A LECTURE BY REV. JOHN R. MACKAY, M.A., INVERNESS.
PREFATORY NOTE.
THE following Lecture, which is copied with the very slightest change from the Northern Chronicle of 27th July, 1910, was delivered by me at a meeting of Inverness Protestants, who convened in the Free Presbyterian Church, Inverness, on the evening of 26th July. The new Accession Declaration which, in this Lecture, is made the subject of a brief criticism, is not exactly the Declaration which has now become law. What our King is now required by law to declare at his first meeting with Parliament is what follows: “I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power.” The face value of this last form of the Royal Declaration may be a trifle more than that of the form criticised in the ensuing Lecture. Yet it will be seen, upon perusal of the Lecture, that the criticisms offered on Asquith’s first suggested form of Declaration apply also to the form ultimately adopted by our Legislature. As things now stand we have nationally ceased to protest in a plain outspoken way against the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church. To protest against idolatry in high places might not have been popular, but it was very salutary, and this country may realise its folly sooner than many anticipate. Further, it does not forbode well for this country that it was largely to please the sacerdotalists of the Church of England that the description, “Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England,” which occurs in the first suggested altered form of Declaration, is dropped in the form finally adopted. For, to our mind, no circumstance connected with us as a nation is more fitted to bring the wrath of the Highest upon us than the growing idolatrousness of the Church of England itself. Since this Lecture was delivered I had a visit from an ex-priest of the Church of Rome, who may, indeed, even now not have fully declared his resolution and determination to the Papal authorities. He told me that at first, upon his concluding that he must needs leave the Church of Rome, it was his intention to become a minister of the Church of England, as the orders of the Church of Rome are recognised as valid in the Church of England. With this end in view he quite recently communicated with a bishop of the Church of England. The bishop asked him why he had made up his mind to leave the Church of Rome. “Because,” replied he, “I can no longer accept the doctrine of the Real Presence (Transubstantiation).” The English bishop, so far from encouraging the ex-Roman priest
in fleeing from idolatry, urged him to remain as he was—in the Church of Rome. “For,” said the bishop, “I am as sure of the truth of the Real Presence as I am of the fact of the chair upon which I now sit; and the only difference between the Church of Rome and us on that point is that the Church of Rome tries to explain the change, whileas we give no explanation.”
The incident, as recorded by the ex-priest, I relate as being fitted to reveal the depth to which the Roman leprosy has affected the Church of England. May not one say that a duty lying upon lovers of the Reformation in this country is to help in forming and promoting an Independent Protestant party for the House of Commons?—J. R. M.
THE OLD AND THE NEW DECLARATIONS.
DEAR FRIENDS,—I had hoped that there would be a meeting representative of the Highlands, in such a building as the Music Hall, to protest against Mr. Asquith’s new Accession Declaration, but through the apathy, I fear, of leading men in this town in matters of this kind, that hope could not be realised. I felt, notwithstanding, that I had a duty to perform in this matter, and on that account took the responsibility of calling this meeting, and I am glad that so many have responded to the call. What is our reason for gathering? It is primarily—for reasons which I hope to develop as I proceed—to protest against Mr. Asquith’s new Accession Bill. Let me explain. Over and above the Scottish Oath, whereby at his first meeting with the Privy Council the King pledged himself to maintain the Protestant Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and the Coronation Oath, whereby he will (d.v.) in June next pledge himself to maintain the Protestant Episcopal Church in England, the King will at his first meeting with Parliament make a declaration of his personal faith. William III., Anne, the Georges (I., II., III., IV.), William IV., Victoria, and Edward VII., all made that Declaration in the following terms:—
“I, —, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that 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 any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority 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 any 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.”—(Bill of Rights, 1 William III. and Mary II., Sess. 2, cap. 2, sections 8 and 9; and Act of Settlement, 12 and 13 William III., cap. 2.)
According to the Bill of Rights, this Declaration the Sovereign ought to make “at the first meeting of the first Parliament after his coming to the Crown.” I cannot, for my part, get over the impression that it was only through a violation—if not of the letter at least of the spirit—of the law that King George V. was not advised to make the same Declaration with his forefathers on the 8th of June last. However that may be, Mr. Asquith now proposes that when, in fact, King George V. meets his Parliament for the first time he shall utter not the Declaration now read but the Declaration which follows:—
“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 as 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 my realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”
HENCE THIS CONTROVERSY.
