The Reformed Presbyterian Church & The 1690 Revolution Settlement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Craig.Scott

Puritan Board Freshman
Rev. Kenneth Stewart of Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church has composed a detailed account upon the 1690 Revolution Settlement and the RP Church. This of course affects our brethren in the Revolution Kirks such as the CofS, FC, FCC, FP, APC, and of course the American Branches such as the OPC, PCA et al.

Read it, comment on it, and spread the word



Minister’s Page | Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church
 

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
Hi Craig,
Fascinating historical perspective. But I have to ask, why should this affect indigenous American Presbyterian churches? Do we really have a dog in this fight?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The Claim, Declaration, and Protest demonstrates the importance of the Settlement so far as Free Church principles are concerned:

Sixth, The aforesaid Act of King William and Queen Mary,—on the narrative that their Majesties and the Estates of Parliament conceived "it to be their bounden duty, after the great deliverance that God hath lately wrought for this Church and kingdom, in the first place, to settle and secure therein the true Protestant religion, according to the truth of God's Word, as it hath of a long time been professed within this land; as also the government of Christ's Church within this nation, agreeable to the Word of God, and most conducive to true piety and godliness, and the establishing of peace and tranquillity within this realm,"—besides ratifying and establishing as aforesaid the Confession of Faith, did also "establish, ratify, and confirm the Presbyterian Church government and discipline; that is to say, the government of the Church by Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies, ratified and established by the 116th Act of James VI., Parliament 12, anno 1592, entituled, 'Ratification of the Liberty of the true Kirk, '&c., and thereafter received by the general consent of this nation, to be the only government of Christ's Church within this Kingdom;" and revived and confirmed the said Act of King James VI.

The spiritual independence of the church and its Presbyterian government is a part of the general principles owned by all Free Church office-bearers in their questions and formula. These principles were acknowledged and applied in the Revolution Settlement, but were violated by the establishment at the time of the Disruption.
 
Last edited:

Travis Fentiman

Puritan Board Freshman
I have a question for our RP friends.


The United Societies continues through the 1690's with no minister. Only later did they eventually get two that came over from the Revolution Settlement. While these ministers were ordained by the Revolution presbyteries, they were not installed into office by an presbytery.

How is it that ministers can be installed, and officially bound to a congregation without the authority of a presbytery? Such power of installation cannot come from the minister, as he does not have power over himself. Such power of installation cannot come from the congregation, who has no power over the minister. Such a power can only come from a court that has power over both the minister and the congregation.

For all the claims of RPs that they continued the true government of the pre-1690 Church of Scotland, does not this issue mentioned above overthrow the legitimacy of their claim to continue the faithful government of the Church of Scotland?


Warm regards,
Travis
 

Travis Fentiman

Puritan Board Freshman
In addition to what Matthew quoted above, the Claim Declaration and Protest goes on to say, interpreting the Revolution Settlement of 1690:

"And whereas, not only was the exclusive and ultimate jurisdiction of the Church Courts, in the government of the Church, and especially in the particular matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, above mentioned, recognised, ratified, and confirmed,—thus necessarily implying the denial of power on the part of any secular tribunal, holding its authority from the Sovereign, to review the sentences of the Church Courts in regard to such matters, or coerce them in the exercise of such jurisdiction; but all such power, and all claim on the part of the Sovereign to be considered supreme governor over the subjects of this kingdom of Scotland in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual, as he is in causes civil and temporal was, after a long continued struggle, finally and expressly repudiated and cast out of the constitution of Scotland, as inconsistent with the Presbyterian Church government established at the Revolution, and thereafter unalterably secured by the Treaty of Union with England..."

This, as well as the rest of the Claim, Declaration and Protest, demonstrates that there was no Erastianism in the Revolution Settlement of 1690.


Warm regards,
Travis
 

Craig.Scott

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Craig,
Fascinating historical perspective. But I have to ask, why should this affect indigenous American Presbyterian churches? Do we really have a dog in this fight?


