THE commonwealth OF ISRAEL, OR A BRIEF ACCOUNT Of Mr. Prynne's ANATOMY OF THE Good Old Cause.  
By H. S.  Prov. 15. 2. 
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools babbleth out foolishness.  
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Brewster, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Three Bibles at the West-End of Paul's, 1659.   

The commonwealth of Israel, or a brief Account of Mr. Prynne's Anatomy of the Good old Cause.  
SIR,  
I Know you are very inquisitive of news since this miraculous Revolution, which God hath brought a bout by means altogether unexpected, for the salvation of his People amongst us: This morning I met with something which may no less divert you, than it hath for some time entertained me. The Cooks and the Grocers have once more excited Mr. Prynne to write, lest they should be put to the expense of clean paper: the World is already satisfied, Mr. Prynne▪ doth not diminish his repute by any such performance, and it is no small▪ benefit to these his Abettors; And this is the GOOD OLD CAUSE for which he now writes. I assure you the piece is genuine, and no way imposed on the Author; it hath a large title page, and sundry insignificant Texts of Scripture prefixed; it is as full of impertinency, railing, lying and false quotations as any work he ever published. There is a great contest now on foot, whither the Juncto of Lincoln's Inn, or the Parliament at Westminster, adhere to the Old Cause; and if so great Personages differ, I may be allowed to dissent from Mr. Prynne Bencher (and Dancer at the late Revels) in Lincolns-inn. I say nothing to his Introduction, that piece need not be dismissed to the pastry, for I think there never will come out an enquiry to the end of the world, whereunto that may not agree. (Pag. 1.) He talks of a confederated Triumvirate of Republicans, Sectaries and soldiers: I am sorry Mr. Prynne himself contributes so much to the upholding that Report, that himself hath lost his senses▪ as to write thus. A Triumvirate, signifying only a Government of three jointly, he must be destitute of common sense that finds out a Triumvirate of Republicans, Sectaries, and soldiers, unless he will baptise each of them Legion, for they are many: I am sure this is not the good old Language. As for the good old Cause, he saith, He did not only superficially view the outside of it, but considerately penetrated into the true original seminal source and entrails of it. If he had not told us this, we had never guessed so much: But what did Mr. Prynne discover? That the Good old Cause is a plot to blow up subvert destroy the King, Queen, Prince, Royal Posterity, Lords, Commons, Kingdom, Government, Laws, Liberty and Property of the People of England, yea the very constitution, freedom, power, privileges of all true English Parliaments, the Church and Ministry of England▪ and true Protestant Religion itself, formerly established, to set up Oligarchy, Anarchy, Tyranny, Oppression, libertinism, Marshal-Government, and all kind of Heresies, Blasphemies, Religions, Sects, yea atheism, Popery itself at last in their stead. I would Mr. Prynne would write sing-songs; again to be Poet and mad, were natural, and his Fictions would not be lies. It is not a disgrace, but an indearmeat of the Good old cause, That it destroys King, Queen, Prince, Lords and Kingdom in their political capacity, and that is all that is intended by it: To destroy the Commons (whereof the Sectaries and Republicans, and soldiers, are a part) is impossible; as it is inconsistent with a commonwealth (which is a form of Government, and an Empire of Laws) to destroy Government, Laws and Property, or Freedom As for the pulling down the true Protestant Religion (which is Lutheranism, and which was never established here, though Cranmer were at first a Lutheran) and setting up Heresies, &c. I understand not that, how it can be verified in a just and innocent Toleration, nor shall I ever comprehend it, till patience and long-suffering (in Mr. Prynne's new language) he rendered Active in signification. But the old Cause sets up Oligarchy, Tyranny [and Martial Government:] These are such synonimas to express a commonwealth, as none makes use of, but he that calls good evil▪ and evil good. But suppose it did set up either of these (for to erect both any man but Mr▪ Prynne would think it impossible) how shall it set up an Anarchy▪ which is a 〈◊〉 of all Government, whereas Oligarchy, Tyranny Marshal-Government impose some? If Mr. Prynne had any Philosophy, I would a●k him how Anarccy could be set up any way▪ it being a thing of pure privation, and so not to be composed by positive actings. But why should you or anybody expect philosophy, where there is no sense? Till it be proved, that our old Laws, Kingship, Church-state, &c. were good, it is a begging of the question, to think the pulling down of that is ignominious and execrable.  
