so must be a precedent example for judges and Magistrates in all time coming and by this example any member of the Council might lawfully rise up and execute judgment on this wicked wreatch and his cursed fraternity who have brought by their apostasy and defection from the Covenant and cause of God the wrath and curse of God upon the land 2. That Phineas was the High Priest's sone we know and that he was afterward High priest himself is truth but that he was at this time a publick Magistrate or a member of the great Sanhedrin we see not It is true there were some Princes of the tribes men of renowne Numb 1. ver 16. but he is not mentioned among those neither were these the great Sanhedrin So these princes of the assembly Numb 16 2. were not the Sanhedrin which did consist but of 70 Members Numb 11. Nor was Phineas one of them And that congregation of the children of Israel mentioned Numb 25 6. amongst whom Phineas was ver 7. was not the Sanhedrin which we never finde as I remember so called but the whole body of the People who were then mourning partly for the sin commited and partly for the execution when the heads of the People vvere hanged up and a thousand moe killed by the judges at Moses his command for Paul 1 Cor. 10 ver 8. sayes there died of the plague tvventy three thousand and here vve finde there fell in all tvventy foure thousand Againe it is remarkable that this single act of Phineas in killing two persons is so much rewarded and taken notice of by the Lord yea more then the many who were killed by the judges ver 5. So that it seemes he was no publick Magistrate and that he did it with the approbation of Moses is probable but that Moses did command him we see not only we finde that the Zeal of God moved him and therefore is he highly rewarded though he was but the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron Yea that which the Surveryer citeth out of Deodat rather confirmeth this for Deodat calleth it an act of extraordinary zeal motion of God's Spirit and he addeth that Moses the Supreme Magisstrate did approve it but what needed this if he had been a Magistrate seing there was a command given to the Magistrates ver 5. and a command is more then an approbation Aquinas and Gerhard call him it is true a judge but we see no proof unlesse they could evince that he was a member of the Sanhedrin of which Gillespy speaks in his Aarons rod. lib. I. c. I. The Dutch Annotat. on Psal 106 31. Suppose him to have been no Magistrate but say that this fact was beside his ordinary calling His 2. answere is Pag. III. That suppose he had been a meer private person yet it could prove nothing because he did it with the approbation and good liking of Moses and so he is but the executor of that unanimous sentence Answ But not only is this not written but the scripture giveth another ground of his fact then any warrand or command of Moses And so his answere in rebus facti a non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia is not to the purpose Now I say the scripture giveth another ground viz. his zeal for his God which is not spoken of the other judges who ver 5. were commanded of Moses to execute judgment yea that word Psal 106 30. then stood up Phineas and executed judgment clearely hinteth at more then his being a meer satelles Magistratus and the ample reward which was given him and the Lord 's counting it to him for righteousnesse speak some other thing then that he had a call of the Magistrate and was his executioner In the 3 place he sayes The cases are different for then was horrible idolatry and villanous whordome committed avowedly and with a high hand in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God but it is not so now Answ Prudence might have taught him to have concealed this for it were easy to draw such a parallel as would make him afrayed if any did intend to follow that example For I am sure what ever he account of the present apostasy and how ever he mince it as no doubt zimri would have minced his uncleannesse when he justified the fact before the Council as he told us Iosephus said yet the apostasy and perjury is open avowed abhominable and villanous committed in the sight of the Sun in despite of God and maintained as right and lawful howbeit it be such as the very heavens may be astonished at For such open avovved malapert vvickednesse defection and perjury all things considered vvas never heard of in any generation Hovv our reformation aud confession of faith is maintained vve have heard and albeit he make all the change to be only a change of the exterior forme of Church government yet when he is before his judge he shall finde in the cup of this iniquity manifest avowed perjury overturning of the work of God destroying of the interest of Christ blasphemy near unto that unpardonable sin if not the very same in fathering the works of the right hand of the Most high on Satan open and avowed persecution of godlinesse opening of a gap to all licentiousnesse horrid iniquity increase of idolatry villanous and avowed whordome Sodomy atheisme and devilry and more wickednesse then tongue can tell or pen can paint out but is on clear record before the Lord. 4. Sayes he Let it be so that he was a meer private man and had no warrand from the Supreame Magistrate to do what he did his fact cannot warrand Men to attempt the doing of such acts unlesse they can shew as good warr and and approbation from God as he could Answ That he had God's warrand and approbation vve do not doubt but that it was such an approbation as was peculiar to extraordinary un-imitable acts is the thing in question we grant with him That God is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all men's lives can when it pleaseth him crosse ordinary rules and apppoynt some to execute his judgments extraordinariely but the question is whether every thing which the Surv. accounteth extraordinary is so indeed He may sayes he send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud he should say Ehud to kill Eglon Elias to destroy companyes of men with fire from heaven or to kill Baal's Priests He may command Abraham to kill his sone Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duëel Sampson to murther himself Ans Will the Surveyer account these instances alike extraordinary and unimitable Sure Royalists will think that Ehud's killing of Eglon may warrand any private person now to kill a tyrant without title But I lay more weight upon Iohn Knox his distinction in this matter in his debate with Lithingtoun hist. of reformation Pag. 390. edit in fol. And as touching sayes Mr.
high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as that Abraham should kill his Sone Isaac Answ. We shall not contend with him much about this since he will grant that heroick actions are imitable as not being contrary to a rule of common vertue though extraordinary actions which are rather contrary to the rule of common vertue may not be imitated And he hath not yet proved neither can he prove that Phineas's fact was so far beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine word as was that of Abraham and the like We shall grant with him That Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set And that men may have heroick motions actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as Luther had as sometimes though they have an extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions as Peeter when he dissembled But what sayes this to Phine as his fact Phineas sayes he had not only excitations of zeal and heröical motions but supposeing him a meer private person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God Answer Doth this man give a distinct sound He complained of the Author of that discourse concerning Phineas that he turned himself Protëus -like into many shapes and we finde himself doing little better here He dar not say positively whether he was a meer private person or not but if he was such then the action was extraordinary but what if he was not Then the action was neither extraordinary nor heröical and thus we are no wiser then we were for we know not what to make of the action nor what to make of the person but we must judge of the person by the action And of the action by the person That is to say if he was a Magistrate then the action was ordinare but if he was a private person then the action was extraordinary and è contra if the action was extraordinary he was a private person and if it was ordinare and imitable Then he was a publick person Is not this a singularly satisfactory way of answereing But it is observable that he dar not here say that Phineas's fact was extraordinary but that he is to be looked upon as having an extraordinary call now a man may have an extraordinary call to an action imitable as the Apostles had an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel and yet that action of theirs is imitable But how proves he this extraordinary call It is sayes he fully enough insinuated both by God's approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our wil service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by P sal 106. where it is said Emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousnesse though judging according to ordinary Rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposeing him for a meer private man yet having God's warrand whose will is the rule of righteousnesse the deed was imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ It is true God revvards not nor approves not vvil-service yet he approves and revvards other actions then such as are extraordinary and not imitable 2. God's imputing it unto him for rightoeusnesse sayes clearly he vvas a private person and that God accepted of his service as a noble act of holy zeal for God and his glory and rather speakes out an encouragement to all to do the like in the like case then any extraordinary call he had vvhich none novv can expect Then in the 7 place he speaks of Callings sayes that Every calling a man hath to any work Must be either Mediate or immediate there is no mids betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories if they be not called by the intervention of men their allowance they must plead an immediat calling from God Ans Beacause I minde not to enter into a Logomachy or debate about words tearmes I would desre him to tell me what call men have to run together to extinguish a fire in a city when the Magistrates through wickednesse or negligence will not or do not call People forth unto that work They have not Man's call nor have they an immediate call from heaven and yet they have a lawful call from God Nature and necessity to save the city their houses goods little ones from being burnt into ashes And what ever name he give to this call we will allow it to private persons to defend Religion and a land form ruine and destruction when Magistrates do not nor will not do their duty And when men whether out of secret impulses heroical