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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: An apology

Expand Messages
  • S.P.Padbury
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
    • S.P.Padbury
      Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk, I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn t work,
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,

        I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
        Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
        where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be the
        Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
        edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
        navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
        versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).

        God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS site
        again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
        very busy a the moment.

        I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so my wife
        and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
        hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
        month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out the
        house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
        will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
        house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!

        This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
        University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
        couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come off
        this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set up
        in our new home.

        I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain to
        me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
        off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the Revolution
        Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the split
        took?

        Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
      • Jerry
        Dear Simon, Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site. gmw. P.S. -- I d be glad to get into the controversies that split the Church of Scotland.
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Simon,

          Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.

          gmw.

          P.S. -- I'd be glad to get into the controversies that split the
          Church of Scotland. I'll mention some briefly here, and then in more
          detail as I continue the series on Covie History. Of course, if
          anyone else wants to get this conversation going now, be my guest.

          The first controversy was the one between the Protestors and the
          Resolutioners. The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
          were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
          Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold office
          in Church and State.

          The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
          sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution. Men
          like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
          some notable Protestors.

          The controversy you noted, the Revolution Settlement, was a great
          divider. The Church of Scotland agreed to this settlement which
          established Presbyterianism (not as Jus Divinum, but as a way to shut
          up the Presbyterians), and which ratified the Westminster Standards.
          Problems: What about the Covenants? Are we to forget they ever
          happened? Will the Church of Scotland acknowledge her sin in
          breaking Covenant? Should the Covenanters acknowledge a Church which
          is settled on Erastian principles? The Covenanters declined
          participation in the Revolution Church. So do I.

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "S.P.Padbury" <S.Padbury@s...>
          wrote:
          > Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,
          >
          > I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
          > Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
          > where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be the
          > Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
          > edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
          > navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
          > versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).
          >
          > God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS
          site
          > again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
          > very busy a the moment.
          >
          > I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so my
          wife
          > and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
          > hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
          > month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out the
          > house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
          > will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
          > house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!
          >
          > This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
          > University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
          > couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come off
          > this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set
          up
          > in our new home.
          >
          > I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain to
          > me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
          > off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the Revolution
          > Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the split
          > took?
          >
          > Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
        • Jerry
          Never mind! I just got through to the new site. LOOKS GREAT! Thank you, Simon for doing this. This is from the intro to the Westminster Standards page: We
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Never mind! I just got through to the new site. LOOKS GREAT! Thank
            you, Simon for doing this.

            This is from the intro to the Westminster Standards page:

            "We observe that the majority of "Protestant" church-goers in our day
            scoff at and reject much of the faith of their precesessors. Many
            express a heart-felt regret for the work of God in the Reformation,
            and seek to undo it. Besides their ignorance, for the most part, of
            the great doctinal truths that were promoted in the Reformation, many
            modern church-goers are committed to removing all trace of the
            simple, rich, reverent and Biblical worship of God that was also
            restored at that time, replacing it with shallow, man-made and man-
            centered hymns, choruses, rituals, drama, dance, and many other
            things that have no warrant from Holy Scripture.

            "Meanwhile, we thank God that we are also seeing a renewal of
            interest in the historic documents of the Westminster Standards, by
            Christians who have come to appreciate how far the teachings and
            practices of many modern-day churches have degenerated since those
            times."

            I agree whole-heartedly. Amen.

            Check out the new site, folks:
            http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html

            gmw.