For you will notice, if you carefully consider these Declarations, the old and the new, that they agree in so far as either Declaration consists of two parts, which I call the formal and material parts. They agree also in so far as the formal part is in either Declaration identical—in either case it runs: “I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare.” But when we come to the material part of these Declarations, we find that the old and the new are quite diverse; they have almost nothing in common. The material part of the old Declaration consists of three sections in which the Roman Catholic system is defined in its essential features, and defined only to be disowned. The first of these three sections touches upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation and denies the verity of it; the second touches upon Roman views of the worship to be paid to the Virgin Mary, and of the Sacrament of the Mass, and denounces these views as superstitious and idolatrous; the third section touches upon the Pope’s claim to grant dispensations from oaths, and disowns that claim. On the other hand, the new Declaration refrains from outlining Popery in its essential features at all, refrains from mentioning a single Roman Catholic doctrine, refrains, of course, from denouncing such doctrines. And it is not only the case that
Asquith’s new Declaration makes no mention of essential Roman Catholic doctrines, but those documents which may be supposed, in the judgment of charity, to underlie and to be referred to in the new Declaration do not define Roman Catholicism in its essential features, nor specify any particular Roman doctrine. What are “the enactments” which he speaks of, and “which secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne”? I can think only of the Coronation Oath, and of the Bill of Rights. Of these two instruments I give the salient parts. It belongs to the Coronation Oath that the Archbishop or Bishop ask the Sovereign:
“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?”
To which the Sovereign replies: “All this I promise to do.”
Again, the Bill of Right enacts that:
“Whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince, or by any King or Queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it be enacted that all and every Person or Persons that is, are, or shall be, reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish Religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any Royal Power, Authority, or Jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such Case or Cases the people of these Realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance, and the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such Person or Persons being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said Person or Persons so reconciled, holding Communion, or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.” (I W. & M., Ses. II. Cap. 2.)
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF ROMANISM.
These instruments are good in their own place, but they do not serve, nor were they, according to the Act of Settlement, intended to serve the purposes of the Royal Protestant Declaration. For you will observe that not in the Coronation Oath, nor yet in the Bill of Rights, is Romanism in its essential features defined, nor a single central Roman doctrine specified. The fact is that if you do away with the Royal Protestant Declaration the British Sovereign will in no place define the essential features of the Romanism which he is supposed to disown, will in no place aver
his disbelief of a single Roman Catholic doctrine. And that is what makes this matter so vital to Romanists and to us. Roman Catholics do not feel much annoyed when Protestants simply disown Romanism in a general way. But let the Roman Catholic system be defined in its essential features, and let that system be denounced, and that will arouse their ire very much.
UTTERLY USELESS AS A SAFEGUARD.
Now it is not because we have any pleasure in seeing the feelings of fellow sinners hurt that we show our dissatisfaction with Asquith’s new Accession Declaration and our satisfaction with what is yet the Royal Protestant Declaration of this country. We are dissatisfied with the new Accession Declaration because it is utterly useless for the purposes for which the Royal Protestant Declaration was intended. It is not really like the present Declaration, a declaration of the Sovereign’s personal belief on essential Roman Catholic doctrines. Now that is a deadly flaw. For the question now in debate is not as to whether the British Sovereign shall de jure (by right) be Protestant. The Bill of Rights, as long as it is left us, secures that. But the question is as to whether the British Sovereign shall de facto (actually) be Protestant. The new Accession Declaration is then in this regard quite useless. We, on the other hand, prize the old Declaration for such reasons as these:—(1) It effectively serves a very necessary purpose. What is that purpose? That the law of the land in regard to the Protestant succession to the throne shall not be a dead letter. Good laws are often treated as a dead letter, but we are, through the grace of God, determined to do all in our power in order to that the law concerning the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain shall not be a dead letter. It is the law of the land at the present moment that the Jesuits should not remain in the kingdom except under certain restrictions and penalties, but that law, as everybody knows, is treated as a dead letter. And it is because it is our conviction that Asquith’s new legislation tends to make the law bearing on the Protestant succession to the throne a dead letter that we wish to oppose it with all our might. For as has been said, the law as stated within the Bill of Rights in regard to the Protestant succession to the throne is good, but it concerns us to know that each successive Sovereign shall, in truth and fact, be by personal conviction a Protestant. How can this assurance be given us? The Royal Protestant Declaration, as it now is, as an instrument secures it. For, on the one hand, no one at heart a Romanist will publicly deny Transubstantiation, denounce the Mass and Mariolatry, and disown Papal Dispensations. And, on the other hand, to disown, after this fashion, Roman doctrine, constitutes, in the judgment of the Church of Rome, the unpardonable sin of “apostasy.” A secret Romanist might call himself Protestant, and might in general terms disown Roman Catholicism, and might have the
Pope’s sanction for all this, as the case of Charles II. proves, but not for Charles II. nor for any other could a dispensation be discovered if he publicly disowned Romanism as every British Sovereign since the time of William Prince of Orange has, in virtue of the Royal Protestant Declaration, disowned it.