motions or out of meer sense conscience of duty do this they do not desert their owne calling and state like these spirits lud ver 6. Nor do they intrude upon the Magistrate's office though they do materially that work for that exigent which Magistrates by office were bound to do being called thereto by God by Nature and the call of inevitable necessity which knoweth no humane law and to which some divine positive lawes will cede But then he sayes Pag. 115. Why is not also sufficient for the office of the Ministery without a call from men externally Answ And doth he think that necessity will not allow a man sufficiently gifted and qualified to exerce that office without an externall call from men in some cases What if a company of Men be cast out on an island having no correspondence nor possibility of correspondence with other places whence they might have some lawfully called Minister and there be one among them qualified for the work might not he in that case think himself called of God to exerce that function And when we grant this we need not yeeld unto Anabaptists Enthusiasts photinians or the like who are against an external call at any time alledging that gifts are sufficient And sayes he how shall be refuse to admit women to Baptize Children in case of necessity Answ He shall not refuse providing he shew the necessity which he shall not be able to do unlesse he turne Papist and then he will imbrace the consequent also without our admission In the 8 place he comes to tell us that It is in vaine to say that God's hand is not shortened c. for our question is not of that but if now after the Canon of holy Scripture is perfected sealed and consigned we have warrand to look for any extraordinary persosones having Gods secret and special Mandates to do works which any ordinary calling doth not interest them in Answ Prophecyes and predictions of future events are not works which any ordinary calling men have by allowance and approbation of Men according to the rules of common reason and the word doth interest them in and doth he think God's
7. Mat. 10 ver 40. as if God were doing personally these acts that the King is doing and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth these acts in and through the Tyrant Now it is blasphemy to think or say That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents and vvasting the Church of God That God if he vvere personally present vvould commit the same acts of Tyranny God avert such blasphemy and that God in and through the King his lavvsul deputy and vicegerent in these acts of Tyranny is wasting the poor Church of God If it be said in these sinfull acts of tyranny he is not God's formal vicegerent but only in good and lawful acts of Government yet he is not to be resisted in these acts not because the acts are just and good but because of the dignity of his royal persone Yet this must prove that these who resist the King in these acts of Tyranny must resist no ordinance of God but only that we resist him who is the Lord's deputy What absurdity is there in that more then to disobey him refuseing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy but not as the Lord's deputy but as a man commanding beside his Master's warrand 5. Pag. 263. That which is inconsistent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church is not to be taught Now God's end in giving a King to his Church is the feeding saifty preservation the peacable and quyet life of his Church 1 Tim. 2 2. Esai 49 ver 23. Psal 79 7. But God should crosse his owne end in the same act of giving a King if he should provide a King who by office were to suppresse Robbers Murtherers and all oppressours and wasters in his holy mount and yet should give an irresistible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thousand Thousand protestants for their religion in an ordinary providence and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emissaries and bloody executioners If any say the King will not be so cruel I beleeve it because actu secundo it is not possible in his power to be so cruel we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not so many but no thanks to the genuine intrinsecal end of a King who hath power from God to kill all these and that without resistence made by any Mortal man Yea no thanks God avert blasphemy to God's ordinary providence which if Royalists may be beleeved putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to sin and abuse his power to so much cruelty Some may say the same absurdity doth follow if the King should turne papist and the Parliament and all were papists in that case there might be so many Martyres for the truth put to death and God should put no bar of providence upon this power more then now and yet in that case King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo and by vertue of their office obliged to preserve the people in peace and godlinesse But I answere If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the same cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs and it should be unlawful for them to defend themselves I should then think that King Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers and also by that same office Murtherers and butchers which were a grievous aspersion to the unspotted providence of God 6. Pag. 331. Particular nature yeelds to the good of universal nature for which cause heavy bodyes ascend aëry and light bodyes descend If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let