"Covenanted Reformation Defended" Debunked

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Well Diane, I guess you just have a personal grievance.:um: Glad you found a good church home.:up:
Originally posted by LadyCalvinist
As someone who worshipped with the Albany Steelites for nearly a year I'd thought I should say a few things.
When I started out with them I really didn't know what I had got myself into. Right after I attended my first worship service with them, I immediatley had someone sit down with me and explain EP, why it was wrong to celebrate Christmas and other matters. At first I was impressed with them, here were people who knew about Gillespie, Rutherford, and all the old Puritan and Covenanter divines, but after a while I began to see things differently. They talked more of what some Presbyterian said than what the Bible said. They major in minors and have forgotten that mercy, love, and patience particularly with weaker brothers, matters.

I had a Steelite tell me it would be a "sin" for me to attend a PCA or OPC church. Excuse me, but some of the godliest people I know are in those denominations. When I was about to graduate from SUNY Albany, a Steelite asked me what I was going to do about church. I said I was seriously considering the RPCNA, a denomination that is probably the closest in most respects to them, and the woman was horrified. She said "But they don't worship right!" They told me that the only acceptable alternative to worshipping with them in Albany was to worship at home by myself. I was dismayed to say the least, and at that point I decided I had had enough.

They believe that because of their stance on the SL&C, they are THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH and it is wrong to worship with anyone else. They definitely have a form of godliness, but the more I read of them the more perturbed I am. They have a perfectionist view of the church. I was shocked to read that they have excommunicated Nathan Price who is the son of Pastor Greg Price.

The first time I ever stepped foot in an RPCNA church, after the service the pastor held up a book and asked me if I had read it. It was C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity. In other words, he wanted to know if I was a Christian. I told him I had read the book.

I am now happily with the RPCNA.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
And I don't believe I used the word in any sense. Peter, I´m quite frankly disappointed that you´d be so bold as to surmise baser motivations here. What is driving this is the seriousness of the errors and desire to recover folks from them.

Originally posted by JOwen
Originally posted by Peter
I don't know what personal offenses you guys have suffered from the Edmontonites but I don't know what they publicly teach that could merit being called a cult.
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by Peter]

My words were a "personallity cult".

Go here and do some reading.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/
Also here:
http://taron.net/letters/
And here:
http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-S.html - under "Steelite"
And here:
http://www.fpcr.org/fpcrprc/Steelite.htm
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for the resources. My apologies if I have put words into your mouths but it is an epithet that is tossed around quite frequently. For example, the third link you've provided ('data rat') offers no apologies in calling them "a tiny cult." Perhaps my fault in not joining in your attacks is that I don't see the seriousness of the error. The RPNA is just another tiny confessional presbyterian sect. They claim to be the most pure church on earth and that all Christians should join them. At face that may sound extreme but what honest, serious denomination doesn't claim the same? What right does a denomination have to maintain a separate existence if it doesn't? If it is acknowledged by a denomination that another adheres closer to the apostolic rule aren't they schismatic for not joining that denomination? I think they go too far with their doctrine of occasional hearing and that their separatism would impede the edification of the church. My surmisings were not groundless but I'm not insinuating that your motivations are base either. Rev. Lewis frequently relates or implies that he was personally injured by them. If that is the case then certainly all the invectives against the RPNA are justified but in the public documents I have read nothing jumps at me as especially sinister. My sentiments on this issue are with Rev. Guillory on a previous thread where he said that, "The heated responses seen here regarding Greg Price [minister of RPNA] also seems to indicate more passion than reason. " Whereto Chris responded, "As far as more emotion than reason in the posts here, all I can say is, you lose some sheep to these folks or have a church split by them, and you might emote a bit about it as well!" And Mr. Parnell McCarter where he says:

The RPNA (Reformed Presbytery in North America) has received some strong and unwarranted criticism from various quarters of the Christian community. Some have even made the ridiculous claim that it is a cult. Even if the RPNA may contain some errors in its doctrine and practice, there is still no excuse for false charges such as these. The reality is that these are brethren in the Lord. Furthermore, they have done and are doing a great service in the body of Christ to awaken the community to truths which need to be proclaimed and have been too much hidden from view

