MR FARNALL'S CHALLENGE

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 161, 9 July 1888, Page 2

MR FARNALL'S CHALLENGE

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l am sorry, but not surprised, at Mr Hill's refusal to take up ray challenge. He, however, entirely misapprehends my motive in giving it. It never entered my head to suppose that the result of a debate such,, as I proposed would have any effect in the way of altering his views on a subject which he said last Sunday he " had_ thoroughly studied and found nothing in." But , when a man in Mr Hill's position fulminates anathemas from a public platform to a large and intelligent audience, against persons who hold certain views, of the nature of which views the majority of the said audience know practically nothing, then, I think, it is only fair that he should as publicly meet an exponent of the condemned views and give the audience a fair opportunity of deciding between them.

Mr Hill infers in his letter that, in order to cause me to arrive at a "reverend, humble and teachable frame of mind," so as to properly search after spiritual truth, I should "meet him privately and unite in humble prayer." Were ib not that I feel certain that Mr Hill is seriously in earnest, I should characterise such a publicly-made proposal, under existing circumstances, as simply ridiculous. Besides, he has no right to assume that I approach the subject in any other spirit than tho one he commends.

I have no desire for " a wrangling discnssion," which he says would be the result, and would nofc participate, in one. I have had a public discussion on the same subject with an " unorthodox" parson before in Auckland. There was then no wrangling, or bitterness, or ill-temper displayed, and the audience declared in my favour, though principally composed of my opponent's congregation. As Mr Hilldeclines to meet me, and winds tip his letter with a Bible quotation to prove his correctness in applying the word "blasphemy" to the views 1 hold, permit me to point out to him that if. it be blasphemous to say that Queen Victoria sits on David's throne, then how much more blasphemous is that passage in the Bible which states that •• Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord V The people of Israel were chosen, so the Bible tells us, by God to be His peculiar and particular people. "Thee only have I known of all the nations of the earth ;" and, " The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to Him3elf, above all the people that are or the face of the earth." And in the New Testament, "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people." God was their king and law-maker. David was not elected king by popular vote, but by the choice of God; the people had no voice in fche matter, and, according to the Bible, God not only chose David, but his descendants after him, for all time to reign over the House of Israel for ever. It is, however, also clearly stated that although Israel had earthly kings through David's line, yet " the Lord remained the supremo ruler over. the nation." "Then bolomon sat on the throne of the Lord, as king, instead of David his father" (Chron. xxix, 23). "He hath chomi Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel" (Chron. xxviii, 5.) This, according to Mr Hill, is blasphemy. We say we can fairly prove that Queen Victoria is in directdescenrfromDavid,andthftt she sits, as did Solomon, on the throne »f the kingdom of the Lord oyor Israel. This is not a spiritual truth, but a strictly literal

fact, which I am prepared to argue with Mr Hill, Mr Hill, being a Church of England minister, practically admits that Queen Victoria is God's vice-gerent on earth every time he reads that Church" Communion service. What other meaning can he reasonably placß en these words:—"So rule the heart of Thy chosen servant Victoria, our Queen and Governor, that she, knowing whose minister she is, may, above all things, seek Thy honour and glory, and that we, and all her subjects, duly considering whose, authority shn hath, may faithfully serve, honour, and humbly obey her, in Thee and for Thee." This, of course, trenches on the "Divine right" of kings, but of all the potentates and nations that ever existed since the world began, Saul first and then David and his descendants alone ruled by Divine right, as, according to the Bible, they were placed as king over Israel by God, and the throne secured to David's descendant?, also by Divine right, for ever.—l am, etc., H. W. Farxalii.