THE Primitive Cavalerism REVIVED: OR A RECOGNITION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE OLD CAVALIERS. Published on occasion of some late PAMPHLETS and PAPERS, Reviving and Justifying the Pretensions of the Long Parliament, Begun in 1641. By an Old Loyal Cavalier.  
LONDON, Printed By George Croom, at the Blew-Ball in Thames-street, over against Baynard's Castle, 1684.   

THE Primitive Cavalerism REVIVED: OR A RECOGNITION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE OLD CAVALIERS.  
WHEN the unhappy quarrel betwixt King Charles the First of Blessed Memory and the two Houses of Parliament broke out, I thought myself obliged for the conduct of my own Conscience to endeavour to understand clearly the grounds, which each side insisted on for their own Vindication; And having observed of late some Papers and Pamphlets to be dispersed abroad, containing the principles by which that long Parliament did seek to justify their taking up Arms against his Sacred Majesty; I have endeavoured to refute them by contraposition of the principles of the Old Loyal Cavaliers; Lest those State-heresys should be imbibed again by some of the people, to the prejudice of the public Peace.  
First therefore, We Royalists judged, that the people were not the original of Government, and that it was little less than blasphemy to assert it, seeing God himself hath asserted in Scripture (Ro. 13.1. and otherwhere) that Government is his Ordinance. Nor did we judge Government to be his Ordinance singly on the account of his revelation of his will in the Scripture, but that as the other parts of the Moral Law are seminally contained in that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or inward dignoscitive power of man's Souls, by which he hath a natural, distinctive sense of what is just or unjust, comely or uncomely, so was also that Principle (at First Aeconomical, afterwards Political) That men ought to Honour their Parents and to obey them injoining things just and comely, or submit to them punishing them for the contrary.  
For seeing God brought none into the World Independent from Progenitors, saving the first Man and Woman, and of that one blood made all the Nations of Men to dwell upon the face of the Earth, Acts. 17.26. Reason tells men, they are to obey their Progenitors who are instrumental under God to give being and birth to them and their brethren, in all things enjoined by them, as which are just and comely, and conducing to the common good of the Family (for reason tells us also that it is just to prefer the common good before that of a private or particular Member.) It is true where the things required by the Progenitor did bona fide appear to the conscience of the Descendent, to be a sin, the Descendent was bound to obey God the Supreme Lawgiver rather than Man; but in bare prudentials and expedients for the common good, no Descendent had a right to vie judgement and discretion with his Superior, though he might humbly advertise his Superior of the inexpediency of the thing required as he judged.  
From hence it follows (as reasonable to be supposed) that God had deposited in the Progenitor a power to compel his Descendants to do just and comely things, and things conducing to the Common interest of the family.  
And though a Progenitor might wilfully or ignorantly abuse his power, enjoining things unjust or detrimental to the public good of the Family, yet was his person to be sacred and inviolable, and he was not to be accountable by way of suffering (as formal Administration) to his Descendants, nor was he to be resisted by them by force; for reason tells us, that to reserve such a liberty in the Inferiors, to resist or animadvert on their Progenitor, gives a Licence to any Rebellious person, and furnisheth him with a pretence to overthrow all, both Domestic and Civil Societys', by pretending a violation of Justice and Equity, or a detrimenting of the public good by the Superior. The Apostle therefore may well be supposed to expound the common sentiments of Mankind in what they thought comely and just towards Progenitors, Heb. 12.9, 10. Though the Fathers of our flesh corrected us (according to their own pleasure or passions many times) yet we gave them reverence and thought ourselves obliged so to do. This therefore being a fixed Principle to us, that the Patriarch, or Father of the Family was by God's appointment Supreme Governor over his Family, we thought ourselves Warranted to make these deductions from it:  
1. That where a Descendent committed wickedness, there not only his immediate Father, but also this Grandfather, or great Grandfather (and so upwards in the right ascendent Line) might and ought (if the Father was either Dead or negligent) to inflict punishment on him. And we have if not an instance, yet an intimation of this in holy Scripture, Gen. 27.45. Where Rebekah adviseth Jacob to fly from the Murderus design of his Brother Esau, (who had resolved to kill him after his Father Isaac's Death) which Esau, v. 41. thought to be at hand, Why, saith she, should I also be deprived of you both in one day? Which intimates there was some Ancestors alive who might judge Esau for Fratricide though Isaac was dead.  
And so indeed the Sacred Chronology assures us there was, at the time of Esau's threatening Jacob, for Shem, died not till the year of the World. 2158. And Esau is supposed by Chronologers to have Married his Cananitish Wives. 214. (who probably might instigate him to revenge) Ten years before Shems, Death. And Heber died not till the year of the World 2187. Which was long after jacob's fleeing into Mesopotamia. So that though Isaac did not really die till 2228. Yet Esau and Rebekah, supposing he might have died sooner, she concludes that one of the surviving Ancestors might and ought to have executed Vengeance on Esau, for Fratricide, the like inference may be made from the Parable of the Widow woman of Tekoah, 2. Sam. 14.6, 7.  