(2) Further, we prize the Royal Protestant Declaration because it is truth. That Transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin Mary, and the Sacrament of the Mass are essential Roman Catholic doctrines no one will deny. British history conclusively shows that the Pope of Rome considered himself vested with powers whereby to dispense absolutions to kings from their most solemn oaths.
THE PAPACY AND THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT.
Take the following from Mr. W. P. Upton:—”When we wrung Magna Charta out of base John, Pope Innocent III. annulled the Charter, absolved the King from his oaths, excommunicated his enemies, and plunged England into the horrors of a cruel civil war and devastation by foreign mercenaries. Half a century later, when the patriotic Barons and Commons redressed the grievances of the nation, and laid the foundations of a free Parliament, Pope Alexander IV. annulled the ‘Provisions of Oxford,’ as they were called, and dispensed Henry III. from his oaths. Then Simon de Montfort championed the cause of the people, and forced the King to submit; but when de Montfort fell Rome was ready once again to ‘dispense’ the repeated oaths. Had it not been for the nobility of character displayed by the Prince, ‘Edward Longshanks,’ who kept his father to his obligations, the Papacy would have strangled the English Parliament in its cradle.”
ADORATION OF THE VIRGIN.
But granting that the adoration of the Virgin, the Sacrament of the Mass, and Transubstantiation are central Roman Catholic doctrines, are these doctrines deserving of being denounced as superstitious, idolatrous, untrue? That to speak of them thus is not to use extravagant or even uncharitable language, will appear self-evident to a people trained in the Scriptures as soon as they realise what Mariolatry and Transubstantiation, with its complement, the Mass, mean in the Roman Catholic Church. As regards the Virgin Mary, what can be thought of the following quotations from the “Glories of Mary,” a work of St. Liguori, of whose writings the Church of Rome has declared that they are absolutely free from error? On page 478 of the edition of this work printed by Burnes, Oates & Co., you will read, “Mary so loved the world as to give her only begotten son”; and on page 479, “Jesus Himself said, Were it not for the prayers of my mother, there would be no hope of mercy”; and on page 14, “The eternal Father gave the office of Judge and Avenger to the Son, and that
of mercy and relieving the necessities to the mother”; and on page 215, “Those who do not serve Mary will not be saved”; and on page 98, “If God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her son and saves him.” If that is not idolatry, I would like to know what is; and if you are not yet convinced of the truth of the accusation, what shall be thought of the almost incredible blasphemy of Cardinal Bonaventura, who, in the fifteenth century, took each of the Psalms, and so altered them as to make them addressed not to Jehovah but to Mary! And this form of devotion, translated into Italian, was published at Rome in 1840. And again, are not Transubstantiation and the Sacrament of the Mass denounced in mild terms when, in this connection, the Church of Rome can expatiate on the dignity of the priesthood in language like this—
“He is a man who every day, when he pleases, opens the gates of heaven, and addressing himself to the Son of the Eternal—to the Monarch of the worlds—says to him, ‘Descend from your throne; come.’ Docile at the voice of this man, the Word of God—He by whom all things were made—instantly descends from the seat of His glory, and incarnates Himself in the hands of this man, more powerful than kings, than the angels, than the august Mary. And this man says to him, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee; thou art my victim.’ And He lets Himself be immolated by this man, placed where He wills, given to whom he chooses: this man is the priest.”—(“Catechisme de Persevérance.” Abbe Gramme. Vol. iv., page 288.)
PAPAL CLAIMS.
I assure you the Royal Protestant Declaration uses but the language of truth and of great soberness when it speaks of the Sacrament of the Mass, and the worship of the Virgin as superstitious and idolatrous doctrines.
(3) But we are strongly opposed to any alteration in the Royal Protestant Declaration, not only because it serves a necessary and useful end, and because it is truth, but also because (a) we know what the nature of the Papal Claims is; (b) we have had experience of Popish Kings, and (c) we know the unmitigated cruelty of the Court of Rome. Let me expand these three arguments a little. As concerns Papal Claims: When Dr. Isaac Barrow, about the very time that the first Test Act of Charles II.’s reign was found a necessity, wrote his great work on the Pope’s supremacy, he acknowledged that he found it difficult to come to a decision as to how the subject was to be tackled by him, inasmuch as at that time the extent of the Pope’s supremacy was a matter in debate in the Church of Rome itself. But we are no longer in that predicament. The Papal Infallibility Bull of 1870 has put an end to all that. It means, to adopt the language of the Civilita Catholica, the official organ of the Jesuits at Rome, an
organ of which Pope Pius IX., about the time when our quotation was published, said that “it had set forth and propagated the true doctrine”; it means, we repeat, that “the Pontiff is by God set in an absolute manner at the summit of all sovereignty as such. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. These words admit of no exceptions whatever, and express a jurisdiction universal and absolute. It comprehends everything.” The realisation of this one idea is what the Papacy means when it speaks of Christian government, Christian law, Christian order, Christian civilisation. And although the truth of the matter does not always appear on the surface, we have no doubt that the effort to bring this conception of the supremacy of the Pope of Rome to realisation in Great Britain has been the real cause of all our troubles with the Papacy for the last 700 years, and is the real cause of our having so much trouble now with the Royal Protestant Declaration. Let us hope that to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
EXPERIENCE OF POPISH KINGS.
