A Hind Let Loose. Shields Alexander
is past, may give ground to conclude his intended perfidy in the promises of what is future. Next, it is known what his practice and plots have been for the destruction of all honest and precious interests; what a deep hand he had in the burning of London, in the popish plot discovered in 1678, in the murder of the earl of Essex, yea in the parricide committed upon his own brother. By all which it appears, nothing is so abominable and barbarous which he hath not a conscience that will swallow and digest without a scruple; and what he hath done of this kind must be but preparatory to what he intends, as meritorious to atone for these villanies. And in his esteem and persuasion of papists, nothing is thought more meritorious than to extirpate the protestant religion, and destroy the professors thereof. Therefore being such a person with whom in reason no honest man could transact, for a tenure of the least piece of land or house, or any holding whatsoever, they dare not accept of his security or protection for so great an interest, as the freedom and exercise of their religion under the shadow of such a bramble. If it was the Shechemites sin and shame to strengthen a naughty Abimelech, and strengthen themselves under the shadow of his protection, much more must it be to take protection for religion, as well as peace, from such a monster of cruelty and treachery. This were against their testimony, and contrary to the laudable constitutions of the church of Scotland, to take no protections from malignant enemies, as was shewed above in Montrose's case. See page 107 above.
II. Considering his religion more particularly, they judge it unlawful so to bargain with him as this acceptance would import. It is known he is not only a papist, an apostate papist, and an excommunicate papist (as is related above) but a fiery bigot in the Romish religion, and zealous sworn votary and vassal of antichrist: who, as the letter from the Jesuits in Liege lately published in print, tells us, is resolved 'either to convert England to popery, or die a martyr,' and again that he stiles himself 'a son of the society of Jesuits, and will account every injury done to them to be a wrong done against himself;' being known to be under the conduct and guidance of that furious order, yea and enrolled as a member of that society. Which makes it the less to be wondered, that he should require absolute obedience without reserve, seeing he himself yields absolute obedience as well as implicit faith without reserve, to the Jesuits. Such a bigot was Mary of England (as also his great grand dame of Scotland if she had got her will;) and his bigotry will make him emulous of her cruelty, as counting it a diminution of his glory, for such a champion as he under antichrist's banner to come short of a woman's enterprizes: Nor would the late king have been so posted off the stage, if his successor were not to act more vigorously than he in this tragical design, to which this toleration is subservient. He is then a servant of antichrist, and as such under the Mediator's malediction; yea in this respect is heir to his grandfather's imprecations, who wished the curse of God to fall upon such of his posterity as should at any time turn papists. How then can the followers of the Lamb strike hands, be at peace, associate, confederate, or bargain with such a declared enemy to Christ, certainly the scripture-commands of making no covenant or league, interdicting entering into any affinity with the people of these abominations, and forbidding saying a confederacy with them, do lay awful bonds on the faithful to stand aloof from such. The people might have had liberty of conscience under the Assyrian protection, when they were saying a confederacy with him, but in so doing they forefaulted the benefit of the Lord's being a sanctuary to them. To bargain therefore with such an one for a toleration of religion, were contrary to the scriptures, contrary to the covenants and principles of the church of Scotland, against associations and confederacies with such enemies. See Gillespie's useful Case of Conscience concerning associations, hinted page 109, and more head 3. argument 1. But to accept of this liberty as now offered were a bargaining; for where there is a giving and receiving upon certain conditions, where there are demands and compliance; commands and obedience, promises and reliance, offers upon terms, and acquiescence in these terms, what is there wanting to a bargain, but the mere formality of subscriptions? at least it cannot be denied, but the addressers have bargained for it, and in the name of all the accepters, which must stand as their deed also; if they do not evidence their resentment of such presumption, which I do not see how they can, if they abide under the shadow thereof the same way as they do. I grant liberty is very desirable, and may be taken and improven from enemies of religion: and so do the wanderers now take it and improve it to the best advantage, without receiving it by acquiescing in any terms. But such a liberty as this was never offered without a destructive design, nor ever received without a destructive effect. It is one of the filthy flatteries found in the English addresses, particularly that from Totness, that the present indulger is like another Cyrus who proclaimed liberty to the people of God, Ezra i. But who sees not the disparity in every respect? Cyrus at his very first entry into the government did lay out himself for the church's good; this man who speaks now so fair, his first work was to break our head, and next to put on our hood, first to assert and corroborate his prerogative, and then by virtue of that to dispense with all penal laws: it was foretold that Cyrus should deliver the church at that time; but was it ever promised that the church should get liberty to advance antichrist? or that antichrist, or one of his limbs, should be employed in the church's deliverance, while such? The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus; can it be said without blasphemy that the Lord stirred up this man, to contrive the introduction of popery by this gate and gap, except in a penal sense for judgment? Cyrus had a charge to build the Lord a house, but this is not a charge but a grant or licence, not from nor according to God's authority but man's, not to build Christ a house, but a Babel for antichrist; and all this liberty is but contrived as scaffolding for that edifice, which when it is advanced then the scaffolding must be removed.
3. Considering him in his relation as a magistrate, it were contrary to their testimony so often renewed and ratified, and confirmed with so many reasons, and sealed by so much blood, bonds, banishment, and other sufferings, to own or acknowledge his authority which is mere usurpation and tyranny; in that by the laws of the land he is incapable of government, and that he had neither given nor can give, without an hypocritical and damning cheat, the oath and security indispensibly required of him before and at his entry to the government. Yet this liberty cannot be complied with, without recognizing his authority that he arrogates in giving it: seeing he tenders it to all his good subjects, and gives it by his sovereign authority, and to the end that by the liberty thereby granted, the peace and security of the government in the practice thereof may not be indangered; and in the declaration to England, it is offered as an expedient to establish his government on such a foundation, as may make his subjects happy, and unite them to him by inclination as well as duty; to which indeed the acceptance thereof hath a very apt subserviency: seeing it implies, not only owning of the government out of duty, but an union and joining with it and him by inclination, which is a cordial confederacy with God's enemy, and a co-operating to the establishment of his tyranny; that the peace and security thereof may not be endangered. And in his former proclamation, he gives them the same security for their rights and properties, which he gives for religion; and in the English declaration, addeth that to the perfect enjoyment of their property, which was never invaded, &c. Which to accept, were not only to take the security of a manifest lie, but to prefer the word of a man that cannot, must not, will not keep it (without going cross to his principles) to the security of right and law which is hereby infringed, and to acknowledge not only the liberty of religion, the right of property to be his grant: which when ever it is removed, there must remain no more character for it, but stupid slavery entailed upon posterity, and pure and perfect tyranny transmitted to them. The sin and absurdity whereof may be seen demonstrated, head 2.
4. Considering the fountain whence it flows, they cannot defile themselves with it. In the English declaration, it flows from the royal will and pleasure which speaks a domination despotical and arbitrary enough, but more gently expressed than in the Scots proclamation; when it is refounded on sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power: proclaiming by sound of trumpet a power paramount to all law, reason, and religion, and outvying the height of Ottoman tyranny: a power which all are to obey without reserve: a power to tolerate or restrain the protestant religion, according to his royal will or pleasure: an absolute power which cannot be limited by laws, nor most sacred obligations, but only regulated by the royal lust; whereby indeed he may suffer the protestant religion, but only precariously so long as he pleases, and until his royal pleasure shall be to command the establishment of popery, which then must be complied with without controul. Whereby all the tenure that protestants have for their religion, is only the arbitrary word