Political obligation

Of all the elements in the traditional political-constitutional-philosophical style of argument the theme of political obligation was most firmly fixed in scripture and theology. Hardly surprisingly, therefore, it was the issue most discussed in this sphere between 1789 and 1804, though that discussion was mostly focussed in the earlier part of that period. The nature of that obligation continued to be interpreted in a variety of ways.

The Church of England

The Dean of Canterbury, George Horne, delivered from the pulpit of his cathedral church, on 25 October 1789, a classic restatement of the establishment position. Citing the traditional texts from SS Peter and Paul, he asserted that the Bible made clear that ‘the law of God enjoins obedience to every government settled according to the constitution of the country in which it subsists'. Horne proceeded to argue a case much closer to the balanced episcopal view than he had earlier in his career; though not yet in the Court Whig tradition, at least he was less obviously an unreconstituted patriarchalist. Men did have rights and need not submit unconditionally to government, but those rights were clearly expressed in the laws and constitution of the country.

Horne thus distanced himself from his friend William Jones of Nayland, who had delivered a passionately pro-royalist sermon from the same pulpit a month earlier. He had denounced the French roundly and asserted the divine preference was for royal government. So the paths of the highchurch patriarchalists diverged. Horne's adoption of the more balanced and reasoned orthodox view led him eighteen months later to the Bishopric of Norwich.