Mr. McCarter gives a strong but charatible criticism of the neo-Steelites from a FPCS perspective that ought to be our model. Here: http://www.puritans.net/rpna.html
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Peter
Thank you for the resources. My apologies if I have put words into your mouths but it is an epithet that is tossed around quite frequently. For example, the third link you've provided ('data rat') offers no apologies in calling them "a tiny cult." Perhaps my fault in not joining in your attacks is that I don't see the seriousness of the error. The RPNA is just another tiny confessional presbyterian sect. They claim to be the most pure church on earth and that all Christians should join them. At face that may sound extreme but what honest, serious denomination doesn't claim the same? What right does a denomination have to maintain a separate existence if it doesn't? If it is acknowledged by a denomination that another adheres closer to the apostolic rule aren't they schismatic for not joining that denomination? I think they go too far with their doctrine of occasional hearing and that their separatism would impede the edification of the church. My surmisings were not groundless but I'm not insinuating that your motivations are base either. Rev. Lewis frequently relates or implies that he was personally injured by them. If that is the case then certainly all the invectives against the RPNA are justified but in the public documents I have read nothing jumps at me as especially sinister. My sentiments on this issue are with Rev. Guillory on a previous thread where he said that, "The heated responses seen here regarding Greg Price [minister of RPNA] also seems to indicate more passion than reason. " Whereto Chris responded, "As far as more emotion than reason in the posts here, all I can say is, you lose some sheep to these folks or have a church split by them, and you might emote a bit about it as well!" And Mr. Parnell McCarter where he says:

The RPNA (Reformed Presbytery in North America) has received some strong and unwarranted criticism from various quarters of the Christian community. Some have even made the ridiculous claim that it is a cult. Even if the RPNA may contain some errors in its doctrine and practice, there is still no excuse for false charges such as these. The reality is that these are brethren in the Lord. Furthermore, they have done and are doing a great service in the body of Christ to awaken the community to truths which need to be proclaimed and have been too much hidden from view

Mr. McCarter gives a strong but charatible criticism of the neo-Steelites from a FPCS perspective that ought to be our model. Here: http://www.puritans.net/rpna.html
Peter,

I don't know if you've personally known anyone taken by this position or not, or if you've only read materials about it on the Internet. Many of us have personally dealt with people who are entirely under the sway of the Edmonton Steelites (or were ourselves of that position). It goes beyond claims of purity when it is claimed that you must leave your church and either worship at their church, or worship at home. They define and epitomize "schism." They are schismatics and outside the church, tearing at the body of Christ, and should be warned against as such.

And I do not believe that my congregation is perfect -- my pastor preaches from the ESV, we don't use the 1650 Psalter, we observe the Lord's Supper with grape juice, etc. But I do not believe that this warrants my separation from this church, and worshipping at home. And this is exactly what they say. I sat five feet away from Greg Barrow one evening, and he told me as much. He actively encouraged me to engage in schism, as does the R"P"NA as a whole. And that is not simply a matter of denominational differences -- that is the difference between a denomination and a schismatical sect.
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
Thank you for the resources. My apologies if I have put words into your mouths but it is an epithet that is tossed around quite frequently. For example, the third link you've provided ('data rat') offers no apologies in calling them "a tiny cult." Perhaps my fault in not joining in your attacks is that I don't see the seriousness of the error.

Apology accepted. Did you happen to read any of the links provided Peter? Would you care to comment on Rev. Winzer's small critique posted by Chris at the beginning of this thread? If you have not seen the seriousness of their error then you probably passed over the extensive reading that needs to be done (and has been done by several of us) and are simply making assumptions on both sides of the fence. Brother go read the available information on this group, their subordinate standards, and terms of communion. If you STILL don't see their error then it looks like they will be getting one more member.:)

If it is acknowledged by a denomination that another adheres closer to the apostolic rule aren't they schismatic for not joining that denomination?