Well, but you will say, that he proves Monarchy to be the best of Governments: Therefore it was an ill and not good Cause (how old soever) that pulled down Kingship. Truly Sir, this lawyer's logic is as bad as Lawyers Latin; for though our late Governors were called Kings, they were no Monarchs: The latter being a name for such only, who are absolved from all law, and may do what they please without any further use of others, then as Instruments and Counsellors: But our Kings could act no such things; if the trials and depositions of former Kings did not prove their subjection to coercion; yet in that they could do nothing in taxes, or Law-making, but by the Advice and Consent of Parliament, they were no Monarchs. Thus all his Texts which make for Monarchy, do no way render the pulling down of Kingship illegal, or r●sh, but rather in part prudential, since that is not the best form of Government, as Mr. Prynne confesses; Monarchy must have that pre-eminence, and so slavery becomes the best of conditions. I hope the Assembly at Lincolns-inn will keep a Fast for the good success and prosperity of the Turk, that so they may have the best of Governments, a Monarchy.  
His Texts of Scripture are excellently impertinent, I never heard better answers at cross questions. Is Monarchy the best of Governments? Yes in good sooth lafoy! for Jer. 21. v. 3, 4. Then said Jeremiah, thus shall you say to Z●dekiah, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel behold I will turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands, wherewith you fight against the King of Babel, and against the Chaldeans which besiege you without the walls, and I will assemble you into the midst of this City. Might not Mr. Prynne as well have quoted any text in Scripture, in which the name of King is mentioned? even that of, Tophet is prepared for the Kings of the earth. So Jer. 17. 25. Then shall the Kings and the Princes enter in at the gates of the City, &c. Than, that is, after the captivity, they had no Monarchs in Israel: such were only they that were the Descendants of David, as the Jewish Rabbins tell us, and they were subordinate to the Sanhedrin, and might be scourged by them in case of offence: So that this Text proves nothing (but yet as much as the former) that Monarchy is best, but for the Paramount dignity of Parliaments over the Kings. But you may reply, that it is promised as a blessing, and therefore that is better than a republic. I answer, That where the executive Power is in one person triable by a Sanhedrin upon breach of Law, it is a republic, and the controversy is merely Grammatical, whether this or that is duly named. So that Mr. Prynne here proves a commonwealth to be the best form of Government. But is not Mr. Prynn a man of admirable qualities to be followed by any, that can think there is any Government absolutely best, and abstracting from circumstances? It is the posture of the Nation, and the disposition of the People, which makes this or that Government best here or there. In France a Monarchy at present is best, but an extraordinary revolution may so order things, that it may be as little feasible there, as amongst us; and where the Land is so modelled, it is a blessing to have a King: All that Ezekiel saith is, that God did bless Jerusalem, and she fared deliciously, and was very beautiful, and did grow up to a kingdom; and her name was spread amongst the Nations for her beauty, Ezek. 16. 13, 14. What then? he doth not say, that Monarchy was the beauty he put upon her to make her perfect; but that beauty was precedaneous thereunto: and it was for that she was famous among the Heathen. These are pretty allegations! Monarchy is so far from being proved best here, that it is not so much as said to be any way GOOD. In Deuteronomy no more is said to the advantage of Monarchy, than is to be expected from Mr. Prynne's quotations, Deut. 17. 14▪ When thou shalt come unto the Land— if thou say. I will set a King over me▪ like as all the Nations that are about me. Then thou shalt make him King over thee— and thou shalt write him this Law▪— I had thought that Mr. Prynne would have thought If's and and's to prove nothing▪ such suppositions infer nothing but the conveniency of tying a King to Laws, if one be chosen, not that it is best to choose one. God did institute a commonwealth in Israel, as Mr. Harrington hath excellently shown▪ and the rejecting thereof he calls a rejecting of God, 1 Sam▪ 8. v 7. I desire all judicious▪ persons to read that Chapter, and consider the pre-eminence of the best of Governments, viz. Mr. Prynne's Monarchy.  
