- --- In email@example.com, "gmw"
> You bring up an interesting question, one that I have not concludedUnless I'm mistaken, they would not have been in covenant when they
> yet in my own mind. What of Florida and New Amsterdam?
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.
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)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gmw"
> --- In email@example.com, "Peter"replying
> <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:
> > Thanks for the help and I'm sorry for being delinquent in
> > to your post.consider
> No problem at all. If I can refresh your memory as well, I
> myself a novice, and believe that others are far more qualified today
> comment than myself. But I'll give it my best shot.
> > My trouble is finding a connection between Britain and present
> > America.... Your answers to my objections were sufficient so Iwill
> > concede- at the time of the signing, the colonies were put underof
> > 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
> the American people, which is important, but not the only point.The
> Covenant was a national covenant, and an ecclesiastical covenant.collection
> Our view is that America as a nation, and not simply as a
> of folks with English blood, is bound, and will be bound, until shebound
> ceases to exist. Why? Because if, as you concede, America was
> up until 100 years ago, then she still is bound, for she is stillfoundation
> America, daughter of England. When it was time to lay the
> of this nation, and America rejected the establishment of aReformed
> and Presbyterian Church, she did so sinfully, for she was bound byof
> 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:
> 1. The Solemn League and Covenant was one vow in which the members
> the church and citizens of the state were bound inseparably, thoughtogether,
> distinctly; and whom any principle of the covenant binds, the whole
> binds; because it cannot be divided. "What God hath joined
> let no man put asunder."since
> 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,
> the taking of the covenants, are as really under the kinglyauthority
> of Christ, as they were in Great Britain; for he is "the Lord ofthe
> whole earth."England
> 3. The covenant of the British empire was renewed by the New-
> Puritan Pilgrims, in the year 1644, by which they and all theirfor
> 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
> the people of the colonies whom they represented "all the rightsand
> immunities of British Citizens." (See Marshall's Life ofWashington.)
> The most excellent part of their birthright and immunities, was,that
> they inherited a title to the covenant blessings of theirancestors,
> who entered into federal relations with the God of Israel. It maybe
> said in reply to this, that they did not intend to claim thecovenant
> 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 notthe
> understand their own transactions, as the Assyrian king fulfilled
> counsel of the Lord, although "he meant not so, nor did his heartdid
> 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
> afford." And we may say of our land, as David did of Israel, "Thounotwithstanding
> shewedst them favor." Psal. 44:3.
> 7. All nations are under the covenant made with Noah,
> they are dispersed over all the earth. All see the rainbowand allthe
> enjoy "summer and winter, cold and heat, seed time and harvest, day
> and night," in fulfillment of the covenant made with their common
> 8. The ten tribes, cast out into far countries, are still bound by
> their national covenant. The dispersed of Judah are also bound by
> same bond, dispersed as they are over Asia, Africa, Europe and11:12.
> 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.
> God promises to be a little sanctuary to them in the lands whitherfather
> 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
> Jacob, acknowledges their outward covenant, relation to him.Testimony. "Covenants
> 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
> entered into by an individual or a community, continue bindingupon,
> those who enter into them, either personally, or by theirnation
> 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
> still exists, and many such persons still live, in the UnitedStates,
> whose fathers entered into the National Covenant of Scotland, andbe
> 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
> adduced to prove, both the perpetuity of the national covenants and"men
> 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,
> of whom the world was not worthy,"and recorded in the archives offair
> 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
> jewel of his covenant in our forehead, and make our nation "theglory
> of all lands." "He hath commanded his covenant forever; holy andof
> reverend is his name." Psal. 111:9.
> The considerations above may be helpful in considering this issue
> the obligation of the Covenant upon the U.S..your
> > 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
> > Christian obligations?the
> 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
> Covenant are the blessings of God on Church and State, peace in theunity
> 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
> but disunity, we see Popery running wild, the displeasure of God,etc.
> Blessings to you, Peter.
> Where ya from?
> Whit,Dear pastor Joseph,
>Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
>Contemporary Schismatics", ?
You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:
You should aslo check out this work:
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Shawn Anderson"
> > Whit,Against
> >Where did you get the book, "Covenanted Reformation Defended
> >Contemporary Schismatics", ?Thanks, Shawn, for providing the link as well! :)
> >Ray Joseph
> Dear pastor Joseph,
> You can find a FREE copy of "The Covenanted Reformation Defended
> Against Contemporary Schismatics" at:
> You should aslo check out this work:
> -Shawn Anderson
> Albany CRPC