The Peoples Right to Defend Themselves and their Covenanted Religion, Religious tract · Chapter 11
CAP XI.
Of our qualified alledgiance to the King.
Our Arguments hence.
THe author of Naphtaly Pag. 177, ſaid [That all powers are ſubordinate to the Moſt high, and appoynted and limited by his holy will and commandement, for his owne glory, and the Peoples good; and our allegiance was and ſtandeth perpetually and expreſly thus qualified, viz. in defence of Religion and Liberty, according to our first and ſecond Covenants - all allegiance & obedience to any created power whatſoever (though in the conſtruction of charity apparently indefinite, yet) in its owne nature is indiſpenſably thus restricted.] By which words, any, who will duely conſider the ſcope which that author doth drive at, will ſee, That his meaning was, That as obedience and allaigeance is to be given to Magiſtrates only in the Lord, So the ſame ought to be promiſed with this qualification or limitation, ſo far as it is not contrary to Religion and Liberty of the Subject: & thus we all ſwore to defend his Majeſties perſon and authority in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and Libertyes of the Kingdomes; and it is plaine to all who will not shut their eyes, that the foreſaid author putteth no corrupt gloſſe upon that neceſſary clauſe and qualification; for while he is diſſuadeing from taking of that bond, which was urged upon the People of Edinburgh, he uſeth the words cited, & furder addeth [To renew the ſame; or take any the like oath of allegiance purely, and ſimply; purpoſely omitting the former and due reſtriction, eſpecially when the powers are in moſt manifeſt, ¬orious rebellion againſt the Lord & oppoſition to his cauſe and Covenant, is in effect, equivalent to an expreſſe rejecting and diſowning of the ſame limitation, and of the Soveraigne prerogative of the Great God and King over all, which is thereby reſerved; & as much as in plaine tearmes to affirme, That whatever abuſed authority shall command or do, either as to the overturning of the work of God, ſubverting of Religion, deſtroying of Rights and Libertyes, or perſecuting of all the faithful to the utmoſt extremity, we shall not only ſtupidly endure it, but activly concurre with, and aſſiſt in all this tyranny] What could have been ſpoken either more full, or plaine, both for explicating the genuine import of that reſtriction or qualification, or the authors Orthodox ſenſe thereof? Yet behold how this wrangling pamphleter, becauſe he can get nothing to ſay againſt the truth aſſerted, muſt wreſt words and ſenſe and all, that he may have ſomething to ſay againſt the ſtraw-adverſary of his owne ſetting up. Therefore he tells us Pag. 6. [Can this aſſertion ſubſist that neither alledgiance, or fidelity, nor obedience is to be given to any created power, but in defence of Religion and Liberty? As if Naphtaly had meaned, That no alledgiance, fidelity or obedience was due, or to be given to the created powers, but when and in ſo far as, they did actually owne, and contribute their utmoſt for the promoving or eſtablishing of Religion and the Liberties of the People. Whileas his meaning is clearly ſeen to have been this, That as all powers are ſubordinate unto God the great King over all; So all alledgiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promiſed and given unto them, with a reſerve of the allegiance, fidelity and obedience due to God the Higheſt of all; and that man's intereſt is not to be preferred unto God's, but alwayes acknowledged in ſubordination thereunto: So that when earthly powers are ſtated Enemies to Chriſt and his intereſt, no abſolute allegiance, fidelity, or obedience is to be promiſed, But alwayes with this reſtriction, or limitation: Neither are the Subjects bound to concurre, or aſſiſt them, while in ſuch a ſtated courſe of oppoſition to the King of King's, and while actively endeavouring to deſtroy his great intereſt in the world. But what ſayes our Surveyer furder [That obedience is not to be given unto any creature on earth, againſt Religion or the revealed will of God, shall be eaſily granted; we ahhore the very thought of ſo doing.] Anſ. Though he abhore the very thought of ſo doing; yet many will ſay that he hath not abhorred to do it: It is againſt God's expreſſe and revealed will to commit perjury, and renunce a Covenant ſworne with hands lifted up to the moſt high God, and yet he knowes who is guilty of this, & maketh the will of a creature the Law of the Conſcience, when the appendix is a full belly. [Againe (ſayes he) it shall not be ſaid that obedience is to be given to powers againſt the liberty competent to us as ſubjects, and conſiſtent with Soveraignity; yet ſo that the meaſure of that liberty muſt not be made by every man's private will, but by the declarature of the Parliament, repreſentative of the Subjects, which beſt knowes what thereunto belongs.] Anſw. This