^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The following debate on the US Constitution, between Andrew Sandlin 
(editor of the _Chalcedon Report_) and Reg Barrow (President of Still 
Waters Revival Books), took place on the Knox Ring email discussion group 
in January of 1997.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Andrew Sandlin writes:

>It is because we no longer think in terms of state sovereignty that we 
make
>the mistake of assuming that the omission of mention of the Faith in the
>Federal Constitution implies a secular intent on the part of the Framers.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth. It was largely *because* of
>intense religious belief that such an omission exists.
>
>Andrew Sandlin for Chalcedon


REG BARROW REPLIES:

What an astounding comment! 

This is like saying (in regard to the church) that a general assembly would 
be justified (and even considered "intensely religious") in failing to 
constitute a denomination on a sound Scriptural basis (or even mentioning 
God, much less the Lord Jesus Christ in its founding documents) because it 
might contravene some previously established iniquity at the Presbytery 
level. 

All the colonial English churches in America (including all the established 
churches), excepting the Reformed Presbyterians (Cameronians), were 
covenant breaking churches in regard to second Reformation attainments 
and the descending covenantal obligations resting upon the moral person 
of the church. When the states united in America under the godless U.S. 
Constitution they altogether (officially) ignored the Lordship of Jesus 
Christ. 

Just think about this for a moment, If you had the opportunity to give 
birth to a newly constituted nation would you completely leave out the 
name of the one true and living God? Would you mention the Scriptures? 
What about God's law? 

The *first duty* of any civil authority (as with the individual and church) 
is to explicitly recognize Christ as King, in keeping with the first 
commandment (cf. Price's _Biblical Civil Government_ free at: 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibCG_GP.htm). To 
fail to give Christ the first place in any civil constitution is to set up a 
national idol (like the U.S. Constitution) in the place of Christ. To fail to 
recognize explicitly Christ and His Word as supreme (in lands that have 
been favoured with the light of the gospel) is to adopt the position of 
antichrist and to declare war on the Lamb (as a nation). This is exactly 
what the backslidden, covenant-breaking framers of the U.S. Constitution 
did.

To study a Christ honoring pattern for the state (which is agreeable to the 
Word of God) please look into the Solemn League and Covenant and the 
covenanted Reformation of the seventeenth century. The National 
Covenant of Scotland, which preceded the SL&C is also another faithful civil 
(and ecclesiastical) pattern. Compare these God honoring covenants (which 
the lawful civil authorities of the day swore before God to uphold, 
*nationally and internationally between the three covenanting nations*) 
with the godless U.S. Constitution and then tell me who it was that was 
truly "intensely religious." 

Covenanters have long opposed immoral constitutions in both church and 
state and so as not to single out the United State I note the following 
testimony by the Reformed Presbytery,

"The nations throughout Christendom, continue in league with Antichrist 
and give their strength to the beast. They still refuse to profess and defend 
the true religion in doctrine, worship, government and discipline, contrary 
to the example of the kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland in the 
seventeenth century (in the days of the Solemn League and Covenant -- 
RB). Some of them have waged wars of conquest, under pretence of 
opening a way for the spread of the gospel; and disregarding international 
law, have violated solemn treaties among themselves, and all of them 
practically disregard divine authority; habitually profaning the Christian 
Sabbath, by carrying the mail, commercial traffic, and parties of pleasure 
on land and water. Acknowledging the righteousness of divine judgement 
upon ourselves and others for manifold violations of God's law and 
breaches of our own and fathers' solemn vows in our domestic, 
ecclesiastical and civil relations; we desire to humble ourselves before God 
for these sins, and for others not contained in this enumeration. Seeing that 
God hath punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hath left us a 
small remnant in his sovereign mercy, our prayer to him is that he may 
enable us by his grace to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, to the 

glory of his great and holy name, and the commendation of his pardoning 
mercy."

