lxii Dedication : The Anglican Calendar . 1) Charles I’s Day (30 Jan.). 2) The nexus between Charles I’s Day and Charles II’s Day. a) General; b) Some sites I have visited of interest to Charles I, Charles II, James II, & William III. c) Traditional Diocese of Sydney Low Church Evangelicalism, NOT Puritan and semi-Puritan trends from 1970s. 3) The “Father” Huddleston Saga. 4) The Test Acts and 1689 Religious Toleration to English & Irish Puritans. 5) The Restoration in the Scottish Context of the Williamite Settlement. 6) The Battle of Vinegar Hill (1798 Ireland & 1804 NSW): “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (I Sam. 15:23). 7) Charles II’s Day (29 May). a) My Baptist Grandmother. b) St. Helier. c) A General Introduction to Royal Oak Day. d) Royal Oak Hotels. e) Royal Oak Streets and other place names. f) Royal Oak Naval Ships of the Fleet. g) Royal Oak Day Sermons. h) Royal Oak Day Celebrations. i) The London Oak Apple Day Parade. a) Preamble on “the Shaver’s” repentance; b) General on London Oak Apple Day; c) KJV translators Daniel Featley et al. j) Charles II lands at Dover ☺. k) The Restoration Prayer Book of 1662: its language a fruit of the AV. l) The Cross as a symbol of Christianity & some stingy Puritans get their bottoms “pinched” on Oak Apple Day. *m) Royal Oak Day Dedication. 1) Charles I Day (30 Jan.). King Charles I sometimes showed commendable Christian charity to his subjects. E.g., in June 1628, His Majesty King Charles accepted the Petition of Rights submitted by the House of Commons, so as to prevent arbitrary taxation or imprisonment. Or in 1635 he very generously opened up his Royal Mail service to the people. Thereafter, anyone could send a letter by the Royal Mail , and this great privilege has been extended throughout British Commonwealth or British Empire derived societies. Being able to post a letter is taken by most people for granted, but they would do well to remember that this was a privilege granted by the Crown, when King Charles the First extended access to his personal Royal Mail service to his subjects. lxiii When I circumaviated the globe on my fifth trip to London (Sept. 08-March 09), I returned to Australia from London via North America. From Washington D.C., USA, I went by train over the Potomac River and into the State of Virginia in order to see the Pentagon. The Pentagon is a major USA military Headquarters; and I there inspected the Pentagon Memorial Park to the “9/11” (September the 11 th , 2001) victims of a Mohammedan terrorist attack. (This was co-coordinated with Mohammedan terrorist attacks against the USA in the States of Pennsylvania and New York.) In stark contrast to this Mohammedan action against the American State of Virginia, at a time when what became the United States of America was still privileged to be under the Crown, in 1639 King Charles the First most wisely and kindly made a royal decree that the Virginia legislature should meet at least annually. Let us thank God for the Christian care and goodness he showed to his subjects, with such acts as the Petition of Rights, opening up the Royal Post to all in his realm, or granting the Virginia legislature a legal right to meet annually. “The king by judgment establisheth the land” (Prov. 29:4). In Ps. 105:15 we read, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” In Scripture, a king was anointed. Thus we read in I Samuel 9:27 and 10:1 of a bad king “Saul,” “Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?” And we also read in I Sam. 16:13 of a good king, “Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward.” So whether a generally bad king like Saul, or a generally good king like David, a king was anointed; and God here teaches us we must be loyal to the constitutionally established king, whether he is good, bad, or indifferent. Indeed, so solemn is this commandment from God, that when in II Samuel chapter 1, David learnt that an Amalekite had, upon the request of Saul himself, slain King Saul, we read in verses 14 to 16, “And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed? And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died. And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s anointed.” (Even though this was a false claim made by the Amalekite to try and ingratiate himself with David, I Sam. 31:4-6.) You see in I Peter 2:17 we are commanded, “Fear God. Honour the king.” And this was said in New Testament times with respect to some very gruesome and ungodly Roman Emperors indeed. Nevertheless, we are told in Romans 13:1, “the powers that be are ordained of God.” And so even if we have a bad king, like Saul, and even if he were to ask us to kill him, yet we may not do so. For what saith the Scripture in Ps. 105:15? “Touch not mine anointed.” And so we must “Honour the king.” But the Puritan republican revolutionaries of the 1640s and 1650s, men such as Samuel Rutherford from Scotland and Oliver Cromwell from England, set aside this command. For in conjunction with the writings of Rutherford’s book, Lex Rex , lxiv Cromwell not only had King Charles I killed in 1649, but he also attempted, without success, to have Charles II killed in 1651. In one of my letters published in the British Church Newspaper of 15 January 2010, the Editor put the headline, “Cavaliers and Roundheads,” to my words which started with, among other things, my statements, “Like the old-time Cavaliers fighting the Roundheads in the 1640s and 1650s, we modern-time Cavaliers who fight with the pen and not the sword against modern day Roundheads … are reminded of our Lord’s words, ‘Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition’ … Mark 7:9 …,” which I then applied to such passages as Romans 13:1,2, which says that those who “seditiously attack ‘the higher powers’ … ‘receive’ ‘damnation’.” Now while the Cavaliers were militarily defeated by Cromwell’s republican Roundheads in the 1640s and 1650s, by the grace of God, come the third day , they were back in town with the Restoration of 1660. That is because God can bring victory out of defeat. We read in Revelation 11 of what St. John calls in Revelation 11:4, “the two candlesticks,” that is, the Old and New Testaments; for we read in Psalm 119:105, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” But in Revelation 11:7 we also read of the Antichrist’s desire to “kill them,” that is, to “kill” God’s Word. And in Revelation 11, it looks, in human terms, as though he has in some way succeeded, for we read in verse 8 that “their dead bodies shall lie in the street of” the place where “our Lord was crucified.” Now while our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, it was part of the wider Roman Empire which was under the City State of Rome. And so the place where “our Lord was crucified” refers to Rome, and the desire of Papal Rome to kill God’s Word. They did it after the Council of Trent and before the Vatican II Council by claiming only the Latin was Divinely Preserved, not the Byzantine Greek or Greek church writers; and they do it after the Vatican II Council by joining up with the Neo-Alexandrians. But either way, Rome is targeting the Received Text of Holy Scripture, and seeking to “kill” it. Now we read in Revelation 17:5, that the Roman whore of Babylon is “the mother of harlots.” And so she evidently has some daughter whores under her. These include, e.g., the Eastern Orthodox Churches who in embracing the Second Council of Nicea of 787, embrace the Romish idolatry of veneration and invocation of saints, such as Mariolatry. But we read in II John 7 and 11, that if one bids “God speed” to “an antichrist,” then one becomes a “partaker of his evil deeds.” And it is with deep regret we must admit that many Protestants have now gone into such apostasy, and have become daughters of the Papal Roman whore, by giving their spiritual recognition to Rome in various ways. E.g., we find that the Committee which produced the contemporary neo-Alexandrian’s NU Text was a combination of apostate Protestants such as Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland, and the Papist, Cardinal Carlo Martini, who as both a Cardinal and a Jesuit, was very much in the Pope’s pocket, and did the Papal Antichrist’s biddings. And so today, with various apostate Protestants joined up with Papal Rome, it may seem to some that with the triumph of the Neo-Alexandrian School which has lxv produced the NU Text and other corrupted neo-Alexandrian New Testament texts, and to a much lesser extent also the Majority Text Burgonite School; with such views promulgated in most of the universities and colleges, and among the publishers; it may seem that we of the Neo-Byzantine School who uphold the Received Text of Holy Scripture, have in some ways, been defeated by these forces.