W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New



NEWS 151

NEW LIFE April 5, 2001

This is going to be short.

After all, concerning Rome, there have been things said already, and ...

AQG VI, BB Appendix III, 239ff., 246; BAB 20, 146-153 (end of Item 20),
BAB30, pp. 230ff., Appendix III, pp. 319 ff., 327-328; KH 7, Appendix ;
SMR pp. 1042-1088H and see its Index; SMR p. 586,
SCOTU 49; BEN 69, pp. 24ff.; FM 7, BEN 78
esp. End-note 1 - (and nomenclature/empire);
BEN 79 , 82, esp. p. 207ff; STEP5, 4 (esp. with Lutheranism );
REF 4, excursion *2, 3 in parallel), REF 8, FM 6, 7 9 10 (Papacy and Palestine!);
TTT 8, SMR 9, p. 809, 10, Ext. 5, pp. 1074ff., ROP 5 esp. *2, cf. AQ 4, p. 89 , AAA 9 , NFF 14 , DVA  3 (the three major religions astray, and associates), DIAMOND  9

the above examples are merely some!

(See Index, both for SMR and the rest, for more!
The codes for books above are explained in Index. )

Today, the task is simple.

It is necessary to notice something very interesting, rather intriguing and certainly bold, courageous and pointed!

In NEW LIFE of the above date, p. 5, we find the allegation from the Clerk of the Outer Isles Presbytery in Stornoway, in the Free Presbyterian Church, that England has been asking for it, and obtained what she has been asking for.

On the surface, this may not seem so extraordinarily sensational, but it moves in that direction!

WHAT precisely is it indicated that the mother nation has been asking for ? It is for judgment. In what way is it declared she has done this ? By a foolish act, unbenign, unenlightened, darkened without understanding from the long history of the land, and above all, from the word of God.

But what is this foolish action ? It is "Your Majesty's visit to the Vatican" ... WHEN did this visit occur ? Apparently the reference, judging from the news report, was the one last October, since alas it appears this is not the first. Does one not remember, years ago, the black dressed Queen of a Protestant nation (in its Church State relationship, and Coronation ceremony) visiting the man in his Romish mansions ?

However this is certainly a development. We need to be precise, of course. The letter, in part quoted in the New Life report, does not actually state that God has in fact punished England with foot and mouth disease, train crashes, and lives lost in them, floods and so on, of the recent past - which certainly has been slaughterous, like turkeys killed for Christmas (and hence in part the title): because of the Queen's visit to the Vatican last October.

It comes very close to it however. What it does say is put with brevity, pith, heart and soul, yes and with restraint. Nevertheless the point is clear.

It states this:

To use the language of the Clerk of Presbytery, "one cannot but see much to the point in this letter"!

They do not categorically state this: YOUR VISIT CAUSED ALL THIS. After all, it is dangerous indeed to try to read the mind of the Lord in His business. It is necessary to stick to His word, the Bible. But as the above references cited, indicate, there is  more than enough in the Bible to show that any rapprochement with Rome is more than perilous ('Rome' in the Roman Catholic sense, that oddity of phrasing which is a contradiction in terms, for the universal church CANNOT be Roman or Londonish or anything else, since it is universal, and "all you are brothers", the case being that "One is your Master, the Christ", as Matthew 23:8-10 tells us).

Whether the Lord has deliberately planned just this series of events for just that reason, we frankly do not know. That His hand may well be in it, is sure. It is SUFFICIENT provocation, not necessarily this recent visit alone, but the combination of visits to the Pope from Royalty (was not a sister of the Queen there also, some years back ?).  Indeed,  other 'royals', were they not also there on occasion - perhaps legally, but not with wisdom from the Protestant nation, or in any sense as representatives or colleagues of its rulers, and certainly from the Queen as 'head' .
(As to that 'head', it is a most revolting error - but this is the position stated - in view of the Matthew text just cited. However it does not involve power to direct in this case.)

And has not attendance at the Church of England sunk to such miniscule proportions that a recent  projection on current trends renders it quite negligible in a few decades ?

Indeed,  has this not come to it while the Archbishop of Canterbury of his day (as shown in the reference AQG VI, above) has looked for the Vatican for leadership for the churches! And is not England via its 'Church', a member of the World Council of Churches with its vile doctrines and incredible succumbings (cf. SMR Index, and Index for the Rest) ? Does not the Anglican world 'communion' include Australia whose Primate has denied the Lord categorically in this, that He, Christ stated, NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME, whereas the Primate stated that 'in this day and Age' in effect, you really cannot have that. Religion is a multiple thing!

This denial of the faith is perhaps no worse than the indirect denial by allowing the multiple idolatry of Rome, via its arrogantly promiscuous*1 head,  to be something visitable (cf. AQG VI).

For further data on this bitterly disappointing topic, but one well within the scope of Biblical prophecy (as in II Thessalonians 2, II Peter 2:1ff and II Timothy 3!), see The Other England, in The Other News, Joyful Jottings 14, 21 and Index on England.