(Excerpted from: _The Auchensaugh Renovation of the National and Solemn 
League and Covenant..._ [1712, 1880], Still Waters Revival Books, reprinted 
1995)

Recently, an even stronger testimony appeared in the _Original Covenanter 
and Contending Witness_ magazine (P.O. Box 131, Pottstown, PA, USA, 
19464). After noting the "deplorable condition of nearly all the churches of 
the United States in regard to all that relates to Christian politics," an 
article titled "The Constitution and the Church" states,

"Why have they renounced the doctrines of the Bible and of the 
reformation in relation to a national recognition, countenance, and support 
of the church of Christ, and even in relation to the choice of religious men 
and Christians as civil rulers?  Why do even Christian ministers join hands 
with infidels and atheists on these subjects?  All this, we have no question, 
is, in a great measure, traceable to the influence of an infidel constitution 
of government.  This instrument, which acknowledges no God, knows no 
church, protects idolatry equally with Christianity, and puts the servants of 
Satan on the same footing, in all that belongs to political franchises, with 
the fearers of God, has imbued the churches, to a most lamentable extent, 
with its own impious principles.  Preferring the doctrines of the 
constitution to those of the Bible -- Washington to Moses, and Jefferson to 
David, the mass of professors scoff at God's legislation, embodied in the 
Mosaic institutions, and count it the last and greatest triumph of the gospel 
to be repudiated by the nations in their national character!  Talk of 
Erastianism!  There never was a government that has exercised so rapid 
and fatal an influence over the doctrines, the discipline, and the whole 
character of the church, as the God-rejecting Constitution of the United 
States has done.-(1845)."

Though I think that a reciprocal effect can be seen between the curse of 
practical political atheism among the people (in the U.S.) and the floodgates 
of iniquity opened by the U.S. Constitution, nevertheless it remains a fact 
that the U.S. Constitution will go down in history as a Christ rejecting 
national idol sent upon America as a curse from God -- among those who 
know and understand the truth.

"For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee (i.e. the church) shall 
perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted" (Isa. 60:12). 

It is pretty hard for me to imagine how a nation that tolerates every Christ 
rejecting heresy, protects by law every form of idolatry, considers the 
public blasphemy of God a virtue (in music, film, print, etc.), protects the 
murderers of its most innocent of citizens (abortion), etc. is serving the 
church.

"Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he 
be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a 
little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (Ps. 2:10-12). 

God's wrath upon the United States (and Canada) can be seen everywhere; 
when will the ecclesiastical leaders stop mollycoddling the civil beast and 
take God's sword in hand?

"Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in 
their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments 
upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with 
fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour 
have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD" (Ps. 149:6-9). 

Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE 
BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com    4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730     Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PART 2

>Barrow cites Sandlin:
>>
>>>It is because we no longer think in terms of state sovereignty that we 
make
>>>the mistake of assuming that the omission of mention of the Faith in the
>>>Federal Constitution implies a secular intent on the part of the Framers.
>>>
>>>Nothing could be further from the truth. It was largely *because* of
>>>intense religious belief that such an omission exists.

>>REG BARROW REPLIES:
>>
>>What an astounding comment!
>>
>>This is like saying (in regard to the church) that a general assembly 
would
>>be justified (and even considered "intensely religious") in failing to
>>constitute a denomination on a sound Scriptural basis (or even 
mentioning
>>God, much less the Lord Jesus Christ in its founding documents) because 
it
>>might contravene some previously established iniquity at the Presbytery
>>level.
>

Sandlin:
>The federal gov't in the 1780s was NOT a presbytery, and that's the whole 
point.

Reg Barrow replies:
I didn't say it was a presbytery. My point was that both civil and 
ecclesiastical authorities must fulfill their first responsibility and duty to 
God, which is keeping the first commandment or covenanting with Christ; 
this was not done when the constitution of the USA was ratified and the 
Covenanters of that day dissented from this immoral, Christ-rejecting 
settlement. Glasgow, in his 1895 introduction to _Renewal of the 
Covenants, National and Solemn League; A Confession of Sins; An 
Engagement to Duties; and a Testimony; as they were Carried on at Middle 
Octorara in Pennsylvania, November 11, 1743_ ([1748, 1895], SWRB 
reprint 1996, by Alexander Craighead) writes,

"For seven years Mr.
Craighead labored among the Covenanter societies; but failing to receive
assistance from Scotland, he removed, in 1749, to Virginia, thence to
Mecklenberg County, North Carolina. There he became identified with the
Presbytery in connection with the Presbyterian Church. Being thoroughly
imbued, however, with the principles of the Scotch Covenanters, Mr.
Craighead taught them to his people around Charlotte. They in turn
formulated them into the First Declaration of Independence, emitted at
Charlotte, NC, May, 1775. According to a reliable author (Wheeler's
Reminiscences, p. 278) Thomas Jefferson says in his autobiography that 
when
he was engaged in preparing the National Declaration of Independence, 
that
he and his colleagues searched everywhere for formulas, and that the
printed proceedings of Octorara, as well as the Mecklenburg Declaration,
were before him, and that he freely used ideas therein contained. It is
difficult to determine, therefore, the real author of American
Independence. Undoubtedly the principles of the Covenanters at Octarara 
in
1743, the sentiments of the Presbyterians at Charlotte in 1775, and the
Declaration submitted by Jefferson in 1776, contain one and the same 
great
principles. 'Honor to whom honor is due.'" 

