Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A94080
|
The common-vvealth of Israel, or A brief account of Mr. Prynne's anatomy of the good old cause. By H.S.
|
Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.
|
1659
(1659)
|
Wing S6035; Thomason E983_11; ESTC R203692
|
4,778
|
8
|
THE COMMON-VVEALTH 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 Pauls 1659. The Common-wealth 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 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 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 aâ—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 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 râ—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 Zâ—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 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 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 le ts 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 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 mans 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 then any plea from musty records and concessions extorted from Tyrants enough by other penns 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 subjects liberty and priveledges 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 priviledg then the other or less inconsistant with Mr. Prynnes Similitude used by him in his defence of the Warr against the King viz. As in a storm if the Marriners are drunk or neglect their duty or drive upon rocks the rule of selfe-preservation permits any body 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 encline to mercy then to enrage them and then give them opportunity to satisfie their fury