Second Reading of Mr. Asquith’s Declaration Bill.
As we go to press, we learn that Mr. Asquith’s Declaration Bill has passed the second reading (Wednesday, 27th July) by a majority of 326, the number of 410 being “For,” and 84 “Against.” It has yet to pass through the Committee stage, and to run the gauntlet of the House of Lords. We hope the Lords will earn themselves a good degree by rejecting it. Further comment is deferred till next issue.
The Royal Declaration as it Stands.
“I—do solemnly, and in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this Declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any Evasion, Equivocation, or Mental Reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this Declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.”—(Act of Settlement, 12 and 13 William III., c. 2.)
The Proposed Royal Declaration.
“I—do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England, and I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of this realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
The Present Coronation Oath.
“Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them. . . Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the Dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?” It will be seen in comparing this with Mr. Asquith’s Accession Oath Bill that it is somewhat similar in its wording and therefore the one or the other is superfluous. It would be an easy step to get rid of the Royal Declaration as set forth in Mr. Asquith’s Bill if it passes into law.
Historical Notes on Coronation Oaths.
The Knox Club has done a very useful piece of work in issuing Dr. Hay Fleming’s instructive pamphlet, “Historical Notes concerning the Coronation Oaths and the Accession Declaration.” Dr. Hay Fleming, with the fulness of historical knowledge at his command, has brought together within the pages of this pamphlet, much interesting and enlightening information. He concludes with the pregnant remarks:—”During last century and this, concession after concession has been granted by the British Parliament to the Pope’s disciples, but each concession has been followed by another demand. Agur the son of Jakeh, said “There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, it is enough.” Had he lived now, he might have truthfully increased the number.
The Borromeo Encyclical.
The Romish papers have published, says Mr. Walsh in the Protestant Observer, a translation of the Papal Encyclical in English. From it I give the subjoined extracts. The Pope terms the Protestant Reformers “innovators, whose aim was not the restoration, but rather the deformation and destruction of faith and morals.” They were “proud and rebellious men, enemies of the Cross of Christ, men of earthly sentiments, whose god is their belly;” who were guilty of “loosening for themselves and for others the bridle of licentiousness.” Of the Protestant Reformers and the Modernists of our own time, the Pope declares that “both have the same origin in the enemy who is ever alert for the perdition of men.” “They who fight for false Reform, like fickle fools run to one extreme or another. . . The work then of these so-called Reformers has no power to restore discipline, but only to destroy faith and morals.” The Reformers were “of those who remodel Christian society after their own fancy, disturbing all things, and setting them topsy-turvey, with noisy vanity.” The enemies of the Church of Rome are declared by the Pope to be men who “agree in this alone, stubbornly to resist both truth and justice. . . With honied words, and lying hearts, they prate of showing all fair play.” I think it must be admitted that language like this is far more insulting than anything to be found in the King’s Protestant Declaration.
The Poisoned Host.
In a letter from the correspondent of The Morning Leader, writing from Berne, on Thursday, 9th June, we find the following:—
While celebrating mass to-day in the church of the little village of Rebeuvelier, a young priest suddenly dropped in convulsions, poisoned by the “host” which he had just eaten.
Investigation showed that all the other “altar” wafers contained a deadly poison. The author of the outrage is not known, but it is believed that it was an act of revenge.
What a commentary on Rome’s blasphemous doctrine of transubstantiation that the consecrated bread is turned into the very flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ!