Having then, my brethren, thus long been tossed to and fro in a wearisome circle of uncertain traditions, or in speculations and projects still more uncertain, concerning government, what better can you do than, following the apostle’s advice, ’to submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well?  For, so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as servants of God.  Honour all men:  love the brotherhood:  fear God:  honour the king.’

Jonathan Boucher subscribed to the doctrine of the divine right of kings: 

Copying after the fair model of heaven itself, wherein there was government even among the angels, the families of the earth were subjected to rulers, at first set over them by God.  ’For there is no power, but of God:  the powers that be are ordained of God.’  The first father was the first king...  Hence it is, that our church, in perfect conformity with the doctrine here inculcated, in her explication of the fifth commandment, from the obedience due to parents, wisely derives the congenial duty of ’honouring the king, and all that are put in authority under him.’

Dr Myles Cooper, the president of King’s College, took up similar ground.  God, he said, established the laws of government, ordained the British power, and commanded all to obey authority.  ‘The laws of heaven and earth’ forbade rebellion.  To threaten open disrespect of government was ‘an unpardonable crime.’  ’The principles of submission and obedience to lawful authority’ were religious duties.

But even Jonathan Boucher and Myles Cooper did not apply these doctrines without reserve.  They both upheld the sacred right of petition and remonstrance.  ’It is your duty,’ wrote Boucher, ’to instruct your members to take all the constitutional means in their power to obtain redress.’  Both he and Cooper deplored the policy of the British ministry.  Cooper declared the Stamp Act to be contrary to American rights; he approved of the opposition to the duties on the enumerated articles; and he was inclined to think the duty on tea ’dangerous to constitutional liberty.’

It may be confidently asserted that the great majority of the American Loyalists, in fact, did not approve of the course pursued by the British government between 1765 and 1774.  They did not deny its legality; but they doubted as a rule either its wisdom or its justice.  Thomas Hutchinson, the governor of Massachusetts, one of the most famous and most hated of the Loyalists, went to England, if we are to believe his private letters, with the secret ambition of obtaining the repeal of the act which closed Boston harbour.  Joseph Galloway, another of the Loyalist leaders,