royal liberal man would ſeem to yeeld ſomething in favours of the liberty of the People, but with his annexed clauſe and reſtrictions, he takes all back again: For 1. ſayes he, it muſt be consiſtent with Soveraignity, and how wide a mouth this Soveraignity hath, in his and his complices eſtimation, many know, and we have ſeem in part, even ſo wide as that is shall ſwallow up all the Peoples liberties; like one of Pharaohs leane kine that eates up the fat and yet is never the fatter. Then 2. it muſt be determined by the Repreſentatives, as if the Repreſentatives were not ex officio bound and obliged to maintaine the Liberties of the People, which belong to the People, ere the Repreſentatives have a being; and as if it were in the power of the Repreſentatives to ſell and betray the Libertyes of the People; or as if no more were competent to the Subjects de jure then what they will: Hath a man no more right to his lands aud heritages then what his advocate, who betrayeth his truſt for a larger ſumme of money, alloweth him or declareth? We know Parliaments can baſely betray their truſt, and ſell away the Libertyes of a People, contrare to their vow and oath to God, and their obligation to the People, whoſe truſtees they should be; and shall People have no more liberty competent to them, then what a perfidious company conſpired againſt the good of the Commonwealth, to pleaſure a ſinful Creature, determineth by their declarature? This is hard if true, for then a Parliament might ſell them and their poſterity for bondmen and bond women to the Turk for ever. But we ſee no more reaſon, for aſſerting an infallibility, or abſoluteneſſe of power in Parliaments, then in Princes. What furder? [But to ſay, that all (not only obedience but) allegiance and fidelity, due to any created power is indiſpenſably reſtricted to this qualification in defence of Religion and liberty, viz. of the Subjects, is a moſt falſe aſſertion.] Anſw. He ſaid not reſtricted to this qualification, but thus qualified, and thus reſtricted. This muſt be either ignorance, or worſe in this pamphleter, thus to wrong the author. But, vvhat vvas the authors meaning vve have shevved. Let us heare The pamphleting Prelate [It is knowne (ſayes he) that a reſtriction excludes all other caſes which are not in the reſtrictive propoſition included, &c. Anſw. All this is founded upon his either wilfull or ignorant miſtake; for the author took not the reſtriction, ſo (as we have ſeen) as to exclude all fidelity or obedience, except in things tending immediatly and directly unto the good of Religion and Liberty of the Subject: But ſo as that we might do nothing in prejudice of Religion and Liberty, nor yeeld obedience to him in any thing tending to the hurt of either: & thus is our obedience to be reſtricted, or qualified. We deny not obedience, even when the act of obedience, cannot be properly & directly ſaid to be either in defence of Religion or the liberty of the ſubject: So that we croſſe not what the miniſters ſaid unto the doctors of Aberdeen: for we take not that clauſe as excluſive, that is, that we shall never defend his perſon and authority but when he is actually & actively defending Religion & Libertyes; but only as a reſtriction or qualification, thus, that we shall defend his perſon & authority, ſo far as may conſiſt with Religion & Libertyes: And thus we agree alſo with the general aſſemblie 1639. for we ſay it is the Subjects duty to concurre with their friends and followers, as they shall be required, in every cauſe that concernes his Majeſties honour, yet ſo as that they do nothing to the prejudice of Religion or Libertyes But furder (ſayes he) as to the poynt of allegiance or fidelity, that is another matter then obedience.] Anſw. True, when men will become very critical; but the ſcope of the place showeth in what ſenſe he took it, not only as includeing an owneing of him as lawful and rightful King &c. but as includeing alſo a promiſe of active concurrence in defending of him and his intereſt: and ſo while this is urged in an abſolute, illimited, unqualified or un - reſtricted way, he made it all one with obedience. It is true, a man may keep allegiance or fidelity to the King, when he cannot obey his commands; yet the clauſe of the Covenant reſpects allegiance as well as obedience, in ſo far, as we are not to defend his perſon and authority abſolutely, but in defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Subjects. Allegiance then is a comprehenſive thing, not only taking - in an owneing of the King as rightful King, and fidelity to his perſon crowne and dignity againſt conſpiracyes and treaſons; but alſo an active concurring to promove his honour and dignity, and to defend his perſon and authority: And ſo all who ſay allegiance muſt be qualified according to this reſtriction, do not meane every thing in allegiance, but that which is expreſſed in the Covenants. So that it is his ignorant inference, to ſay. That that which Naphtals ſayeth is contrary to the confeſſion of ſaith Cap. 23. §. 