i^ ii" nj^ j^ 
 
 
 z^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE THE 
 
 Ol^MQEflE^ 2r TOE CITT If ©TT^W/^ 
 
 in Grace ehurch, July 9, 1899. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 KEY. J. F. QORMflN, 5. fl. C. 
 
 Rector of Grace eh r(h. 
 
 Fotheringham A Popham, Printi 
 
 '■'^"V^' 
 
 AW'-. ■ • 
 
.V' ■ ( . 
 
 
 
 . . , ')' 
 
^^ >« f\ ^96 ^ 
 
 
 C^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 rpox Tin<: 
 
 s^rdDOnattndDim-^^ 
 
 ?»/».?■* 
 
 ^•>' 
 
 darailfldDfiii 
 
 ni:ij\-i;Ri:i) i5i-:fork inK 
 
 Ol^i^EflEM gP THE CITY SF OTT^W^ 
 
 in Grace Church, July 9, 1899. 
 
 \\\ TIIl^ 
 
 REV. J. F. QORMflN, 3. fl. C. 
 
 Rector of Grace eiiurch. 
 
'^CORONATION DECLARATION.' 
 
 My brethren of the Orange Order — It is with much |)lea?ure that I 
 bid you welcome to Grace Church, upon this holy day which next precedes 
 the anniversary of that momentous event which you will celebrate as ar. 
 order, next Wednesday ; an event, let me say, which nieaiu <o much and 
 had such far-reaching effects, not only upon the immediate age in which 
 the forces of tyranny and papal despotism joined issue with those ot civil 
 and religious freedom, at the waters of the Boyne, but also upon the ages 
 since that time. When I study the history of your career my thoughts are 
 carried back to times which witnessed great struggles and conflicts u|ion 
 the issue of which depended the most vital of principles. Your order 
 stands to-day, as it has always s-tood since its formation, for the inalienable 
 xig,hta of man, the rights of civil and religious liberty. It is scarcely 
 necessary to say how completely and fully I endorse these principles of 
 the Orange order, more especially so when I reflect that each member ot 
 that order binds himself not only to resist the encroachments and aagtession 
 of the papal power, but also to maintain that pure and Scriptural religion 
 of apostolic times which was revived at the reformation. 'Every true 
 Orangeman is pledged to the maintenance of true religion ; so that while 
 on the one hand he protests, and protests vigorously, when occasi(m 
 demands, he on the other hand makes a positive affirmation in the belief 
 ot the true and scriptural faith of the reiormed Church. His true attitude 
 therefore is not only resistance but also acquiesance. Th*; steadfastness 
 which he manifests in hij opposition to error will be largely determined by 
 his steadfastness to the principles of his own church. 
 
 It is therefore a source of pleasure and gratification to me to feel that 
 I am addressing to-day a body of men whose first principle is to maintain 
 true religion ; this places me at once in sympathy with my hearers. 
 
 I must confess to you that I was not a little surprised when I, a 
 clergyman of the Anglican Communion, was sin^^led out as a fit and propei 
 person to preach to you today. The Anglican Church is. attracting a 
 good deal of attention at the present time, and from references made to 
 her at large and representative gatherings of the Orange order, I infer that 
 Orangemen are to be numbered amongst those who regard its new life and 
 activity as savouring of Romanistic tendencies. It is not my purpose to- 
 day, however, to enter upon a defence of the Church of England or to 
 vindicate her against so unjust a charge, but this much I may be permitted 
 to say, that whenever the liberty of the subject was at any time seriously 
 menaced by papal agression the Church of England has always placed herself 
 in the very forefront of the battle. History is over and over again repeat- 
 ing in a sense the memorable seige of Derry. When the leader of the 
 beseiged was stricken down, it was a clergyman of the Irish Church, the 
 
Rev. Mr. Walker, who stepped into his [dace and became the recognized 
 leader in his stead and after great hardships and sufferings Derry truimphed. 
 And the (.'hurch of England is, 1 am convinced, as true and loyal to the 
 essential principles of the Reformati'm to-day as she was when those prin- 
 ciplts first dawned upon the world My i)assport to your confidence lies 
 largely, no doubt, in the attitude which I assumed during a recent attack 
 uf)on the Church of England and protestants generally by a Roman Priest 
 of this City when I ventured to take up the cudgels in the church's 
 defence. 
 