Are you being hypothetical here or do you know of an instance of this? Waht will stop you from joining? Surly you can put up with no occasional hearing for the sake of Christian unity?

Let me quote Rutherford from Due Right:

"There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church (if it be a true Church) and to goe to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a Member of no Church, have liberty of election, to joyne to that Church, which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest."

I think they go too far with their doctrine of occasional hearing and that their separatism would impede the edification of the church. My surmisings were not groundless but I'm not insinuating that your motivations are base either.

I'm sorry but I don't knowwhat you are saying here.

Rev. Lewis frequently relates or implies that he was personally injured by them. If that is the case then certainly all the invectives against the RPNA are justified but in the public documents I have read nothing jumps at me as especially sinister.

I've never been injured by the Steelites. I left them once I saw the untenable road they were going down. There is a list of several hurt souls, devastated by the RPNA. To God's glory and by His grace I'm not one of them.

Regarding your above statement, what documents have you read? I'd be interested to know. Armchair theologians do a lot of skimming. Your not a skimmer are you Peter?;)

Blessings!

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by JOwen]
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
It was the Westminster Presbyterian postion (the Scots and English Ps) that there was no biblical right to actively gather members out of other established Reformed churches. That is the Independent postion which of course the Presbyterians viewed as schismatic. I don't think that doctrine goes away simply because we are in a disetablished and divided state in this country.
Originally posted by JOwen
Let me quote Rutherford from Due Right:

"There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church (if it be a true Church) and to goe to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a Member of no Church, have liberty of election, to joyne to that Church, which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest."
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by JOwen
Originally posted by Peter
Thank you for the resources. My apologies if I have put words into your mouths but it is an epithet that is tossed around quite frequently. For example, the third link you've provided ('data rat') offers no apologies in calling them "a tiny cult." Perhaps my fault in not joining in your attacks is that I don't see the seriousness of the error.

Apology accepted. Did you happen to read any of the links provided Peter? Would you care to comment on Rev. Winzer's small critique posted by Chris at the beginning of this thread? If you have not seen the seriousness of their error then you probably passed over the extensive reading that needs to be done (and has been done by several of us) and are simply making assumptions on both sides of the fence. Brother go read the available information on this group, their subordinate standards, and terms of communion. If you STILL don't see their error then it looks like they will be getting one more member.:)

If it is acknowledged by a denomination that another adheres closer to the apostolic rule aren't they schismatic for not joining that denomination?

Are you being hypothetical here or do you know of an instance of this? Waht will stop you from joining? Surly you can put up with no occasional hearing for the sake of Christian unity?

Let me quote Rutherford from Due Right:

"There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church (if it be a true Church) and to goe to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a Member of no Church, have liberty of election, to joyne to that Church, which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest."

I think they go too far with their doctrine of occasional hearing and that their separatism would impede the edification of the church. My surmisings were not groundless but I'm not insinuating that your motivations are base either.

I'm sorry but I don't knowwhat you are saying here.

Rev. Lewis frequently relates or implies that he was personally injured by them. If that is the case then certainly all the invectives against the RPNA are justified but in the public documents I have read nothing jumps at me as especially sinister.

I've never been injured by the Steelites. I left them once I saw the untenable road they were going down. There is a list of several hurt souls, devastated by the RPNA. To God's glory and by His grace I'm not one of them.

Regarding your above statement, what documents have you read? I'd be interested to know. Armchair theologians do a lot of skimming. Your not a skimmer are you Peter?;)

Blessings!

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by JOwen]
:ditto:
Peter, If you are apologizing I accept. On my words you cited, I was speaking generally to the thread (I don't believe I was emoting ;)) and also not to any personal grievance that has me angling for a grudge match. Jerrold is captain of his own ship; I would not have cited the dataRat.;) Jerrold and Matthew can speak to Mr. McCarter's writings as they have done so in the past I believe. As far as the Steelites "right to exist," I believe they exist because heresies must come; and the church must speak against those errors. As to the good they do, it does great harm when errorists do some good but greater evil, just as poison mixed in nutritional food will make you sick or kill you.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by JOwen

Let me quote Rutherford from Due Right:

"There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church (if it be a true Church) and to goe to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a Member of no Church, have liberty of election, to joyne to that Church, which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest."