loose in a great market confluence of people and if any man turne so distracted as he smite himself with stones and kill all that passe by him or come at him in that case the man is to be bound and his hands fettered and all whom he invadeth may resist him were they his owne sones and may save their owne lives with weapons Much more a King turning a Nero King Saul vexed with an evil spirit from the Lord may be resisted and far more if a King endued with use of reason shall put violent hands on all his subjects kill his sone and heire yea any violently invaded by natures law may defend themselves the violent restraining of such an one is but the hurting of one Man who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth but his destroying of the community of men sent out in warres as his bloody Emissaries to the dissolution of the Commonwealth 7. Pag. 335. By the law of Nature a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent Now by Nature an infant in the womb defendeth it self first before the parents can defend it Then when parents and Magistrates are not and violent invading Magistrates are not in that Magistrates Nature hath commended every man to self defence 8. Ibid The law of nature excepteth no violence whether inflicted by a Magistrate or any other unjust violence from a Ruler is thrice injustice 1. He doth injustice as a man 2. As a member of the Commonwealth 3. He committeth a special kinde of sin of injustice against his office But it is absured to say we may lawfully defend our selves from smaller injuries by the law of Nature and not from greater c. These and many moe to this purpose may be seen in that unansvverable piece But I proceed to adde some mo◠here 9. If it be lawful for the people to rise in armes to defend themselves their Wives and Children their Religion from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists Turks or Tartars though the Magistrates Superiour and inferiour should either through absence or some other physical impediment not be in a present capacity to give an expresse warrand or command or through wickednesse for their owne privat ends should refuse to concurre and should discharge the people to rise in armes Then it cannot be unlawful to rise in armes and defend their owne Lives and the lives of their Posterity and their Religion when Magistrates who are appoynted of God to defend turn enemies themselves and oppresse plunder and abuse the innocent and overturne Religion presse people to a sinful compliance there with But the former is true Therefore c. The assumption is cleare Because all the power of Magistrates which they have of God is cumulative and not privative and destructive it is a power to promove the good of the Realme and not a power to destroy the same whether by acting and going beyond their power or by refuseing to act and betraying their trust 2. No power given to Magistrates can take away Natures birth right or that innate power of self defence 3. It can fare no worse with people in this case then if they had no Magistrates at all but if they had no Magistrates at all they might lawfully see to their owne self
the united and consocâ—ated body of the People preserve the whole associated body and her rights and are instructed with necessary power and authority which to performe they are obliged by oath 3. Hence really the power of the People is greater then the power of any delegated or constituted by them for the cause is more then the effect and the Parliament doth represent the People but the People do not represente the Parliament Therefore the power of the People must be more His povver who doth constitute another or depute him as a guardian to some businesse or to oversee some of his matters is greater then any povver vvhich that other deputed or constituted Curator hath Parliaments then being but as Tutors and Curators unto the People must have lesse povver then the People have mandans vero sayeth Althusius pol c. 18. n. 92. vel injungens alii rerum suarum procurationem est instar imperantis rogantisve suscipiens vero talem administraetionem instar obtemperantis inservientis officium suum alteri praestantis So that the Parliament is but a servant to the People and the povver of a Master is alvvayes superiour to the povver of a Servant as such 4. It is irrational to think that the People in chooseing the Ephori or Parliament-members and committing the administration of their weighty affaires unto them did denude themselves of all that innate and radical power which they had to manage their owne matters seing no urgent necessity could compel them to it nor any foreseen advantage or profite which thereby could redound unto them move them and perswade them thereunto but on the contrary much hazard and disadvantage might at the very first appeare upon such a surrender as this Much lesse could they denude themselves of that power of self defence which by no law of God or man they might law fully give away 5. Whatever power Parliaments have it is to be exerced and put in practice for the good and advantage of the People Their power is for the profite and not for the hurt of the People and to this scope and end should they level all their labours travails paines endeavours cares thoughts consultations conferences votes deliberations and conclusions L. Imperial C. de nuptijs L. bene a Zenone C. de quadr L. 8. C. de legibus L. praecipimus 34. C. de appell See Althus pol. c. 18. n. 7 17. 