He pleadeth for Monarchy because God is a King, and this he proves by sundry Texts! I would too submit to a Monarchy, if my King were omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, without passion or shadow of change. This is not for the advantage of every Monarchy, no more than if I should say, it is better to ride on horseback then go on foot; Ergo, let's go buy hobby-horses: If God and Christ were as men, passionate and fallible, they should not be my Monarchs.  
In that he calls the Good old Cause jesuitical, it is not such accusations will make it censurable: The Jesuits are (generally) against Bishops; so is Mr. Prynne; Ergo, it is jesuitical to be against Bishops: Bellarmine too is for Monarchy, and saith, it is the BEST of Governments: so says Mr. Prynne too: you see then by his argument, Mr. Prynne of Swanswick is a Romish Jesuite. The Dominicans are against freewill, &c. so is Mr. Prynne, Ergo Mr. Prynne is a Dominican. The Pope is principally against a Toleration, so is Mr. Prynne; Ergo, he is an errant Papist. But primitive Christianity, under Christian Emperors, allowed and avowed an universal Toleration, with a capacity for each not differing in Opinions, but Religions, to be preferred to the highest dignities; Ergo, the Good old Cause is agreeable thereunto, and justified by their judgement as well as practise: But of this I shall more at large discourse against Mr. Prynne, or any else that defy the host of Israel: My haste permits me to add no more, but that you may find an ample confutation of all that Mr. Prynn either hath, or shall write, in Pantagruels Library within New-college in Oxon: by the name of Tartaretus de modo cacandi▪ I am,  
Sir, Yours, &c.  
FINIS.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SIR,  
I Suppose these reflections may suffice for to evince the goodness of the Cause against Mr. Prynne; and to let you see that his writings have much of the Lawyer in them; high charges and imputations are but words of course with them; and all that cry he makes, is but the way of the man's indicting. As to the Antiquity of the cause; (though I might say with Tertullian upon another account, illud prius quod verius, Truth, Reason, Honesty, and foundations upon nature, will make a cause not only better but older than any plea from musty records, and concessions extorted from Tyrants) enough by other pens hath been said; and what he saith was never the design of the Parliament, was objected to them for such by their quick sighted adversaries. I cannot examine his proofs, but you may conjecture by his Scripture allegations how his others would appear upon a review. It is clear from the covenant, that the generous English never intended the defence of the King, otherwise then as it was consistent with the subject's liberty and privileges of Parliament. As to the seclusion of members, I understand not why if some betray their-trust, others may not be faithful, Mr. Prynne once taught, that if the house of Lords dissented and refused to provide for the safety of the people, the house of Comomons' alone might do it: why may not a part of the latter house take the like care upon the like exigency? I profess I see not how one is a greater breach of privilege then the other: or less inconsistent with Mr. Prynne's Similitude used by him in his defence of the war against the King, viz. As in a storm, if the mariners are drunk or neglect their duty, or drive upon rocks, the rule of self-preservation permits anybody to interpose. So is there not as great a danger now as ever, of the Nation? may we only use arms to provoke, not secure? and take them up that we may lay them down at the feet of Kings together with our necks, to be trampled on? It were more prudential in case of oppression to go with halters at first, and so to incline to mercy, then to enrage them, and then give them opportunity to satisfy their fury.