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

Covenanting.

Expand Messages
  • Peter J. Gray
    The covenanter churches seem to be the most consistently orthodox churches out there (judging orthodoxy by not only my conscience but also thatof the
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The covenanter churches seem to be the most consistently orthodox churches out there (judging orthodoxy by not only my conscience but also thatof the reformers, 1st and especially "2nd Reformation", as embodied in the WCF). However, the one doctrine you hold that confuses me is also the one you define yourselves by- the ordinance of covenanting. I've listened to lectures and sermons but am still confused, so would you please answer some questions I have regarding it.
       
      First, am I bound to the Solemn League and Covenant? I am an American and of British ancestry by my father. I've heard it argued that I am bound to the Covenant as an American, and by extension, a member of the British "moral person". I've heard it argued that I am bound as a British descendent. I find fault (real or imagined) with both of these arguments. Obj. to Argument 1. The colonies were not represented in the Parliaments during the swearing of the Covenant. With no MPs the colonies had no covenantal head and therefore are not bound to the Covenant. Ob2. Assuming I'm wrong, America separated from Britain and its Covenant when her monarch broke his contract with her and she terminated it by lawfully revolution. Obj. to Argument 2. Covenanter apologist base this argument off of the Federal principal. I have British ancestors, even Scottish, however according to the Federal Principal (if I understand it correctly) I cannot be considered a British descendent, as I am part Danish and half German, and even a drop of foreign blood breaks the line of succession, i.e. "ordinary generation". Else, how could Christ be free of Original Sin? I'm sure there is no novelty to the objections I've raised, maybe they've even been answered in this forum, its just that in the works I've read and listened to I haven't seen them addressed specifically.
       
      Secondly, why is there such resent towards non-covenanters? Covenanted churches seem to shun those who aren't, even if they uphold the terms of the Covenant. Why should the formalities matter if the church is meeting the Covenant's conditions and striving for its goals? I can only think of a few political views implicit and unique to the Covenanters that would deviate from some non-Covenanters. This question might be related to the idea covenanting is obligatory. I've heard some people say covenanting is a moral obligation because we must do what ever possible to assist us in keeping God's Law. In some very urgent cases I can see how covenanting is necessary for this purpose, and I am not denying the urgency of the SL&C, then and now, but if a person or a church is faithful to terms of the Covenant, terms common to morality, why restrict that person from taking communion or exclude that church from your communion?
       
      I will post any other stumbling blocks I can remember.
      Thank you,
      Peter.
    • weeping_calvinist
      Hi Peter, I ve read your post, and I am going to take some time to ponder it before I attempt an answer. Perhaps in the meantime someone else may take up the
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 22, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Peter,

        I've read your post, and I am going to take some time to ponder it
        before I attempt an answer. Perhaps in the meantime someone else may
        take up the task before I get to it, but I wanted to acknowledge you
        and your questions, so you do not feel ignored.

        gmw.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J. Gray"
        <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
        > The covenanter churches seem to be the most consistently orthodox
        churches out there (judging orthodoxy by not only my conscience but
        also thatof the reformers, 1st and especially "2nd Reformation", as
        embodied in the WCF). However, the one doctrine you hold that
        confuses me is also the one you define yourselves by- the ordinance
        of covenanting. I've listened to lectures and sermons but am still
        confused, so would you please answer some questions I have regarding
        it.
        >
        > First, am I bound to the Solemn League and Covenant? I am an
        American and of British ancestry by my father. I've heard it argued
        that I am bound to the Covenant as an American, and by extension, a
        member of the British "moral person". I've heard it argued that I am
        bound as a British descendent. I find fault (real or imagined) with
        both of these arguments. Obj. to Argument 1. The colonies were not
        represented in the Parliaments during the swearing of the Covenant.
        With no MPs the colonies had no covenantal head and therefore are not
        bound to the Covenant. Ob2. Assuming I'm wrong, America separated
        from Britain and its Covenant when her monarch broke his contract
        with her and she terminated it by lawfully revolution. Obj. to
        Argument 2. Covenanter apologist base this argument off of the
        Federal principal. I have British ancestors, even Scottish, however
        according to the Federal Principal (if I understand it correctly) I
        cannot be considered a British descendent, as I am part Danish and
        half German, and even a drop of foreign blood breaks the line of
        succession, i.e. "ordinary generation". Else, how could Christ be
        free of Original Sin? I'm sure there is no novelty to the objections
        I've raised, maybe they've even been answered in this forum, its just
        that in the works I've read and listened to I haven't seen them
        addressed specifically.
        >
        > Secondly, why is there such resent towards non-covenanters?
        Covenanted churches seem to shun those who aren't, even if they
        uphold the terms of the Covenant. Why should the formalities matter
        if the church is meeting the Covenant's conditions and striving for
        its goals? I can only think of a few political views implicit and
        unique to the Covenanters that would deviate from some non-
        Covenanters. This question might be related to the idea covenanting
        is obligatory. I've heard some people say covenanting is a moral
        obligation because we must do what ever possible to assist us in
        keeping God's Law. In some very urgent cases I can see how
        covenanting is necessary for this purpose, and I am not denying the
        urgency of the SL&C, then and now, but if a person or a church is
        faithful to terms of the Covenant, terms common to morality, why
        restrict that person from taking communion or exclude that church
        from your communion?
        >
        > I will post any other stumbling blocks I can remember.
        > Thank you,
        > Peter.
      • weeping_calvinist
        Peter, First, let me stress that I consider myself a novice, and a foolish novice at that. And so I am not very confident that I will be able to provide you
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 22, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter,

          First, let me stress that I consider myself a novice, and a foolish
          novice at that. And so I am not very confident that I will be able
          to provide you with the answers you need. But I am glad that you are
          considering these issues. I hope I can help at least a little.