How then might one formulate the affair ? Certainly one could not go wrong in this:

The recent visit of the Queen to the Vatican, in view of the Protestant character required of the monarchy, the Biblical aspect of the coronation and the pledge involved, and the Act of Settlement, involves an acknowledgment which is improper, even if nothing in the slightest degree personal were involved, and even if the Queen went out of her way to make it clear that the Protestant religion of the official British position for the land (not required but adopted nationally by law via its Church), and her own sincere conviction of its righteousness as from the coronation, were wholly divorced, necessarily and rightly from that of Rome.

IF however these actions and words of rejection were NOT made, then it is far more aggravated than merely impropriety in kind. It represents a spiritual sedition, a meeting allowing darkness to be acknowledgeable, and unrebuked,  idolatry to be acceptable, and declivity from the commandments to be tolerable. It implicates the nation. It defiles the past. It does not follow the word of God. It is unbecoming to any who look to the Lord ALONE for their nation, and contrary to all piety and the code of salvation, which so prizes Christ that no competition can in the least degree be tolerated, suffered or approached (as in Luke 14:26ff..).

Purity is not something to be limited to the British Pharmacopoeia.

Alas, IF these things HAD been made clear, as doubtless they SHOULD have been made clear by a reigning monarch visiting the religious court of a contrary and rejected religion claiming a papal power over sovereigns ever since Unam Sanctum in the Middle Ages, and never relinquished to the slightest degree, indeed continually newly affirmed via the papal insistences to this current 'reign', there would still be a huge mischief.

To visit in ORDER to repudiate afresh, this would be a matter of considerable doubt.

To visit WITHOUT making such a PUBLIC repudiation, in line with the PUBLIC nature of the visit, this is a fallacy, moral and Biblical. Have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but RATHER reprove them, says Paul in Ephesians 5. "ALL uncleanness"  is involved in this prohibition, which includes the point: "Therefore do not be partakers with them."  The uncleanness cited includes covetousness, and as for that, it includes coveting the power of Christ on earth ABOVE the brethren, contrary to the COMMAND OF CHRIST in Matthew 23, noted. That is the papal folly, to take this, and since it is denied, to covet and so take it.

Indeed, in II Corinthians 7:1, we find this: "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

The thing is physical, and it is spiritual: it is all inclusive. Purity is essential. There is no peace without it. If you slip, you are cleansed (and see Psalm 51!); but you do not continune in such ways, and you repent. The thing is PURGED, not countenanced.

THESE are the commands. THOSE are the actions of the Queen, and of the Church of the nation. This is the position in England, delivered from slavery of the most pompous kind, in the Spanish Armada, with that unyielding Elizabeth I, and now visiting the source of pretentious presumption, the Pope (himself of course a representative of the system and an ordainer and supporter of ALL the words via Vatican II support, and its relationship to the earlier things, none of which is left cf. SMR p. 1059) .

Does it signify a willingness to have fellowship ? If so it is condemned by the word of God in the preceding paragraph.

Does it signify that England, the State, is willing to have formal, top level relationship with Rome via the Head of the Church of England ? It must, since this is what the Queen is QUA Queen. If so, it is condemned likewise by Romans 16:17 which tells us to AVOID those who defile the word of God, teaching contrary to the apostolic faith. Avoiding is not making a public, ceremonial visit.

Or again, does it mean that England does not dissociate itself from the papacy, as from a curse, a scourge and a sedition both of its spiritual purity as a committed NATION, and of its own royal uniqueness from any foreign power, religious, secular, or as with Romanism, BOTH (via Unam Sanctum) ? It must since this is a meeting of two Heads of State, the one a Head of the Church and the other of the Apostate Romanism so well, so long and so intimately condemned by the England which forbids a Romanist on the throne, with reason enough in view of the former pillages with absent appointees drawing salaries, and later scheming to bring down the throne, and subject the land once again, to whatever seems good to the foreign power, in the throes of its idolatries noted in a Question of Gifts above, and of course, in SMR pp. 1032-1088H.

There can be NO fellowship, and there must be AVOIDANCE in any spiritual sense.
The Pope cannot divorce himself from his office, nor can the Queen, and in a public meeting, much displayed, this is so the less! Hence it was a violent provocation to the Lord of the word of God, of this wisdom which the Queen so rightly acknowledged as from the Bible, at the coronation.
So was the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so is the Anglican involvement, likewise forbidden, in the World Council of Churches, so is the whole failure to discipline doctrine from the Red Dean on and long before, in the interests of a breadth of feeling and scope of religion, certainly, but by that very token, NOT a Biblical one.

Is it then not realised that the word of God is GOD's, and that failure to FOLLOW what it SAYS is rebellion and sedition, an attack on the only Royalty which will endure! Is it not yet observed that ANY acknowledgment of the Papacy as any sort of rightful power is to dismiss the boiling condemnation of the Bible on idolatry! is to dismiss the Biblical REQUIREMENT of purity and separation (cf. The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch. 7)!

