Archive for September, 2015

Freedom of Religion

September 29, 2015

By Michael Daniels


Should we allow other religions to practice freely in America? Do we permit Mohammedans to freely worship and build Mosque in cities, towns and neighborhoods?

To many people it is the supreme law that we are permitted and allowed to have freedom of religion and if we do not believe in freedom of religion or tolerance then we have broken some sort of supreme law that one can possible have. It has become the ultimate cultural sin. Sadly even those whom claim the name of Christ have been taught to believe the same thing. But is this what Yahovah have taught us? Is this what His divine law directs us to do? Are we to be tolerate of every false religion and grant full freedom of religion throughout the world?

Such concept is an insult to the Holy One of Israel. It is pure Blasphemy at its very root. For we are commanded to have no other gods before Him and no where in scripture are we directed to be tolerant or be accepting of other religions nor are we commanded to give freedom of religion. In essence this is a violation of the First Commandment.

§Tear down the wicked and abominable places

In fact we are directly commanded to tear down the wicked and abominable places throughout the land. We must be careful to not to participate in the fellowship of demons either directly or by not removing the idolatry as Scripture commands, Exodus 23:13, Exodus 23:24; Exodus 34:13; Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 7:25; Deuteronomy 7:26, for if we do not become accomplices in their wicked acts, (Psalm 50:18), “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.”

“And ye shall take heed to all things that I have said unto you: and ye shall make no mention of the name of other gods, neither shall it be heard out of thy mouth.” (Exodus 23:13),

“But thus ye shall deal with them, Ye shall overthrow their altars, and break down their pillars, and ye shall cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.” (Deuteronomy 7:5),

“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire, and covet not the silver and gold, that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therewith: for it is an abomination before the Lord thy God. Bring not therefore abomination into thine house, lest thou be accursed like it, but utterly abhor it, and count it most abominable: for it is accursed.” (Deuteronomy 7:25-26),

“Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, neither serve them, nor do after the works of them: but utterly overthrow them, and break in pieces their images.” (Exodus 23:24),

“But ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their images in pieces, and cut down their groves” (Exodus 34:13),

“Ye shall then drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their pictures, and break asunder all their images of metal, and pluck down all their high places” (Numbers 33:52)

§Propagation of Religion Versus Preservation of Religion

Now granted we are not call to propagate Christianity by the Sword. There is a vast difference between an unbeliever and a person who commits Blasphemy willingly. We do not convert by the sword like the Mohammedans.

“Sixthly, as the reformation and preservation of religion differ much from the propagation of religion: so the coercive power put forth in the suppressing of Heresy or Schism, is a thing of another nature than the compelling of Infidels by the sword to receive the Gospel. Let the Pope, and the Spaniard, and Mahomet propagate religion by the sword; that is not it I plead for. None of the Gentiles was of old compelled to be circumcised, but being circumcised he might be compelled to keep the Law of Moses. Also if strangers of the Gentiles were sojourning or trading in the land of Israel, they might be compelled to abstain from the public and scandalous breaking of the moral Law, Nehem. 13.16,21; Exod. 20.10, which things did belong to the preservation, but the propagation of religion. “-George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty, 1644

“Religion may be defended by arms but not propagated by arms.” -Johannes Wollebius, 1660

§Self-Preservation and the Defense of Others

But we pick up the sword in a number of situations. We are permitted to pick the sword for Self-defense as well as defense of others. In fact we are required to pick up the sword in such situations by the positive duty of the Sixth Commandment. For every commandment there is a positive and negative duty and in addition to this every commandment must be given explanation, not by our own reasoning or our own logic but how Scripture defines it. Now every Commandment can and will be abused but that cannot allow us to prohibit something that is a positive aspect of a commandment or by what other scriptures gives as examples.

As Reformed Covenanter Theologian Alexander Shield said in 1687 with reference to the Sixth Commandment,

” In the next place, What we own may be done warrantably, in taking away the life of men without breach of the sixth command … It is certain, though the command be indefinitely expressed, it doth not prohibit all killing, but only that which is condemned in other explicatory commands.”

So as he said, we must have other explicatory commands to define for us what is murder and what is not murder, what is a breach of the sixth commandment and what is not a breach of the sixth commandment.

We have a negative duty but we also have a positive duty and we must define them by Scripture.

We are preserve life including the life of other people. This self-defense even extends to Tyrants in so-called government rulers by such examples in Scripture a Jael as well as many more.

“Some of the Anabaptists hold it unlawful to take up the sword upon any occasion, but questionless a man may take up the sword for self-preservation, else he comes under the breach of the sixth commandment. He who does not is guilty of self-murder. In taking up the sword he does not so much seek another’s death, as the safeguard of his own life. His intention is not to do hurt, but to prevent it. Self-defense is consistent with Christian meekness.” — Thomas Watson, “The Beatitudes”, pg. 108

“Ver. 35-38. Those who interpret Luke 22:35,36, as a precept of our Saviour’s imposing a duty upon his disciples, or a counsel concerning the proviting arms which they might use for the protection and defence of themselves. … Hitherto I have been with you, and you have had my special protection; though you went out without a purse or a scrip, yet you have wanted nothing; though you went without a sword, yet none did you any harm. But the time is now come, when the posture of your affairs will be much altered; your friends will be few, your enemies many, therefore you stand concerned to make as good preparation as you can do in those things that are consistent with the general precepts that I have given you. The tragedy will begin with me; for what is written of me must now be accomplished, Isaiah 53:12, He was numbered with the transgressors. I must be brought before magistrates as a common malefactor, and hanged on a cross between two thieves. And the things concerning me shall shortly have an end: you will next come upon the stage, and therefore prepare what in you lieth for the performance of your part. “ -Matthew Poole’s Commentary

“35-38. “But now—that you are going forth not as before on a temporary mission, provided for without purse or scrip, but into scenes of continued and severe trial, your methods must be different; for purse and scrip will now be needed for support, and the usual means of defense.” -Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
§Rescue of our Brethren
We may pick up the sword to rescue of our brethren who are falsely imprisoned or taken as slaves as per Prov. 24.11,12.

“5. It is lawful to kill enemies in the rescue of our brethren, when they are keeping them in bondage, and reserving them for a sacrifice to the fury of tyrants, or leading them forth to a slaughter, or in the time of acting their murdering violence upon them: then, to break prisons, beat up garrisons, surprise the murderers, and kill them in the rescue of our innocent brethren, is very lawful, according to that command, Prov. 24.11,12, and the practice of Moses, who seeing one of his brethren suffering wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and slew the Egyptian, Acts 7.24. For that is a certain truth, which Grotius saith in locum. “the law of nature gives a right to an innocent, and to the defender of an innocent person, against the guilty offender.” Hence it cannot but be lawful also, in a case of necessity, when both ourselves and our brethren are pursued incessantly by destroying murderers, to avenge ourselves on them, and slay them, when there is no other way to be rid of their violence.” Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1668

§Just War of Private Subjects or Part of the Commonwealth

We may also pick up the sword in a just war either by a defensive war of private subjects, or a part of the commonwealth, against their oppressing tyrants.