 When I was requested to address you, it suggested itself at once to 
 me that the Coronation Declaration which formed, as it was, the sequel to 
 th s controversy, would provide a subject full of interest both to you and 
 to myself. My selection of this subject was quite decided when I observed 
 the interest manifested on all sidis by the Orange order in the agitation 
 tvT its abolition set afoot under the auspices of the " Catholic Truth 
 Society " of this City. 
 
 I naturally interested myself very deeply in all that was to be said 
 on the side of the Romanist for the abolition of this Declaration. I have 
 read very carefully all that the learned and Rev. lecturer, who was selected 
 by the society, has said upon the subject. The lecture was written un- 
 doubtedly by one who was inspired by a sense of honest indignation to 
 ])rotest against what he considered a most unjust and uncalled for insult 
 hurled by England's people through their sovereign against the doctrines 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, when the Coronation Declaration is repeat- 
 ed by the soverign at h«s or her accession His indignation becomes all 
 the more pronounced when he considers that in England's world wide 
 Empire, the Roman Catholic I'aith is the only one singled out for such 
 gratuitous insult. It is pointed out that England not only does not say 
 anything offensive of the rt-ligions of India for instance, but that she uses 
 the most consummate tact m her endeavour to avoid giving offence. And 
 then with commendable rhetorical effect the lecturer clinches his argument 
 jigamst the unreasonableness of this Declaration by indignantly demanding 
 why different treatment should be accorded the Church of Rome. 
 
 The learned lecturer says '* Brahmans exist in millions in India. 
 N )t only is their superstition not so stigmatized by the sovereign, or the 
 sovereign's representatives, but the most scrupulous care is taken lest the 
 Hrahmanistic conscience should be in the least offended. No such regard 
 IS had for the beliefs of the oldest and most numerous body of Christians 
 in the world. " 
 
 That this is a very sjiacious form of reasoning I hope presently to be 
 able to show. 
 
 Before we proceed fur* her however it will be well to examine some- 
 what in detail this Coromtion Declaration to which such strong exception 
 IS taken, and enquire briefly the t ircumstances which gave it birth. 
 
The full text ol the Declaration is as follows : — 
 
 " I, Victoria by the grace of God, Queen ol Great Britain and Ireland, 
 defender of the faith, do solemnly and sincerely in presence of (}od, 
 profess, testify, and d clare, that I do be'ieve that in the Sicrament of the 
 Lord's supper there is not any transubitantiation 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 ot 
 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 ol Gid profess, testify, and declare, 
 that I do make this declaration and each and every part thereof, in the 
 plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, ts 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 authcity or person what- 
 soever 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 thereol, 
 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." 
 
 It would indeed be idle to affirm that the language here employed is 
 not strong language. The more we study the terms in which the Declara 
 tion is couched the more firmly do we become convinced that every word 
 has been well weighed, every sentence most carefully constructed. It is not 
 the language of impetuous haste, but that of careful, judicial deliberation. 
 
 This very carefulness in drawing up the declaration compels us to one 
 of two plain inferences, namely, either: ist. — That the lecture is more 
 than justified in stating that this declaration is a deliberate and gratuitous 
 insult to the adherants of the Papal Church, or and. — That the framers ot 
 that Declaration were smarting under a sense of the most intolerable wrongs 
 and injustice, which alone could justify such language. 
 
 We Canadians dwell in a land where nature speaks to us in majestic 
 and resonant tones : a land whose undulating plains and pine clad forests , 
 whose vast praries and inland seas ; whose mighty rivers and cloud topped 
 mountains, speak to us as with the trumpet tones of their Almighty Creator, 
 bidding us to be broad and great like our environment. The plumage of 
 the birds, the colour of the animal's fur is often the reflection of the haunts 
 where they are found. And if there is one thing which distinguishes the 
 Canadian more than another it is that large and comphrensive grasp which 
 he possesses of things in general. In every city and town, yea in every 
 hamlet and village of this broad Dominion are to be found men of the 
 most opposite views political and religious, who nevertheless can^ and do 
 live side by side in terms of amity and friendship. Broad and tolerant as 
 Canadians are, they would be first and foremost in supporting their Roman 
 Catholic brethren in the maintenance of their rights. 
 
