
                >
                > of the body
                >
                > > politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual
                >
                > citizens (inc
                >
                > > if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church.
                >
                >
                >
                > True.  But that doesn't mean they have to remain silent.
                >

                I do not urge silence. Rather, I urge that Cameron not play the part of
                Parliament, but rather minister. As minister, he should have urged king and
                Parliaments to do their duty.



                >
                >
                > The
                >
                > > pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon
                >
                > Parliament to
                >
                > > restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual
                >
                > minister,
                >
                > > inc. the Pope.
                >
                >
                >
                > On the contrary, it lies corporately and individually with every
                >
                > citizen including the ministers. 
                >

                through and in the body politic (which in England and Scotland was their
                Parliaments)


                > For Charles II, the constitution of the land said that he
                >
                > could only govern upon the condition that he swear and uphold the
                >
                > Solemn League and covenant. 


                Yes, and the constitution gave to Parliament the power to restrain and judge the
                monarch. It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                - Parnell McCarter
              • covie1646
                ... Witherspoon ... Revolution, as well as ... and the US ... I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was the Revolution unsound? ...
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
                  wrote:
                  > The OPC is descended from the Presbyterian USA church which
                  Witherspoon
                  > moderated. It was a church which justified the American
                  Revolution, as well as
                  > the US Constitution, as sound. But both the American Revolution
                  and the US
                  > Constitution were unsound.

                  I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound. How was
                  the Revolution unsound?

                  > Yes, and the constitution gave to Parliament the power to restrain
                  and judge the
                  > monarch. It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                  The British Constitution I take?

                  Whit
                  >
                  > - Parnell McCarter
                • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                  Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/ Read the page on Who were the Covenanters . A brief summary of the tyranny and murderous plot that the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Check this site out: http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

                    Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters". A brief summary of the
                    tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
                    Charles II. And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                    legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!


                    -Edgar
                  • gmw
                    Fantastic website! Thanks Edgar. I m going to poke around there a little. gmw. ... From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr. To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Fantastic website!  Thanks Edgar.  I'm going to poke around there a little.
                       
                      gmw.
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:14 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

                      Check this site out:  http://www.covenanter.org.uk/

                      Read the page on "Who were the Covenanters".  A brief summary of the
                      tyranny and murderous plot that the Covenanters suffered from King
                      Charles II.  And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                      legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

                       
                      -Edgar


                    • J. Parnell McCarter
                      ... Revolution unsound? 1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means. 2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment

                        >I strongly agree that the Constitution was and is unsound.  How was the Revolution unsound?

                         

                        1. Carried out using illegal and immoral means.

                         

                        2. Involved an alliance with wicked heretics (like Jefferson and Franklin) and Romanists (like the French govt, who subsidized the Revolutionaries, and the Carroll family) .  The real winners from the conflict were the secular heretics and the Romanists.

                         


                        >> Yes, and the constitution gave to
                        Parliament the power to restrain and judge the monarch.  It did not give it to the individual citizen.

                        >The British Constitution I take?

                         

                        Yes.

                         

                         

                        The modern, post-Reformation era has been based on 2 Enlightenment pillars:

                         

                        1. Revolution

                         

                        2. Secularism

                         

                        Both are un-Biblical.  We should distinguish Reformation from Revolution.

                         

                        - Parnell McCarter

                      • J. Parnell McCarter
                        ... legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!! These 2 propositions are distinct: 1. Charles II is a wicked king. 2. Charles II
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment

                          > And one wonders why Cameron would denounce Charles as a
                          legit ruler...Charles, ha! a wicked and blasphemous impious wretch!!!

                           

                          These 2 propositions are distinct:

                           

                          1. "Charles II is a wicked king."

                           

                          2. "Charles II is not a king."

                           

                          If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.  But Cameron had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

                           

                          Contrast Cameron's statements with statements of the following:

                           

                          1. John the Baptist on King Herod.

                           

                          2.  John Knox on Queen Mary Stuart.

                           

                          3.  Andrew Melville on King James.

                           

                          4. Elijah on King Ahab.

                           

                           

                           

                          - Parnell McCarter

                          www.puritans.net

                           

                           

                           

                        • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                          Dear brother Parnell, ... But Cameron ... THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 6, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear brother Parnell,

                            You wrote:
                            > These 2 propositions are distinct:
                            >
                            >
                            > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                            >
                            >
                            > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                            >
                            >
                            > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree.
                            But Cameron
                            > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.