However, Glasgow also reports,

"[h]ence the Declaration of American Independence was justifiable. But 
when
the newly-born nation ignored the God of battles, rejected the authority of
the Prince of the kings of the earth, and refused to administer the
government in accordance with the requirements of the Divine Law, then 
the
same loyal Covenanters, faithful to their principles and consistent with
their history through all the struggles of the centuries, dissented from
the Constitution of the United States, and are justifiable in the
continuance of this position of political dissent so long as the government
retains its character of political atheism. We may rightfully declare our
independence of wicked men and rebellious nations, but we cannot declare
our independence of God, and set up a government regardless of His
authority, without incurring His wrath and suffering from His desolating
judgements. 'Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.'" 

Any government that does not covenant with Christ (in lands where the 
light of the Gospel has been) are not (according to Scripture) to be 
considered as lawful authorities. Furthermore, the English American 
colonies were already bound (both civilly and ecclesiastically) to God in the 
Solemn League and Covenant. The arguments as to why lawful covenants 
bind posterity can be found (FREE) on the Still Waters Revival Books web 
page at:

_The United States, the Covenanters and the Solemn League and Covenant_ 
by Fred DiLella (Briefly explains why the United States is still bound by 
the Solemn League and Covenant and is therefore, at present, not a duly 
constituted nation -- but is rather a backsliding, Christ defying, covenant-
breaking, sin tolerating, baby murdering, antichristian nation [though 
probably still the best, in many ways, of those nations which now wonder 
after the beast during this time of the great apostasy]. Furthermore, this 
letter sets forth some practical applications regarding this teaching while 
also including numerous book notes demonstrating the history of this 
position from among major Reformed authors. This argumentation can be 
extended to apply to all nations that are constitutionally the children of the 
British parent which covenanted with God in the Solemn League and 
Covenant. A kind of national application of the principles involved in the 
Presbyterian view of infant baptism. "Brethren, I speak after the manner 
of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man 
disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3:15). 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/USA&SL&C.htm

"On the Duty of Covenanting and the Permanent Obligations of Religious 
Covenants" being section 11 in the Reformed Presbyterian Catechism by 
William Roberts (1853). All the Scripture you will ever need to prove that 
covenanting is an ordinance of God and a moral duty for men.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PresCatCov.htm

Permanence of Covenant Obligation by Omicron (1856). Shows how 
Scripture teaches that covenants bind posterity.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PermCovObl.htm

_A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus_ by Reg 
Barrow (Barrow answers many specific questions regarding the 
permanence of covenant obligation, national Reformation, historical 
testimony and many other doctrines which were prevalent during the 
period of the second Reformation. A wealth of original [Reformation] texts 
are cited throughout and this spirited debate should help to generate 
interest in many of those biblical attainments which were won during 
those glorious days in which major nations openly covenanted themselves 
[as moral persons] to Christ.)
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm

Barrow:
>>All the colonial English churches in America (including all the established
>>churches), excepting the Reformed Presbyterians (Cameronians), were
>>covenant breaking churches in regard to second Reformation attainments 
and
>>the descending covenantal obligations resting upon the moral person of 
the
>>church. When the states united in America under the godless U.S.
>>Constitution they altogether (officially) ignored the Lordship of Jesus
>>Christ.

Sandlin:
>This is an interesting little fairy tale. It has nothing to do with the
>historical data.

Reg Barrow replies:
If this is a "fairy tale," please point out where the US Constitution 
recognizes and submits the Federal Union to Christ. Moreover, please tell 
which of the established churches were maintaining second Reformation 
attainments and which had renewed the Solemn League and Covenant.

Barrow:
>>Just think about this for a moment, If you had the opportunity to give
>>birth to a newly constituted nation would you completely leave out the 
name
>>of the one true and living God?