6. Hence Their power is not absolute infinite or unlimited but hath its owne bounds and limites over which it cannot lawfully passe They are to rule and do all for God and the good of the Realme whose servants they are They are the Ministers of God for the Peoples good Rom. 13. 4. 7. When they transgresse their true limites which no man will say is impossible by commanding what God hath forbidden or forbidding what God hath commanded in his holy law or when they seek not the publick good of the Land but their ovvne private advantage They are not but cease to be the Ministers of God and of the People and become private persons who ought not in these particulars wherein they goe beyond their bounds to be obeyed As sayeth Althusius ubr supra n. 41. and proveth by many authors And the reason is cleare for no inferiour can disannul God's Law or free us from subjection thereunto They have no power to command sin God never gave them such a power And the People could not give it for they had it not themselves neither had they a power to wronge and destroy themselves and so they could not give this unto them 8. If these Ephori or Trustees betray their trust and feel or basely give away the libertyes and privileges of the people which they were intrusted with the people cannot thereby be brought into a remedilesse condition or lose their privileges vvithout all hope of recovery If a Tutor waste and destroy the Pupil's Estate the law provideth a remedy for the Pupil If a commissioner or deputy betray his trust the master's losse thereby is not irremediable If an advocat betray a client's cause The client will finde some relief The peoples right sayeth althusius ubi supra n 124 suffereth no prejudice nor doth the Prince obtaine any more tyrannical power by the negligence perfidy deceit collusion treachery prevarication and conspiracy of the Ephori or primores regni with the prince for it is unjust absurd to affirme that the Ephori or parliament-men can transferre unto the Tyrant what they never had themselves or can destroy or alienate the rights of the Community in prejudice of the whole Realme and that contrare to the fundamental lawes of the land or such as the prince swore to maintaine and which containe the spirits and life of the Commonwealth From these irrefragable truthes so consonant to right reason and attested by learned politicians it will clearly follow 1. That the Peoples case is not vvorse by Parliaments then it would have been without them 2. That Parliaments cannot tyrannize by any law or right over People 3. That no treachery or perfidy of Parliaments neglecting their duty or betraying their trust can prejudge the people of their due rights and privileges 4. Parliaments not concurring with the People in their necessary defence cannot loose them from the obligation of nature to defend themselves from tyranny and intolerable oppression 5. If Parliaments in stead of acting the part of Trustees Tutors Curators Delegats and Servants shall turne Tyrants wolves Tygers and Enemies to the Commonwealth themselves of conspire joyne or enter into a confederacy with a Tyrant and so seek the destruction of the community The community is allowed to see to the preservation of their owne rights and privileges the best way they can 6. And so in some cases when the hazard is great the losse irreparable private persones may defend themselves against manifest Tyranny and oppression without Parliaments All this seemeth to be cleare and undenyable In thest Let us next see what way this shall sute or what more can be said for our case In hypothest And. 1. It is beyond contradiction that the late Parliament did basely betray its trust for politicians tell us That it belongeth to these Ephori To vindicate and maintaine the compact and Covenant which is betwixt the Prince and the People To keep the prince or the supreame administrator of justice within his bounds and limites that he turne not a tyrant or an oppressour of the People To hinder him from violating the law of God To restraine and coërce him from violating the lawes of the land and the rights of the kingdome To hinder the execution of the unjust and illegal decrees and mandats of the Prince To defend the proper and incommunicable rights and privileges of the People To cognosce whether the Supreame Magistrate hath done his duty or not and to hinder him from committing Tyranny See for these particulars Althusius Pol. c. 18. n. 48 55 63 65 68 83
sealing and perfecting the Canon of Scripture hath so bound him up as that he will not or cannot now give such a Spirit unto any 2. The question rather is Whether now when the Canon is sealed and perfected examples of Zeal and valiant acting for God and his glory in times of corruption and wicknesse in actions not contrary to the Law of God registrated in Scripture be not for our use and instruction and imitable When Naphtaly wished that all God's People were as Phineas He concurreth with him In wishing that they may be filled with zeal to his glory as Phineas was but not that they should have the same exercise of zeal unlesse they could be certified of their warrand and calling to do so as he was Ans That he was certified of his calling warrand we doubt not but that he had such a call as no man now is capable of is the question he hath not yet cleared it The Apostles of Christ sayes he are to us examples of zeal for God in their Ministery but who will say that the acts which they Zealously did by virtue of their extraordinary calling as Peter's killing Ananias