Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 deliþeration, or himself immediately gave it to those particular persons.” And thus clearly All power from

dengan God, whether are to be understood those words of our me bleffed Redeemer to Pilate, I “ Thou wouldt in mot bave 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 ap

pointment or commission from God, to rule over the people of Israel, I have cited this

war

wie immediately,

* Milton's Defence, p. 64.

+ Hoadley's Defence of Mr. Hooker's Judgment, p. 199.

Joan. c. xix, 2. 11. .

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

rendered pliant.
tot are of
every inter-
preter.

executive Power. one quotation from scripture, that both para : ties may draw from it the satisfactory in. ference, that the submissive deference of any. subject to an acknowledged sovereign will ever be regarded as a moral duty to Almighty God. Little will it avail me to attempt to prove or confirm my reasoning by 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 Genesis to the end of the Revelations, which has not been tortured by the supporters of the opposite parties into contrary meanings.

The liberty, with which the ecclefiaftical and theological writers upon this controverfy 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

tures

Soare many po litical writers.

[ocr errors]

tures to opposite purposes; but I feel it an indispensible duty to endeavour to affix a de

termined 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 ther in his naexecutive power, is to be considered either political capa in the natural capacity of a human indiyi- 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 my 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

The king is a The king, in his political capacity, is a
corporation in
his political ca. corporation fole : now * « corporations fole
pacity.

consist of one person only and his successors
in some particular station, who are incore ·
porated 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 ne-
cessary; 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 fuc

cessions 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 fucceffors in his political capacity; for a corpcration can have no heirs; as nemo eft beres viventis, and a corporation never dies.

* Blak. Com. b. i. c. xviii.

CH A P.:

CH A P. X.

OF THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH

OF ENGLAND.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

What ecclefia

ftic

--

macy vested in

I Shall follow the common order of asso-
I ciating our ideas of church and state, by
first considering the king as supreme 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
over the church of England is now vested them
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 crea-
tion, donation, and investicure of a new one;
as I shall endeavour to make appear, it will
be incumbent upon me to make some re-
searches into the origin and establishment of
spiritual or ecclefiaftical 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 con-
clude the whole, have not only an indefeasible

Right and dires right, but an indispensable obligation and of individuals duty to adopt that divine cult or worship, dictates of God.

which

to follow the

« PreviousContinue »