                            THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, for reformation and defence of
                            religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and
                            safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland;

                            (And again renewed in Scotland, with an acknowledgement of sins and
                            engagements to duties, by all ranks, anno 1648, and by Parliament,
                            1649; and taken and subscribed by ***King Charles II.***, at Spey,
                            June 23, 1650; and at Scoon, January 1, 1651.) [emphasis mine]

                            Notice that King Charles II swore to the Solemn League & Covenant.

                            This is what he swore, I shall quote certain sections of the
                            Covenant:

                            I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
                            grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the
                            preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in
                            doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common
                            enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and
                            Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according
                            to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches;
                            and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three
                            kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
                            Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for
                            Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may,
                            as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to
                            dwell in the midst of us.

                            Kin Charles II was, by way of oath and in upholding his kingly
                            duties to preserve and promote the true religion and ensure her
                            safety. Did he? Soon after he had the hangman burn the covenant and
                            usurped the true religion (Presbyterianism) and replaced it with
                            Prelacy, that spawn of Rome! What else, he ensured that all who did
                            not get ordained by a bishop, whether that person was a Prelate or
                            not, were branded as traitors. Were his laws that he had passed
                            after his breach of covenant, "...lawful commands..." therefore
                            ensure that he was a "just and legal authority"? A pre-condition
                            for his assuming the throne was for him to uphold the Covenant and
                            the breach therefrom was in effect his own de-thronement.

                            Richard Cameron & Donald Cargill were the brave ones to call him
                            on it and to testify to this fact. They followed the example of the
                            Old Testament prophets that did the same. Also they were keeping in
                            line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described
                            in WCF 23.4.

                            II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons,
                            endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church
                            government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and
                            commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other
                            ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition,
                            heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary
                            to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in
                            other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their
                            plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the
                            three kingdoms.

                            Again, what did King Charles do? Did he extirpate Prelacy?? No
                            way, he endeavored to extirpate Presbyterianism, whether, by
                            confiscation, bribery, or murder of the non-conforming ministers.

                            IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of
                            all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil
                            instruments, be hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the
                            king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making
                            any faction or parties among the people, contrary to this League and
                            Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive
                            condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
                            deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively,
                            or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge
                            convenient.

                            Richard Cameron was being faithful to the Covenant here, when he
                            denounced Charles II. He rightly identified King Charles II as a
                            malignant incendiary bent on the use of evil instruments to destroy
                            the one true religion and establish his wicked Prelacy over everyone
                            else. He (King Charles II), NOT the Covenanters divided the king
                            from his people by his murderous and hellish laws and acts!

                            I'll stop here and pick it up later. I just realized I have to go...

                            but i'll be back (to quote the now famous governator of CA).

                            Yours in Christ,

                            Edgar

                            www.albanycrpc.org

                            www.ecn.ab.ca/prce.org

                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "J. Parnell
                            McCarter" <jparnellm@u...> wrote:


                            > - Parnell McCarter
                            >
                            > www.puritans.net
                          • J. Parnell McCarter
                            [I m allowing this post with the same caution about those who are here to argue against Covenanter distinctives: It shall be allowed for a time, that the
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Dear brother Parnell,

                              Parnell wrote:
                              >> These 2 propositions are distinct:
                              >
                              >  
                              > 1. "Charles II is a wicked king."
                              >
                              >  
                              > 2. "Charles II is not a king."
                              >
                              >  
                              > If Richard Cameron had simply stated the first, I would agree. 
                              >>But Cameron
                              > had no right to state the second, for he was not the Parliament.

                              Edgar wrote:
                              "…They followed the example of the Old Testament prophets that did the same.  Also they were keeping in
                              line with WCF 23.4, King Charles II was no longer a King described in WCF 23.4…."

