« PreviousContinue »
after consider the submission and respect due · from the subject to the sovereign, as a civil duty and obligation, which every member of the community is indispensably obliged to perform, under the penalties, which the state has annexed to the crime of high treason.
The most vehement opponents of kingly power admit, after Milton, * that “there is no power but of God; that is, no form, no lawful. constitution of any government”. For Almighty God +“ is equally the original of it, whether he first lodged it more in common, and left the communication of it to particular persons, to be the result of reason and deliberation, or himself immediately gave it to those particular persons.” And thus clearly Allpower from
un Gori, whether are to be understood those words of our med blessed Redeemer to Pilate, I “ Thou wouldst immediately. not have any power over me, unless it were given thee from above;" unless it be contended that Pontius Pilate, or Tiberius Cæ. far, whose lieutenant he was, had like Joshua, Saul, or David received an immediate appointment or commission from God, to rule over the people of Israel. I have cited this
* Milton's Defence, p. 64.
+ Hoadley's Defence of Mr. Hooker's Judgment, p. 199. Joan. c. xix. 2. 11,
rendered pliant oL
one quotation from scripture, that both parties may draw from it the satisfactory inference, that the submissive deference of any subject to an acknowledged sovereign will ever' be regarded as a moral duty to Al
mighty God. Little will it avail me to atThe scriptures tempt to prove or confirm my reasoning by
of the application of passages from the holy
writ, where most men interpret it by their own private judgment; and in this very controversy, I firmly believe, that there is not a passage relating to kingly or magiftratical power, from the beginning of Ge. nesis to the end of the Revelations, which has not been tortured by the supporters of
the opposite parties into contrary meanings. Soare many po- The liberty, with which the ecclesiastical
and theological writers upon this controversy have accommodated the authority of the scriptures to their respective doctrines, has been closely followed by most historical, political, and legal writers; for we find, through their writings, the very fame texts quoted from the old approved authors, Bracton, Briton, Fleta, Fortescue, and others, to prove and support their opposite doctrines. It is neither incumbent upon me, nor is it competent for me to discuss the propriety of accommodating the sense of the holy scrip
tural or in his
tures to opposite purposes; but I feel it an indispensible duty to endeavour to affix a determined meaning to those civil authorities, which affect the question under our consideration.
The king (or queen) * of this realm, in The king to be whom the constitution places the supreme tier in his nama executive power, is to be considered either political capas in the natural capacity of a human indivi- city. dual, or in his political capacity as an integral component part of the legislature. Some things are faid of the king, which are true only as applicable to his natural capacity, and false, if pretended to be applied to his political capacity; and so vice versa. It will be iny endeavour to keep my readers attention to the difference. His natural capacity he receives immediately from Almighty God; his political capacity immediately from the people or community ; but not without the permission of Almighty God, from whom the people receive immediately their power and right to confer it; thus are reconciled the words of St. Peter, calling kings a human ordinance, or human appointment, with the words of St. Paul, styling magistrates the ordinance of God.
* Whenever I Mall in future speak generally of the king, I beg also to be understood of a queen regnant, such as were Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne.
The king, in his political capacity, is a corporation fole: now * « corporations fole consist of one person only and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law, in order to give them fome legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. But as all personal rights die with the person, and as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable, it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual fuccession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality.” So in this sense is it said, that the king never dies : and those, who are his heirs in his natural capacity, are called his fuccessors in his political capacity; for a corporation can have no heirs, as nemo est heres liventis, and a corporation never dies.
* Dlak. Com. b. i. c. xviii.
CH A P.
Ć HA P. X.
OF THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH
a macy vested in
T Shall follow the common order of alloI ciating our ideas of church and state, by first considering the king as fupreme head of the church of England. Now, although in this discussion I shall rather consider, what the constitution now is, than what it heretofore was; yet, as whatever ecclesiastical supremacy aftical fuprea over the church of England is now vested the by the constitution in the person of the king, is generally supposed to be vested in him by the continuance, recognition, revival, or transfer of an old power, and not by the creation, donation, and investiture of a new one, as I shall endeavour to make appear, it will be incumbent upon me to make some researches into the origin and establishment of spiritual or ecclesiastical power in this country. I will presume it useless to repeat any thing I have heretofore said, to prove that the majority of the community, who must conclude the whole, have not only an indefeasible
Right and duty right, but an indispensable obligation, and of individu ils
to follow the duty to adopt that divine cult or worship, dictates o: Gud.