“It is lawful in a just war to kill the enemy; yea in the defensive war of private subjects, or a part of the commonwealth, against their oppressing tyrants, as is proven, head 5, Where several of the arguments used to evince that truth will confirm this; as namely, those arguments taken from the people’s power in reformation, and those taken from the hazard of partaking of others sin and judgment: for, if all the magistrates, supreme and subordinate, turn principal patrons and patterns of all abominations, and persecutors and destroyers of the people for not complying with them, then the people are not only under an obligation to resist them; but seeing otherwise they would be liable for their sin, in suffering them thus to trample on religion, and the interests of God as well as their own, in order to turn away the wrath of God, it is incumbent upon them to vindicate religion, and reform the land from these corruptions, in an endeavour to bring those malignant enemies of God, and destroyers of the people, to condign punishment, “That the heads of the people be hanged up before the Lord against the sun, the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from the land,” Numb. 25.4. In this case, as Buchanan says of a tyrant, De jure regni, “A lawful war being once undertaken with such an enemy as a tyrant is, every one out of the whole multitude of mankind may assault, with all the calamities of war, a tyrant, who is a public enemy, with whom all good men have a perpetual warfare.” And though the war be not always actually prosecute in a hostile manner, yet, as long as peace is not concluded and the war ceased, they that have the just side of the quarrel may take advantages, in removing and taking off, (not every single soldier of the contrary side, for that would contribute nothing to their prevailing in the end) but the principal instruments and promoters of the war, by whose fall the offending side would suffer great loss, and the defending would be great gainers. So Jael killing Sisera, Jabin’s captain-general, is greatly commended. [Judges chapters 4,5.] Now this was the case of the suffers upon this head, as Mr. Mitchel, one of them represents it in his forecited letter, “I being (says he) a soldier, not having laid down my arms, but still upon my own defence, having no other end or quarrel at any man—besides the prosecution of the ends of the covenant, particularly the overthrow of prelates and prelacy; and I being a declared enemy to him (that is Sharp) on that account, and he to me in the like manner, I never found myself obliged to set a centinel at his door for his safety; but as he was always to take his advantage, as it appeareth, so I of him to take any opportunity offered; moreover; we being in no terms of capitulation, but on the contrary, I, by his instigation, being excluded from all grace and favour, thought it my duty to pursue him at all occasions. “

§Defense of Religion & Sword Against Tyranny

We may also pick up the sword against tyranny in the land. When wicked rulers persecute the people of God and seek their lives. And we may pick up the sword of defense of religion. For Life, Liberty and Defense of Religion we may pick up the Sword but not for propagation of religion.

“From the resistance allowed in all governments, it may be argued thus; if it be duty to defend our religion, lives, and liberties ” Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1668

” It is lawful to kill enemies in the rescue of our brethren, when they are keeping them in bondage, and reserving them for a sacrifice to the fury of tyrants, or leading them forth to a slaughter, or in the time of acting their murdering violence upon them: then, to break prisons, beat up garrisons, surprise the murderers, and kill them in the rescue of our innocent brethren, is very lawful, according to that command, Prov. 24.11,12, and the practice of Moses, who seeing one of his brethren suffering wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and slew the Egyptian, Acts 7.24. For that is a certain truth, which Grotius saith in locum. “the law of nature gives a right to an innocent, and to the defender of an innocent person, against the guilty offender.” Hence it cannot but be lawful also, in a case of necessity, when both ourselves and our brethren are pursued incessantly by destroying murderers, to avenge ourselves on them, and slay them, when there is no other way to be rid of their violence.” Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1668

“From the limited power of princes it may be thus argued: If princes be limited by laws and contracts, and may be resisted by pleas in law, and have no absolute power to do and command what they will, but must be limited both by the laws of God and man, and cannot make what laws they will in prejudice of the people’s rights, nor execute the laws made according to their pleasure, nor confer on others a lawless license to oppress whom they please; then when they turn tyrants, and arrogate a lawless absoluteness, and cross the rules, and transgress the bounds prescribed by God’s laws, and man’s laws, and make their own lusts a law, and execute the same arbitrarily, they must be resisted by force, when a legal resistance cannot be had, in defence of religion and liberty; but all princes are limited, &c. ” Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1668

§The Christian Magistrate and Duty to Suppress Wickedness and Abominations

It is also required for the Christian Magistrate to suppress wickedness and abominations from taking place in the land. This as well is not a propagation of religion but something that God endowed the Magistrate who is a minister of God to do as well as to defend and protect the true religion throughout the land. Magistrates are to be like nursing fathers to the church and what loving father would allow a child to practice outward heresy, blasphemy, abomination and false religion. Speaking of New Testament Times Isaiah says, “Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” (Isaiah 49:22-23)

William Symington said, The prophecy refers to New Testament times, when the Gentiles are to be gathered unto the Redeemer. A prominent feature of these times shall be the subserviency of civil rulers to the church, which surely supposes their subjection to Christ her Head. Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers is a similitude which imports the most tender care, the most endearing solicitude; not mere protection, but active and unwearied nourishment and support. If, according to the opinions of some, the best thing the state can do is to let her alone, to leave her to herself, to take no interest in her concerns, it is difficult to see how this view can be reconciled with the figure of a nurse, the duties of whose office would certainly be ill discharged by such a treatment of her feeble charge. -William Symington, Messiah the prince or, the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ (1839)

§The Fury of God’s Wrath on Nations from the defection of a few

But why should magistrates be required such and why is it so severe of a judgment? As John Knox so aptly put it in his Appellation, from Deut. 13,

“To the carnal man this may seem to be a rigorous and severe judgment, than even the infants there should be appointed to the cruel death; and as concerning the city, and spoil of the same, man’s reason cannot think but that it might have been better bestowed, than to be consumed. But in such cases, let all creatures stoop, and desist from reasoning, when commandment is given to execute his judgment. I will search no other reasons, than the Holy Ghost hath assigned; first, That all Israel should fear to commit the like abomination; and, secondly, That the Lord might turn from the fury of his anger: which plainly doth signify, that, by the defection and idolatry of a few, God’s wrath is kindled against the whole, which is never quenched, till such punishment be taken upon the offenders, that whatsoever served them in their idolatry be brought to destruction, etc.”

§Eradicate Outward Idolatry and False Religion

Kings are required by the law of God to eradicate outward idolatry and false religion from the land and we see this through the positive examples of Scripture of the commendation of the kings of Israel.

As the Historic Reformed Church has always believed. We hold not just explicit application of God’s law but positive historical examples of the kings and magistrates of the old testament to also be examples for Christian kings and princes. We also hold to Implicit examples and Good and Necessary Inference in the role of Civil Magistracy.

One of the Seven duties of civil magistrates outlined in Scripture and enforced in the Westminster Standards is

1. Nationally eradicate idolatry and false religion (cf. 2 Chron. 34:3-7; 2 Chron. 31:1; 2 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 15:16, etc.).

2 Chron. 34:3-7 – “And in the eighth year of his reign (when he was yet a child) he began to seek after the God of David his father: and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah, and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and molten images. And they brake down in his sight the altars of Baal, and he caused to cut down the images that were on high upon them: he brake also the groves, and the carved images and the molten images, and stamped them to powder, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them. Also he burnt the bones of the Priests upon their altars, and purged Judah and Jerusalem. And in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, with their mauls they brake all round about. And when he had destroyed the altars, and the groves, and had broken and stamped to powder the images, and had cut down all the idols throughout all the land of Israel, he returned to Jerusalem.

2 Chron. 31:1 – “And when all these things were finished, all Israel, that were found in the cities of Judah, went out and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake down the high places, and the altars throughout all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had made an end: afterward all the children of Israel returned every man to his possession, into their own cities.”

2 Chron. 15:8 – “And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Obed the Prophet, he was encouraged, and took away the abominations out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken of mount Ephraim, and he renewed the altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord.”

2 Chron. 15:16 – “And King Asa deposed Maachah his mother from her regency, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa brake down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.”

§Freedom of Conscience

What about freedom of conscience? We don’t go by conscience. Conscience is tainted by sin. Our Conscience is not free to do what is wicked and evil and not permitted the Creator of all things. We go by the Word of God with a Corporate Interpretation of Those Scriptures.

As Reformed Covenanter Theologian James Willson wrote in the 1800s,

“It will, no doubt, be urged, that the right of conscience is a sacred right—that whatever a man’s conscience thinks right, is right to him. No matter whether he be a Jew, a Christian, a Pagan, or a Mahometan—whether he believes the Bible or the Koran, or that both are an imposition, provided he conscientiously believes what he believes. Every man has an inalienable and indefeasible right to think, believe, and act, according to the dictates of his own conscience. And to call this in question is tyrannical, and to attempt to prevent it is persecution.