So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?

In that case you are dealing with a sacrament, which touches the mark of a true Church. I think the difference would be in that discovery.

Blessings!
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Bear in mind we are discussing one Scots Presbyterian author and not Scottish Presbyterianism. James Durham in Concerning Scandal thought that in the case where a offense could not be resolved after much trying, that at last resort one could move from one parish church to another. I think one can extrapolate that somewhat to a non parish disetablished and fractured state of the church, though it is tough; of course both Durham and Rutherford were dealing with a single established church and parish system.
Originally posted by JOwen
So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?

In that case you are dealing with a sacrament, which touches the mark of a true Church. I think the difference would be in that discovery.

Blessings!
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
At face that may sound extreme but what honest, serious denomination doesn't claim the same?

Problem: that's not all they say. IF that were all they said, well, OK.
But they will tell you that that thier church is the ONLY church....which is why you should join and stop sinning by not being part of the true church.

I just spoke with a woman who was de-brainwashed to thier brainwashing and now is worhsipping in a good church.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Originally posted by turmeric
Are these Steelites where Harold Camping comes from?
No,
The two errors have some similarities, but they are not the same, nor do they emmanante from the same sort of abberations.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by JOwen
So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?

In that case you are dealing with a sacrament, which touches the mark of a true Church. I think the difference would be in that discovery.

Blessings!

The Rutherford quote speaks on not leaving a true church (with various problems) to join a more pure church. So...... from your comments your saying that a reformed baptist mishandling of the sacrament of baptism makes them a non true (aka a false) church, therefore you can leave?

CT

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by ChristianTrader]
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by JOwen
So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?

In that case you are dealing with a sacrament, which touches the mark of a true Church. I think the difference would be in that discovery.

Blessings!

The Rutherford quote speaks on not leaving a true church (with various problems) to join a more pure church. So...... from your comments your saying that a reformed baptist mishandling of the sacrament of baptism makes them a non true (aka a false) church, therefore you can leave?

CT

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by ChristianTrader]

Remember that Rutherford held the traditional Presbyterian doctrine of the power of the civil magistrate circa sacra. In the event that the magistrate did not suppress divisions, then yes, Rutherford's views can be taken to the point of saying that antipaedobaptists, in so far as they preach truth, are to be regarded as true churches. Obviously, though, he would have been in agreement with the WCF, which speaks of the sin of contemning the ordianance of baptism; and since it would be impossible to observe the paedobaptist view of baptism in an antipaedobaptist church, then it would be necessary to move where that could be conscientiously observed.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by JOwen
So if one was a member of a standard reformed baptist church but became convinced of presbyterian distinctive (paedobaptism and church government) one is supposed to stay where they are at?

I am not attacking such a position, but have just never thought of such, is this what you are trying to say?

In that case you are dealing with a sacrament, which touches the mark of a true Church. I think the difference would be in that discovery.

Blessings!

The Rutherford quote speaks on not leaving a true church (with various problems) to join a more pure church. So...... from your comments your saying that a reformed baptist mishandling of the sacrament of baptism makes them a non true (aka a false) church, therefore you can leave?

CT

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by ChristianTrader]

Remember that Rutherford held the traditional Presbyterian doctrine of the power of the civil magistrate circa sacra. In the event that the magistrate did not suppress divisions, then yes, Rutherford's views can be taken to the point of saying that antipaedobaptists, in so far as they preach truth, are to be regarded as true churches. Obviously, though, he would have been in agreement with the WCF, which speaks of the sin of contemning the ordianance of baptism; and since it would be impossible to observe the paedobaptist view of baptism in an antipaedobaptist church, then it would be necessary to move where that could be conscientiously observed.

So what your saying is that Rutherford was not as precise as he could have been because the scenario that I just proposed was not on his radar at the time?