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J. Gray"

          >First, am I bound to the Solemn League and Covenant? I am an
          >American and of British ancestry by my father.

          I guess I have to ask some questions myself, before I can answer
          yours. What do you mean "bound" to the Solemn League and Covenant?
          We hold that the substance of the Covenant is morally obligating
          whether or not the Covenant is sworn. After it is sworn, there is an
          additional bond, and a greater sin in violating the substance of the
          Covenant. We are bound morally against bearing false witness, but
          when we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
          truth, we are placed under and additional bond, which makes the
          violator not a simple liar, but also a perjurer. As to the substance
          thereof, I would say that as a Christian, you are bound to the
          Covenant in your baptism.

          As for the question of whether or not you are under the additional
          Covenant bond, as the original swearers of the Covenant were, again,
          I must ask a question: Do you believe that covenant obligations can
          and do extend to descendants? If so, do you believe that England or
          Scotland are still bound? In other words, are your doubts only
          concerning America?

          >Obj. to Argument 1. The colonies were not represented in the
          >Parliaments during the swearing of the Covenant. With no MPs the
          >colonies had no covenantal head and therefore are not bound to the
          >Covenant.

          The Colonies, for the most part, were British Colonies, under British
          rule, founded on British charters, and the Colonial people, for the
          most part, considered themselves British citizens... which is why
          they complained about their lack of representation in congress. As I
          understand it, they weren't saying "we are not British because we
          have no representation", but "we are British, so where's our
          representation?" The Solemn League and Covenant became British law,
          under which the Colonies were ruled, not to mention the fact that the
          Covenant was sworn in parts of America too.


          >Ob2. Assuming I'm wrong, America separated from Britain and its
          >Covenant when her monarch >broke his contract with her and she
          >terminated it by lawfully revolution.

          If revolution frees a nation from covenant obligations, then Israel
          would no longer have been under covenant obligations when they
          separated from Judah. No?

          You mentioned that you read some material on Covenanting already, so
          you may have come across this, but if not, you may want to take a
          look. It's relatively short, and deals specifically with America's
          obligation to the Solemn League:

          http://www.covenanter.org/JRWillson/publiccovenanting.htm

          >Secondly, why is there such resent towards non-covenanters?

          I am not sure of what particular instances of resentment you may be
          thinking of, but my guess is that the reason for it may be pride and
          and other sins. I am sorry that many Covenanters come off like
          this. I assure you, it isn't the attitude of the historical
          Covenanters.

          Check out some good quotes relating to how Covenanters view those
          Christians of different persuasions here:
          http://www.geocities.com/reformedpresbyterian/quotes.htm#1 .

          >if a person or a church is faithful to terms of the Covenant, terms
          >common to morality, why restrict that person from taking communion
          >or exclude that church from your communion?

          We do not consider with resent those who are barred from the Lord's
          Table:

          "In proposing the above Terms of communion, we wish a difference to
          be made between persons holding, proclaiming, and propagating
          sentiments in religion, opposite to those which are recognized by our
          Terms, and persons who may be, comparatively, ignorant, or have
          private views of their own, but are willing to be farther instructed.
          The former must be positively debarred from church fellowship,
          whereas milder treatment is due to the latter. Let it also be
          remembered, that there is a material difference between church-
          communion, properly so called, and private occasional communion, with
          those who may agree in the great essentials of salvation, through a
          crucified Saviour. Church communion, among the professing members of
          Christ's mystical body, we consider as lying chiefly in their
          conscientiously walking together, and enjoying mutual comfort in the
          regular observation of all public Gospel ordinances, in general, and
          joint participation of the solemn seals of the new covenant, in
          particular; as these are dispensed by the ministers of religion, who
          are vested with office, according to the laws of Christ. This,
          necessarily, requires unanimity in all those things which belong to
          the constitution of the church in her organized capacity; such as,
          doctrines to be believed, a certain mode of worship to be observed a
          form of government to be exercised, and discipline to be
          administered. As it doth not appear that the church, in her complete
          and organized capacity, can exist without any of these articles, so
          neither is it easy to conceive how persons holding jarring sentiments
          on these important subjects can consistently enjoy church fellowship
          with each other. Private Christian communion, we apprehend, consists
          in the joint discharge of those religious duties which are not
          peculiar to official characters as such, but are common to them and
          all Christians at large, in their individual capacity. Of this kind
          we may reckon reading the Scriptures; religious conversation, as
          opportunity offers, in the course of providence; occasional prayer
          with the sick; when desired; praising God in the family, when
          providentially lodged together; joint craving of Heaven's blessing on
          the provision of our table, and such like. From private and
          occasional communion, with Christians of other denominations, in
          things like these, we never thought of debarring our people; though
          we cannot help being of opinion, that church fellowship should ever
          be regulated by some such scriptural terms as those which we have
          endeavoured to exhibit and explain" (John Reid, on behalf of the
          Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of
          Communion).