In answer to this, it would be necessary to settle the point, what is conscience, and what is right?—Conscience may be considered as a faculty or power of the soul of man, by which, as a judge, he passes sentence, in God’s name, upon his own conduct. It is the deputy or vicegerent of God in the soul, which pronounces in his name, a sentence of approbation, or disapprobation, on human conduct, according as it appears to be morally right or wrong. Respect must be had, in every case, to a law. There is no possibility of knowing what is right or wrong—approvable or disapprovable, without a law. Sin is a transgression of the law. The judgment passed by conscience upon an action, is a moral judgment. The understanding too, is a faculty of the human soul, by which we form judgments. We compare ideas—we examine evidence, and we judge the truth or falsehood of a proposition, by the understanding. In reference to a law, we examine actions, and determine their agreement or disagreement therewith, and so pronounce them good or bad, by the exercise of understanding. The understanding, comprehending the demonstration, judges that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.

But the conscience is distinguished, in its acts of judgment, from the understanding, inasmuch as all its judgments are judicial. It decides not merely as a jury finding a man innocent or guilty, but as the judge on the bench it pronounces a sentence of acquittal, or condemnation, according as the understanding has discovered an agreement, or disagreement, between the action and the law, in that case made and provided. The conscience, therefore, is not a rule or law, but a judge, applying the law to the case at hand, and pronouncing sentence accordingly. To identify the law with the judge, is a compounding of distinct ideas and calculated to destroy the precision of language. What are the rights of conscience? We might perhaps understand this question, by enquiring what are the rights of a judge? They are precisely, what the law allows him. The rights of conscience are, precisely, what the law of God allows it, neither more nor less. But the law of God never can give to the conscience of man, a right to act contrary to that law. This would be a sanction from the law, to destroy itself. Any thing, therefore, which the divine law forbids, never can be found among the rights of conscience.

It might, perhaps, assist us in forming correct ideas on this subject, to ask what is a right? It must be something opposite of wrong, for these words present contradictory ideas. Right can never be understood in an immoral sense. It matters little what may be the kind of right contemplated. Every conceivable kind of right must correspond with its name. It must be moral in its nature. An immoral right, i.e., a wrong right, is a contradiction in terms, and self-destructive. All creatures rights are derived from God. But God delegates no right to think, speak, or act, otherwise than his law directs. The legislative character of the Almighty is essentially connected with his divine sovereignty. It is here, in an eminent manner, that he is a jealous God. In article of supremacy, he will bear no competitor. He will not—he cannot share his sovereignty. Even to Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, he must necessarily say, “in the throne will I be greater than thou.” The Lord is our Lawgiver. How did it ever come to pass, that the breach of Jehovah’s law was denominated a right? That the conscience of man may err, is generally granted. But how does its error come to be called a right? The law of God, whenever it is known, is the formal rule and reason of human obedience. God commands that which is right, but we obey, because we are commanded. What command of God will justify a breach of his law, even though that breach should be dignified with the name of a sacred right of conscience? If God has given a well attested revelation of his law, conscience has no right to present a negative to any part of it. The Bible of God is the law-book of his kingdom, and wherever it comes, it claims, and justly claims, a supreme and paramount authority to rule the conscience, and regulate the relations of human society. To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” James Willson, Essay on Tolerance

§First Amendment and the United States Constitution

What about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

The First Amendment is contrary to the First Commandment (WLC 105: “The sins forbidden in the first commandment are…having or worshipping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God.”) and the Second Commandment (WLC 109: “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are…tolerating a false religion.”).

Those that would pit the First Amendment against the First Commandment is saying that our Constitution is higher then Divine Law. The Supreme law is not the United States Constitution but the Divine Law of the Triune God Yahovah. No man made law can replace or super-secede the God of Israel.

The Constitution is radically and willfully defective in that it does not recognize the existence of the triune God, the supremacy of Christ the King of Nations, and the Word of God as the supreme law.
The document reads: “We, the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Along with the First Amendment along and the no religious test for office clause makes the United States Constitution Blasphemous to it’s very core and foundation.

It replaces the God Yahovah who is creator of all things and sovereign over all nations with a new god “the people”. These glaring defects, with the denial of any religious qualification, the absence of the name of God from the oath, and the license of immorality and crime upon which it sets its official seal, give the document, called the Constitution, such a character of infidelity and irreligion that no true Christian ought to give it his full sanction

Divine Law states:

Psalm 2.10.- “Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth; serve the Lord with fear; &c.”

Psalm 9.17 – “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”

John 5.23 – “That all should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.”

Isa. 34.1 – “Come near ye nations to hear. Verse 16. Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read.”

Deut. 32.8 – “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Isa. 43.3 – I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Sheba for thee. Verse 14. For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down their nobles, and the Chaldeans whose cry is in the ships. Chapter 60.12. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Verse 16. Thou shalt also suck the milk of nations, and shalt suck the breasts of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer the mighty one of Jacob.”

The nation is required to “Kiss the Son” and Obey Him or “be dashed into pieces like a Potters Jar” (Psalm 2). The Constitution is Blasphemous to its very core and is in no way a godly christian document and no Christian should ever give it any form of endorsement, obedience to, or oath and vowing unto it.. We seek to have it utterly abolished and replaced with a National Covenant that is obedient to Divine Law and Christ as King.

§Has America ever been a Christian Nation

Has America ever been a Christian Nation? Let the Reformed Presbyterians of that time period in the early founding days of this nations and thereafter speak,

“The stark secularism of the [American] Constitution is a killing frost that blasts the most delicate flowers first; and, in the havoc it has wrought with these institutions, is given an example of what it will do farther, if the full winter of unbelief should come.” -Covenanter Witness 1928

“It should be — We, the people of the United States, acknowledging the being and authority of God, and our obligation to submit to his Son Jesus Christ as King of nations, for the glory of God, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do adopt, sanction and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” -The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, Vol. I. March, 1863. No. 3.

The objectional features of the Constitution of the United States were clearly pointed out and testified against. Its wilful omission of all reference to God the Author, Christ the King, and the Word of God as the Supreme Law of nations and civil government, and other permissions of evil, excluded all conscientious Covenanters from swearing allegiance to it.

“NO consideration will justify the framers of the Federal Constitution and the administration of the Government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and His anointed from the grand charter of the nation.” — Rev. Alexander McLeod, D. D

“In the United States the refusal to acknowledge God in the Constitution has probably been more explicit than it ever was in any other nation.” — Rev. James R. Willson, D. D.

“The Federal Constitution of the United States does not recognize the existence of God, the King of Nations; * * and shall a nation act as if independent of the God of the Universe, and expect to be guiltless? * * The principles of reformation are not fashionable. They were once, however, considered as the glory of Presbyterians. For civil and ecclesiastical reformation, for a glorious covenanted cause, thousands bled and died. * * I have endeavored to advocate that cause because I thought it the doctrine of the Bible, and the cause of Christ.” — Rev. Samuel B. Wylie, D. D.

For constitutions religious test as well as recognizing God, Christ as king of the nations and His law as the supreme laws of the land are essential for legitimate authority at ALL levels of government. State constitutions, Federal constitutions, confederacies of nations as well as treaties between nations. I believe in a civil type presbytery system in the same way as the church presbytery is setup. Ex. 18 is where the civil presbytery is ordained. From the local level to the highest level in the land.

When it comes to Magistrates themselves they are required to have a due measure of those qualifications which God has ordained in His Word and they are essentially necessary to the constitution and investiture of any lawful authority over a people. What are these essential qualifications?

