November sees two anniversaries of events that have great significance for Protestantism in this country, affecting as they did eventually the whole history of Europe and western civilisation. The first was the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot on November 5th, 1605. If the plot had succeeded and the leadership of this Country had been massacred in the planned explosion under the Houses of Parliament the way would have been open for a restoration by force of Roman Catholicism in this country. The terrorists, however, were foiled, and suffered the penalties considered appropriate in that period.

The second took place on the same date in 1688 when William of Orange landed at 1orbay, with a Dutch army, following the invitation from leading figures in political circles to supplant James l l who, it was feared, was going to impose Roman Catholicism on an unwilling nation. Anyone wanting to know more about the tremendous importance of the issues at stake then would do well to read chapters twelve to eighteen of Winston Churchill's Life of Marlborough. The overriding motive in the invitation to William and subsequent legislation was the safeguarding of our Protestant freedom.

In these days when there is much ignorance of the influence of Protestantism in the growth of our nation and empire, as well as its beneficent effect on many parts of the world, we do well to pay attention to the historical records. Sadly, not everything we shall find there will be an unmixed tale of holy heroism, for Protestants are sinners too, just as the rest of mankind, but throughout there runs the golden thread of gospel witness and its impact for good on many lives.

There is a still greater anniversary, though, that lies at the very heart of Protestantism. It may not be as accurately dated as the other events we have mentioned, but without this they would never have occurred. That anniversary is the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we celebrate in the west on December 25th. Whatever the actual date was, the important fact is that He was really born at a particular point in time, in an exact geographical location, and for a specific purpose.

Paul tells us that "when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4,5). God is essentially practical, what we would expect from the One who is the living God, not just an idea or an impersonal force but a Person who acts in accordance with His nature and His purposes. We may not know or understand everything about God, but we do know what He has revealed to us about Himself, what He has done for us, is doing, and will do in the fulfilment of His declared will.

That practicality is seen supremely in the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and present reign of our Lord Jesus. He makes a vital practical impact on human lives. If we trust in Him as our Lord and Saviour we should have a personal testimony concerning that. Moreover, this divine practicality is experienced through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. No one is truly a Christian without this work of the Triune God in his or her life bringing about His purpose for each of His children.

If Protestantism is the genuine expression of biblical truth it must, therefore, be thoroughly practical and have an obvious impact for good. We must take this to heart for a very good reason. The Reformation, for which we have so much cause to be thankful, sprang from the rediscovery of the gospel, which had been largely hidden under an accumulation of manmade tradition. It centred upon restating the doctrinal truth lying at the heart of the gospel, and its production of practical results.

The danger is of accepting the truth in theory without experiencing its power in practice. We may pride ourselves on the possession of that truth without realising that this means more than simply mental grasp and assent. In other words, we could stand fervently for the truth in theory and yet be denying it practically by the evidence of our lives.

Many of our Protestant forefathers provide us with examples of godly living making a difference at every level of society for good and not evil. This sprang from the new life God had given them in Christ, and it was motivated by a love for Him that desired He should be glorified in their lives and in the lives of others.

This means for us that in our homes, our places of work, our church gatherings, all the relationships that we have with others, and our concern for the spread of the gospel our Protestantism should make a difference for good in our own day. Sadly, it is not always the case. Division and party spirit arise. Selfishness and self-righteousness manifest themselves in personal conduct. It is too easy to blame the present sad spiritual state of our nation upon others without recognising that we may have made our own contribution to that by our failure to live up to our heritage.

Of course, there is much that is good to be found among us, and there are Countless examples of Christian love and devotion that show us what is possible. People throughout the world, as well as in our own country, have benefited and do still benefit from selfless practical Christian action whether on the individual level or in the continuing work of organisations like pilgrim Honics (featured on Our front cover) in its care of the elderly, physically and spiritually. Spurgeon, Muller, and Barnardo spring to mind as founders of good works in the past. Many other examples could be given of caring Protestant witness including nationally well-known charities begun by Protestants. We rejoice in that, but more than justly admire such work we should examine ourselves in the light of Scripture, asking the Holy Spirit to help us in carrying out all we do practically to the glory of God.

