Plans to Modify the Act of Settlement, 1701
The Act of Settlement was passed by the English Parliament of 1701 to secure the succession of the English throne to the House of Hanover, being Protestants. It was subsequently incorporated into the Treaty of Union of 1707 between England and Scotland (incorrectly referred to as the “Act of Union”, because it was a treaty between two sovereign countries, not an Act of the British Parliament, which came into existence only as a result of the treaty). The second term of the Treaty of Union is, in summary, that the crown of the United Kingdom is to descend down the House of Hanover according to the ordinary terms of succession, and that persons who are Papists or who marry Papists are to be excluded from the succession as if they were dead. Thus their children, being Protestants, may inherit the throne, but if there are no such children then the crown passes to the nearest living Protestant. The alarming proposal that has come out of the October meeting, in Australia, of Commonwealth Heads of Government is to modify the terms of the Act of Settlement in two ways: first by giving women and men an equal place in the succession (so that an elder daughter would precede her younger brother in the succession), and secondly by allowing people married to Roman Catholics to succeed to the throne (though not if they are Roman Catholics themselves). These proposals are alarming for several reasons. The first is that the Treaty of Union was supposed to be an inviolable treaty, the principal terms of which were to stand for all time coming. There is no provision in the Treaty for changing these; and they are not therefore on a level with Acts of Parliament which can be repealed by succeeding Parliaments. This point was recently argued by David M Walker, who was Regius Professor of Law at Glasgow University, but it is widely disregarded. Furthermore the first violation of the Treaty by Parliament was as early as the Toleration Act of February 1712, and the Treaty has been violated in a lesser way numerous times since. Nevertheless, rulers who violate the Treaty, under the terms of which they have come to power, are answerable to God, and He may bring their unfaithfulness down on their own heads, and down on the nation. The fact that the talk is of altering the Act of Settlement rather than the Treaty of Union shows the ignorance that prevails in high places about the history of Britain and about the fundamental nature of the Treaty of Union.
A second reason is that the proposed equality between men and women in the succession is arising out of feminism and political correctness rather than out of Scripture. The inheritance has been in the male line up till now because that is the way it is in the Bible. “The head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). Male headship goes back to creation and has been reflected in the inheritance of thrones, titles, estates, and so on. This is why Satan wants to change it. In certain circumstances women may inherit, as was the case with the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27, but a deliberate rejection of the biblical pattern is likely to incur the displeasure of God. Perhaps a future generation will be cursed with a new “Bloody” Mary inheriting the throne in the place of her godly younger brother Edward VI.
A third reason is that if the monarch were to marry a Roman Catholic, then it is likely that the children would be brought up Roman Catholic (which is what Romanism requires). Even if the children were brought up notionally Protestant, where would their sympathies really lie? Charles II was notionally Protestant but it was in his reign that many of the Covenanters were killed, while Roman Catholics were placed in positions of power. The next step was that Charles’ openly Roman Catholic brother James VII came to the throne, and it was the consequences of this for Protestantism that led to the Glorious Revolution and to the Act of Settlement in the first place. Furthermore, a Roman Catholic spouse would have an undue influence in the Royal Family. We have a biblical example of this danger in the Baal-worshipping Jezebel leading Ahab further astray in 1 Kings 16:31. A more recent case, which is still in the public eye, is the effect that Tony Blair’s Roman Catholic wife has had on him. In addition, allowing the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic would just be a halfway house to allowing a Roman Catholic to sit on the throne. This step-by-step approach is how Satan frequently works. These are grave dangers and Protestants in Britain must pray and fight with spiritual weapons for the preservation of our Protestant constitution. We are thankful that the proposed changes do not put us in imminent danger of a Roman Catholic monarch, but that is something that might change suddenly. We do not want to leave a ticking time-bomb for future generations, and the God who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children “unto the third generation and to the fourth generation” (Ex 34:7) may bring something terrible on our grandchildren as a result of the unfaithfulness of our generation.
DWBS
Mod Ecumenical Service
An ecumenical service for the National Mod in Lewis was advertised for 3 pm on Sabbath, October 16, in Martin’s Memorial Church, Stornoway. The service was to be conducted by Rev Iain Macdonald, minister of Cross Church of Scotland, in Ness, assisted by Rev James MacIver of Knock Free Church (and currently Moderator of the Free Church Assembly) and Father Calum MacLellan, a Roman Catholic priest from Eriskay. There was a time not very long ago when the Church of Scotland in Ness, and the Free Church generally, knew enough Protestantism not to associate in public with Roman priests. It seems that that day is now past. We can say with virtual certainty that Father MacLellan is not preaching Justification by faith alone in Christ alone, because, if he were, he would come out of the Church of Rome and warn people against it. It seems equally clear that Mr Macdonald and Mr MacIver do not greatly value the doctrine of Justification by faith, because, if they did, they would hardly share a platform with a man who is proclaiming a different and false gospel. We believe in putting a charitable construction on people’s actions where possible, but it is difficult to see this ecumenical service as anything but a demonstration that those participating have lost sight of the gospel. They urgently need to repent and to look to Christ. “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:9). DWBS
Ireland’s Vatican Embassy
Ireland has stunned the Vatican by announcing the closure of its embassy there. It is a symptom of the changing religious situation in Ireland, where at one time the Roman Catholic Church had a stranglehold on public life. The country is becoming much more secular, as is evidenced by the reason given for the closure: the embassy “yields no economic return”. This decision is one which the United Kingdom would do well to copy. Our embassy to the Vatican yields neither economic or religious benefit; rather it is dangerous for the nation to support a religious organisation’s pretensions to be a nation state – pretensions which are shown to be entirely spurious by the fact that its territory extends to less than a fifth of a square mile.