“The New Testament gives a definitive statement of civil government in Romans ch. 13 v. 1-9 and 1 Timothy ch. 2 v. 1-2; which is a summary of the pattern also found in the Old Testament. We shall first take in review these Old Testament passages where we have the epitome of kingship delineated. Thus the qualifications of those who exercise civil rule are that, They must be men of truth, fearing God and hating covetousness (Ex. 18.21); they must be just, and not deceitful, false or oppressive: He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23.2-3); they must be men of understanding, they must be of the same nation, and not strangers (Deut. 13 v. 1 & 17; Jer. 30 v. 21). They are to be elected by all the people, that is, by the adult men among whom they are to rule: The men of Judah made David king (2 Sam. 2 v. 4) or again: The people made Saul King (1 Sam. 11.15) and as also in the words of Hushai: Whom the Lord and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be (2 Sam. 16.18). Any perversion of this order by those who thrust in upon the people however they accomplish it, is usurpation; as in Hos. 8.4: ‘They made kings but not by me; that is, strictly and only in the way appointed by God, and which is said to be “by” him as if God himself had actually done it.” -Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1638

American Covenanter James Willson declared the following in a sermon 32 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the USA the following:

“Britain and the United States are colonies within Jehovah’s government; and if they refuse to acknowledge the authority of Messiah, he will treat them as rebel provinces of his empire. In the United States, the refusal to acknowledge God, has probably been more explicit than it ever was in any other nation. Soon after we had obtained, through the beneficent providence of God, liberation from the dominion of a foreign power; soon after the most eminent displays of Jehovah’s goodness to our land; the convention, elected to form articles of fundamental law for the commonwealth, rejected the government of God, and with a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without a parallel, formed a constitution in which there is not the slighest hint of homage to the God of heaven; in which God receives no more honor than the devil. They force all within their territories to bow before them, but they refuse to bow before the throne of God. This is a species of national atheism, almost as enormous as that of the French republic, whose representatives voted, that there is no God. It is to all intents practical atheism; and we cannot doubt that those who planned such rebellion against the King of kings and Lord of lords, were practical atheists and professed infidels.” -The Subjection of Kings and Nations to Messiah, p. 65 in Political Danger published by Crown and Covenant Publications.

1832…43 yrs after the ratification of the US Constitution Reformed Presbyterians declared in the RPCNA,

“The privations and trials of those who witness a good confession for God, have been very distressing in our own country, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which wears less of a religious aspect than any government in the world, antecedent to its formation. The very theory of the government is adverse to the honor of Jehovah. The fundamental principle of the United States Constitution is, that the people are the ultimate source of all civil power. It does not admit that magistracy is the ordinance of God, or that civil rulers are God’s ministers; but views them merely as the servants of the people. The nation has forgotten God, and “all the nations that forget God shall be turned into hell.” The framers of the constitution did not intend to honor the Lord God of Israel, nor did they consider the United States as an organized commonwealth within the dominions of Jehovah. The United States professes to have no God!

The city of Washington the seat of the general government, is one great house of harlotry, profane swearing, Sabbath breaking and card playing. With the exception of those of New England, the state constitutions, and the men who administer them, are nearly of the same ungodly character with those of the United States.

God says “they have set up kings, but not by me, and princes, but I knew it not.” As a matter of science, God knows all things, but the word know means here to approve. Such direct dishonor to the God of heaven is the more deplorable, and the more astonishing, as in this land there are at least ten thousand ministers of the gospel, thirteen thousands congregations of people, professing to believe the Bible and to be Christians. When the British nation entered into the solemn league and covenant, the colonies of Virginia and Massachusetts Bay, were integral parts of the empire, by their own full consent dependent on the mother country, and subject to her government, and claiming all the rights of British subjects. The great majority of the emigrants who have peopled the United States, are from Great Britain, since that became a covenanted kingdom. It is an humbling and astonishing fact, that in this land of ministers, churches, Bibles, and among the descendants of covenant ancestors, the nation has acknowledged no God ; and has contemned Jehovah Jesus, who is, “King of kings and Lord of lords.””

§Earthly Manifestation of the Kingdom

In conclusion it is worth pointing out that we are to pray for the Earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom. Within the prayer that our Lord taught us it is written, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as it is in heaven.“

Here is we are commanded not just to wait for the future age to come or to wait for heaven but to earnestly and fervently pray for the Earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom. Not just in some distant future but here and now!

Also the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship states that we are to pray the following,

“To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk; for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches, especially upon the churches and kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, now more strictly and religiously united in the Solemn National League and Covenant; and for our plantations in the remote parts of the world”

We are to pray for the kingdom of Christ and that it’s propagation would go throughout the world to all nations as it is required in the Great Commission “Go and teach ALL nations”, we are to pray for the fall and destruction of AntiChrist (Papacy, Islam and Secularism) and from tyranny of antichristian factions.

§Human Instrumentation

This can and will happen through various means. It will go forth through the propagation of the Gospel to all nations. It will happen through the defense of religion sometimes by the sword. It will happen through individuals and the church standing before kings and commanding them to obey the laws of God and testifying before them. That is not to say that God does not work miracles but the Scripture teaches us that God normatively works through human instrumentation.

Throughout the Scriptures when a servant of God carries out their role and function it is said to be by Him as if God himself had actually done it because the Minister or Magistrate, or other servant of God was God’s instrument for carrying out His purpose. Think of the Midianites, Sisera, Jabin, etc. Those were carried out by humans instruments but in Psalm 83 it says “Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth. Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna: Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession. my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.”

So do not discount that God may use you for His divine purpose and plan to bring forth His kingdom visibly manifested on Earth here and now. The rest is in God’s hands. Duty is ours, Providence is God’s…

“Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice.” Psalm 68:1-3

“O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahovah, art the most high over all the earth.” -Psalm 83:14-18


Modesty and Staying Cool

September 23, 2015

It is now Fall and many will be asking why on Earth am I trying to tackle Summer modesty and staying cool? Well to be honest I did not think of it in time. But perhaps now is a time to start thinking of next year. How are we to stay modest in the blazing Summer sun and heat? Some may say “I just want to rip my clothes off it is so hot.” Perhaps it is your clothing that is making you extreme hot and sweaty but maybe it is not in the way you might be thinking. People tend to have a wrong view of what can keep us cool. The mentality is less clothes means cooler feeling body but this is actually incorrect. The less clothes you wear and the tighter clothes you put on will actually make you a lot hotter and extremely sweaty. So let me give you some tips on staying cooler, dryer and feeling refresh while enjoying the Summer.

1. Keep your clothes loose. The looser, the better. The less fabric you have actually touching your body, the cooler you will be but the clothing will also block the heat of the sun also keeping you cooler then if you had no cloths on. Believe it or not, a loose and flowing long dress or skirt will keep you cooler than a pair of shorts and a skintight tank. Trust me pants/shorts are not the way to stay cool. They are extremely hot and sweaty and can create a haven for bacteria and yeast infections. Besides, Reformed Covenanter theology has held to the Katastole principle which is that women should be wearing loose flowing dress/skirts. Pants are not modest for women. I really do not understand it but many people including most women find pants or shorts to be the best thing to wear. They also believe they are better at cooling. But this is simply not true. They are extremely hot and sweaty.

modest and immodest

Pants/shorts are contour revealing clothes. There is a natural law or line-of-sight principle.

Artist recognize this principle in their vocation as they are “aware of the power of lines that can be used to attract the eye to a certain area. When intersecting or converging lines attract the eye and emphasize that area and it becomes the point of attention.”

In addition to the contour revealing shape of legs with pants there is also an An arrow that points right to the unmentionables that just screams look here.

Skirted garments simply allow a comfort, cooliness and freedom that can not be achieved with trousers or shorts, particularly when seated for long periods.

Woman are called to be ‘Katastole’ which means long dignified flowing robes as even the Puritan William Ames teaches is the proper woman’s garments that Paul commands.

Women’s skirts are meant to be long and relatively spacious – not so tightened as to hinder a modest gait (Isa. 3:16). It is to be long, Her “outer garment”, says Easton’s Bible Dictionary, “terminated in an ample fringe or border, which concealed the feet (Isaiah 47:2; Jeremiah 13:22)”

In I Tim. 2:9 the word translated here as “apparel” is katastolh (katastole), which combines stolh (stole), a word for a dignified long robe with the prefix kata (kata), which means “down” or in some instances “covered down” (cf. I Cor. 11:4).

“that women adorn themselves in modest apparel: the word rendered “apparel” signifies a long robe, which reaches down to the feet; and the word translated “modest” signifies that which is clean, neat, and decent, yea, beautiful and ornamental; and the sense of the apostle is, that he would not have them to come to public worship in rags, and in dirty and filthy garments, but that their bodies should be covered with clean and decent raiment; so the Israelites washed their clothes that they might be ready to meet the Lord at Mount Sinai, Exo_19:14.” John Gill, Commentary on the Bible


2. Avoid flimsy fabrics if you don’t want your clothes to stick to your body. Lightweight fabrics are great for hot weather, but they need to have a little structure so that they don’t just cling to your body the second you start to sweat or show to much of what is underneath the fabric. Form fitting clothing is not only bad for staying cool but it also shows off every part of your body that is not to be seen.