The truth must be upheld in words and decds.'1'he directions are clearly there in the teaching and commands of the Lord and the injunctions of the apostles. Love is to be the supreme characteristic, a love that is practical and acts, not just a feeling. No greater love has been shown than that of God in Christ providing redemption for sinners, and if we would be like our Saviour we will love others too, whoever they might be.

Such love will be accompanied by the joy He experienced in doing His Father's will. It will be love that knows that real peace in the heart which He bequeathed to His disciples. It will be love that is longsuffering towards those who we find difficult. It will be gentle in its dealings and will produce goodness in all we do. It will enable us to be faithful, and biblically meek, the characteristic of those who will inherit the earth. It will exercise a control in our lives that can only be for good. Love is the all-embracing factor in the fruit of the Spirit.

It won't blossom in its fullness all at once, though it may be achieved more quickly - in sonic than others. What is essential to its growth, though, are the very conditions that make it hardest to show love, the difficult people we encounter, and circumstances that may make sacrificial demands upon us.

Once again we look to the Lord. What was there in us to deserve the love He has shown us: In ourselves there was every reason for Him to cast us away as hopeless sinners. To think of ourselves in any other way is to suggest we really deserved to be saved, and no true Protestant can possibly say that. Yet He set His love on us, and He was prepared to suffer for us in a way that none of us can ever replicate. We can, however, show that love in a lesser sense in our response to others, however difficult they might be and whatever it may require, never forgetting that love will want to make known the gospel of the Lord through whom alone they can be reconciled to God.

This is a great challenge, a very practical calling, and who is sufficient for it? 2 Peter 1:1-12 makes the answer very plain. Why not read and meditate upon that passage prayerfully? It can help us all to show in more than words alone that Protestantism is indeed practical.

Royal Succession reform?

Gordon Murray, PTS Chairman, reflects on the recent discussions between the Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace regarding royal succession reform, and explains why changing the Act of Settlement is no simple matter.

In the recent debate about removing the law that prohibits a Roman Catholic from becoming our monarch it was claimed that to do this would be a simple matter. In fact the very opposite would be the case.

Of course, the major issue for Protestants like ourselves would be the spiritual one, and we could point out the reasons why the law was passed in such a form in the first place. We could justifiably claim that the Protestant constitution has contributed to the wellbeing and stability of our country across the last three centuries.

Those who want the law changed would argue, no doubt, that this is all past history and that we live in a period when such discrimination is not only unnecessary, but also insulting. That particular argument is said to be widely accepted if recent media coverage is to be believed. If that is the case it can only be because people in general do not understand the implications of a change, or just cannot be bothered to take it seriously. It is therefore our responsibility as Protestants, standing for the truth of the gospel and its importance for our country, to help others to see what is at stake in the issues that are involved in such a radical change.

It was encouraging, though, that when the matter was discussed in an Any Questions? at the end of March the response in Any Answers? was almost entirely against change. Reference was made to the influence the Vatican could exercise over our country if we had a Roman Catholic monarch, and a lady who described herself as a Christian and committed Anglican married to a Roman Catholic pointed out how the Roman Church controlled so much of what went on in that family

I had my own opportunity to make a contribution in which I indicated the ignorance about this subject revealed by two of the MPs on the programme. The Conservative Chris Grayling blamed Henry VIII for the Act of Settlement blithely ignoring all the events of the 150 years between that monarch’s death and the actual passing of the Act. Sir Menzies Campbell thought that it was no concern of his because he was a Presbyterian, oblivious of the fact that the Queen subscribed an oath before the Privy Council “to maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant Religion” in the form of the Church of Scotland and its Presbyterian Church Government, all of this in accordance with an Act of Parliament. If this is the general degree of understanding among our members of Parliament they are totally ill equipped to make any change to the law as it stands.