But if it was, then he would have called the Calvinistic Baptist a true church that you could in fact leave?

CT
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So what your saying is that Rutherford was not as precise as he could have been because the scenario that I just proposed was not on his radar at the time?

But if it was, then he would have called the Calvinistic Baptist a true church that you could in fact leave?

CT

Obviously there are complexities involved which make it difficult to give a one line answer. Basically, for Rutherford, the church is catholic. Unlike Independents, he doesn't begin with the cell and work his way up to the body, but starts with the body and works his way down to the cell. Because the true church is only distinguishable by its profession of the truth, any church which professes the truth is a true church, and not to be separated from. But there are varying degrees of separation. What you are calling separation might better be termed secession, because the body separated from is still acknowledged to be a true church. Whereas the Independents he argued against refused to acknowledge the ministry of the Church of England, even though it professed the truth.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
I confess I am an armchair theologian and a skimmer. I realize I am worm in the presence of authorities, but I am not convinced the danger merits the alarm and the other side is not here to defend themselves. The mean time, I have kept a teachable disposition. I did go to many of the links and will study them if I deem the issue worth the hours of time that must be divested. I am willing to be taught but I maintain my right to protest where I think you are being unfair. The first was a discussion group with 9000+ messages. The 2nd didn't work at all. The 3rd was a paragraph where dataRat called the Edmonton Steelites a cult. The 4th I have given some superficial attention to previously as I thought the controversy deserved. I have read (skimmed) Rev. Winzers article. I agree with him that a church founded on the marks of a true church is possessed of the authority of Christ. I agree it may not be exactly precise to speak of a false church in well-being but it is OK to say a true church may be defective in matters of well-being. Upon some consideration, I would agree with him that one ought not to separate from a church b/c of some matter of well-being so long as it is not pressed as a term of membership/communion. But as has been pointed out, following Mr. Winzer's conclusions would condemn more than just the Edmonton Steelites. One other thing I believe is particularly pertinent is Dr. Wagner's article Are the Covenanter's a Cult? It should also be pointed out that the documents written in the 16th - 18th century were written by men defending an Established Reformed Church with a parochial system before the denominational confusion of these days. In other words, the church in their country was blessed with almost complete visible unity. That should at least be taken into consideration before we apply their words on leaving the particular established church they were defending vs. leaving the OPC, PCA, SBC, PC-USA, RPCNA, RPCGA, etc. all with congregations residing near e/o with competing claimings.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Peter
I confess I am an armchair theologian and a skimmer. I realize I am worm in the presence of authorities, but I am not convinced the danger merits the alarm and the other side is not here to defend themselves. The mean time, I have kept a teachable disposition. I did go to many of the links and will study them if I deem the issue worth the hours of time that must be divested. I am willing to be taught but I maintain my right to protest where I think you are being unfair. The first was a discussion group with 9000+ messages. The 2nd didn't work at all. The 3rd was a paragraph where dataRat called the Edmonton Steelites a cult. The 4th I have given some superficial attention to previously as I thought the controversy deserved. I have read (skimmed) Rev. Winzers article. I agree with him that a church founded on the marks of a true church is possessed of the authority of Christ. I agree it may not be exactly precise to speak of a false church in well-being but it is OK to say a true church may be defective in matters of well-being. Upon some consideration, I would agree with him that one ought not to separate from a church b/c of some matter of well-being so long as it is not pressed as a term of membership/communion. But as has been pointed out, following Mr. Winzer's conclusions would condemn more than just the Edmonton Steelites. One other thing I believe is particularly pertinent is Dr. Wagner's article Are the Covenanter's a Cult? It should also be pointed out that the documents written in the 16th - 18th century were written by men defending an Established Reformed Church with a parochial system before the denominational confusion of these days. In other words, the church in their country was blessed with almost complete visible unity. That should at least be taken into consideration before we apply their words on leaving the particular established church they were defending vs. leaving the OPC, PCA, SBC, PC-USA, RPCNA, RPCGA, etc. all with congregations residing near e/o with competing claimings.