2. A second inference is, That Women translated out of their Father's Family by Marriage (forisfamiliatae, as the Civilians speak) were subjected to the Jurisdiction of the Father of the Family into which they were Married, thus Judah, doomed Tamar, his Daughter in Law, to the Fire for supposed Adultery, Gen. 38.24.  
3. A Third inference very probably deduced from the former Principle is, That the Father or Patriark Dying the Regal power descended on the Eldest Son, who was to Rule over the Family, even over his Brethren, so long as they continued to reside in the Society of the Clan, and claimed the Protection of that Society, and did not transmigrate to make a new Colony. We have an instance in Scripture which seems to be of this significancy, namely, when Abraham took Lot his Brother Harans Son, and carried him with him into Canaan, Gen. 12.5. Which looks more like an Exercise of Authority than of trust; and that thus it is amongst the Clans of some Indians is reported by Travelers. And there are some Footsteps of it amongst the Clans of the Irish and Highlanders.  
4. The Fourth Inference is this, That seeing no Man (Adam, the first only excepted) came into the World in a state of Independent Liberty free from Government, but was subject to his Parents, therefore no man was born in a state of War, but in a Political subjection according to the Fifth Commandment, Honour thy Father, etc.  
All this of Patriarchal Jurisdiction I collect from the sacred story after the Flood, for before the Flood cain's escaping punishment from Adam, for Abel's Murder, in all probability encouraged his Offspring the Giants and other men of Renown, to shake off all Patriarchal Government, and fill the Earth with violence, Gen. 6.11. So that want of the exercise of the Patriarchal Government was one meritorious cause of the bringing the Flood upon the Old World. The like defect ruined Elies family. 1 Sam. 3.13.  
But to return to our Principle, and give some reasons why we Cavalcers believed the Original of Government thus to be from God, not from the People;  
First, No man hath a right to dispose of his own Life to the pleasure of another: only God the Author of Being could give a Power to the Progenitor, (the instrument of the being of his Descendants) to dispose of the Life of an offending Descendent in the prosecution of Justice, according to Gen. 9.6. Whosoever sheddeth man's Blood by man shall his Blood be shed. So that if the people were the Original of Government the Magistrate had been a Murderer in executing Vengeance even on a Murderer; And the Murderer had been Felo de se, a self Murderer in submitting to the Sentence.  
Secondly We believed Government to be from God, because the Laws made by Governors were generally for the encouragement of Virtue and Piety and for the suppression of Vice, so that the fruit shown that Government was a Plant of our heavenly Fathers planting, whereas people being generally Wicked, would, if they had been the original of Government, have set up such Governors as should have Established iniquity by a Law.  
Thirdly, Add, That that Spirit of Government poured out upon Governors showed, that God who alone can so endow them doth commissionate them as his Vicegerents. Therefore it is said, Pro. 16.10. A divine sentence, or a judgement from God is in the lips of the King: And the essential wisdom of God, saith Pro. 8.15. By me Kings Reign, and Princes decree Justice. The art of Government or Kingcraft is from the Lord.  
Fourthly It is observed in all History, that Rebels were ordinarily followed with divine Vengeance: But we Cavaliers, could not think that God would engage his Power and Justice to vindicate an Idol of the people's setting up.  
So that Fifthly, Had not God said of Magistrates, Psal. 82.6. I have said ye are Gods, obedience in the people to them had been Idolatry, in setting up a Creature of their own as a God, and worshipping it.  
Sixthly But our chief reason was, because Scripture so peremptorily asserts it, Ro. 13.1. That Magistrates are Gods Ministers, and God's Ordinance.  
After this first Position was thus established to us, That God and not the people, was the Original of Government, we proceeded to inquire, how the Patriarchal Government over single Clans or Families and the Descendants in them, passed into a more ample Government over many distinct Families (before independent from one another) And we thought it reasonable to conclude, that this change came into the World either by a forced or voluntary Compact.  
A forced compact was, when the King or Patriarch of one Family or Clan overcame the Patriarch of another Family, and his Family, and forced them to consent to obey him, as did those of his own Family, or, it may be, he imposed worse conditions of Servitude, Transportation, Tribute or other hardships upon them, as the Babylonish Monarches did, 2 Kings 18.32. And so doth the Turk at this day, setting the conquered under his Timuriots. But in this case of Conquest two things are observable: Namely first, That the Conquering Patriarch might happen to abate something of his own Dominion over his own Clan, on account of his own Wars against the other Family, having before the expedition promised his own Subjects and their Posterity some Immunities if they would be Faithful and Courageous. And probably many of the Immunitys which Subjects claim, own their rise to such promises, which being once made they ought to be observed by the Prince or Patriark, Thus King Saul promised, 1. Sam. 17.25. That whosoever would combat and kill Goliath, he would enrich him, and make his Father's house free in Israel.  