            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
            wrote:
            > Dear Simon,
            >
            > Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.
            >
            > gmw.
            >
            > P.S. -- I'd be glad to get into the controversies that split the
            > Church of Scotland. I'll mention some briefly here, and then in
            more
            > detail as I continue the series on Covie History. Of course, if
            > anyone else wants to get this conversation going now, be my guest.
            >
            > The first controversy was the one between the Protestors and the
            > Resolutioners. The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
            > were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
            > Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold
            office
            > in Church and State.
            >
            > The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
            > sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution.
            Men
            > like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
            > some notable Protestors.
            >
            > The controversy you noted, the Revolution Settlement, was a great
            > divider. The Church of Scotland agreed to this settlement which
            > established Presbyterianism (not as Jus Divinum, but as a way to
            shut
            > up the Presbyterians), and which ratified the Westminster
            Standards.
            > Problems: What about the Covenants? Are we to forget they ever
            > happened? Will the Church of Scotland acknowledge her sin in
            > breaking Covenant? Should the Covenanters acknowledge a Church
            which
            > is settled on Erastian principles? The Covenanters declined
            > participation in the Revolution Church. So do I.
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "S.P.Padbury"
            <S.Padbury@s...>
            > wrote:
            > > Dear Covenanted Reformation Club folk,
            > >
            > > I have just uploaded an entire replacement for the James Begg
            > > Society website. Take a look! Tell me what doesn't work, and
            > > where the mistakes are...! Of particular interest to you may be
            the
            > > Westminster Standards documents (British; not the American
            > > edited ones), which I have given drop-down menus for easy
            > > navigation; and the WCF and WLC I have also made into frames
            > > versions (but whole-document versions are still also available).
            > >
            > > God willing, there'll be more to come. I hope to put on the JBS
            > site
            > > again the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and some other stuff. But I'm
            > > very busy a the moment.
            > >
            > > I've only told a few of you folk, but I've got a new job and so
            my
            > wife
            > > and I, therefore, hope to be moving soon. The job is about a
            > > hundred miles away, and I have to go there at the end of the
            > > month, meanwhile my wife will still be in Sheffield sorting out
            the
            > > house move from that end. We have no car, so that's just how it
            > > will have to be for 2-3 months, however long it takes to move
            > > house. I'll help with the packing up as much as I can...!
            > >
            > > This move means that I will be leaving the vicinity of Sheffield
            > > University, where I have free email access. This means that in a
            > > couple of weeks time, for a while at least, I will have to come
            off
            > > this CovenantedReformation discussion list, until I get email set
            > up
            > > in our new home.
            > >
            > > I have a question for you Covenanters out there. Can you explain
            to
            > > me what happened that led to the Reformed Presbyterians splitting
            > > off from the other Scottish presbyterians? -- about the
            Revolution
            > > Settlement, its contents, and the views that each side of the
            split
            > > took?
            > >
            > > Yours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
          • S.P.Padbury
            Dear Jerry, Try this, http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html What were you trying? Simon. ... Dear Simon, Is there a new link? The one I used got
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jerry,

              Try this,

              http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbshome.html

              What were you trying?

              Simon.

              ------------------------------
              Dear Simon,

              Is there a new link? The one I used got me the old site.

              gmw.
            • S.P.Padbury
              Jerry, www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ sould also work. They both work for me -- I ve just tried them. Maybe you are getting a mirror that has yet to be updated -- I only
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Jerry,

                www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ sould also work. They both work for me --
                I've just tried them. Maybe you are getting a mirror that has yet to
                be updated -- I only uploaded the new site an hour ago.

                Simon.
              • S.P.Padbury
                Dear Jerry,
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Jerry,

                  <<<"We observe that the majority of "Protestant" church-goers in
                  our day scoff at and reject much of the faith of their precesessors.
                  Many express a heart-felt regret for the work of God in the
                  Reformation, and seek to undo it....">>>

                  --Did you not recognise my own inimitable style?

                  BTW, I surfed around abit on the www.jbeggsoc.org.uk version of
                  the JBS site, and foind that the "break out of frames" javascripts
                  don't work for some reason. The only way out of the frameset it to
                  keep hitting the "back" button on the internet browser.

                  These same scripts work on the "easyweb" version of the site.
                  Something crazy is going on!