3. Choose clothes in natural fabrics. Cotton, for instance, is much more breathable than polyester or rayon. It’s also better at absorbing sweat and dries faster, which means you won’t feel sweaty as long as you would if your clothes were made of synthetic fabric. Silk is actually even better then cotton for breathablity and wicking away moisture.

4. Avoid embellishments such as Jewelry — whether on clothing or on your body. Especially like beading or anything made of metal. Embellishments weigh your clothes down so they are closer to your skin, trapping body heat. They’re also just another layer between your skin and the next cooling breeze.

5. Bring shade with you wherever you go by wearing a wide-brimmed hat or carrying a lightweight that you can put over your head veil. It will help shade your head as well as protect your eyes. My daughter Lilli knows this all to well for the last time we went to the beach she had gotten a severe sunburn in her white part of her eyes. It was extremely painful.

6. Wear socks. Sandals are the most logical way to stay cool, but open shoes mean dirty feet, which mean hot feet. Socks help absorb your sweat and keep your feet feeling cool and clean and not smelly. There are more sweat glands on the soles of your feet than any other area of your body, and socks protect your shoes from absorbing your foot sweat, making them last longer.

7. Use a scarf to keep your hair off your neck. A small cotton scarf is great for absorbing sweat. Reformed Covenanters have historically held that the Gorget (Neck and Throat) should be covered as James Durham taught. Of course he taught it for modesty and we also believe it should be for modesty but a scarf on the neck goes a long way to keeping your neck feeling cool and not sweaty.

“Wantonness and lightness in them [i.e., clothes and dressings], which is especially in nakedness, as to such and such parts of the body, which in modesty are to be hid; for women having clothes for a cover, ought to make use of them for that end; and it is more than probable, that that walking with stretched-out necks, there reproved, relateth to women, their making more of their necks, and their breasts bare, than should be, or is decent, they affected to discover or raise their gorgets, when God commendeth modesty, and nature is best pleased in its own unaffected freedom, yet they stretched them out” -James Durham, ‘The Seventh Commandment’, The Law Unsealed, pp 306-308.

*gorgets- Part of the woman’s veil covering the throat and chest. Old French gorgete, diminutive of gorge, throat.

8. Stick to light colors. Dark colors absorb light and make you that much hotter while light colors reflect light and help keep you cool.

9. Make sure your clothes are as fresh and clean as you are. Rewearing your clothes between washes is a great way to avoid doing laundry, but even light wear leaves dirt, sweat, skin cells, and cosmetics trapped in the fibers of your clothes, which makes them less breathable and you hotter.

And for the final point, how to stay dry in the Summer sun and heat.

10. In order to stay dry and not smelly. Avoid all artificial deodorants and antiperspirant. These are not only unhealthy for your body containing many chemicals that can cause health issues in the long term they also destroy your cloths faster. It is not sweat that is causing your arm pits to yellow to have a bad odor after a while even after washing them, it is the artificial deodorants and antiperspirants.

Go with an Alum stone which is a natural salty rock that has the property to repeal bacteria that causes the body odor in the first place. The Alum stone has a very ancient history going back to the desert people of the Middle East. And Yes it does work! I am a man and I have used it for 8 years without a problem or body smell and if it can work on a man it can also work on women. Shower and apply it directly to underarms. Make sure the stone get wet and rub all over, even beyond where arm pit hair grows. It is amazing how many people think the smell is limited to a small area on the underarms and they go and try the Alum stone and then claim it does not work.

To remain dry since the Alum stone is not an antiperspirant apply some Talc powder not only in the underarms areas but also in other areas that get sweaty or have a lot of moisture.

Cover up to protect your skin from the sun and keep cool. Direct sunlight

not only damages your skin, it raises your body temperature.


The Solemn League and Covenant and its Binding Nature on America

September 8, 2015

solemnleagueart 3

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Isaiah 24:5
They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. Jeremiah 50:5

The Solemn League & Covenant. The alliance between the English Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters was sealed with the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant by both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish commissioners on September 25 1643.

Alexander Henderson wrote at the Address of the Solemn League and Covenant,

“It is the best work of faith, to join in covenant with God, the best work of love and Christian communion, to join in covenant with the people of God; the best work of the best zeal, to join in covenant for reformation, against the enemies of God and religion; the best work of true loyalty, to join in covenant for the preservation of our king and superiors; and the best proof of natural affection, (and to be without natural affection is one of the great sins of the Gentiles) to join in covenant for defence of our native country, liberties and law: such as from these necessary ends do withdraw, and are not willing to enter into covenant, have reason to enter into their own hearts, and to look into their faith, love, zeal, loyalty, and natural affection.” ~ Alexander Henderson, The Solemn League and Covenant Address at Westminster

But is the Solemn League and Covenant still binding? And if it is then is it binding on the United States of America?

Historically All Covenanters held to the Solemn League and Covenant is binding and that it continues to bind on America. We believe it bind people, nations and churches. It was Seceder Church who did not. Seceders were those who broke away from the Solemn League and Covenant. They seceding from it and recognized the King of England after the Revolutionary Settlement of 1689. They became part of the New Established Church in Scotland that was permitted under English Dominion. They are the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches. So the debate we are seeing today is not a debate in Covenanter circles (such discussions were finished historically and Covenanters agreed that the SL&C is binding) but a continuing debate between Covenanters and Seceders. Many today who say they are Covenanters are sometimes in a Seceder church and hold to Seceder Principles.

Two separate Presbyterian lines developed in the 1600s. The Engagers/Resolutioners/Seceders which were Pro-Royalist and the Western Association/Protester-Remonstrators/Cameronian Line which was Anti-Royalist.

The Western Association was formed in 1648 by Patrick Gillespie (brother to George Gillespie), Guthrie and Johnston. In 1650 The Protesters/Remonstrators started their own society meetings away from the Resolutioners and the two camps held rival General Assemblies in Edinburgh in 1751with the Protesters/Remonstrator refusing to accept and acknowledge the other General Assembly of the Resolutioners..

The Remonstrators eventually became part of the Cameronians under Richard Cameron..

James Renwick believed that the Solemn League and Covenant remained binding and did not own the authority of the king of England. He went so far as to say that the other Presbyterians had apostatized for a little liberty.

“After Renwick had been captured and brought to Edinburgh, the Chancellor, Lord Perth, at his trial asked how he differed so much from other Presbyterians, who owned the authority of the king. Renwick answered that he adhered to the old Presbyterian principle which the Covenant had obliged all to maintain. From this, he added meaningfully, some had apostatized for a little liberty, they knew not how short, as they (his judges) had done for a little honor. (J.K. Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. 2, p. 507).

John Guthrie said, “The Covenant did directly bind all following generations, “that our children after us be found walking in faith and love, that the Lord may dwell among us.” These are the very words of the Covenant. For what end were these words put in? Was it not to bind our posterity, and to keep uniformity and unity, and to bind them to the Word of God? But you will say, ‘there is no mention of the posterity.’ There was no mention of the posterity of Israel, when the people of Israel made that covenant with the Gibeonites, neither was there mention made of the Gibeonites’ posterity; yet you may see the covenant binding upon their posterity.”

After the Revolutionary settlement was ratified in 1689 many the Covenanters joined the Seceders and went over to the Established Church. But not all. Many continued to resist and did not accept the Revolutionary settlement. They saw it has a direct violation of the Solemn League and Covenant as well as to Scriptural principles. Thus they formed the United Societies. They became known as Society Men, Hillmen, and Cameronians.

It is often brought up at this point that the last ministers of the United Societies went into the revolutionary settlement church.

