THE PROTESTANT SUCCESSION

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4292, 27 February 1901, Page 4

THE PROTESTANT SUCCESSION

Cardinal Vaughan’s- • command' ■for ' n “communion of reparation” hyy,way of set-off to-the Coronation oath,, in i which. English Sovereigns are compelled by Aofc of Parliament to declare that the Sacrifice of -the- Mass is “ superstitious and idolatrous,” is perhaps the, most dignified form of protest that could be made agaitfsf a declaration that is obsolete and stupid, besides being insulting to monarch and people alike;’ Catholics throughout the British Empire have long agitated for the repeal of the law which was passed in order to make, the Protestant- succession to the Throne secure against - all intrigue, ’ evasion or “ arriere pensee.” It is contended tliat the oath is now unnecessary; that it is a reliq of rank intolerance ; .that .many of those who devised it wished the total suppression of Roman Catholic worship in Britain; alid’ that an" dhafctment breathing the spirit of the seVenteoftth century is a glaring anachronism in the twentieth. That readers may judge of the nature of'the oath, we give if fl in extenso,” as follows : “I, A.B!, hy the grace of God, King (or Queen) of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith < do solemnly and sincerely in the,, presence

| of God, profess, testify ami declare that 1 I do believe that in the • Sacrament of

'd o Lord’s Supper there is not any Tran.subsraimon of the elements of broad and vino into the Body and Bleed of Christ at or after tho Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever : and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin alary or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of the 31 ass, as

they are now used in the Church of Lome, are superstitious and 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 road unto me, as they are commonly understood by English! Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any O-.s-

pensation already granted me for f his 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 ami void from the beginning.”

It is not for a secular journal to discuss the religious aspect of the matter, or to say whether the Catholic Mass is any more *' idolatrous ” than the Protestant Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, of which it is the equivalent ; but the political aspect of the oath, ami the advisabloncss of continuing ils use in an ago of toleration and breadth of thought, can be, considered without any j risk of arousing 1 lie ‘ L odium theological m.” To begin with, the British people have long since declared for absolute religious equality and for perfect freedom of worship. By the Oaths and Tests Act the’ disabilities of Jews and Catholics have been removed, and no British .subject is now debarred from preferment because of itia religion. Yet the freedom which the meanest of his subjects enjoys is denied to Edward VII., who cannot ascend the throne unless he submits to a test almost degrading in its since he has to multiply phrases declaring that ho is not equivocating, or promising with a mental reservation, or practising deceit. To exact such an oath is tantamount to insulting the millions of Catholic subjects of his Majesty, whose loyalty has been proved on many occasions. It is, to say tho least, highly invidious that they should he singled out in such fashion, when the Moslem; and Hindoo subjects of the Empire have their religious feelings considered in every possible

way. The London “ Daily Chronicle ” recently protested against reference to the Hindoos as “ignorant and idolatrous worshippers of the work of their own hands”; and surely-the most bigoted among us to-day class the Catholic faith as a grade higher than Buddhism or Brahminism. Yet such is the force of habit and- .the inherent conservatism of the British mind that the Coronation oath and the statute enforcing it still find many defenders.

While it may he important, and necessary to maintain the Protestant succession to the British Crown, it is .surely possible"to do so without seriously offending a largo section of the British people. A simple declaration of faith in the reformed religion, without any denunciation of other forms of worship, or unworthy insinuations that the head of the State may be conniving with the Pope to overturn the constitution, ought to suffice in this free age. When Queen Victoria’s coronation was at hand, the oath or declaration was condemned oy Charles ‘Waterton, who said:—“lt„is a satire on the times; it is a disgrace to the British nation; it ought to bo destroyed by the hand. of the common hangman.” The arguments that then sufficed to repel the plea for abolition have doubtless once more done service in Great Britain and Ireland, where, presumably, the question is now causing considerable commotion. Tho Catholic papers through- j out Australasia have been uttering pro- j tests against the continuance of the: declaration. With! the purely religious aspect of the matter wo have, as already stated, no concern. It must,| however, be generally conceded that it is in the highest degree impolitic to' perpetuate a form of declaration which outrages the most sacred feelings of millions of people who have tivom fealty to the British King, and who have from their ranks given to the service of the Umpire brave soldiers, able -Ministers of otate, wise and loyal Governors, -Magistrates and ’ other dignitaries. If the objectionable oath pressed injuriously upon Jews, Hindoos or Mahometans, wo should, from a purely secular and political point of view, urge its , abolition, in the interests of an Umpire i whose proudest boast is its equal treatment of all forms of religious faith and ! worship. Why, then, should it be main- ‘ taiueu, unnecessarily, when it offends ' the consciences and may strain the 1 loyalty of millions of good Christian * people close to the Throne? '