          I hope my words can be of some profit to the reader.

          gmw.
        • Peter
          Thanks for the help and I m sorry for being delinquent in replying to your post. To refresh, my first question about the SL&C was about how it is legally
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in replying
            to your post.

            To refresh, my first question about the SL&C was about how it is
            legally binding upon me. For clarification, let me state, with what
            knowledge I have it does appear Britain (or at least Scotland) is
            bound to the Covenant. That is, if I understand history correctly.

            The Covenant was subscribed in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament,
            the General Assembly, and the people; in England by the Parliament;
            it was ratified by King Charles II. Am I right? Because these bodies
            represent the English and Scottish "moral person" every one in the
            two (one) Kingdom(s) is bound to the Covenant. I don't know any
            thing about Ireland, I think they were in rebellion at this time so
            I'm not sure if they count. These people pledged their posterity, or
            at least "intended" them in their Covenant, so that establishes its
            permanence. Unless something has happened after that to negate it,
            the Covenant is still in effect (legally).

            My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present day
            America. There is an obvious cultural connection but that is not
            enough. (Warning: I don't know anything about jurisprudence so I'll
            have to go with what little common sense and knowledge of Scripture
            I have) Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I will
            concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under the
            Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still. But there
            no longer remains an ancestral connection to Britain. The majority
            of people in the United States are not British.

            The lecture you gave me a link to said:
            "They could not have meant anything else, unless it is maintained
            that a majority of the people of this republic are not descended of
            British ancestry. If they are not, these states are no more embraced
            in the Solemn League and Covenant, than the Babylonians were in the
            covenant of Horeb."

            When the Jews were in captivity it did not make their captors part
            of the covenant. And when many of the Israelites were assimilated
            into the Assyrian population their children were no longer counted
            part of the covenant. Likewise, because we have lost our British
            roots we are no longer under the SL&C. A minority cannot sanctify
            the majority.

            Still, I think people who can trace their lineage to some one who
            lived with in the Royal Domain at the time of the signing are under
            the Covenant. Though, I'm not sure how many descendants are
            necessary. There are too many conflicting precedents: original sin
            both parents need to be covenanted, in the covenant of grace one
            parent needs to be covenanted (mother in old disp?), and more? So
            unless you are a Papist (immaculate conception) there is no rule for
            how many parents need to be covenanted for a transfer of the
            covenant to the children. I guess it is at the discretion of the
            covenants author, but the SL&C does not state specifically.

            My second question was about the practical consequences of being
            legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as a
            result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of your
            Christian obligations? What are the penalties for not recognizing
            the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
            benefits. What else? If you deny it out of (unwillful) ignorance are
            you sinning? By the way, I'm sorry for suggesting that Covenanters
            are resentful, its rude & stupid to describe someone you are asking
            a favor of with such harsh language, but I just don't see the
            importance of the SL&C in practical terms. Maybe it could be said
            that some of the higher points of the faith we would both normally
            defend aren't important in the same sense? But if it is an
            obstruction to uniformity it should be properly resolved not tucked
            under the table?

            Just my thoughts. I'm more available now so I will be able to
            respond in a timelier manner.