Hi Bryan good to hear from you brother.

Apologies for the lateness of my replies, i am on my summer internship and have Presbytery exams tomorrow so wee but busy.

Primarily of course, the article deals with our Scottish Presbyterian brethren. but by way off historical application American Presbyterianism descends from the Revolution Settlement via Scottish missionaries & immigration, so historically it includes them. As to modern day application? Well, i would start with the OPC, PCA, ARP's rejection of the full WCF, but rather subscribing, even with disagreements at ordinations, to the American amendments and in terms of certain doctrines such as church-state relations departing from the Reformed position



Craig
 

Travis Fentiman

Puritan Board Freshman
Brother Travis Fentimen, did you read the article?



Craig


Craig, yes I read it in full.


Stewart says at the end:

"The above owes much to a paper by Rev John Graham entitled ‘The Revolution Settlement of the Church of Scotland’ found in ‘Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation’ by Ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Scotland; delivered at the request of the Glasgow Society for promoting the principles of the Second Reformation, Glasgow, 1841."


I wrote a paper on this exact topic a few weeks ago (before I saw Stewart's paper), and I address Rev. John Graham's article in Point #30.

You will notice that my paper addresses the substance of every point that Stewart brings up, is way more extensive with documented footnotes, and quotes an amass of constitutional documents and other primary sources that prove the argument at each step.

I hope it is of interest to you, and will be glad to know what you think of it.

The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


For a nearly exhaustive legal defense by civil and ecclesiastical law, that the Revolution Settlement of 1690 preserved the Church's spiritual jurisdiction, and that it was not Erastian, by its own terms, see


The Claim, Declaration and Protest, 1842, of the Free Church of Scotland.

Claim, Declaration and Protest, Anent the Encroachments of the Court of Session - 1842


I will be glad to know what you think of the legal argument in that document as well.


Warm regards,
Travis
 

Craig.Scott

Puritan Board Freshman
Brother Travis Fentimen, did you read the article?



Craig


Craig, yes I read it in full.


Stewart says at the end:

"The above owes much to a paper by Rev John Graham entitled ‘The Revolution Settlement of the Church of Scotland’ found in ‘Lectures on the Principles of the Second Reformation’ by Ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Scotland; delivered at the request of the Glasgow Society for promoting the principles of the Second Reformation, Glasgow, 1841."


I wrote a paper on this exact topic a few weeks ago (before I saw Stewart's paper), and I address Rev. John Graham's article in Point #30.

You will notice that my paper addresses the substance of every point that Stewart brings up, is way more extensive with documented footnotes, and quotes an amass of constitutional documents and other primary sources that prove the argument at each step.

I hope it is of interest to you, and will be glad to know what you think of it.

The Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting | Reformed Books Online


For a nearly exhaustive legal defense by civil and ecclesiastical law, that the Revolution Settlement of 1690 preserved the Church's spiritual jurisdiction, and that it was not Erastian, by its own terms, see


The Claim, Declaration and Protest, 1842, of the Free Church of Scotland.

Claim, Declaration and Protest, Anent the Encroachments of the Court of Session - 1842


I will be glad to know what you think of the legal argument in that document as well.


Warm regards,
Travis

Hi Brother,

I will answer in full next week. As above I am stowed this week with exams and preaching, but next week I will certainly answer your objections.


Craig
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The reason I referred to the Claim, Declaration, and Protest is owing to the fact that the author of this paper seems to think that Disruption principles demand of adherents to look negatively on the Revolution Settlement, and even to separate from it. All Free Church office-bearers have owned the principles contained in the Claim, Declaration, and Protest, and these principles are explicitly claimed as the principles of the Revolution Settlement. I do not consider this article to accurately reflect the position of "Reformed Presbyterians." The author may be trying to maintain some sympathy with his Disruption heritage whilst disowning it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top