Again, as concerns our experience of Popish Kings: The wife of King James I. of England and VI. of Scotland was secretly a Papist. She influenced her own son Charles I., both directly in saturating his mind with so-called Catholic doctrines, and indirectly by bringing it about that Charles First’s Queen was herself a Papist. It was no wonder that their children, Charles II. and James II., should have been Papists. What an amount of persecution in Scotland and in England that meant between the years 1625-1689, readers of history know. But, further, Great Britain, through Charles Second’s conduct, narrowly escaped a visitation not less terrible than visited the Protestants of France on St. Bartholomew’s Day. For in 1671 King Charles II. entered into a secret treaty with the Roman Catholic King of France, Louis XIV., of which treaty the first article ran thus:—
“Art. 1. The King of Great Britain being convinced of the truth of the Catholic religion, and resolved to ‘declare’ himself a Catholic, and to reconcile himself to the Church of Rome, thinks the assistance of His Most Christian Majesty may be necessary to the execution of his design. It is, therefore, agreed and concluded upon, that His Most Christian Majesty shall supply the King of England, before the said declaration, with the sum of £200,000 sterling, one-half to be paid in three months after the ratification of the present Treaty, and the other half in three months more; and further, that His Most Christian Majesty shall assist the King of England ‘with troops and money,’ as there may be occasion, ‘in case the said King’s subjects should not acquiesce in the said declaration and rebel against his said Britannic Majesty,’ which is not thought likely.”
SECRET TREATY IN CHARLES II.’S REIGN.
It is true that in the kind Providence of God Charles II. found it to the end of his days impossible to act in the sense of this treaty. But for that we have not to thank King or Pope, and I may say that rumours rising as vapours from this treaty during the reign of Charles II. were in my humble opinion the cause of all the disquiet which was felt in Great Britain on account of the Papacy in Charles’s reign, and were the causes leading at length to legislation of which now the Royal Protestant Declaration forms part.
Finally, in this connection, as regards the cruelty of the Court of Rome: Lest I weary you, I shall content myself with one proof. Shortly before he died, Pope Leo XIII., who is generally regarded as one of the best and mildest of Popes, sanctioned the following from the pen of Professor Marianus de Luca:—
“The Church is a perfect Society. Then the right of the sword is a necessary and effective means to the attainment of its end. The Church at first dealt more leniently with heretics, excommunicating them, confiscating their property, till at last she was compelled to inflict the extreme penalty. There is no other remedy: for the Church gradually advanced and tried every means, first, excommunication alone, then a pecuniary fine was added, then exile, ‘finally, she was compelled to fall back on death.’ Heretics despise excommunication and say the bolt is powerless; if you threaten them with a pecuniary fine they neither fear God or respect men. . . . If you imprison them or send them into exile they corrupt with their words those near them. . . ‘So the only remedy is to send them soon to their own place.'”
When you put all these considerations together, do you wonder that we highly prize the immunity which we have had from Papal intrigue and persecution for the last 200 years, or that we highly prize the instrument through which the throne of Britain was saved out of the entanglements of Papal schemes during all that time—I mean the Royal Protestant Declaration.
HONOUR OF THE HOUSE OF HANOVER.
For in conclusion, let me say that this is a matter that concerns not only the civil and religious liberty of the people of Great Britain, but it concerns most intimately the honour and dignity of the House of Hanover. For what is the decisive fact that determines the Crown of Great Britain for the present Royal House? It is not nearness of relationship to James I. of England and VI. of Scotland. There are others living still more nearly related by blood to James than they. But the decisive fact in their favour is their Protestantism. As long as the House of Hanover gives such an assurance of its Protestantism as the Royal Protestant Declaration, as it now is, guarantees, the House of Hanover may well afford to neglect and despise the claims put forward by the Legitimist party. But if any doubt arises as to the thoroughness of the Protestantism of the British Sovereign, we fear much disintegration of a serious nature will be the result.