Divine Right of Kings

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 232, 28 June 1935, Page 13

Divine Right of Kings

Sir, —I think I have waited sufficiently long for a reply from Mr. D. M. Martin to my questions in response to his criticism of my sermon on the olivine right of kings; so long indeed that I had decided not to continue the discussion; but it has been suggested to me in several quarters that the question of divine right has been, left in an unsatisfactory position; and as we are living in times of great national unheavals, communistic propaganda and specifies for improved forms of government calculated to influence the younger generation, it may not be without interest and advantage that the Christian portion of the new generation should know on what basis our governmental system stands with a King as its constitutional head. The questions I put to Mr. Martin for reply were: (1) “To quote Scriptures supporting any system of government other than theocracy, or monarchy?” (2) “Was the coronation service designed, to effect anything spiritual, for our King—did it convey anything, or were all the prayers, blessing, and petitions but a farcical futility?” In respect to the first, I may now take it for granted that Mr. Martin has not found any Scriptures supporting any governmental system other than theocracy or monarchy. And as we cannot conceive of a kingdom apart from a king, I may confine myself to a king reigning by “Divine Right.” Drawing attention to what he terms the “extraordinary statement in which it is claimed that .human kingship is a divine institution,” Mr. Martin says, “Strong exception must be taken to the assumption that kings rule by divine right. The fact that the Church consecrates kings is beside the point, because office-holders in the Church are human beings, no better or worse than the rest of us, and just as likely to be swayed by personal ambitions and private interests, and blinded to the highest welfare of the people.” My question, “Was the coronation service designed to effect anything . . . ?” was not a frivolous one, and could easily have been answered by “Yea” or “Nay.” Some set purpose must have been before the minds of those who used it, which that service was calculated to effect. If not, then the coronation service was a mere mumbo jumbo ceremony with less to it than the incantations of some tribal medicine man, and therefore a farcical futility. If I might answer my own question: As I conceive it, the coronation service was designed to give a spiritual gift to the King, divinely setting him apart as supreme head of our natioh, viz., that Divine Spirit whom God, through His Minister gave David —“And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he . . - • Then -Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him . . . and, the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward.” (i Sam. xvi 12:13.) Before the Pentecostal-movement of the Apostles, the approach'of the Holy Ghost was, perhaps, chiefly, direct and,personal; the gifts of the Spirit are nowbestowed in the Church in which the Holy Ghost resides -by the Church through those divinely ordained to be God’s ministers of grace. All -this we recognise every time we bring a child to be baptised or confirmed at the hands of ordained ministers, and when we demand that those ministers shall-be ordained and consecrated: men, divinely set apart by a specific gift of the Spirit—and'speak of them as “divines.” The Archbishop of Canterbury is unrepresentative of that divine ministry; whether it be defined as a Presbyteriai Episcopacy; or, as we Anglicans _ and other great churches define it, as a higher order. By that' divine ministry in its several orders, every spiritual function for advancing Christ’s Kingdom on earth (“as it is iw heaven’’) and the Creator's purpose for the race is forever provided. Under the pre-Christian dispensation it was through the ministry of God’s divinely authorised servants that kings were anointed and consecrated: Under the Christian dispensation, it is the Church through its divinely authorised ministers that anoints and consecrates Christian kings. So it was in regard to our beloved king. ... It was not asserted that the divine right of kings rested in the “office-holders.” It does not. It rests in a specific gift of the Holy Spirit in the Church, promised by Christ to the Apostles whom He had “chosen and ordained."’ (Jno. xv 16.) It is Jesus Christ, Head of the Church, by the Holy Spirit in the Church, through His divinely authorised ministry, who endures the king with one of the diverse gifts by which He effects the coming of His Kingdom. “The vessel is earthen”: the “power is of God.” The gift of consecration and its gift depends no more upon the character of the officeholder who officiates than the official acts of a judge, or a bailiff depend on the character of either. The efficacy of any ministerial act. depends not upon the manbut the authority invested in him. It was St Paul who said, “IVe are ambassadors for Christ, as though Christ <lii]; U?* treat you through us (li Cor. v -0). w e have this treasure in earthen vessels that the power may be of God but not of men (ii Cor. xiv 7). Having already trespassed considerably on your valuable space in establishing the standing and authority of the “office-holders’; of the Church. I will leave to a following letter —if vou will grant me space for it—the efficacy of one of them in consecrating nnd so setting apart our King as one who vlllcs by “divine Island Bay, June 26.