                               

                               

                               

                              Edgar, please prove it.  Please show me the quotes in scripture and in uninspired history where:

                               

                              1. John the Baptist proclaimed Herod no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                               

                              2. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                               

                              3.  Any prophet proclaimed Solomon no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                               

                              4.  David proclaimed Saul no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                               

                              5. Elijah proclaimed Ahab no longer to be the king, because he was a wicked king.

                               

                              6.  John Knox proclaimed Mary Stuart no longer to be the queen, because she was a wicked queen.

                               

                              7. Andrew Melville proclaimed King James no longer to be the king, because he was an unfaithful  king.

                               

                              - Parnell

                               

                               

                            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
                              Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution direct by King Charles
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 12, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Here is the statment put out by the faithful Presbyterians who would
                                not submit to compromised brethren nor to the tyrannous persecution
                                direct by King Charles II, whose tyranny also usurped Parliment.

                                The
                                Declaration & Testimony
                                of the
                                True Presbyterian, Anti-prelatic, Anti-erastian, persecuted party in
                                Scotland.
                                Published at
                                Sanquhar, June 22, 1680.

                                It is not amongst the smallest of the Lord's mercies to this poor
                                land, that there have been always some who have given their
                                testimony against every cause of defection that many are guilty of;
                                which is a token for good, that He doth not, as yet, intend to cast
                                us off altogether, but that He will leave a remnant in whom He will
                                be glorious, if they, through His grace, keep themselves clean
                                still, and walk in His way and method as it has been walked in, and
                                owned by Him in our predecessors of truly worthy memory; in their
                                carrying on of our noble work of reformation, in the several steps
                                thereof, from Popery, Prelacy, and likewise Erastian supremacy - so
                                much usurped by him who, it is true, so far as we know, is descended
                                from the race of our kings; yet he hath so far debased from what he
                                ought to have been, by his perjury and usurpation in Church matters,
                                and tyranny in matters civil, as is known by the whole land, that we
                                have just reason to account it one of the Lord's great controversies
                                against us, that we have not disowned him, and the men of his
                                practices, whether inferior magistrates or any other, as enemies to
                                our Lord and His Crown, and the true Protestant and Presbyterian
                                interest in this land - our Lord's espoused bride and Church.
                                Therefore, although we be for government and governors, such as the
                                Word of God and our covenant allows; ***yet we, for ourselves, and
                                all that will adhere to us as the representative of the true
                                Presbyterian Kirk and covenanted nation of Scotland, considering the
                                great hazard of lying under such a sin any longer, do by these
                                presents, disown Charles Stuart, that has been reigning, or rather
                                tyrannising, as we may say, on the throne of Britain these years
                                bygone, as having any right, title to, or interest in, the said
                                Crown of Scotland for government, as forfeited, several years since,
                                by his perjury and breach of covenant both to God and His Kirk, and
                                usurpation of His Crown and royal prerogatives therein, and many
                                other breaches in matters ecclesiastic, and by tyranny and breach of
                                the very leges regnandi in matters civil.*** For which reason we
                                declare, that several years since he should have been denuded of
                                being kind, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to act or
                                to be obeyed as such. As also we, being under the standard of our
                                Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such
                                a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies
                                to our Lord Jesus Christ, and His cause and covenants; and against
                                all such as have strengthened him, sided with, or anywise
                                acknowledged him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastic; yea, against
                                all such as shall strengthen, side with, or anywise acknowledge any
                                other in like usurpation and tyranny - far more against such as
                                would betray or deliver up our free reformed mother Kirk unto the
                                bondage of Antichrist the Pope of Rome. And, by this, we homologate
                                that testimony given at Rutherglen, the 29th of May, 1679, and all
                                the faithful testimonies of those who have gone before, as also of
                                those who have suffered of late: and we do disclaim that Declaration
                                published at Hamilton, June, 1679, chiefly because it takes in the
                                king's interest, which we are several years since loosed from,
                                because of the aforesaid reasons, and other which may, after this,
                                if the Lord will, be published. As also we disown and by this resent
                                the reception of the Duke of York, that professed Papist, as
                                repugnant to our principles and vows to the Most High God, and as
                                that which is the great, though not alone, just reproach of our Kirk
                                and nation. We also, by this, protest against his succeeding to the
                                Crown, and whatever has been done, or any are essaying to do in this
                                land, given to the Lord, in prejudice to our work of reformation.
                                And to conclude, we hope, after this, none will blame us for, or
                                offend at, our rewarding those that are against us as they have done
                                to us, as the Lord gives opportunity. This is not to exclude any
                                that have declined, if they be willing to give satisfaction
                                according to the degree of their offence.

                                Emphasis mine.

                                Scripture proofs forthcoming.

                                Humbly,

                                Edgar
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.