            --- In
            covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "weeping_calvinist"
            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
            >
            > Peter,
            >
            > First, let me stress that I consider myself a novice, and a
            foolish
            > novice at that. And so I am not very confident that I will be
            able
            > to provide you with the answers you need. But I am glad that you
            are
            > considering these issues. I hope I can help at least a little.
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J. Gray"
            >
            > >First, am I bound to the Solemn League and Covenant? I am an
            > >American and of British ancestry by my father.
            >
            > I guess I have to ask some questions myself, before I can answer
            > yours. What do you mean "bound" to the Solemn League and
            Covenant?
            > We hold that the substance of the Covenant is morally obligating
            > whether or not the Covenant is sworn. After it is sworn, there is
            an
            > additional bond, and a greater sin in violating the substance of
            the
            > Covenant. We are bound morally against bearing false witness, but
            > when we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
            the
            > truth, we are placed under and additional bond, which makes the
            > violator not a simple liar, but also a perjurer. As to the
            substance
            > thereof, I would say that as a Christian, you are bound to the
            > Covenant in your baptism.
            >
            > As for the question of whether or not you are under the additional
            > Covenant bond, as the original swearers of the Covenant were,
            again,
            > I must ask a question: Do you believe that covenant obligations
            can
            > and do extend to descendants? If so, do you believe that England
            or
            > Scotland are still bound? In other words, are your doubts only
            > concerning America?
            >
            > >Obj. to Argument 1. The colonies were not represented in the
            > >Parliaments during the swearing of the Covenant. With no MPs the
            > >colonies had no covenantal head and therefore are not bound to
            the
            > >Covenant.
            >
            > The Colonies, for the most part, were British Colonies, under
            British
            > rule, founded on British charters, and the Colonial people, for
            the
            > most part, considered themselves British citizens... which is why
            > they complained about their lack of representation in congress.
            As I
            > understand it, they weren't saying "we are not British because we
            > have no representation", but "we are British, so where's our
            > representation?" The Solemn League and Covenant became British
            law,
            > under which the Colonies were ruled, not to mention the fact that
            the
            > Covenant was sworn in parts of America too.
            >
            >
            > >Ob2. Assuming I'm wrong, America separated from Britain and its
            > >Covenant when her monarch >broke his contract with her and she
            > >terminated it by lawfully revolution.
            >
            > If revolution frees a nation from covenant obligations, then
            Israel
            > would no longer have been under covenant obligations when they
            > separated from Judah. No?
            >
            > You mentioned that you read some material on Covenanting already,
            so
            > you may have come across this, but if not, you may want to take a
            > look. It's relatively short, and deals specifically with
            America's
            > obligation to the Solemn League:
            >
            > http://www.covenanter.org/JRWillson/publiccovenanting.htm
            >
            > >Secondly, why is there such resent towards non-covenanters?
            >
            > I am not sure of what particular instances of resentment you may
            be
            > thinking of, but my guess is that the reason for it may be pride
            and
            > and other sins. I am sorry that many Covenanters come off like
            > this. I assure you, it isn't the attitude of the historical
            > Covenanters.
            >
            > Check out some good quotes relating to how Covenanters view those
            > Christians of different persuasions here:
            > http://www.geocities.com/reformedpresbyterian/quotes.htm#1 .
            >
            > >if a person or a church is faithful to terms of the Covenant,
            terms
            > >common to morality, why restrict that person from taking
            communion
            > >or exclude that church from your communion?
            >
            > We do not consider with resent those who are barred from the
            Lord's
            > Table:
            >
            > "In proposing the above Terms of communion, we wish a difference
            to
            > be made between persons holding, proclaiming, and propagating
            > sentiments in religion, opposite to those which are recognized by
            our
            > Terms, and persons who may be, comparatively, ignorant, or have
            > private views of their own, but are willing to be farther
            instructed.
            > The former must be positively debarred from church fellowship,
            > whereas milder treatment is due to the latter. Let it also be
            > remembered, that there is a material difference between church-
            > communion, properly so called, and private occasional communion,
            with
            > those who may agree in the great essentials of salvation, through
            a
            > crucified Saviour. Church communion, among the professing members
            of
            > Christ's mystical body, we consider as lying chiefly in their
            > conscientiously walking together, and enjoying mutual comfort in
            the
            > regular observation of all public Gospel ordinances, in general,
            and
            > joint participation of the solemn seals of the new covenant, in
            > particular; as these are dispensed by the ministers of religion,
            who
            > are vested with office, according to the laws of Christ. This,
            > necessarily, requires unanimity in all those things which belong
            to
            > the constitution of the church in her organized capacity; such as,
            > doctrines to be believed, a certain mode of worship to be observed
            a
            > form of government to be exercised, and discipline to be
            > administered. As it doth not appear that the church, in her
            complete
            > and organized capacity, can exist without any of these articles,
            so
            > neither is it easy to conceive how persons holding jarring
            sentiments
            > on these important subjects can consistently enjoy church
            fellowship
            > with each other. Private Christian communion, we apprehend,
            consists
            > in the joint discharge of those religious duties which are not
            > peculiar to official characters as such, but are common to them
            and
            > all Christians at large, in their individual capacity. Of this
            kind
            > we may reckon reading the Scriptures; religious conversation, as
            > opportunity offers, in the course of providence; occasional prayer
            > with the sick; when desired; praising God in the family, when
            > providentially lodged together; joint craving of Heaven's blessing
            on
            > the provision of our table, and such like. From private and
            > occasional communion, with Christians of other denominations, in
            > things like these, we never thought of debarring our people;
            though
            > we cannot help being of opinion, that church fellowship should
            ever
            > be regulated by some such scriptural terms as those which we have
            > endeavoured to exhibit and explain" (John Reid, on behalf of the
            > Reformed Presbytery, An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of
            > Communion).
            >
            > I hope my words can be of some profit to the reader.
            >
            > gmw.
          • gmw
            ... No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I consider myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to comment than
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
              <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
              > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in replying
              > to your post.

              No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I consider
              myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to
              comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.

              > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present day
              > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I will
              > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under
              > the Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still.

              Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been conceded,
              that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
              sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent of
              the American people, which is important, but not the only point. The
              Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
              Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a collection
              of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until she
              ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was bound
              up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
              America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the foundation
              of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of a Reformed
              and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound by
              Covenant to do so. Likewise, the Churches in this nation which
              refuse to reform themselves according to the agreed upon standards,
              are refusing the Covenant as well.

              The following are some considerations taken from an article on
              Covenanting found here:
              http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/testimonyforpubliccov.htm

              ---

              1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members of
              the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably, though
              distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the whole
              binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined together,
              let no man put asunder."

              2. As God is one party, the Covenanter who emigrates, is after
              emigration, still within the dominions of him "who is King of Kings
              and Lord of Lords." Those who have come into the United States, since
              the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kingly authority
              of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord of the
              whole earth."

              3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-England
              Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all their
              descendants became formally bound.

              4. The colonies, at the time of entering into the Solemn League and
              Covenant, were an integral part of the British nation. They held
              their lands under the crown, and were governed by deputies of the
              throne, whom they acknowledged as their governors. The Boston
              renovation, demonstrates that they held themselves bound by the
              federal deed of the Lords and Commons, in 1643.

              5. The old Congress of 1774, solemnly claimed for themselves, and for
              the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rights and
              immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life of Washington.)
              The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was, that
              they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of their ancestors,
              who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It may be
              said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim the covenant
              birthright. It is admitted that they did not, and that in doing, so,
              they committed a great sin. Men often do things, when they do not
              understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled the
              counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heart
              think so." Isa. 10:7.

