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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.