The Protestant succession to the throne of Britain was established through the accession of William and Mary of Orange to the throne in 1688. The Claim of Right, adopted by the Scottish Parliament in 1690, accused King James VII among other things, of being a professed Papist, of assuming the royal power, and acting as king, without ever taking the oath required by law. By that oath the king was obliged to swear to maintain the Protestant religion. Accordingly he was held to have forfeited his right to the throne. It went on to declare “that by the law of this Kingdom, no Papist can be King or Queen of this realm, nor bear any office whatsoever therein; nor can any Protestant Successor exercise the regal power, until he or she swear the coronation oath.” The Articles of Union of Scotland and England in 1707 also secured the Protestant succession by stating that all Papists, and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from, and for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the Dominions.” An Act of Security for the Church of Scotland was passed in the same year. By it the Sovereign was required, at his, or her accession to the crown, to swear and subscribe “that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve . . . the true Protestant religion with the government, discipline, right and privileges of this Church” — that of the Church of Scotland.
It was not without cause that Scotland and England, too, wished to do all in their power to prevent the return of a Romanist to the throne. Both nations had suffered to such an extent from Romanist kings or queens, that they recognised that the return of such a monarch would never be conducive to the peace and prosperity of the nation. The Jesuitical intrigues which are carried on, wherever Romanism gains a foothold, made it imperative that their nefarious work should never be countenanced through having a Romanist on the throne.
In our day these safeguards still remain on the Statute Book of our land. There are many who now think them obsolete, and would give their full support to the removal of them from our national legislation. The Church of Rome in our land has been attempting in various ways to whittle away these laws, and will continue to do so until they are annulled. Should this happen, paving the way for a return of a Romanist to the throne, it would be disastrous for our nation and for the Protestant established religion, for the Romanists would do all in their power to make Popery the religion established by law. The Protestant churches have become so weak in their Protestantism that they could easily be swallowed up by the Romanist Church. Already the Romanists are acting very boldly, and we have no reason to doubt that, if they obtained the ascendancy in the land again, those who still held to the doctrines of God’s Word would suffer for it. It is clear that the Church of Rome has been doing its best, over a long period, to win members of the Royal Family over to the Romanist faith, and not without success.
The Prince of Wales, the heir to the Throne, referring to the title “Defender of the Faith”, said that he favours widening the role of the monarch to defender of all faiths, not just the Anglican faith. He said that he always felt the Catholic subjects of the sovereign, were equally as important as the Anglican or Protestant ones, and that the Islamic or Hindu or Zoroastrian subjects are all equally and vitally important. It would appear as though he regards all faiths as equally valid, so it is difficult to see how, if the time should come, he could take the Coronation Oath. Another difficulty that stands in his way of taking that oath, is his self-confessed failure to adhere to his marriage vows. According to his outlook it would seem that if one judges that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, they are free to commit adultery, even though it be with another man’s wife. Is such a person fit to rule a nation? No doubt, in the present climate of opinion, many would say there is nothing to prevent him taking the crown, just as it is said nowadays that the private life of ministers of the crown in no way inhibits their remaining in office, however scandalous the nature of their life may be. These views, however, are held only in a morally decadent nation — a nation that has forsaken the law of its God. The teaching of the Bible is far otherwise. It declares to us: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” The Lord, speaking in His word, says: “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” When God gave direction to the king who was to reign over Israel, he warned him not to multiply wives to himself, nor silver and gold. The king was instructed to write a copy of the law of God in a book, and read in it all the days of his life, in order that he might learn to fear the Lord and keep all the words of the law. Warnings were given against departing from the ways of God. How solemn is the charge of the Lord to rulers in the Second Psalm: “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.” Let the Prince of Wales lay this to heart, and repent of his sin, if he hopes yet to sit on the throne. It may be, in the providence of the Lord, that the Lord will not honour him in this way, and that another William, in whom the Lord will implant His grace, may be raised up to maintain and defend the Protestant Constitution of our land.