              6. The land has been blessed remarkably in temporal good things,
              notwithstanding it "has deeply revolted;" as God showed favor to
              Israel even when grossly offending him, by their abominable
              idolatries. "To any nation," except Israel, "never he such favor did
              afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thou
              shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.

              7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah, notwithstanding
              they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbow—and all
              enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest, day
              and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
              ancestor.

              8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
              their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by the
              same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and
              America. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
              assemble the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah; to it
              shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." Isa. 11:12.
              God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whither
              they are scattered. "Thus saith the Lord God, although I have cast
              them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
              among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in
              the countries where they shall come." Ezek. 11:6. They are farther
              remote from the land of their fathers' sepulchres, than we of this
              country, are from the British Isles; and yet the God of their father
              Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.

              9. The people of Judah and Benjamin were not released from their
              covenant obligations, during their captivity in Babylon.

              10. This is the doctrine of our Declaration and Testimony. "Covenants
              entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding upon,
              those who enter into them, either personally, or by their
              representatives, so long as such persons live, unless the covenants
              have limited their duration to a certain period." (Reformation
              Principles, p. 107.). This doctrine is proved from Jer. 11:10, "The
              house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broke, the covenant
              which I made with their fathers." The community of the British nation
              still exists, and many such persons still live, in the United States,
              whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, and
              into "the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms of
              Scotland, England and Ireland."
              This is no more than a specimen of the ample testimony that might be
              adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants and
              their descending obligation. We trust no one will ask more to
              demonstrate that the ground which the Reformed Presbyterian church
              occupies has not been taken rashly.

              While under obligations so solemn, ratified by the most holy
              sanctions, endeared to us by the blood of our martyred fathers,—"men
              of whom the world was not worthy,"—and recorded in the archives of
              heaven, we must bear our testimony against a sinful nation, laden
              with iniquity, that with all the lights of divine truth, shining in
              her firmament for nearly two centuries, has neglected to recognize
              her duty, by "joining herself to the Lord in a perpetual covenant,
              not to be forgotten." O that the God of Israel may soon set the fair
              jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "the glory
              of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy and
              reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.

              ---

              The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue of
              the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..

              > My second question was about the practical consequences of being
              > legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as a
              > result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of your
              > Christian obligations?

              Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
              breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
              things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in the
              Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in the
              nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
              nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.

              > What are the penalties for not recognizing
              > the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
              > benefits. What else?

              "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
              forget God."

              As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not unity
              but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God, etc.

              Blessings to you, Peter.

              Where ya from?

              gmw.
            • seamrog1935
              ... of ... The ... collection ... bound ... I am reading Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics , which is helpful in explaining
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been conceded,
                > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
                > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
                of
                > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
                The
                > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
                > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
                collection
                > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until she
                > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
                bound
                > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
                > America, daughter of England.

                I am reading "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary
                Schismatics", which is helpful in explaining American history and her
                being bound to the Covenant. Since the colonies were not all English
                in America, where stood the Spanish colony of Florida in America
                after the establishment of the Covenant? I can see how Florida and
                other non-English colonies of America are bound when they joined the
                English colonies (later the US), but between swearing of the Covenant
                and the respective colony's union with the English colonies, I'm
                having difficulty in understanding if and when the non-English
                colonies of America would be bound. At the time of the Covenant,
                there were 2 nations in one land, America. Does the Covenant bind
                geographically (Florida and other non-English colonies as well) in
                addition to nationally and genealogically?

                Whit
              • Peter
                Thank you gmw, Where as you consider yourself a novice; I consider myself many times your inferior in all respects. So let me reiterate before I respond, I
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you gmw,

                  Where as you consider yourself a novice; I consider myself many
                  times your inferior in all respects. So let me reiterate before I
                  respond, I have no knowledge of jurisprudence/Scripture. All I have
                  to go by is my flawed (even among humans) reason.

                  You said:
                  >Because if, as you concede, America was bound
                  > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
                  > America, daughter of England.
                  I understand in many ways nations are like people, but unlike people
                  I don't believe one nation can begat another! Not in this way any
                  how. A nation can have a nation by the branching off of families.
                  All I need is a link between colonial America and present day
                  America and I can put my conscience to rest. Not that I my ears
                  should be satisfied but rather that I might know my faith is not
                  rested upon blind obedience to the commandments of men. I also pray
                  that the Holy Spirit will lead me and keep me from the pit-falls of
                  error. And that he will enable me to believe all the teachings of
                  God's word, the Lord of my Conscience. In my gut I believe you are
                  right. I have assumed too much on my own, I need to speak with both
                  sides personally.

                  > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
                  > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
                  > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
                  >the Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in
                  >the nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
                  > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
                  > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
                  > forget God."
                  > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
                  >unity but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of
                  >God, etc.

                  Oops. That's correct according to the Lollard/Lutheran numbering of
                  the Decalogue. The things you said are the benefits/penalties of
                  keeping/breaking the moral principals of the Covenant. My question
                  was just about realizing/not realizing its legal authority.

                  I live in S.E. PA, about an hr away from probably the RP's (& many
                  other presbies) historic focal point- Philly.