“The Parliament of 1690, while it rescinded the act which had declared the King supreme in causes ecclesiastical, left a mass of other pernicious legislation untouched on the statute books of the nation. The Act Recissory, which has rescinded the reforming legislation of the Second Reformation, was left untouched. The acts which condemned the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant as unlawful oaths, and the act which called the General Assembly of 1638 an unlawful and seditious Assembly, as well as other similar laws, were left untouched. Patronage was indeed abolished, but in its place a system was instituted by which the heritors and elders of a parish were given the right to nominate a minister when the parish was vacant, and the people themselves were to be permitted to accept or reject the candidate (reference Alexander Smellie’s Men of the Covenant)” pp.141-142, The Scottish Covenanters

But it should also be pointed out that though the last three ministers joined the settlement in 1689, the society people/cameronians who did not accept the settlement continued on. After the Revolution Settlement, all of the few remaining Covenanter ministers joined the Established Church in 1690, leaving the “United Societies” without any ministers for 16 years. For those 16 years the Dissenting Covenanters maintained their Societies for worship and religious correspondence. The Societies numbered about 20, with a general membership of about 7000 until a minister joined them after the 16 years..

But not all ministers of the United Societies went into the Revolution Settlement. The Rev. David Houston stayed with the Society People until his death in Northern Ireland in 1696.

The Covenanters, i.e. the RPs (Reformed Presbyterians) indeed are the really and truly lawful and legitimate descendants of the Church of Scotland of 1560 and as reasserted during the Second Reformation beginning in 1638.

But as for the establishment of the Church of Scoltand in 1690 in the context of the Glorious Revolutiion, the Cameronians never were a part of that as they viewed it as not in line with the National Covenant in 1638 or with the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643.

James Guthrie saw the binding nature of the Covenants for on the day of June 1st in the year 1661 James Guthrie was executed for his testimony, his faith and his stance on the Covenants. On the day of his execution he was to buy his life at the expense of retracting some of the things he had formerly said and done. After giving his speech he gave a copy of this- his last speech and testimony, subsribed and sealed, to a friend to keep, which he was to deliver to his son, then a child, when he came of age. When on the scaffold, he lifted the napkin off his face, just before he was turned over, and cried, “The Covenants, the Covenants, shall yet be Scotland’s reviving.”

James Guthrie’s head was fixed on the Netherbow, his estate to be confiscated and his arms torn.

So what has this to do with America? We can see that the Covenants are binding on the three kingdoms but America is not a part of those three kingdoms. We broke away from England and started a whole new nation.

America was a colony under British rule during the time of the ratification of the Solemn League and Covenant. The American Puritans and every body in America swore to the same oath that bound Scotland, Ireland and English. The death of our union with England does not change this fact nor does it nullify our Covenant oaths that we formerly made. National oaths in the Scripture continue to bind posterity even after the death of the parent nation or originator of the country. It cannot be annulled.

The RPCNA had once given an official statement on the issue that it was binding…

” 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. 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. 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. ” -Testimony for Public Covenanting by the RPCNA, The Reformed Presbyterian. VOL. II. February, 1839. NO. XII

This was a one of several points that divided us Cameronian Covenanters from the Revolution Settlement in 1689 and why we remained outside of the Post-Revolution Church, while we were known as The United Societies of Scotland.

It should also be remember that we Covenanters renewed the Solemn League and Covenant in America in the year 1743 in Octorara Pennsylvania which led to the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence in 1775 among Presbyterians in North Carolina.

In November, 1743, one hundred years after the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, Mr. Craighead gathered together all the Covenanters in Eastern Pennsylvania, at Middle Octorara, Lancaster County, and, after the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper, led them in the renewing of the Covenants. Here they declared, with uplifted swords, their independence of an ecclesiastical body that strangely upheld Erastian prelacy; and also declared their separation from the Crown which had so impiously violated Covenant engagements on both sides of the Atlantic. The proceedings were first printed in Philadelphia, in 1744, and re-printed in 1748, evidently by Benjamin Franklin, who editorially, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, refers to the matter.

Now that it has been established that the American colonies were under the Solemn league and Covenant while under Colonial rule since they also took the oaths when it was ratified, it now is on any person to proof that we are no longer under such obligation or that such an obligation ceases at the death of the progenitors or death of the union of the nations as well as any break from their colonial rule, contrary to Scripture and the Historic Covenanter view as found in “On the Duty of Covenanting and the Permanent Obligations of Religious Covenants” by William Roberts, 1853. We grand that that their are renovations in the Covenant in Boston (since we are no longer bound to the king of England and which was contingent on the king being faithful and carrying out his duty) but the substance of the Solemn League and Covenant of that which is not based on continued obligation of the King of England is fully binding on America..

“Q. Are public social covenants of continuous obligation? or, are they binding upon the posterity of the original covenanters, as long as the corporate body exists; or, until such time as the object for which they were framed has been accomplished?

A. They are; and this position is sustained by forcible arguments. 1. We find posterity recognised in the transaction between God and Jacob, at Bethel. Gen. xxviii. 13; compared with Hosea xii. 4. “He found him (Jacob) in Bethel, and there he spake with us.” 2. We have another remarkable instance of the transmission of covenant obligation to posterity in Deut. v. 2,3. “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (only) but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” 3. Another example occurs in Deut. xxix. 10-15; the covenant is here made with three descriptions of persons. 1. With those addressed adults. “Neither with you only.” 2. Minors. “Him that standeth here with us.” 3. Posterity. “Him that is not here with us this day”-for this could have no reference to any of the Israelites then in existence, as they were all present. It must, therefore, include posterity, together with all future accessions to the community. With them, Moses informs us, the covenant was made, as well as with those who actually entered into it, in the plains of Moab. 4. Another instance in which posterity is recognised in covenant obligation is found in Joshua ix.15. This covenant was made between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites. Between four and five hundred years after that time, the children of Israel are visited with a very severe famine, in the days of David. 2 Sam. xxi. 1. And it is expressly declared by the Lord that, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.” And at the same time, v. 2, that very covenant is recognised, and the breach of it is stated, as being the formal reason of the divine displeasure. Now, had it not been for this covenant, the extirpation of the Gibeonites would not have been imputed to Israel as a thing criminal; for they were comprehended in Caananitish nations, which God had commanded them to root out. 5. Posterity are charged with the sin of violating the covenant of their ancestors. Jer. xi. 10. “The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers”-by which they are evidently considered as bound. 6. The principle of federal representation confirms this doctrine. Thus when Joseph made a covenant with his brethren, that they should carry up his bones from Egypt to the land of promise, he assumed that those whom he addressed, were the representatives of their successors, as he knew well that the whole of that generation should die before the deliverance of Israel by Moses. Posterity recognised the obligation. Ex. xiii. 19. A similar case of federal representation, is that of the Gibeonites quoted above. 6. Infant baptism is a forcible illustration of the continuous obligation of covenants. 7. The principle of the transmissibility of the obligations of covenants to posterity, is recognised by civilians in civil matters. In the obligations, for example, of the heir of an estate, for the engagements of his predecessor in the possession of it. All national treaties and other engagements of the corporate body, descend with all their weight upon succeeding generations.”

“Q. What is the reason of this continuous obligation of covenants?

A. 1. God will have it so. 2. The permanency of the subject coming under the obligation. The church and nations are corporations existing and perpetuated in the succession of generations-one generation passeth away and another cometh-the succeeding coming into the obligations of the preceding-and God as a party to such deeds always exists. 3. The sameness of the relation to the moral Governor of the universe. The corporation and all its members are related to God as moral subjects to a rightful sovereign. The duties being moral to which the covenant binds, by virtue of the moral relation of the corporate society to the Divine Sovereign in its successive generations, it is bound by the deed. 4. Obedience to God, according to his law, is a debt which not one generation can fully pay, and remains to each successive generation the same-hence the covenant obligation must be continuous. 5. Covenanting is a means of holiness-each successive generation needs to be sanctified, and consequently each successively needs this instrumentality-hencewith the stream of succeeding generations.”

Wilhelmus A’Brakel also believed that that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding.

“Secondly, also among men, covenants remain in force even after the first transgression. A succession of kings and authorities will not merely recall the initial transgression of a covenant by others, but will also bring out how frequently the existing covenant has been transgressed. A woman, having committed adultery, remains in covenant with her husband and is not released from it. As often as she involves herself with someone else after the first commission of sin, so often she commits adultery and each time again breaks the covenant. This clearly proves that transgression of a covenant does not release the transgressor from the covenant relationship.” Reasonable Service, 1:375.