What then do we conclude ? The Clerk of the Presbytery of the Outer Isles is right in the direction of his remarks, and also rather constrained and restrained. They speak, statedly,  for themselves: WE CANNOT BUT SEE THE HAND OF GOD, they say,  in the calamities following the visit to the Pope.

What we can say precisely then is this:

Whether this visit alone is the cause, or more likely, this in the entire context of many decades of failure in these areas, the papacy a good test and exhibition of the degradations in the land, there is SUFFICIENT CAUSE for all that has happened in disaster to have come deliberately as a rebuke, from the Almighty!

Do we not read:

"If a trumpet is blown in a city,
Will not the people be afraid ?
If there is calamity in a city,
will not the LORD have done it ?"

It is NOT that the Lord is vindictive, but pure, as a doctor who INSISTS on a diet or an antibiotic and says, Well in any case keep the area clean!

It is NOT that the Lord is not longsuffering, for look how much He has done for England, and for how long He has borne with these declines.

It is just that there is NO EVENT outside His control (Ephesians 1:11), and while the wicked are indeed as the "chaff" which the wind blows away (Psalm 1), yet the Lord for all that is most wonderfully kind (Micah 7:19ff.), and while hell is a standing invitation without ovation, it is not His willingness that forwards descent to it! Easy, said the Latin reader, Easy is the Descent to Hell!  Facilis est descensus ad avernum!

It is so. Health is wonderful. Disease is multiple. Care is required. For all that, in the end, while the Lord may indeed test as well as rebuke, yet when He is long provoked, as with Israel of old, one has only to read the alternation of merciful offers in Jeremiah, with condign judgments, to realise that not one of His words of decision  is retractable, and His mercy does not offend justice, but provides for those who will RECEIVE it, nationally or otherwise. For indeed it is true, that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a rebuke to any people. ANY PEOPLE!

That includes England or Germany or Australia. Specialise in it, and the results accrue in their time. These secular opportunists who, like the religious synthesis advocates, who prostitute the faith with their deeds, they do not really help. To lose the nation is not a comparable cost with having a slightly lower physical standard of living; just as reaching out, like Ahab of old, for some other faith, in which Prince Charles has so immensely and intensely provoked the Lord at least verbally: this is not really in the interests of peace. For that there is but one source (Isaiah 9:6-7, Ezekiel 21:22).

England should beware before it travels further down this road, leaving that glorious liberty, that wonderful ability to be a land of the free for many (despite its many failure), to allow the Protestant liberty in the word to soar as the land soared from the days of Elizabeth I. It should consider well before leaving that reputation not lightly earned, that wonderful testimony of people like Bunyan in his refusal to be intimidated, seeking a liberty of worship later attained in the land, like Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, with their courage, conviction and fortitude, likewise flames of fire even amid the physical flames, for liberties to come, or like Wilberforce with his intense labours in Christ for the deliverance of the land from the abomination of physical slavery in its tradings.

If England persists in its failures nationally*2, in religion, in faith in Biblical teaching in all its integrity and all its strength, then its past will not save it, though we may weep for it, that so much from so many has come to so little in this generation! But will it ? The nation needs to repent and seek the Lord NOW, just as so many did in 1939-1945, and to show that it is not a mere maw for material things, ideological taints and artificial colours and preservatives!

It is true that Australia is likewise in need of a vast revival. It is not without cause that events and tragedies come. The Lord is very deep; it is most unwise to ASSUME this or that about some little event; but some events are NOT SO LITTLE! Just so, to slap the face of the Queen is not a little thing, as if it could be ignored; and to slap the face of freedom in Christ is not a little thing. It is not to be expected to be ignored. The cause is not just once, or twice now, and certainly not just from the Queen, whose many good works are such a joy, but not this one.

The consequences to England are slight compared with the provocation. The land of Australia does well to consider its own ways as it indulges in moves towards suppression of liberty, long attested on this site, and in particular in  Pall of Smoke and Diamond of Joy. It is time for each nation to consider its ways. Be assured, the Lord has done so, and will do so.

Christianity is a religion; Christ is its source, power and glory; to exalt the Lord only is its duty, as Christ is the trinity exposed in His own way (John 1:14,18). It is not a matter of 'acceptance' or adoption; it - rather,  Christ, when you are His, ADOPTS YOU (Ephesians 1;6). It is a matter of loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, not of diplomacy, deliberation with other things in their squalid pretentions. With God, it is for Him to be as your God, and you as His people. There is no other reality, other way, other God, other written word of mankind but the Bible.

He has spoken, acted and is returning ... it is ... near (Answers to Questions Ch. 5). Be alert, be watchful, be awake, be fervent in spirit, hearty in life, full of love and loving truth in its every particle, in its sway and power, seeing all things in Him, for to you who believe, Christ is all and in all that you do (Colossians 3:11,17).