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                  <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                  > <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                  > > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in
                  replying
                  > > to your post.
                  >
                  > No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I
                  consider
                  > myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to
                  > comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.
                  >
                  > > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present
                  day
                  > > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I
                  will
                  > > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under
                  > > the Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still.
                  >
                  > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been
                  conceded,
                  > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
                  > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
                  of
                  > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
                  The
                  > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
                  > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
                  collection
                  > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until
                  she
                  > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
                  bound
                  > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
                  > America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the
                  foundation
                  > of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of a
                  Reformed
                  > and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound by
                  > Covenant to do so. Likewise, the Churches in this nation which
                  > refuse to reform themselves according to the agreed upon
                  standards,
                  > are refusing the Covenant as well.
                  >
                  > The following are some considerations taken from an article on
                  > Covenanting found here:
                  > http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/testimonyforpubliccov.htm
                  >
                  > ---
                  >
                  > 1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members
                  of
                  > the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably,
                  though
                  > distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the
                  whole
                  > binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined
                  together,
                  > let no man put asunder."
                  >
                  > 2. As God is one party, the Covenanter who emigrates, is after
                  > emigration, still within the dominions of him "who is King of
                  Kings
                  > and Lord of Lords." Those who have come into the United States,
                  since
                  > the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kingly
                  authority
                  > of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord of
                  the
                  > whole earth."
                  >
                  > 3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-
                  England
                  > Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all their
                  > descendants became formally bound.
                  >
                  > 4. The colonies, at the time of entering into the Solemn League
                  and
                  > Covenant, were an integral part of the British nation. They held
                  > their lands under the crown, and were governed by deputies of the
                  > throne, whom they acknowledged as their governors. The Boston
                  > renovation, demonstrates that they held themselves bound by the
                  > federal deed of the Lords and Commons, in 1643.
                  >
                  > 5. The old Congress of 1774, solemnly claimed for themselves, and
                  for
                  > the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rights
                  and
                  > immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life of
                  Washington.)
                  > The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was,
                  that
                  > they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of their
                  ancestors,
                  > who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It may
                  be
                  > said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim the
                  covenant
                  > birthright. It is admitted that they did not, and that in doing,
                  so,
                  > they committed a great sin. Men often do things, when they do not
                  > understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled
                  the
                  > counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heart
                  > think so." Isa. 10:7.
                  >
                  > 6. The land has been blessed remarkably in temporal good things,
                  > notwithstanding it "has deeply revolted;" as God showed favor to
                  > Israel even when grossly offending him, by their abominable
                  > idolatries. "To any nation," except Israel, "never he such favor
                  did
                  > afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thou
                  > shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.
                  >
                  > 7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah,
                  notwithstanding
                  > they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbow—and all
                  > enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest,
                  day
                  > and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
                  > ancestor.
                  >
                  > 8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
                  > their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by
                  the
                  > same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and
                  > America. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
                  > assemble the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah; to it
                  > shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." Isa.
                  11:12.
                  > God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whither
                  > they are scattered. "Thus saith the Lord God, although I have cast
                  > them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
                  > among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary
                  in
                  > the countries where they shall come." Ezek. 11:6. They are farther
                  > remote from the land of their fathers' sepulchres, than we of this
                  > country, are from the British Isles; and yet the God of their
                  father
                  > Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.
                  >
                  > 9. The people of Judah and Benjamin were not released from their
                  > covenant obligations, during their captivity in Babylon.
                  >
                  > 10. This is the doctrine of our Declaration and
                  Testimony. "Covenants
                  > entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding
                  upon,
                  > those who enter into them, either personally, or by their
                  > representatives, so long as such persons live, unless the
                  covenants
                  > have limited their duration to a certain period." (Reformation
                  > Principles, p. 107.). This doctrine is proved from Jer.
                  11:10, "The
                  > house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broke, the covenant
                  > which I made with their fathers." The community of the British
                  nation
                  > still exists, and many such persons still live, in the United
                  States,
                  > whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, and
                  > into "the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms of
                  > Scotland, England and Ireland."
                  > This is no more than a specimen of the ample testimony that might
                  be
                  > adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants
                  and
                  > their descending obligation. We trust no one will ask more to
                  > demonstrate that the ground which the Reformed Presbyterian church
                  > occupies has not been taken rashly.
                  >
                  > While under obligations so solemn, ratified by the most holy
                  > sanctions, endeared to us by the blood of our martyred fathers,—
                  "men
                  > of whom the world was not worthy,"—and recorded in the archives of
                  > heaven, we must bear our testimony against a sinful nation, laden
                  > with iniquity, that with all the lights of divine truth, shining
                  in
                  > her firmament for nearly two centuries, has neglected to recognize
                  > her duty, by "joining herself to the Lord in a perpetual covenant,
                  > not to be forgotten." O that the God of Israel may soon set the
                  fair
                  > jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "the
                  glory
                  > of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy and
                  > reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.
                  >
                  > ---
                  >
                  > The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue
                  of
                  > the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..
                  >
                  > > My second question was about the practical consequences of being
                  > > legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as
                  a
                  > > result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of
                  your
                  > > Christian obligations?
                  >
                  > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
                  > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
                  > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
                  the
                  > Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in
                  the
                  > nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
                  > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
                  >
                  > > What are the penalties for not recognizing
                  > > the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
                  > > benefits. What else?
                  >
                  > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
                  > forget God."
                  >
                  > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
                  unity
                  > but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God,
                  etc.
                  >
                  > Blessings to you, Peter.
                  >
                  > Where ya from?
                  >
                  > gmw.
                • gmw
                  ... You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam? Whatever we may conclude
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, seamrog1935
                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                    > I am reading "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary
                    > Schismatics", which is helpful in explaining American history and her
                    > being bound to the Covenant. Since the colonies were not all English
                    > in America, where stood the Spanish colony of Florida in America
                    > after the establishment of the Covenant? I can see how Florida and
                    > other non-English colonies of America are bound when they joined the
                    > English colonies (later the US), but between swearing of the Covenant
                    > and the respective colony's union with the English colonies, I'm
                    > having difficulty in understanding if and when the non-English
                    > colonies of America would be bound. At the time of the Covenant,
                    > there were 2 nations in one land, America. Does the Covenant bind
                    > geographically (Florida and other non-English colonies as well) in
                    > addition to nationally and genealogically?