Have we then, let us ask, just and sufficient reasons to oppose this 
 agitation for the abolition of the Coronation Declaration, and were the 
 framers of this Declaration justified in the use of the strong language in 
 which it is couched ? 
 
 Perhaps the second question should be first answered. 
 
 It is a well known adage that violent diseases require strong remedies ; 
 and it is on this principle that the Declaration admits of every justification. 
 The Declaration is practically the same in substance as the "Test Act " 
 which was passed in 1673, with the object of preventing political power 
 being placed in the hands of papists. Its title is " an act for preventing 
 dangers which may happen from papist recusants." Under the provisions 
 of the act, all persms holding any office or place of trust, civil or military, 
 were to receive the sacrament according to the usage of the Church of 
 England and to make and subscribe the following declaration: — 
 
 "J. A. B. do declare that I believe there is not any transubstantiation 
 in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of bread and 
 wine, at or after the consecratiori thereof by any person whatsoever." 
 The Parliamentary Test was imposed a few years later in the year 1678. 
 The title of this act is— "An act for the more effectual preserving the King's 
 person and government, by disabling papists from sitting in either House 
 of Parliament." Under the provisions of this act — " No Peer or member 
 of the house of commons shall sit or vote without taking the oaths of 
 allegiance and supremacy, and a declaration repudiating the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin, and the sacrifice of the 
 Mass. These acts were repealed in the reign of George iv. 
 
 It will be seen at once that the Coronation Declaration, now made 
 by the Sovereign only is simply an enlargement of these acts with a few 
 alterations. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Fallon in his lecture upon this subject says: — "It would 
 seem to be our plain duty, for the interests of our religion and our honor, 
 to do our best to remove forever from the statute books of an Empire, 
 whose best interests we are ready to serve, this last remnant of bitter and 
 barbarous time?." 
 
 2 And what was it I ask you, that made those times bitter and bar- 
 barous ? 
 
 We are learning now, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, thank 
 God, to forget the bitterness and barbarity of those days ; but the men of 
 the days of Charles II, of James II, and of William of Orange were not 
 permitted to forget. The spirit which prompted the Papal power to intro- 
 duce the first schism into England by the excommunication of Queen 
 Elizabeth, and the beginning of the Italian Mission; the spirit which had 
 earlier sanctioned the turning of 277 persons under Mary because of their 
 refusal to conform to the Church of Rome, the spirit which brought the 
 
ships of the Spanish Armada to overthrow England's throne, because it 
 was oc( iipied by a Queen whose unpardonable sin consisted in her refusal 
 to rec( gnise the Pope's supremacy, the spirit which prompted the Pope to 
 absolve her subjects from their civil allegiance and incited them to rebel 
 againjit their lawful Queen, and which, moreover, countenanced the sev- 
 eral dastardly and cowardly attempts made upon her life. The spirit 
 which agnin at a later time caused the Pope to absolve the subjects of 
 James I. from their civil allegiance and which hatched the (lunpowder Plot 
 during the same reign. The spirit which under Charles I. and Charles II. 
 and later under James II , inspired the emissaries of Rome to use every 
 ariifire to play every trick, to stop at nothing in fact which might prove 
 successful in restoring Papal power in England; the spirit which had spread 
 dismay far and wide in the tortures of the Inquisition. It was this spirit 
 manifesting itself just as actively in these as in the earlier reigns which drove 
 the Protestants ot England in sheer self defence to pass these !^st acts and 
 this Coronation Declaration, and to adopt together with them such other 
 expedients as were thought necessary for the preservation of their rights. 
 
 Our Romanist friends are shocked at the severity of the language 
 employed and the harshness of some of the measures adopted. 
 
 1 read a few days ago in our local papers an account of an attempted 
 robbery. A burglar ./as about to effect an entra.nce into the house of a 
 Roman priest, but was not aware of the fact that his preparations had 
 been overheard by the Rev. Father, who was waiting for M.;. burglar's 
 head to appear through the open window. The closed fist of the priest 
 decended like lightning upon that head, and the priest closed the window and 
 retired to bed . Violent desease requires strong remedies. The hand of a 
 priest should only be raised to bless, but there may be occasions in his 
 life when he has to strike. 
 