Sandlin:
>No, but I don't have scores of orthodox Calvinists (and others) breathing
>down my neck because they don't want the Feds meddling with their 
orthodox
>Christian establishments either.

Reg Barrow replies:
So what, does this somehow change the moral law of God? Furthermore, 
the establishments of that day where far from orthodox -- and were all 
well entrenched in their backsliding from covenanted biblical attainments 
(cf. the contents of _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the 
Revolution Church of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil 
Government, and the Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution 
Principles_ (1731) by Andrew Clarkson, FREE at: 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PlainTOC.htm).

Barrow:
>> Would you mention the Scriptures?

Sandlin:
>Yes, but I live in 1997, not 1787.

Reg Barrow replies:
Were God's moral requirements different in 1787?

Barrow:
>>What about God's law?

Sandlin:
>Yes, but in 1787 I'd have sided with th "states-rights" orthodox Calvinists
>against the Federalists. I'd not have wanted the Feds telling me what I
>could believe about the Bible and the Faith. A similar problem that caused
>the War of Northern Aggression.

Reg Barrow replies:
I would have sided with neither and most of the above noted so-called 
"orthodox Calvinists" were doing their dead level best to bury the 
covenanted Reformation.

Barrow:
>>The *first duty* of any civil authority (as with the individual and church)
>>is to explicitly recognize Christ as King, in keeping with the first
>>commandment (cf. Price's _Biblical Civil Government_ free at:
>>http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibCG_GP.htm). To 
fail
>>to give Christ the first place in any civil constitution is to set up a
>>national idol (like the U.S. Constitution) in the place of Christ. To fail
>>to recognize explicitly Christ and His Word as supreme (in lands that 
have
>>been favoured with the light of the gospel) is to adopt the position of
>>antichrist and to declare war on the Lamb (as a nation). This is exactly
>>what the backslidden, covenant-breaking framers of the U.S. Constitution
>>did.

Sandlin:
>Another nice little fairy tale joining the secularists and the ACLU in
>slandering our godly forebears. Only the attempt to transplant an
>establishmentarian Scottish or other European historical
>perspective and not account for the unique conditions this nation could
>make such claims.

Reg Barrow replies:
My reasons for exposing the godless US Constitution are far different than 
those of the ACLU and modern secularists. The moral law of God does not 
change and lawfully binding national covenants cannot be ignored without 
the ensuing curses that plague North America today. Remember the 
plagues that came upon Israel in David's day because Saul broke the 
covenant Joshua made with the Gibeonites centuries earlier. Roberts, in "On 
the Duty of Covenanting and the Permanent Obligations of Religious 
Covenants" (_Reformed Presbyterian Catechism_, 1853) explains why this 
is pertinent,

"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."  

The US Constitution (in that it ignores previous lawful covenant obligations 
with God, the first commandment, etc.) is a monument to the folly and 
"truce-breaking" (2 Tim. 3:3) spirit prevalent among those political harlots 
in the United States who gave birth to this illegitimate child (nation).

Barrow:
>>To study a Christ honoring pattern for the state (which is agreeable to the
>>Word of God) please look into the Solemn League and Covenant and the
>>covenanted Reformation of the seventeenth century. The National 
Covenant of
>>Scotland, which preceded the SL&C is also another faithful civil (and
>>ecclesiastical) pattern. Compare these God honoring covenants (which the
>>lawful civil authorities of the day swore before God to uphold, *nationally
>>and internationally between the three covenanting nations*) with the
>>godless U.S. Constitution and then tell me who it was that was truly
>>"intensely religious."

Sandlin:
>You're mixing apples and oranges. *Look at the state constitutions.*
>Christianity was the established *Faith* in this nation at the time.

Reg Barrow replies:
Does that somehow free those constituting the federal union from obeying 
God's commandments? Also, as noted before, the only existing 
establishments where clearly apostate (cf. _Act, Declaration, And 
Testimony, For The Whole Of The Covenanted Reformation, As Attained To, 
And Established In, Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt The Years 
1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also, Against All The Steps Of Defection 
From Said Reformation, Whether In Former Or Later Times, Since The 
Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To This Present Day_ [1876, SWRB 
reprint 1996] by the Reformed Presbytery).