                    You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded
                    yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam? Whatever we
                    may conclude regarding their obligation as Colonies, I think we can
                    agree that once they united, they took upon themselves not only the
                    benefits, but also the obligations, of the nation.

                    gmw.
                  • gmw
                    ... What is it that happened between the time of the obligation of the Colonies, and the present day, which, biblically, ends covenant obligation? Declaring
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                      <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:

                      > All I need is a link between colonial America and present day
                      > America and I can put my conscience to rest.

                      What is it that happened between the time of the obligation of the
                      Colonies, and the present day, which, biblically, ends covenant
                      obligation? Declaring Independence can't be it, because Israel and
                      Judah were both bound to their covenant obligations even though they
                      split. What then?

                      > I live in S.E. PA, about an hr away from probably the RP's (& many
                      > other presbies) historic focal point- Philly.

                      I'm in Lebanon County, so perhaps one day we can discuss this over
                      some coffee, or beer.

                      gmw.
                    • revrayjoseph
                      Whit, Where did you get the book, Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics , ? Thanks. Ray Joseph
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Whit,
                        Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
                        Contemporary Schismatics", ?

                        Thanks.
                        Ray Joseph
                      • thebishopsdoom
                        ... Unless I m mistaken, they would not have been in covenant when they had still been foriegn territory, less so than even the Indians who lived in the sphere
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 3, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                          <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                          > You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concluded
                          > yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam?

                          Unless I'm mistaken, they would not have been in covenant when they
                          had still been foriegn territory, less so than even the Indians who
                          lived in the sphere of British territory. The Indians were not under
                          covenant unless they incorporated into colonial society, at which
                          points they had all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of
                          English citizens. Previous to that, they were separate nations,
                          living in the region of British influence and control, but treated as
                          separate national groups. There were laws limiting things they might
                          be able to do within Britsh territory, but they were for all that
                          still separate nation groups and not citizens of the colonies.
                          Likewise the Dutch, French and Spanish were separate until
                          incorporated in with the rest. Non-english / Irish / Scots/ Scots-
                          Irish / Welsh persons in the English colonies would be responsible
                          for not violating any measures passed relative to the covenant, but
                          would not become personally under covenanted obligation unless and
                          until incorporating into the body politic by being granted
                          citizenship, or else if they were taken into the membership of the
                          churches who had adopted these covenants.
                          -doom
                        • Dan Fraas
                          So, Under the terms of the covenants, is it a covenant violation for churches and families to catechize using the Heidelberg Catechism? -- (not in the sense of
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            So,

                            Under the terms of the covenants, is it a covenant violation for
                            churches and families to catechize using the Heidelberg Catechism? --
                            (not in the sense of rejecting the Westminster Catechisms)

