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

Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Ibarra
    that the Covenants remained nullified and were left buried by the Revolution Settlement... from: http://www.answers.com/topic/covenanter my emphasis in bold
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      that the Covenants remained nullified and were left buried by the Revolution Settlement...
      my emphasis in bold type...
       

      Restoration and the "Killing Time"

      Gathering around them many of the Covenanters who clung tenaciously to their standards of faith, these ministers began to preach in the fields, and a period of persecution marked by savage hatred and great brutality began. Further oppressive measures were directed against the Covenanters, who took up arms about 1665, and the struggle soon assumed the proportions of a rebellion. The forces of the crown under John Graham of Claverhouse and others were sent against them, and although the insurgents gained isolated successes, in general they were worsted and were treated with great barbarity. This period of repression was remembered in folk memory as "the Killing Time". They maintained, however, their cherished covenants with a zeal which persecution only intensified; in 1680 the more extreme members of the party signed a document known as the "Sanquhar Declaration," and were afterwards called Cameronians from the name of their leader, Richard Cameron. They renounced their allegiance to King James and were greatly disappointed when their standards found no place in the religious settlement of 1689, continuing to hold the belief that the covenants should be made obligatory upon the entire nation. The Covenanters had a martyrology of their own, and the halo of romance has been cast around their exploits and their sufferings. Their story, however, especially during the time of their political predominance, is part of the general History of Scotland.

      See also

      Reference

      • Tales of the Covenanters: Rev. Andrew Thompson. A romantic account of the exploits of the Covenanter ministers during the period of their persecution.


      This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.

       

       

      In Christ,

       

      Edgar



      www.espanol.albanycrpc.org       www.reformedpresbytery.org
       
                                    www.albanycrpc.org                      
         


      Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
    • jparnellm@usxchange.net
      ... Richard Cameron did err in the Sanquhar Declaration. Its Cameronian political philosophy is contrary to the political philosophy taught in the WCF, and
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Quoting Edgar Ibarra <puritanpresbyterian@...>:

        > in 1680 the more extreme members of
        > the party signed a document known as the "Sanquhar Declaration," and were
        > afterwards called Cameronians from the name of their leader, Richard Cameron.


        Richard Cameron did err in the Sanquhar Declaration. Its Cameronian political
        philosophy is contrary to the political philosophy taught in the WCF, and more
        importantly in scripture. The Parliament/Congress, and *not* the Church, has
        the power to pronounce a king/president illegitimate. (Nor can the Church enact
        and enforce civil law, for it is outside its ordained sphere of authority.)

        Hence, President George W. Bush is the legitimate president of the USA until
        such time as the Congress impeaches him, even though he be a wicked magistrate
        who refuses to uphold and enforce both tables of the Ten Commandments. (BTW- he
        and the people are ill served by churches which deny the Establishment
        Principle)

        This issue is the central issue in the divide between Cameronian dissenters and
        the mainstream established CofS of the Revolution Settlement which fully
        subscribed to the WCF.


        - Parnell McCarter
        Seek member in FPCS
        Attender, ARP of GR
        GR, MI
        www.puritans.net
      • Cheryl Grenon
        Dear Parnell, What about the instance of the priest Jehoiada who rescued one of Athalia s grandsons from her slaughter and later had her deposed and her
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 22, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Parnell,
           
          What about the instance of the priest Jehoiada who rescued one of Athalia's grandsons from her slaughter and later had her deposed and her grandson placed on the throne instead?  What of prophets sent to rebuke kings?  From what you say below, neither of these actions are legitimate examples of political protest.  Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
           
          I have just read over the Sanquhar Declaration, and Richard Cameron denounced King Charles II as one who broke the vows the gave him access to the throne and therefore was no longer eligible, but I don't see where he claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire church.  It appears to me that he was just pointing out to others the facts of the case and calling others to act on the information as well.   If a king gains a throne based on the promise to do such and so, and then violates those terms upon assuming office, do the people who gave it to him not have a right to remove him?
           
          In our own case, since we live under governmental institutions that are supposed to be representative in nature, it doesn't appear to me to be a contradiction of Presbyterian principles nor prohibited that private citizens, or even a members of a church body,  may ask their representatives to impeach a president who violates the terms of his office.
           
          Would you be so kind as to explain how the above Scriptural examples are contrary to what Richard Cameron did?
           
          Sincerely,
          Cheryl Grenon
          RPNA Society of Prince George 
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:58 AM
          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

          Quoting Edgar Ibarra <puritanpresbyterian@...>:

          > in 1680 the more extreme members of
          > the party signed a document known as the "Sanquhar Declaration," and were
          > afterwards called Cameronians from the name of their leader, Richard Cameron.