                  Best regards, Simon.
                • thebishopsdoom
                  ... office ... Men ... Just to further clarify the issues involved in the Protester / Resolutioner struggle... The public resolutions declared that for the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
                    wrote:
                    >The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
                    > were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
                    > Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold
                    office
                    > in Church and State.
                    >
                    > The Protestors took the contrary view, which was that the Covenants
                    > sworn by both Church and State did NOT allow such a resolution.
                    Men
                    > like Patrick Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, and James Guthrie were
                    > some notable Protestors.

                    Just to further clarify the issues involved in the Protester /
                    Resolutioner struggle...

                    The public resolutions declared that for the raising of the army, men
                    could be put into public trust and in the army provided they are not
                    forfeited (forget what that meant offhand), notoriously profane,
                    excommunicated, nor at the present time declared enemies to the
                    covenants and the cause of God. I think that taking of the covenant
                    was still a requirement as well.
                    However, despite these qualifications, the resolutions represented a
                    change from the previous acts of Scottish General Assembly, and the
                    evidence of actual repentance was also apparently frequently not
                    there before such were put into public trust or in the army, and yet
                    those who questioned what was going on faced the threat of censure.
                    Hugh Binning:

                    "SECTION II.
                    THAT THE PRESENT PUBLIC RESOLUTIONS, EXPRESSED IN THE COMMISSION'S
                    ANSWER TO THE PARLIAMENT'S QUERY,18 AND THE ACT OF THE LEVY,19 DO NOT
                    EXCLUDE THAT PARTY.
                    IN the next place, upon supposal and proof, that there is a malignant
                    party and faction still in the land, it is needful to examine,
                    whether the exceptions contained in the answer of the Commission to
                    the Parliament's Query, and inserted into the Act of Levy, be so
                    comprehensive as to include all that party. The exceptions be four.
                    1. Such as are excommunicated.
                    2. Such as are forfaulted.
                    3. Such as are notoriously profane or flagitious. And,
                    4. Such as have been from the beginning, and continue still, or at
                    this time are, obstinate enemies and opposers of the covenant and
                    cause of God.
                    That these are not comprehensive of the whole malignant party in the
                    land, appears. First, The rules of the General Assembly framed for
                    the exclusion of all such as ought not to be employed in our armies,
                    are far more comprehensive. The rule is for employing of such only as
                    are of a Christian and blameless conversation, which is turned over
                    by their commissioners into a negative, all that are not notoriously
                    profane or flagitious.
                    Another is, for intrusting only these who have been of known
                    integrity and constant friends to the cause of God from the
                    beginning, which is also turned over into a negative, all that have
                    not been constant enemies. All such, by the Answer, are capable of
                    some trust and employment. The rules agreed upon by the assembly, and
                    ratified by act of parliament, anno 1649, and renewed upon occasion
                    of this invasion, were that no officer nor soldier that followed
                    James Graham should be permitted in the army, nor any officer that
                    was in the Engagement, except such as, upon real evidence of
                    repentance, were particularly recommended by the church, nor any
                    common soldier, but upon sufficient testimony of his repentance.
                    Now, since it is proved that the most part of all such continue still
                    malignants, and retain their old principles, and that the bulk and
                    body of the people are called forth by the public resolution, without
                    such exceptions as were conceived before necessary, for the exclusion
                    of that party, it follows clearly, that the malignant party is not
                    excepted in the present resolutions."

                    Also:

                    "Objection 2. The most part of these who were formerly malignant,
                    have now repented of that sin, and make profession of their
                    resolution to adhere to the covenant and cause of God, and to bestow
                    their lives and estates in defence thereof. Therefore they are not
                    now to be esteemed malignants.
                    Answer. We would wish from our hearts that we had no answer to this
                    argument; then should we yield the point in hand, and yield it
                    cheerfully, that there is no malignant party now in Scotland. But,
                    alas! that we have so much evidence convincing our consciences and
                    persuading them to deny what is objected. We acknowledge some have
                    indeed repented, and such we desire to embrace and receive with all
                    tenderness and love, as godly Christians, worthy to be intrusted. But
                    yet the most part of them do still bring forth the same malignant
                    fruits. Their ungodly and wicked practices testify to their face that
                    they have nothing to do to take his covenant in their mouth, seeing
                    they hate to be reformed. The late rising in arms, contrary to their
                    solemn and particular engagements, their bearing down and reproaching
                    the godly, and such as are of known integrity, their studying to fill
                    places of trust with men formerly enemies or underminers, their
                    continuing in their profane and loose walking, - all these are more
                    convincing evidences of their retaining their old principles than any
                    extorted confessions or professions; for sinister respects and ends
                    can be no probable signs of their repentance and change."