 It is surely small cause for wonder then that England, smarting as she 
 was under the successive attempts of the Vaticin to coerce the nation and 
 rivet once again upon its neck the yoke of Papal despotism, should strike 
 back vigorously, and even viciously, and make use of language in her 
 legislative assemblies which seems to shock the sensitiveness of our Ro- 
 man Catholic contemporaries. 
 
 Language is important to express their indignation at the indecency, 
 the gratuitous insults, the outrage upon the most sacred principles of 
 their faith which the Coronation Declaration contains. 
 
 Because transubstantiation, adoration of their Virgin Mary, and 
 the sacrifice of the Mass are described therein as superstitious and idola- 
 trous, the Queen, it is said, insults a large proportion of her most loyal 
 subjects. If this be true what shall we say of that diabolical persecution 
 under Queen Mary when nearly^ three hundred innocent and unoffending 
 men, woman and Children were burnt at the stake for refusing to believe 
 these very doctrines. 
 
8 
 
 The historian Hume in his reference to this period says — " Instances 
 of barbarity, so unusual in the nation, excited horror; the constancy of the 
 martyrs was the objecl of admiration, and as men have a principle of 
 equity engraven in their minds, which even false religion is not 
 able totally to o bliterate, they were shocked to see persons of probity, of 
 honor, of pious dispositions, exposed to punishments more severe than 
 were inflicted on the greatest ruffians for crimes subversion of civil 
 society." 
 
 Though some other points were raised in the examination and trial of 
 these martyrs, still the result of the trial really turned upon their admitting 
 or denying the corporal or bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Com- 
 munion, and transubstantiation — which says Collier (vi-io6) "were the 
 burning articles through the whole reign." The burning of Bishop 
 Ridley and Latimer, and afterwards of Cranmer during this reign, are not 
 easily forgotten, and their cruel death was due simply and solely to their 
 refusal to subscribe to these doctrines. 
 
 Is it to be wondered at therefore that when in 1689 the act was passed 
 settling the succession of the monarch in a protestant Prince, the parlia- 
 ment should moreover require such succeeding Princes to give public 
 proof of his Protestantism by openly repudiating those very doctrines to 
 which the Church of Rome has always attached the greatest importance. 
 
 We respect, it is said, the feelings of the Brahman or the Hottentoti 
 and reserve for Roman Catholics our bitterest insults. 
 
 The Brahman and the Hottentot have never attempted to thrust 
 their doctrines down our throat- they have not burned and massacred loyal 
 and true Englishmen by hundreds because they refused to believe 
 their religious teachings. I think therefore that intelligent men will see 
 that these facts do make a slight difference, and that the inference drawn 
 by the lecturer in this matter is entirely without point. 
 
 Upon page 15 of this same lecture I fini these words which supply 
 me with an introduction to my next point. 
 
 " Now is there anything unreasoiable in Roman Catholics moving to 
 have this Declaration abolished ? When we ask for absolute religious 
 equality with all other Citizens of the Empire, are we making an exorbi- 
 tant demand ? We ask Protestants to deal with us in this matter as 
 
 they should wish us to deal with them in similar circumstances." Now 
 on the face of it this is a very fair and generous statement, and we should 
 be lacking both in real manliness and true religion if we failed to respond 
 to so fair an argument. It seems to say to us let bygones be bygones, 
 let us forget the bitterness and barbarity of the times that are past, and 
 begin anew from that higher ground which we occupy to-day. Would 
 that we might so interpret this language; \/ould that we might think and 
 feel that Rome k as ready to forget and forgive as England ••=; T:z\:\d. that: 
 
we could believe that the tumultuous waves of strife snd controversy are 
 subsiding and that the dove is returning with the olive branch of peace. 
 
 But an examination of Rome's side of the case compels us to the 
 disappointing conclusion that some are crying "peace, peace, when there is 
 no peace." 
 
 The spirit in which the demand for the abolition of the Coronation 
 Declaration is made would lead us to suppose that Rome out of the deptt 
 of its Christian love and charity has repealed all its offensive laws against 
 us. 
 
