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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: The James Begg Society

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jerry,

      Try this,


      What were you trying?


      Dear Simon,

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

    • 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 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment

        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.

      • S.P.Padbury
        Dear Jerry,
        Message 3 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 4 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry" <ragingcalvinist@c...>
            >The Resolutioners agreed with the Resolutions which
            > were passed that allowed "malignants" (open enemies of the
            > Reformation, covenant-refusers, and covenant-breakers) to hold
            > 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.
            > 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.
            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."


            "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

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