The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-06-05

this question, not from the Catholic.
but from the Protestant, point of
view. Really" he said, "for the sake
of Professionalism. think you ought to
make up your minds what 1t is ex-
actly you do believe" When they
took into account what was put down
in the Act of Edward vi, and the views
expressed by people calling themselves
Professionals, 1t was very hard to knew
what Professionalism really was. But
it was not hard to understand what
the Church of England was. It WAS
a body established by law, Of which
the King was bound to be a member.
He was head of the Church and De-
fender Of the Faith. as they saw on
all the halfpence Naughter). But as
to the Declaration which the King was
obliged to make. he asked would Sir
John Kennaway subscribe to it; would
any member Of the Church of Eng
land subscribe to It?
He referred them to the first statute
Of Edward vi, under which the Church
of England carried out her services
and ministrations. I, John Kennawav'
Qaughter)-that was the position they
put the King in
do solemnly and sincerely, in the
presence of God. profess. testify, and
declare that do believe that in
the sacrifice Of the Lords Supper
there is not any transubstantiation
" of the elements from bread ard wine
into the body and blood of Christ.
at or after the conservation there
of by any person whatsoever
Was that the doctrine of the Church
Of England? That was the declara-
tion of Edward VII. Take the Statute
Of Edward vi, and he said that the
Kings declaration was in absolute de-
fiance of that law. There 1t was in
the revised statutes, as living and ef-
fective as any statute passed last year.
1t was statute against those who un-
reverently speak against the Sacra
ment of the Body and Blood of Christ.
1t quoted the words of our Lord at
the Last Supper-'Take We and eat of
this; this Is My Body and also "rhis
is My Blood 1t quoted also the pas
sage about He that eateth and drink
eth condemnation and Judgment to
himself; making no difference of the
Lords Body, and it declared, This is
eternal, infallible. and undoubted
truth 1t spoke of the Most Holy and
Blessed Sacrament of That High
Mystery and then it declared that
anyone using contemptuous words
despising or reviling this Sacrament,
should suffer Imprisonment or fine. at
the Kings will and pleasure.
Professionals of England had the con-
ISOLATION Of knowing that whatever doc
trine was false they had got a statute
for 1t Cloud laughter). The act from
which the declaration was taken was
passed. not for the King at all, but te
prevent Catholics becoming members
of that house. 1t was not an express
sion of Protestant doctrine. 1t picked
out central fact in Catholic doctrine
so that Catholics could not subscribe
to it. AS 1t said 1t was an act to dis
able Paptists from sitting in either
House of Parliament He believed
there was a great doubt whether the
oath was in force at all. The act of
Charles II had gone generations ago.
In the Bill Of Rights it was provided
the King should take the oath set forth
in the Goth Of Charles II. That act
had gone. There was no oath to take
There was A still fiercer declaration
In the Bill of Rights with regard to
foreign princes. popes. prelates, or
potentates having any jurisdiction, &c.
clesiastical or spiritual, in England
The note on that in the law book was
virtually repealed IF the law Of
with regard to the oath in the act of
Charles II the common sense OF Parlia-
ment would have upheld them. In the
absence of such action his friends
were bound to bring in bills Of that
kind for the purpose of decency
They spoke Of Colonial co-operatjon
OF customs union with Canada. Why
every Colonial Parliament had passed
resolutions in favor of a repeal of the
declaration. We're they only friendly
with Canada when she offered Dread.
nonghts? Oaughter) Why not leave
it to the Professionalism of the sove,..
eign himself! Or let the declaration be
framed by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury on convocation. If certain mem
bers OF the Church of England drew II
up non"conformists might Object
0aughter), but his belief was that II