                            Riley
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
                            > <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
                            > > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in
                            replying
                            > > to your post.
                            >
                            > No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I
                            consider
                            > myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified to
                            > comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.
                            >
                            > > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present
                            day
                            > > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so I
                            will
                            > > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put under
                            > > the Covenant and up until 100 years ago the people were still.
                            >
                            > Ok, then I will not endeavor to prove that which has been conceded,
                            > that the American Colonies were under the Covenant when originally
                            > sworn. The article did place much emphasis on the British descent
                            of
                            > the American people, which is important, but not the only point.
                            The
                            > Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.
                            > Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
                            collection
                            > of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until she
                            > ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
                            bound
                            > up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is still
                            > America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the
                            foundation
                            > of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of a
                            Reformed
                            > and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound by
                            > Covenant to do so. Likewise, the Churches in this nation which
                            > refuse to reform themselves according to the agreed upon standards,
                            > are refusing the Covenant as well.
                            >
                            > The following are some considerations taken from an article on
                            > Covenanting found here:
                            > http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/testimonyforpubliccov.htm
                            >
                            > ---
                            >
                            > 1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members
                            of
                            > the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably, though
                            > distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the whole
                            > binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined
                            together,
                            > let no man put asunder."
                            >
                            > 2. As God is one party, the Covenanter who emigrates, is after
                            > emigration, still within the dominions of him "who is King of Kings
                            > and Lord of Lords." Those who have come into the United States,
                            since
                            > the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kingly
                            authority
                            > of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord of
                            the
                            > whole earth."
                            >
                            > 3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-
                            England
                            > Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all their
                            > descendants became formally bound.
                            >
                            > 4. The colonies, at the time of entering into the Solemn League and
                            > Covenant, were an integral part of the British nation. They held
                            > their lands under the crown, and were governed by deputies of the
                            > throne, whom they acknowledged as their governors. The Boston
                            > renovation, demonstrates that they held themselves bound by the
                            > federal deed of the Lords and Commons, in 1643.
                            >
                            > 5. The old Congress of 1774, solemnly claimed for themselves, and
                            for
                            > the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rights
                            and
                            > immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life of
                            Washington.)
                            > The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was,
                            that
                            > they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of their
                            ancestors,
                            > who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It may
                            be
                            > said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim the
                            covenant
                            > birthright. It is admitted that they did not, and that in doing,
                            so,
                            > they committed a great sin. Men often do things, when they do not
                            > understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled
                            the
                            > counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heart
                            > think so." Isa. 10:7.
                            >
                            > 6. The land has been blessed remarkably in temporal good things,
                            > notwithstanding it "has deeply revolted;" as God showed favor to
                            > Israel even when grossly offending him, by their abominable
                            > idolatries. "To any nation," except Israel, "never he such favor
                            did
                            > afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thou
                            > shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.
                            >
                            > 7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah,
                            notwithstanding
                            > they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbow—and all
                            > enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest, day
                            > and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
                            > ancestor.
                            >
                            > 8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
                            > their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by
                            the
                            > same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and
                            > America. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
                            > assemble the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah; to it
                            > shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." Isa.
                            11:12.
                            > God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whither
                            > they are scattered. "Thus saith the Lord God, although I have cast
                            > them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them
                            > among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in
                            > the countries where they shall come." Ezek. 11:6. They are farther
                            > remote from the land of their fathers' sepulchres, than we of this
                            > country, are from the British Isles; and yet the God of their
                            father
                            > Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.
                            >
                            > 9. The people of Judah and Benjamin were not released from their
                            > covenant obligations, during their captivity in Babylon.
                            >
                            > 10. This is the doctrine of our Declaration and
                            Testimony. "Covenants
                            > entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding
                            upon,
                            > those who enter into them, either personally, or by their
                            > representatives, so long as such persons live, unless the covenants
                            > have limited their duration to a certain period." (Reformation
                            > Principles, p. 107.). This doctrine is proved from Jer. 11:10, "The
                            > house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broke, the covenant
                            > which I made with their fathers." The community of the British
                            nation
                            > still exists, and many such persons still live, in the United
                            States,
                            > whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, and
                            > into "the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms of
                            > Scotland, England and Ireland."
                            > This is no more than a specimen of the ample testimony that might
                            be
                            > adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants and
                            > their descending obligation. We trust no one will ask more to
                            > demonstrate that the ground which the Reformed Presbyterian church
                            > occupies has not been taken rashly.
                            >
                            > While under obligations so solemn, ratified by the most holy
                            > sanctions, endeared to us by the blood of our martyred fathers,—
                            "men
                            > of whom the world was not worthy,"—and recorded in the archives of
                            > heaven, we must bear our testimony against a sinful nation, laden
                            > with iniquity, that with all the lights of divine truth, shining in
                            > her firmament for nearly two centuries, has neglected to recognize
                            > her duty, by "joining herself to the Lord in a perpetual covenant,
                            > not to be forgotten." O that the God of Israel may soon set the
                            fair
                            > jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "the
                            glory
                            > of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy and
                            > reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.
                            >
                            > ---
                            >
                            > The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue
                            of
                            > the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..
                            >
                            > > My second question was about the practical consequences of being
                            > > legally bound to the SL&C. What are the benefits: Motivation as a
                            > > result of fear of breaking the 2nd commandment, a reminder of
                            your
                            > > Christian obligations?
                            >
                            > Do you mean the 3rd Commandment? Falsely swearing and covenant-
                            > breaking are violations of the 3rd Commandment. Of course, the
                            > things you mention are benefits. But the benefits envisioned in
                            the
                            > Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in the
                            > nation, unity in faith and practice in all the Churches in the
                            > nation, removal of Popery and Prelacy, etc., etc.
                            >
                            > > What are the penalties for not recognizing
                            > > the Covenants legal force? Certainly you lose the two aforesaid
                            > > benefits. What else?
                            >
                            > "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
                            > forget God."
                            >
                            > As a result of putting the Covenant behind our back, we see not
                            unity
                            > but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God,
                            etc.
                            >
                            > Blessings to you, Peter.
                            >
                            > Where ya from?
                            >
                            > gmw.
                          • Shawn Anderson
                            ... Dear pastor Joseph, You can find a FREE copy of The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics at:
                            Message 13 of 14 , Dec 8, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Whit,
                              >Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
                              >Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                              >
                              >Thanks.
                              >Ray Joseph

                              Dear pastor Joseph,

                              You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
                              Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:

                              http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/covrefdf/covrefdf2.htm

                              You should aslo check out this work:

                              http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm

                              -Shawn Anderson
                              Albany CRPC
                            • seamrog1935
                              ... Against ... Thanks, Shawn, for providing the link as well! :) Whit
                              Message 14 of 14 , Dec 8, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Shawn Anderson"
                                <christ_saves_sinners@y...> wrote:
                                > > Whit,
                                > >Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended
                                Against
                                > >Contemporary Schismatics", ?
                                > >
                                > >Thanks.
                                > >Ray Joseph
                                >
                                > Dear pastor Joseph,
                                >
                                > You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
                                > Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:
                                >
                                > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/covrefdf/covrefdf2.htm
                                >
                                > You should aslo check out this work:
                                >
                                > http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/rpcna/rpcna.htm
                                >
                                > -Shawn Anderson
                                > Albany CRPC

                                Thanks, Shawn, for providing the link as well! :)

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