We hold the federal deeds such as the covenant as well as the covenant blessings as carrying forth to the birth of the new nation, as a child from parent. Using the analogy without going to far, Britain was our parent and America the offspring and the children are bound to the solemn covenants. But the King of England, the Government violated the Covenant and disqualified themselves from rightful rule. All government is conditional according to the precepts laid down in scripture. This is why William Symington in Messiah the Prince did say that Romans 13 was not in reference to Nero but a contrast of a civil magistrate should be, again he used the issue of preceptive versus providential view, the same as the Testimony of 1761 and as the Testimony of 1741 states when speaking of Romans 13 and other new testament passages regarding civil magistracy, “We find, in the above cited Places of Scripture (Exod. 18.21, and Deut. 17.14), the Office, Duty, and End of the Civil Magistrate, as particularly described, as the Obedience and Subjection commanded to such; and therefore we think, the one is founded upon and tied to the other.”

So while we hold forth that the break in the nation caused and allowed for a Boston renovation to the Covenant the rest remains. The extent of honoring the King is strongly conditional on the extent of how he actively upheld the true Christian religion and both Tables of God’s Law (That from section III). A person would show honor to the King only if he upheld both Tables, not just because he is king!

So in conclusion. Yes we still hold forth that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding on the three kingdoms and Yes we still hold forth that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding on America and we should be continually reminded of this.

“Albeit the League and Covenant be despised by the prevailing party in England, and the work of uniformity through retardments and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost forgotten in these kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and prosecuted by every one of us and our posterity. – The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 460 At “Sess. 27, July 27, 1649, ante meridiem.—A seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning present and imminent Dangers, and concerning Duties relating thereto, from the General Assembly of this Kirk unto all the Members thereof.”

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Solemn League and Covenant is binding and it is binding on America.

The Solemn League and Covenant binds all people within the nations that swore to it. It binds families who swore to it and it binds churches as well.

Some may ask? “Can we not have a new Covenant?”, “One where we have a General Establishment and not a Presbyterian Establishment?”

The answer is no we can not. For the former Covenants continue to bind us and we will receive blessings or curses on how we uphold and acknowledge those Covenants which includes not a general Establishment clause but a particular Establishment clause. The United States does not have a choice in the matter whether to have a so-called general establishment or not.

But even without this I think the pluralism of a general establishment principle will start to cause alot of problems within the nation.

There is also an issue of oaths and vows here. One can argue that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not infallible and rightly so but once a oath has been taken to a Covenant and in this case the Solemn League and Covenant then unless it can be seen as sinful or unlawful in some way that would invalidate the oath then that oath must stand and it becomes rock solid.

But personally even without this I think the pluralism of a general establishment principle will start to cause alot of problems within the nation.

Then there is the issue for those of us like myself who not only had ancestors (My 8th great Grandfather back, James Nimmo, a Cameronian Covenanter fighter) who swore to the Solemn League and Covenant but I myself have as well.

So unless an oath can be seen as an unlawful oath those nations, churches, and people who have sworn to a covenant league such as the Solemn League and Covenant does not have a choice in the matter It requires uniformity in doctrine and worship, it requires the defense of the true reformed faith, it requires suppression of heresy and false worshippers and it requires the elimination of papacy/prelacy, etc.

So let us join our voices together in unity with James Guthrie and cry out with all that we are, with a slight modification to his last words, “The Covenants, the Covenants shall yet be America’s as well as those of the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland’s reviving.”

Oaths have been Sworn

Vows have been Taken

Honour your vows


King And Covenant

Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice.” Psalm 68:1-3

O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahovah, art the most high over all the earth.” -Psalm 83:14-18

18 points of difference between Covenanters and Reconstructionism

September 6, 2015

Covenanter versus Reconstructionism banner

We Covenanters are much more Uniform and Unified in our beliefs, doctrines and standards with only small variations among us on smaller points. We stress Uniformity in religion. We believe in one Confession of Faith, one form of Catechism, one Directory for all the parts of the public worship of God, and for prayer, preaching, administration of sacraments, etc., and one form of Church government, in all the Churches. Whereas the Reconstructionist movement is ALL over the place in beliefs and doctrines and permits all sorts of crazy views therein the Reconstructionist camp…

We Covenanters hold to much more Continuity between the Government as defined and exampled in the Old Testament and what is required today for all nations.

We Covenanters hold that Civil Government is by Preceptive Will of God and not by the Providential Will of God. Therefore any government must be by the Precepts of Scriptures and those that are not are disqualified.

We Covenanters hold that Magistrates are to be qualified according to the Precepts of Scriptures and that if they do not they are not by definition civil government. Therefore we cannot recognize one who is not qualified nor can we vote for any man who does not meet all the qualifications.

We Covenanters hold not just explicit application of God’s law but positive historical examples of the kings and magistrates of the old testament to also be examples for Christian kings and princes. We also hold to Implicit examples and Good and Necessary Inference in the role of Civil Magistracy.

We Covenanters hold to National Covenanting which is that we believe that a covenant must be made nationally acknowledging the Triune God, Jesus Christ as King of the nations and His Laws the Supreme laws of the land. We believe that this consist of 4 Covenants. Nation to God (Jeremiah 50:5), Magistrate to God (II Kings 11:17), Magistrate to People (Joshua 24:25, II Kings 11:17), People to God (II Chronicles 15:15),

We Covenanters hold to the Establishment Principle. Reformed Presbyterianism must be the established religion of the nation, with the Westminster Standards as the subordinate authority over the church.

We Covenanters hold to some over-lapping and co-ordination and cooperation between church and state whereas Reconstructionism hold to a strict and absolute sphere division known as Kuyperism.

We Covenanters do not hold to a strict bottom up approach of acquiring a righteous rule in the nations. We believe it can be bottom up or top down. Covenanter Samuel Simms wrote “This truth is taught two ways in the Bible; first, historically, by what we read of the influence which the personal character of the Jewish monarchs had on the moral and religious state of their subjects; and it is taught prophetically in the Book of Revelation, where we are taught that the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord Jesus Christ, chiefly through the conversion of Kings and Rulers – for it cannot be disputed that the Greek word Basileiai, denotes the “governing powers.” Suppose there were a John Knox in every pulpit of the land, what great good could be done nationally, so long as rulers resisted and thwarted all their teaching, by their unholy lives and their wicked legislation?”

We Covenanters hold that the Magistrates must be keeper of BOTH Tables of the Law as the way God has delivered it including suppression of Heresy. We also include the Second and the Fourth and would hold that a Magistrate is bound to enforce these laws even in private dwellings.

We Covenanters hold strictly to the Reformed position of the Three Divisions of the law of God (Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial) with Ceremonial abrogated and Judicial further sub-divided into General Equity and Particular Equity with the General Equity Judicials stand and the Particular Equity Judicials do not and are abrogated along with Ceremonial laws. (I know some recons hold to this as well and they are consistent here and agree with Historic Reformed theology but not all recons do).

We Covenanter hold forth that the Solemn League and Covenant is continuing to be binding not only on the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland) but also on their former colonies including the United States of America.

We Covenanters hold that Wicked Governments are not ordained of God and not to be obeyed unless as if under a lion’s paw and then only passively and they can be resisted. Nor are we to fellowship, or work with them or accept any position by them. Thus oaths to them are unlawful including the Pledge of Allegiance.

Therefore we Covenanters dissent from such governments through non-voting, no military service, no oath taking, no holding office, no jury duty or taking any position by such an entity.

We Covenanters hold that the Constitution is Blasphemous and unlawful and we refuse to recognize it in any way. It does not contain any Christian character.

We Covenanters hold that not just lesser magistrates may resist higher wicked rulers (Dutch Reformed Position) but that private persons may as well even without a lesser magistrate (Cameronian Covenanter Position)..

We Covenanters are Post Millennial by a massive decree and historically we are confessional Historicist Classical Post Millennalist.

In worship we Covenanters differ from the Modern Evangelical and modern Reformed beliefs although it would not differ from the Historic Reformed Church. So Historically these are not distinctions of us but today they are. Covenanters hold to the regulative principle of worship strictly. And are required for corporate, family and private worship.

