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 lesse divert you, then it hath for some time entertained me. The Cooks and the Grocers have once more excited Mr. Prynne to write, least they should be put to the expence 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, rayling, ly­ing and false quotations as any work he ever published. There is a great contest now on foot, whither the Juncto of Lin­colnes 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-Inne. 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 Souldiers: 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 joyntly, he must be destitute of common sense that finds out a Triumvirate [Page 2] of Republicans, Sectaries, and Souldiers, unlesse 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 sourse and intrails 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, priviledges of all true English Parliaments, the Church and Ministry of England▪ and true Protestant Religion it self, formerly established, to set up Oligarchy, Anarchy, Tyranny, Oppression, Libertinisme, Marshal-Government, and all kind of Heresies, Blasphemies, Religions, Sects, yea Atheisme, Popery it self 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 destroyes 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 Souldiers, are a part) is impossible; as it is inconsistent with a Common-wealth (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 Lutheranisme, 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 rendred Active in signification. But the old Cause sets up Oligarchy, Tyranny [and Marshall Government:] These are such Synonymaes to express a Common-wealth, as none makes use of, but he that cals 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 [Page 3] up any way▪ it being a thing of pure privation, and so not to be composed by positive actings. But why should you or any body expect Philisophy, 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 Law­yers Logick is as bad as Lawyers Latine; 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 tryals and depositions of former Kings did not prove their subjection to coertion; 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 preheminence, and so slavery becomes the best of conditions. I hope the Assembly at Lincolns-Inne 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 la! 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 wals, 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. THEN, 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 [Page 4] 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 then a Republick. I answer, That where the executive Power is in one person triable by a Sanhedrin upon breach of Law, it is a Republick, and the controversie is meerly Gram­matical, whether this or that is duly named. So that Mr. Prynne here proves a Common-wealth 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 Ierusalem, and she fared deliciously, and was very beautiful, and did grow up to a King­dome; 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, then 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 Ands to prove nothing▪ such suppositions infer nothing but the conveniencie of tying a King to Laws, if one be chosen, not that it is best to choose one. God did institute a Common-wealth in Isra­el, as Mr. Harrington hath excellently shown▪ and the rejecting thereof he cals a rejecting of God, 1 Sam▪ 8. v 7. I desire all judi­cious▪ persons to read that Chapter, and consider the prehemi­nence [Page 5] 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 then if I should say, it is better to ride on horseback then go on foot; Ergo, lets go buy hobby-horses: If God and Christ were as men, passionate and fallible, they should not be my Monarchs.

In that he cals the Good old Cause Iesuitical, it is not such accu­sations will make it censurable: The Iesuits are (generally) a­gainst Bishops; so is Mr. Prynne; Ergo, it is Iesuitical to be against Bishops: Bellarmine too is for Monarchy, and saith, it is the BEST of Governments: so sayes Mr. Prynne too: you see then by his argument, Mr. Prynne of Swanswick is a Romish Ie­suite. The Dominicans are against Free-will, &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 defie the Hoast of Israel: My hast permits me to adde 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-Colledge in Oxon: by the name of Tartaretus de modo cacandi▪ I am,