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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Covenanter position on The Civil Magistrate

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.