                    David Lachman (preface to Durham on Scandal in the Naphtali edition)
                    mentions about further controversy that had erupted in the
                    Protester / Resolutioner controversy:

                    "The Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
                    (which met and acted for the General Assembly between meetings, in
                    much the same way as did the Committee of Estates for Parliament)
                    acknowledged the Remonstrance contained some sadd trueths, but, in
                    view of the great and evident necessity occasioned by the presence of
                    enemy troops in the kingdom, could not oppose the raising of all but
                    the excommunicated, the notoriously profane and those who
                    continuously have opposed and still oppose the Covenant and cause of
                    God. In the ensuing months the Commission urged the church not to
                    give comfort to the enemy by speaking disrespectfullie of the public,
                    just, and necessarie Resolutions and justified their support of
                    allowing all but a few to join in the defense of the kingdom by
                    various arguments from Scripture and sanctified prudence.
                    In December Parliament asked the General Assembly's Commission what
                    persons were to be admitted to join in the defense of the kingdom and
                    in March sent the Commission a letter inquiring if the Act of
                    Classes, which obstructed unanimity in defense of the kingdom, might
                    not be rescinded. The Commission answered that they could not be
                    against raising all fencible persons and agreed the Act of Classes
                    might be repealed. Their approval of these `Public Resolutions' of
                    the Estates of Parliament led them to advise the presbyteries to
                    censure any who persuade or preach contrary to them and to summon any
                    such to appear before the next General Assembly.
                    "Acknowledging the need for caution against the malignants, they
                    believed the Sectaries the main threat. That some who joined in the
                    cause were malignants did not, they urged, make them sinful in doing
                    their duty.
                    "The General Assembly met in July at St. Andrews, adjourned hastily
                    after two days, met again briefly in the relative safety of Dundee
                    (north of the Tay) and then dispersed lest all be captured by the
                    advancing English army (as some, including the moderator and the
                    clerk, in fact were). It was a badly attended meeting from the start;
                    the English occupied considerable portions of the country and travel
                    to the General Assembly was difficult for many and impossible for
                    some. From the start of the Assembly there were disagreements,
                    particularly about contested elections, about the approval of the
                    Commission's actions and even about the legality of the Assembly
                    itself, granted the instructions of the Commission to presbyteries
                    that any who opposed the Public Resolutions should not be elected,
                    but rather censured.
                    "These differences issued in a Protestation handed in shortly before
                    the Assembly left St. Andrews. Signed at first by twenty-two
                    ministers, including James Guthrie and Samuel Rutherford, it
                    complained against the validity and constitution of this Assembly, as
                    not being free and lawful, of the allowing and carrying on of a
                    conjunction with the Malignant Party contrary to the Word of God and
                    the Covenant, and protested that any actions taken by such an
                    Assembly were void and null.
                    "When the Assembly reconstituted itself at Dundee more than half did
                    not appear, including all of those who had signed the Protestation.
                    Although the Protestation was at first committed, lest unripe
                    thoughts should be vented concerning it, the decision was to cite
                    five of the signers to appear and to commend highly the actions of
                    the preceding Commission. The Assembly further called on presbyteries
                    and synods to censure them [the signers] according to the degree of
                    their offense and obstinacie to the Acts of this Assembly and to
                    remove all privileges from such candidates for the ministry as
                    opposed the Public Resolutions and declined the authority of the
                    Assembly."

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