 Has the Pope ever erased a single line of his canon law in which he 
 claims the power of deposing Princes and absolving subjects from their 
 a legiance ? Never. Has he ever revoked one of his unchristian anathe- 
 ma-: ag.iinst us and our Princes ? Never. Has he ever ceased to impose 
 his own oaths of allegiance and supremacy on Roman ecclesiastics who 
 are subjects of the Queen of England, and to teach them that all the civil 
 oaths to their sovereign, to the prejudice ol his own interest, are perjuries? 
 Never. And yet we are forsooth, to be called upon, to repeal all laws 
 and declaraiions which are said to be offensive to Rome, and the principles 
 which should inspire us to this end are said to be religious toleratic is and 
 the reasonableness of absolute religious equality. What kind of religioiis 
 equality is that which demands everything from us and gives nothing in 
 return ? What kind of religious toler£.:ion is that which bids us forget and 
 forgive the bitterness and injustice of the past, but yet takes particular 
 delight in forgetting and forgiving nothing itselt ? 
 
 Was it or was it not, an unwarrantable interference with the preroga- 
 tive of the English crown when Pope Leo III, in 1535, not only excom- 
 municated King Henry VIII, but ordered his nobles to rebel against him ? 
 
 To incite to rebellion is deemed a crime and punished as such, but in 
 the case of a Pope it is evidently considered a virture, since Pope Pius V, 
 who pretended to depose Queen Elizabeth and to declare her subjects 
 "forever absolved from any oath, and all manner of duty, allegiance and 
 obedience to her," and commanded them, on pain of excommunication, 
 "not to presume to obey her monitious mandates and laws." has been 
 canonized as a saint by the Church of Rome. 
 
 Have any of the Popes since that time expressed the least regret for 
 these insults hurled at the throne and people of England ? Not one! 
 
 Again in the year 1640 Paul V, and 1671 Clemuel X, anathematized 
 all Protestant Princes and subjects as heretics, who by the Papal laws arc 
 not only incapable of possessing any civil power or rights but arc amenable 
 to temporal penalties and even death. This anothema has never been re- 
 voked, and is still to be found in the pages of the Roman Bullarium. 
 
lO 
 
 King James I and Charles I were treated with the same scant 
 courtesy as Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, and the bulls which absolved 
 their Roman Catholic subjects from their civil allegiance have never been 
 repealed. And yet Roman Catholics E;row indignant when their loyalty 
 is called in question ! Can we wonder at the suspicion which the throne 
 and people of England harbour against the Papists, and that the legislature 
 imposed certain restrictions upon them in consequence? On the contrary 
 all honest and impartial men cannot fail to admire and respect the tor 
 bearance and dignified demeanour which marked the conduct and deport- 
 ment of a people who were singled out for such bitter and harassing treat- 
 ment. 
 
 This does not as yet however, represent the full measure of abuse 
 which the Church of Rome heaps upon us. 
 
 I have yet to refer to a few more facts which prove conclusively that 
 Rome forgets and forgives nothing m so far as Protestants are concerned. 
 
 The bull " in Coena Domini;' which is so called, because it is or- 
 dered to be read annually ii» every Romish Church on Maundy Thurs- 
 day, the day on which our Saviour instituted His Sacramental Supper. It 
 consists, you are aware, of a long series of imprecations (many of which 
 are due to Pius V), renewed by above twenty different Popes, agamst all 
 protestant Princes, parliament and people, whom it anathematizes as 
 heretics, incapable by the papal law, not only of enjoying civil power 
 and rights, but liable to temporal penalties, and even to death. 
 
 In the year 1688, the parliament at Paris affirmed, that by this bull 
 the Popes declare themselves masters of the world, and Cardinal Erskme, 
 auditor for Pope Pius VI, confessed in a letter to Sir J. C. Hippisley, 
 (August 1793) that "although the formality of its publication at Rome is 
 now omitted out of a compliment to some Princes, to whom some parts 
 of the said bull are obnoxious, yet it is implicitely in vigour in all its 
 extensions, and is likewise observed in all cases where there is no impe- 
 diment to the exertion of the Popes authority. As far then as regards, 
 this bull, which anathematises all Protestants, it is recited every year in the 
 course of Divine Service in all Roman Catholic Churches:— " It is 
 implicitely in vigour in all its extension." 
 
 Let me recite one more example of Rome's determination to retract 
 nothing which relates to the Protestant world. 
 