4. which ſayeth is difference in Religion doth not make voyd the Magiſtrates juſt and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, unleſſe he think the article of the Covenant, interfereth with the confeſſion of faith, which he dar not aſſert; but if he do aſſert it, let us hear by his next what he will ſay to the Apologetical Relation, Pag. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. where that clauſe of the Covenant is vindicated. He addeth [It is the Lord's way for keeping humane ſocieties from groſse diſorders, to allow to ſuch as are in ſupreme power by lawful calling, the honour due unto their place, although in the maine things they pervert the Ends of government, diſhonouring him by a falſe Religion, or ſeduceing others to their evil way.] Anſw. Do we ſay that honour is not due unto Magiſtrates of another Religion, becauſe we ſay that we muſt promiſe allegiance and obedience to them in the Lord; and muſt not concure with them, nor contribute our power unto them, to the manifeſt detriment of Religion and Libertyes? This is like the reſt of this Man's foolish inferences. Or doth he think that we cannot give to Caeſar the things vvhichwhich are Caeſar's, unleſſe vve give him alſo, the things which are God's, and are the Peoples? Then he citeth Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. c 20. §, 25. 27. But He ſpeaketh nothing contrare to the buſineſſe we are upon: Doth he think that Calvin was of the judgment that People are bound to ſweare abſolute Subjection, allegiance or fidelity and obedience to all wicked princes, whatever right they may have to the place? That ſubjects are bound to obey, and to ſweare allegiance in the Lord unto wicked Kings who denyeth? do vve ſay that vvicked Kings, becauſe vvicked, are eo ipſo no Kings; nor to be acknowledged as Kings? What then doth this teſtimony make againſt thus? But 2. will he ſtand to what Calvin sayeth? Then he muſt condemne vvhat King and Parliament have done, in taking the life of the Marquiſe of Argyle; and ſay that they are guilty of innocent blood; for by vvhat Calvin here ſayeth, vve were as much bound to acknovvledge Cromwel then, vvhen he did Reigne, as now to acknowledge the King: for he ſpeaks of all qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur. How will he then free himſelf from treaſon? For ſure in Calvine's judgment, Argile did but his duty, though he had done more, and yet he was condemned as a Traitour: can he reconcile this with Calvine's judgment?
So then our promiſeing and ſwearing alleagiance, fidelity, and obedience to the King, being with a reſerve of our alleagiance, fidelity, and obedience unto the Supreame King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and according to that due ſubordination, and thus limited and reſtricted, that we may do nothing againſt God, or in prejudice of his intereſts; no perſon can with any colour of law or conſcience, challenge or accuſe any of Treaſon or Rebellion againſt the King, when they preferre the intereſt of God unto Man's, and labour to ſecure Religion and the intereſt of Chriſt, unto which they are abſolutely, and indiſpenſably obliged, and from which obligation and alleagiance, no authority of man can looſe them, nothwithſtanding that in ſo doing, they poſtpone the authority of man, and their alleagiance thereunto, and lay it by; ſeing it is of no force, when it cometh in competition with the authority of God, and is ſtated againſt that Religion, which by divine authority they are bound to maintaine, with hazard and loſſe of their lives, goods and fortunes; And therefore the late act of defence being, according to their ſworne alleagiance to God, a neceſſary defence of Religion, cannot be condemned of Treaſon or Rebellion, though it wanted that formality of the authority of Subordinat powers: As poſtponing the authority of inferiour Magiſtrates, in act of obedience, and duty of alleagiance unto the Superiour, can be no proper diſloyalty or rebellion; ſo nor can the poſtponing of the authority, of Superiour and inferiour Magiſtrates, in poynt of obedience, and performing alleagiance unto the moſt Supreame, be really treaſonable, ſeditious, or rebellious.
2. If we be ſworne to maintaine the King's perſon and authority, in the defence of the liberties of the ſubject: Then who ever preferre the Liberties of the Subject unto his perſon and authority, are not Traitours or Rebels: And ſo the late act of defence, being for the liberties of the ſubject, when they were baſely betrayed, ſold, and given away, by a company conjured into a conſpiracy againſt the ſame, and were trode upon, and violently plucked away, cannot in conſcience, or in the law of God, or according to any juſt law of man, be accounted, or condemned as; an act of Treaſon or Rebellion.