are for our imitation Answ Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira by a power of miracles which none now have Phineas did not kill the Prince and his whore by a power of miracles Their examples are imitable according to our power and the exigence of the like necessity and therefore Ministers should novv out of zeal use Church censures against such dissemblers when discovered And so we grant that to follow at the facts of them who have been truely Zealous for God were indeed an evil Zeal like the zeal of the Disciples Luk. 9 ver 54. and we shall willingly hearken to Peter Martyr's his words Loc. Com. Class 2. Cap. 9. and grant-that We must beware to confirme any thing which we vehemently and extraordinarily desire by the exemple of predecessours And that when we attempt the doing of any thing contrary to ordinary commands of God it is not enough to produce the example of others but we must search by what Spirit we are led lest under a specious pretext we follow carnal affection and prudence And yet say that in some cases private persons may execute â—udgement on Malefactors after the example of the Prophet Elias killing Baals Priests 1 King 18. Which fact Peter Martyr in the same place n. 4. defendeth thus I say it was done by the Law of God for Deut. 18. God decerned that the false Prophet should die and Cap. 17. the same is said of private Men and Women who would worshipe idols But Cap. 13. not only is death threatened against a seduceing Prophet but a command is added that no man should spare his brethren the Son of his Mother nor his son or daughter nor his dearest or most intimate friends Thirdly it is commanded that the whole city when it becometh idolatrous should be cut off by fire sword And Lev. 24. it is statuted that the blasphemer should not live to which we may adde the Law or equity of Taliation for these Prophets of Baal caused Iezebel and Ahab kill the servants of the Lord. He sayes it is true that King Ahab being present did consent and did not withstand but we see nothing in the text shewing that the Prophet founded his fact upon that consent It is true the King might have been so astonished by that prodigious sight that he durst not spurne against the Prophet and all the People But that for all this he gave any expresse command either through fear or desire to have raine or that the Prophet either sought or had his warrand and command for what he did we see no ground for it in the text More then Samuel had warrand of Saul when he killed Agag before his eyes whom he should have killed himself according to the command of God Thus have I answered all which this pamphleter hath said concerning Phineas his fact for what followeth to the end of his pamplet is not much to this matter hath been spoken to formerly and though I have done so I would not have the Reader to think that I do look upon that example of Phineas as a binding precedent in all times to all persons unlesse it be every way so circumstantiated as it was then And furder I suppose it will fully satisfy this Surveyer and stope his Mouth abundantly if I shall secure him from any such dag or dagger To which End because I can do no more I do heartily wish That none of God's People do in that manner defile their fingers on him or on any of his cursed fraternity to whom God is reserving if they repent not the vengeance of hell fire and possibly a visible stroke of justice on Earth in a way which will be more to the glory of God and to the satisfaction of all such as love his cause and his comeing CAP. XXI Some Animadversions upon the Surveyer's Virulent preface and Title-page WHen thus we have fully examined and confuted vvhat this Enemy hath said in this part of his Survey It will not be amisse till we see what he sayes further in the following part or parts of this infamous work of his to touch a little upon his Title-page and his most bitter and satirick preface which is a perfect proof of the man's Spirit for he cometh forth in his owne colours with his tongue speaketh no flattering words nor words of butter but both heart and tongue are full of gall and worm word So that his Name should not be Honeyman but Wormwood-Man or Man of gall 1. He calleth his work a Survey Or rather a Superficial view For No man who ever put pen to paper took such an overly look of the books which he pretended to answere as this Man doth of these books which he mentioneth in the title page of his scurril pamphlet as hath been abundantly already shewed And if he do no more in the following part or parts then he hath done in this first part he may deservedly bear the name of a Superficial prelate superficially viewing his adversaryes forces superficially managing the tottering cause for which he should have been superficially rewarded 2. A Survey of what Of the insolent and infamous libel Entituled Naphtali c. But whether his railing pamphlet or Naphtali do best deserve the title of an insolent and Infamous lybel let the Reader judge when he hath considered first that as Naphtali came forth without the author's or printer's name prefixed for which every one may be convinced there was sufficient reason seing such hath been and is the wickednesse and cruelty of corrupted tyrannical Courts and of none more then our Court novv in being that none durst without manifest hazard openly rebuke in the gate or in printe shevv the iniquity of their vvayes Yea Or vindicate such as oppose their tyranny and cruelty So doth this Survey vvhose author could be