          Richard Cameron did err in the Sanquhar Declaration.  Its Cameronian political
          philosophy is contrary to the political philosophy taught in the WCF, and more
          importantly in scripture.  The Parliament/Congress, and *not* the Church, has
          the power to pronounce a king/president illegitimate.  (Nor can the Church enact
          and enforce civil law, for it is outside its ordained sphere of authority.)

          Hence, President George W. Bush is the legitimate president of the USA until
          such time as the Congress impeaches him, even though he be a wicked magistrate
          who refuses to uphold and enforce both tables of the Ten Commandments. (BTW- he
          and the people are ill served by churches which deny the Establishment
          Principle)

          This issue is the central issue in the divide between Cameronian dissenters and
          the mainstream established CofS of the Revolution Settlement which fully
          subscribed to the WCF.


          - Parnell McCarter
          Seek member in FPCS
          Attender, ARP of GR
          GR, MI
          www.puritans.net


        • Parnell McCarter
          Cheryl, the Sanquhar Declaration states: ...we, being under the standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such a tyrant
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 22, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Cheryl, the Sanquhar Declaration states:
             
            "...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..."
             
            But the WCF states:
             
            "...It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted..."
             
            [12] 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
             
            (Peter was writing when ruled over even by wicked men.)
             
            I might add, by the logic of the Sanquhar Declaration, American Christians should also declare war on President George W. Bush, for he is a wicked and religiously unfaithful magistrate like Charles II.  Have you declared war on him?  Why not post public notices saying that you have declared war on him?
             
            The reason I do not is because I think such would violate the Word of God. 
             
            That is very different from praying that God would either cause President George W. Bush to repent or else to urge the Congress to impeach him.  The Congress/Parliament has legal right to impeach presidents/kings, but not so the citizenry, including "ecclesiastical persons".   Cameron should have simply urged Parliament to impeach Charles II, but not himself declare war on the unimpeached King Charles II.
             
            But as I have said before, this issue lies at the heart of the difference between the Cameronian dissenters, and the main body of the historic CofS.
             
            - Parnell McCarter
             
             
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:13 PM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

            Dear Parnell,
             
            What about the instance of the priest Jehoiada who rescued one of Athalia's grandsons from her slaughter and later had her deposed and her grandson placed on the throne instead?  What of prophets sent to rebuke kings?  From what you say below, neither of these actions are legitimate examples of political protest.  Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
             
            I have just read over the Sanquhar Declaration, and Richard Cameron denounced King Charles II as one who broke the vows the gave him access to the throne and therefore was no longer eligible, but I don't see where he claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire church.  It appears to me that he was just pointing out to others the facts of the case and calling others to act on the information as well.   If a king gains a throne based on the promise to do such and so, and then violates those terms upon assuming office, do the people who gave it to him not have a right to remove him?
             
            In our own case, since we live under governmental institutions that are supposed to be representative in nature, it doesn't appear to me to be a contradiction of Presbyterian principles nor prohibited that private citizens, or even a members of a church body,  may ask their representatives to impeach a president who violates the terms of his office.
             
            Would you be so kind as to explain how the above Scriptural examples are contrary to what Richard Cameron did?
             
            Sincerely,
            Cheryl Grenon
            RPNA Society of Prince George 
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:58 AM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Even Answers.com dictionary concurs

            Quoting Edgar Ibarra <puritanpresbyterian@...>:

            > in 1680 the more extreme members of
            > the party signed a document known as the "Sanquhar Declaration," and were
            > afterwards called Cameronians from the name of their leader, Richard Cameron.


            Richard Cameron did err in the Sanquhar Declaration.  Its Cameronian political
            philosophy is contrary to the political philosophy taught in the WCF, and more
            importantly in scripture.  The Parliament/Congress, and *not* the Church, has
            the power to pronounce a king/president illegitimate.  (Nor can the Church enact
            and enforce civil law, for it is outside its ordained sphere of authority.)

            Hence, President George W. Bush is the legitimate president of the USA until
            such time as the Congress impeaches him, even though he be a wicked magistrate
            who refuses to uphold and enforce both tables of the Ten Commandments. (BTW- he
            and the people are ill served by churches which deny the Establishment
            Principle)

            This issue is the central issue in the divide between Cameronian dissenters and
            the mainstream established CofS of the Revolution Settlement which fully
            subscribed to the WCF.


            - Parnell McCarter
            Seek member in FPCS
            Attender, ARP of GR
            GR, MI
            www.puritans.net


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