Just to clarify,

I have not published any writing that condemns anybody. I acknowledge the RPNA to have a true profession of the faith. It is their discipline that has lost touch with reality. It is more a case, sadly, that they cut themselves off from us; if they were willing to acknowledge the authority and ministry of our churches the right hand of fellowship would gladly be extended to them.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I believe Peter's bringing the "cult" issue up has co-opted or at least colored the discussion of the original criticisms. I will not say "red herring" as some out there do say such a thing, but that is certainly not the criticism brought up here. Matthew has noted he has never articulated such a criticism and that was not in view in posting the extract of his "forthcoming" ;) review. If someone else thinks the Steelites are a cult, or even just "cultish" maybe they can start another thread, and bear the burden of proving that. Peter has already noted an answer from Michael Wagner as to the charge of their being a cult.
 

Catechist

Puritan Board Freshman
My dear and beloved brothers are most prominent in this RPNA church. I too was hoping to join with them at one time. Naturally, eveything in me goes their way, being family.

But after careful examination and investigation over the past ten years I have found them quite wanting in some major areas. Yet very solid in other areas. They are sincere men and live accordingly to what they believe to be true. Knowingly, however, not too friendly to other brethren.

I would also caution that some of their doctrines are unwarranted and dangerous. So much so, that I would not expose my family to their ways or opinions. A very repressive group which is bearing bad fruit.

Especially, occasional hearing: discipline - familiar fellowship, shunning others, isolationism. Binding nature of the sworn obligations of the covenants though I would uphold the SL&C with respect to its moral obligations upon us all. However, such, as, *sworn obligations* have not a place in the terms of communion of the church in which to constitute a true church, since the sworn obligations have ceased.

I would also agree with Chris, to maintain an objective manner as much as possible in reasoning with these doctrines. The RPNA problems are not small or simple. I would gladly discuss the issues at hand (as time allows) and hopefully provide as much information as possible to help others see their way straight concerning them.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Got one.
Bump1.gif
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Bump1.gif

FYI. A couple of recent posts to the R-F-W forum by our friend Kevin Barrow on the subject of the SL&C.

1. Ames - Thoughts on Covenanting Principles. By Kevin Barrow.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/message/9245

2. Re: The Origin of the Dispute
I hope to briefly outline the disagreement I have with the legal
argument and assertion that the SL&C is binding upon various nations,
due simply to the link and relationship with the British Sovereign
alone, namely the king.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/message/9246
 

Catechist

Puritan Board Freshman
I should have also mentioned that RPNA doctrine assumes a large compass of jurisdiction for the king where legal history notably does not. For example, once royal adherence of the SL&C was sworn by the Monarch at the Scottish coronation oath by Charles II, then such a mandate is considered as sworn for all the lands and dominions in which the king is king.. The king being endued with such power and imperial jurisdiction, implements the SL&C upon all British lands, dominions, and territories, simply by virtue of his office. This is basically the RPNA position.

Interestingly enough, as high prerogative as this sounds, there existed a type of jurisdiction of this kind which extended into Ireland. The king could impose legislation for Ireland - based simply upon royal initiative. Such a measure known as Poynings´ Law was passed in the Irish Parliament (1465) which granted and recognised the king´s sole initiative in all law-making, giving the crown a royal prerogative in legislation proposed and not yet passed by parliament.

However, imperial jurisdiction never existed automatically throughout the empire. Such a doctrine is not sustainable.

Yet, this was indeed remarkable control, and one which in the 1670´s Charles II tried in vain to fasten on Jamaica. There was a similar intention to impose this legislative control on Virginia also. (See Instructions to Culpeper, Dec. 1679. C.O. 5/1355, p.334.)

Notably, legislative control was not granted as automatic carte blanche imperial jurisdiction for the king binding the entire empire by such a means.

It is a wonder that such a jurisdiction might be contended for all British lands, dominions, and territories. There was a legal basis in which the English reformation ordinances were applied to Ireland; the crowns of England and Ireland were united by statute in 1542, and gradually, in law at least, Ireland became subordinated to the realm of England.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top