Article December 10, 1921 Issue

Divine Right of Kings

EDITH BOWERS

The doctrine of the "divine right of kings" is based on the hypothesis that certain individuals by virtue of their office are responsible for their actions to God alone, that they are above the civil law and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. That this doctrine is one fraught with danger to all concerned is not difficult to perceive. It has been held by rulers and prelates at different periods of the world's history and always with disastrous results. Why? Because those holding this dogma have interpreted it to suit their own convenience and to accommodate their own selfish desires and ambitions. It is a theory supposedly formulated by a so-called mortal mind to save itself from the effects of its own unlawful acts. It is autocracy camouflaged by a pretense of piousness.

The history of Charles I of England, who went to the scaffold because of his adherence to this doctrine, is a striking example of the fact that such a theory of government can never be accepted by a people reaching out for greater freedom of thought and action. If the attempt is made to force it, rebellion is inevitable. Charles Stuart held himself as above the law. Being king he had no peers in his own realm, consequently none had the right to question him or to criticize his actions. Thus he argued, and claiming for himself the divine right of kings, with responsibility alone to God, he straightway proceeded to violate the rights and privileges of his subjects. The Magna Charta, that famous document which is the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon freedom, he treated as "a scrap of paper" to be cast aside whenever it interfered with his selfish and autocratic aims. Yet Charles was not a bad man, in the common usage of the word bad. He lived a far better life than the majority of the rulers before his time. He was, however, extremely unwise, and allowed himself to become mesmerized by his own conceits and love of power. We have heard much of "a scrap of paper" in the last few years, and have learned the menace to freedom which must always result if documents and agreements founded on the law of the land are to be thrust aside to suit the exigencies of the hour.

In the last analysis every individual is in reality responsible alone to God. It is well to remember, however, that claiming the divine right to be accountable to God alone is no light matter, and in proportion to an individual's ability to realize this will he be very careful not to trample on the rights of his fellow men nor to violate the laws of the land. It is sheer mockery to talk of divine right and the next instant to vilify the character of one's neighbor, or to use this divine right to forward personal ambitions and policies, regardless of right or wrong. It is divinely right to do right for every man, be he king or peasant; but no process of reasoning can ever make it divinely right to do wrong. This is where Charles Stuart made his mistake and where every adherent of this theory errs when he uses it to cover up the weakness of so-called mortal mind in its mad reaching out for personal power and authority.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Divine Right of Kings

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access