The major point I outlined, and develop in more detail here, concerned the consequences that could follow a change. Even the Roman Catholics who are pressing for it seem incapable of realising what the implications would be. They believe, or say they believe, that only members of their Church are barred from the monarchy. That is simply not true. As the law stands and as the oaths that a new monarch have to make in accordance with that law are framed it would be impossible for anyone other than a Protestant member of the Church of England to ascend the throne with a good conscience.

The Roman Catholics seem to think it would benefit them alone. To alter the law, though, and modify the oaths made by the monarch so that they would not be discriminatory would open the way for anyone to ascend the throne. What would the Roman Catholics say if the heir to the throne became a Nonconformist Protestant, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, the adherent of any other religion, or even an atheist? Would we have to go on altering the ceremony for the crowning of a new monarch to accommodate his or her particular belief or lack of it? There is no way, either, that the Church of England could remain indefinitely the established Church if this change went through. That is the logical implication of the anti-discrimination argument put forward by the Roman Catholic MPs and Press. Is this what they really want?

It is also possible to see that this destabilisation of our Constitution could, and perhaps inevitably would, lead to the abolition of the monarchy and the setting up of a Republic. There are advocates of such a move already around in political circles, and it may be they are encouraging the present efforts for change. What, for example, is the religious position of Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal-Democrat MP who proposed the recent Private Member’s Bill relevant to this matter? It is worthwhile as well to look at the European countries to see how many formerly had a Roman Catholic monarchy and are now Republics. How does this compare with Protestant states?

There is another matter that deserves serious consideration. If the law were to be changed along the lines proposed the Queen would be required to give her royal assent. This would in effect be imposing on her the obligation to break oaths she solemnly and sincerely made at her accession and coronation. When she was young, while her father was alive, she broadcast her vow to serve this country faithfully. She has carried out that vow faithfully through her long reign, and she has been an example to the whole world of an integrity that is sadly increasingly rare. To ask her now to break the promises solemnly and conscientiously given at her coronation before Almighty God would be an action on the part of Parliament robbing it of all respect in the eyes of decent people everywhere.

To take advantage of a new monarch coming to the throne would simply present new difficulties. The present constitution has served this country well, despite what republicans may say, providing a stability that has been invaluable in an era of great change, and it should be left alone.

There has been no attempt here to enter into a discussion about the relation of any particular Church to the State. This is a matter in which equally sincere Protestants take different positions according to their understanding of Scripture. The question here concerns a Christian monarch’s responsibility to the country spiritually. By the grace of God our present constitution has brought about a situation in which there is religious freedom. Recent legislation has been infringing that freedom. The change envisaged far from safeguarding freedom would leave it wide open for the increase of a greater intolerance.

It is not likely that this issue will be raised again in Parliament for quite some time. As, however, it has been brought into the public domain once more it could be a good time to write to your MP, to the Prime Minister, and perhaps to the Queen herself. You may like to follow up some of the arguments outlined above. You may want to develop other points, but remember that too long or complex a letter may not get the attention it deserves. Many of us would like to say more about the doctrinal and the historical issues because of their importance to us, but we need to remember that politicians on the whole don’t have much interest in either. That’s why I’ve concentrated on the actual possible consequences of a change as politicians have a responsibility to take these into account in considering legislative matters.

The Roman Catholics are unlikely to let this subject lie dormant for long, either in this Parliament or the next. As soon as you get wind of this coming up again write once more. You could have a new MP after the next election and we don’t know what line a new Government might take.

Please pray too that the Lord will have mercy on our nation. We do seem to be under His judgement at the moment and there needs to be a spiritual awakening among Protestant churches generally. We can easily be far too parochial in our thinking and praying. The Lord could be pleased to use our prayers and our voice to make a difference for good in our land.