Exclusive Psalmody (just the 150 psalms)
No Musical Instruments in Worship
No Offering Plate within the Corporate Worship Service
No Greeting one another in the middle of the Worship Service
Common Table, Common Cup and Fermented Wine at Lord Supper
Synagogue Model for the Church
Strictly No representation of the Truine God, or Symbols representing such (Lion, Dove, Old Man) or making of any symbols of any kind for religious purpose.
No Representation of Crosses either in Worship, in or on the Church or privately at home.
No Holy Days including Christmas, Easter, etc either in Church or privately at home.

When sometimes asked “what is a Covenanter”, I jokingly respond “We fight back”. So watch out. LoL

“Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice.” Psalm 68:1-3

“O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahovah, art the most high over all the earth.” -Psalm 83:14-18

Why Do Covenanters Reject the Representation of the Symbol of the Cross?

September 1, 2015

By Michael Daniels

August 31, 2015

It always seems to come as a surprise to many Christians including those of other Reformed and Presbyterian background that Covenanters (Reformed Presbyterians) are against not only all images of the Triune God as much as inside the Worship as outside the Worship of the Yahovah that we are also against images of the Cross. Not just a Crucifixes with Christ up on the Cross but also plain Crosses as well. It baffles other Christians as for the reason behind this prohibition. How on Earth can we justify this prohibition and why would be want to? The following is a small summary of our reasons.

For one, It is not commanded. As Reformed Christians we believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle teaches that we are not permitted to worship Yahovah in any other way then He commands us. Silence is as very much a prohibition as an explicit forbidding.

Quod Scriptura Non Iubet Vetat (What Scripture does not command, it forbids)

Nowhere in scripture are we commanded to make images or symbols either for worship or for any religious purposes. I think it’s obvious that having images of Crosses and other religious symbols not authorized by scripture would unavoidably lead to iconography.

This principle applies not just for corporate worship but also private acts of worship. Is it lawful to setup an idol at home to worship the one true God? I hope the obvious answer is no. We are not permitted to set up an idol at home. I object to the setting up any image of symbol for a “holy” purpose in any situation, place or sphere.

Any commandment which applies corporately also applies for families and for individuals. The second commandment (the regulative principle of worship) applies to any time that we answer the call of God to come into His presence and offer Him praise, homage and oblation.

We are forbidden to ever make an image nor even a symbol for veneration and how many people revere the symbol of the cross.

‘The cross has been also abused to superstition and idolatry, to drive away devils, to expel diseases, to break the force of witchcraft, &c. It is one of the images to which the papists give religious adoration. The water in the baptism has no spiritual virtue in it without the cross, nor is any one rightly baptized (according to the papists) without it.’ Lincolnshire ministers apology, December 1, 1604, Taken from Daniel Neal, “History of the Puritans” (Vol. 1, pp. 245-246)

Augustine of Hippo said,

“But they consider themselves to have excused their religion who say: ‘I neither worship an image nor an intermediary spirit, but I admire a physical image and likeness of the very thing which I ought to worship.’ Accordingly they expound images in the same way as others who say that the earth is signified by temples dedicated to Tellus; others the sea, in like manner, by the image of Neptune; others the heavens by Juno, others fire by Vulcan, others the mornings star by Venus, others assign the same name to the sun and the moon by the image of Tellus, others the former or her star, either her or her offspring: nor, indeed, are we able to enumerate the entire list. Of which matters in turn they have begun to be stirred up, because they worship corporal things, and especially the earth, the sea, the heavens and fire, which we are always ready to enjoy (for with regard to the heavenly bodies, seeing by our selfsame body to handle and to hold, except we are able by the rays of our eyes not thus they are ashamed), they venture to answer we do not worship the corporal thing, but those ruling gods which preside over them. Accordingly one passage from the Apostle testifies of their punishment and condemnation: ‘Who exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever,’ (Romans 1:25).”

” I must tell you that we neither adore crosses nor desire them. You it is, ye Pagans, who worship wooden gods, who are the most likely people to adore wooden crosses, as being part of the same substance with your deities. For what else are your ensigns, flags, and standards, but crosses, gilt and beautiful. ” -(Octavius of Minucius Felix, chapter XXIX). 197 A.D.

John Calvin (16th c.), Treatise on Relics

“As soon as anyone has devised an image of God, they have instituted false worship. The object of Moses is to restrain the rashness of men, lest they should travesty God’s glory by their imaginations.”

When most people look at a cross they automatically picture and image Christ on that Cross whether He is made on the cross or not..

Council of Elibertine of 366 A.D., “Pictures ought not to be in churches, nor any object of adoration or praise be painted on the walls.”

Quinisext Council of 692 addressed controversies in this area: prohibition of the representation of the cross on church pavements (Canon 73).

But it also always seems to get asked, “In what way is an empty cross an image of God?”

The symbol that represents Christ’s crucifixion was invented by the Roman Catholic Church. It is not just an “empty cross”. It is a design that is meant to depict the cross of Christ’s sacrifice. Question 109 of the WLC puts it this way on what are the sins forbidden in the second commandment, “…the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever, all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it,…”

Jesus Christ is God. He is the second Person of the Trinity. To make a design which represents His crucifixion is making an image that represents Him and the great work that He accomplished.

And finally, If and I stretch it to be a BIG if, if at some point the Cross was okay to be symbolized, once it became abused towards idolatry (i.e. Roman Catholics), it is to be destroyed and never ever to be taken up again, as Westminster divine George Gillespie write about the Brazen Serpent in the OT,

“Further, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying of Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments, 2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their first institution were but men’s invention, but break down also the brazen serpent (though originally set up at God’s own command), when once he saw it abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xvii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope Steven doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them. Farellus saith, that princes and magistrates should learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant rites of men’s devising which have turned to superstition. Yea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth, that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superstition, cometh under the compass of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he excepteth nothing from this example but only things of God’s own prescribing. Moreover, we have example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii., for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yeaj, the horses and chariots which had been given o the sun. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too, 2 Chron. Xxxiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also utterly destroy the monuments of their idolatry, Exod. Xxxii. 17-20. ” Disputation Against the English Popish Ceremonies, George Gillespie

“And since, (to come near to our present purpose,) Crosses in market-places, and not in churches, are, (as by good proof we find,) great stumbling stones, not only to the simple, but also to such as will seem to be wiser; impossible me-think it is, a Cross to be erected in place of God’s service, and Him that hanged on the Cross to be honoured as He ought. For the mind is rapt from heavenly consideration to the earthly creature; from the soul to the substance; from the heart to the eye. Cause we can assign none other but, as the same Lactantius doth say: Esse aliquam per-versam potestatem, quce veritatis sit semper inimica : quce humanis erroribus gaudeat : cui unicum [al. unum] ac perpetuum sit opus offundere tenebras, et hominum coecare mentes, ne lucem videant; ne denique in coelum aspiciant, ac naturam corporis sui servent: “There a certain perverse which taketh is enemy unto the is truth: which taketh pleasure in man’s error” whose only and continual work it is to overcast clouds and mist of darkness, to blind the minds of men that they see not the light; that they look not up into heaven, and keep the nature of their own body.” -James Calfhill, Treatise of the Cross, 1565

“For, as Hieremy saith : Eruditio vanitatum lignum: “The stock is a doctrine of vanity;” and Abakuk: “An Image is the teacher of lies.” Shall we then discredit the counsel of our God, saying” Scrutamini Scripturas: “Search ye the Scriptures;” and follow the device of the Devil, teaching” Contemplamini Picturas: Look upon Pictures?” -James Calfhill, Treatise of the Cross, 1565

Another point to consider is why would we want a Roman torture and death device to represent Christianity? The Early Church clearly did not want to be associated with a Roman torture and death device. The Cross was not found in the first three centuries of Christianity. The Cross only started to appear around the 400s. And why use this Roman torture and death depiction? Our Savior and Messiah did not remain in the grave. He arose and is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father. The Cross is death but Christ is life and life eternal.

So in Conclusion I will end with what the great divine of the early Church Lactantius did say that whereby it comes to pass, “Ut Religio nulla sit, ubi Simulachrum est: “That no Religion is there, where an Image is.”