Sandlin:
>As NRA president I support wholly the official acknowledgement of 
Christ's
>authority in all political instruments.
>
>But to slander our forebears and speak of a "godless" Constitution is
>unforgiveable. It was the Calvinist (and other orthodox) clergy who 
opposed
>the religious clauses and Congressional establishment.
>
>*They wanted to be left alone to run their orthodox state establishments*.

Reg Barrow replies:
I would say that they wanted to be left alone in their course of apostasy 
from the covenanted Reformation -- not that the godless federal union (as 
it was set up) would have been any help to them anyway. I agree that the 
weaker the limbs of antichrist become (whether civil, ecclesiastical, nation, 
provincial, etc.) the better it is for those who seek to live godly lives; but 
that does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath 
water. We should contend for the whole truth of godly government, 
however remote the present possibility of practically attaining it may 
seem; it does no good to water down the truth and produce a sinfully 
compromised, lukewarm establishment (cf. Greg Price's _Biblical Civil 
Government Versus the Beast; and, the Basis for Civil Resistance_ FREE at: 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibCG_GP.htm).

Sandlin:
>Lest I be misunderstood, I highly regard the Scottish Covenanters, and
>greatly admire Reg's zeal for the Faith.

Reg Barrow replies:
Andrew, you have written some useful articles which have, in the past, 
assisted in my growth in grace; but (no offence intended) you are a long 
way from understanding the Scottish Covenanters -- this exchange being a 
case in point. You have Shields' _Hind Let Loose_ (1797 edition) and you 
told me that you would review it if I sent you a review copy (which I did). 
When you have finished reading this book (and I look forward to your 
review) you will see that I have accurately represented the teachings of 
the Scottish Covenanters. You will also see why all faithful Covenanters 
must maintain a position of dissent from all immoral constitutions 
(whether civil or ecclesiastical). This clearly includes the present US 
Constitution. Though you say you "highly regard the Scottish Covenanters," 
on this point you are diametrically opposed to their teaching -- teaching 
which many Covenanters gave their earthly lives for (cf. Howie's _Scots 
Worthies_).

Sandlin:
>But we should not slander our godly forebears.

Reg Barrow replies:
Agreed, but first we must determine who acted and taught in a godly 
manner, and who did not. Those who did not need to be rebuked -- as I 
have done previously and above.

Sandlin:
>See the instructive works by Gary Amos, M. E. Bradford, Brady,  Daniel
>Driesbach, John Eidsmoe, and R. J. Rushdoony.
>Andrew Sandlin for Chalcedon
>http://www.chalcedon.edu

Reg Barrow replies:
See:

"Whether it be lawful, just, and expedient, that the taking of the Solemn 
League and Covenant be enjoined by the Parliament upon all persons in 
the kingdom under a considerable penalty" by George Gillespie (CHAPTER 
XVI. of "A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," pp. 85-88 from _The Works of 
George Gillespie_ volume 2, Still Waters Revival Books reprint. Includes 
"Nine particulars to be remembered for the right deducing and stating the 
matter of fact. - The grounds and reasons of such an ordinance and 
appointment may be eleven. - Four objections answered. - How this 
ordinance would not be tyranny over men's consciences. - The covenant is 
no temporary obligation. - If such an ordinance to the army be *scandalum 
acceptum*, then the not making of it is *scandalum datum*.)
FREE at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/SL&CGil.htm

Calvin, Close Communion and the Coming Reformation (a book review of 
_Alexander and Rufus..._ by John Anderson [1862]) by Reg Barrow 
FREE at: 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CalvinCC.htm

"Of the Samaritans, and of the Non Compelling of Heathens; How the 
Covenant Bindeth Us." by Samuel Rutherford (This is chapter 21 from 
Samuel Rutherford's 1649 edition of _A Free Disputation Against 
Pretended Liberty of Conscience_. A number of the most important issues 
[which were at the very heart of the covenanted Reformation] taking place 
in England, Scotland and Ireland during the seventeenth century are 
discussed here).
FREE at: 
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FreeDis21TEST.htm

Application of the principles discussed in these articles can, by the 
perceptive individual, be made to our present situation and the preceding 
discussion.

Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE 
BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com    4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730     Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)

FOR FURTHER STUDY

WILLSON, JAMES R.

WYLIE, SAMUEL B.

PRICE, GREG

WILLSON, JAMES M.

WILLSON, JAMES M.

WAGNER, MICHAEL G.

PRICE, GREG