 One of the most solemn acts of Divine worship is an oath . When 
 we impose one on others, or take an oath ourselves, we acknowledge and 
 adore God's omniscience, we appeal to Him as knowing the secrets of all 
 hearts, we confess Him as the just and Almighty Governor of all the 
 world, as the future Judge of all men, and as the great avenger of all viol- 
 ations of truth and equity. And if an oath can be said to be more 
 sacred than another, surely it is that which a Christian Church requires to 
 
1 1 
 
 be taken by a Minister at the time of ordination, Let us see then 
 what the Pope requires of his Bishops. In the Roman Pontifical, printed 
 at Rome by authority in the year 1818, and in page 62 of that volume will 
 be found the form of the oath to be taken by every Roman Catholic 
 Bishop at his consecration. 
 
 In it he swears '"to be faithful and obedient to his Lord the Pope 
 and his successors: to assist them in maintaining the Roman papacy and 
 the royalties of St. Petet against all men: to preserve, defend, augment, 
 and promote its rights, honours, and priveleges: to persecute and impugn, 
 with all his might, heretics and schismatics, and rebels against his said 
 lord." 
 
 But why should T multiply examples of Roman defiant and unrelent- 
 ing attitude towards us poor lieritics. Enough and more than enough is 
 given here, and still the list is not fully declared upon which Rome 
 has inscribed in indelible characters her hatred and unflinching attitude. 
 
 England's Monarchs are to be deposed and cowed into submission to 
 the papal will by the fulminations of the Vatican, and we are supposed to 
 submit like lambs: we may be branded as heretics and cursed and anath- 
 ematised just whenever the Pope takes it into his head to do so Our 
 Parliaments do not escai)e the Popes wrath either: and so year after year, on 
 Maundy Thursday, the bull in Coena Domini, rcmirids us that these 
 curses apply not only to the bones and shadows of our dei)arted ancestors, 
 but also to their unhappy progeny. Each time a bishop is consecrated he 
 swears to persecute and impugn us, but we " miserable heritics" are not to 
 say a word. 
 
 But when in self defence we venture to expostulate, we are guilty of 
 everything that is dreadful. To express an honest opinion regarding 
 doctrines which Englishmen were compelled to accept at the point of the 
 sword, and for denymg which thousands were persecuted and slain, we 
 are said to be guilty of the grossest insults. 
 
 The language of the old Puritans when speaking of thd Church of 
 England, was not always couched in the nicest or cho icest of terms. 
 They spoke and wrote as men usually do when smarting under injustice 
 and wrongs, and we cannot blame them. And it is simply nonsensical 
 for a Roman Catholic to work himself up over this Coronation Declaration 
 and to agitate for its abolition, unless Rome is satisfied to meet us half 
 way by erasing from her laws, her statutes and her buUariuin all those 
 offensive and insulting declarations regarding the Protestant world. 
 
 The feelings which we entertain for our Roman Catholic neighbors 
 are of the kindliest possible character. We want to co-operate with 
 them in all and everything that makes for peace and good will, and we 
 mean no offence when we express our determination to oppose the agi- 
 tation for the abolition of this declaration. 
 
12 
 
 Tiic I'rotestant surcession to the throne of England is ilic dearest fact 
 to the heait of an iMiglishnian, but without this declaration the nation 
 would liave no assurance of the monarch's religious belief, 
 
 History teachei? us only loo |)lainly that in the uiatter of conscience 
 some monarchs are very much like some of their subjects, and the ex- 
 perience ot F.ngland in its relations with Rome have been of too hopeless 
 and disappointing a nature to be jiersuaded into adopting a policy which 
 would admit even of the remotest possibility of a papist monarch suc- 
 ceeding to the British Throne. There was too much coquetting with the 
 papal court under both (Charles I. and ("harles II ; and the bitter period of 
 James II. taught Kiiglishmen a lesson which we of to-day would be more 
 than fo lis to forget. , Toleration may reach a stage when it degenerates 
 into a weak, and unmanly subserviency ; charity may degenerate into a 
 miserable sentimentalism, and it would be neither toleration nor charity 
 which would abolish this Coronation Declaration but only tlieir miserable 
 counterfeit. We pretend to a greater wisdom than our fathers, but it would 
 be hypocrisy to ])retend to a manlier or more robust faith. 'I'hey shed 
 their t)lood for the faith and liberty of which we are reaping the h.Trves. 
 to-day, and shall we stultify their memory, shall we belittle their greatness, 
 shall we heap scorn upon their lives, by tearing down the very bulwarks 
 which they erected for the protection of their faith, their nation, and their 
 sovereign ?