Secondly, it is undeniable, that Conquest in itself is no obligation to subjection to the Conqueror, for no man can pretend by Conquest a right to seize my Liberty and to abridge my Allegiance to my Natural Prince, but I can more justly pretend my right (when ever I am able) to recover my Liberty and free Exercise of Allegiance to my natural Liege Lord; So that till compact confirm Conquest, submission to the Conqueror is only a taking Quarter, which implys, I will do nothing against the Life of him that gives me Quarter, till by redemption or reprisal (by my Prince or his Allies) I recover my liberty. Only therefore Compact after Conquest can lay an obligation to Subjection to the Conqueror, and how long it is before such a Compact becomes Valid and obliging, whilst our natural Prince continues in Arms and yields not, is something difficult to determine, for my part I think that for so long it is not a valid compact, but only a taking Quarter.  
But though Conquest, and the Compacts issuing upon them, was the ordinary way of imbodying many Families under one Governor yet undoubtedly voluntary Compacts also did the same in many times and places, many Patriarches and their Clans' Associating together for mutual defence against potent Enemy's, and subjecting themselves to some one Patriarch or famous man amongst them, who was to go in and out before them, and Fight their Battles: Thus the Gileadites chose Jephtah and the Israelites desired in samuel's time such a King, and obtained Saul.  
But then we are to observe that those Compacts were chief, if not only, ratified by the consent of the Patriarches combining; So that the inferior members of the Families had little or no Vote in the making the Compact, and the setting the conditions of it. So that the Israelites, who assembled for saul's election and inauguration, were the Elders of the People of Israel, 1 Sam. 8.4. These voluntary Compacts between Patriarches were sometimes with Reservation of a share in the Government, amongst all the Patriarches, one only presiding in Council, so that the Major Vote was to overrule for the making municipal Laws, and War, or Leagues with Foreigners, and for appointing Officers Military or Civil, and this is properly an Aristocratical Government, or States.  
When the Compacts of the combining Patriarches carried over all their Sovereignty to some one person, whom they chose to preside over them only personally, during his Life, this was an Elective Kingdom; when they devoled it on any one Patriarch and his Successors, this was also an elective Kingdom in the origination of it, but became in process and Succession, an Hereditary Monarchy or Kingdom: And such are most of the Kingdoms of the World at this day.  
As for Democracy wherein the whole body of the People, meeting in their Comitial or General Assemblys did make Plebiscita or popular Decrees, it is hard for me to guests how Patriarchal power ever came to be so ravilled out into that form, unless the Multitude forced their Patriarches to yield them a share in the Government, either by Tumults or Secessions, and departing from their Nobles or Patricii, of which there are many instances in the Roman Commonwealth, for that any People whether the heads of several Families, or the whole body of the People should only conditionally intrust the Government in the hands of a Sovereign or a Senate, with power of revocation of their trust upon Maladministration, is such an unpolitical fancy as deserves to be exploded by all who wish well to the Peace of the World, and of the Nations in it, for such a constitution carries self-destroying principles in it, seeing every ambitious or discontented person making himself Popular might easily persuade the multitude (who are generally prone to Change, and Querulous against their Governors) that their Superiors had forfeited their trust and they might resume their Power betrusted, and commit it into better hands.  
And to be sure when an Army was on Foot, whose Commanders were prompted by their interest in the Soldiery to aspire, this pretence would be ready at hand, that the Sovereign or the Senate had failed in their trust, and that the People might reassume the Government, and withal, that Populus Armatus is est Populus, that those who had the Arms of the Nation in their hands were the People.  
This was the very Plea which the Fanatic Army under Cromwell, did make, and it pleased us Old Cavaliers well, when we saw Cromwell, turn the point of this Principle upon his Masters, and turn the Rump out of doors, alleging, and with truth enough, that they had failed in the trust reposed in them by the good People of England.  
On the same account we Old Cavaliers, detested as unpolitical, and laying the Foundation for perpetual civil jars, the swearing of Allegiance to the Supreme Power with limitation; as it was in that called the Solemn-League and Covenant, Pagragraph the 2d, wherein they promised to preserve the King's Person and Authority in the preservation of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms. When therefore the Scotch Commissioners Pleaded their Engagement by Covenant to appear against the Execrable Murdering of our late Sovereign the Royal Martyr, I well remember that the Rump, in their Declaration and answer to the Papers of the Scotch Commissioners, Pleaded that the Covenant only obliged them to endeavour the Preservation of the King's Person in the Preservation of the true Religion, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and that in limited Propositions Limitatio est pars potior, the Limitation is the predominant part. And that therefore seeing it was apparent to them, that the King had violated the true Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, they (who had taken the Covenant as well as the Scots) looked on themselves as obliged by Covenant to depose the King and bring him to condign Punishment.  
But our Contemplations in prosecution of this Subject about the Original and exercise of Power ran yet on further, for we observed that there were two parts of the Patriarchal Governing Power appointed by God, namely the Legislative Power, to enact wholesome constitutions for the good of the Clan or Family (He is the Minister of God to us for good, Rom. 13.)  
And the executive Power to put those Laws in Execution, as also to compel his Descendants to obey the Divine Laws, both Moral and Positive, and this also was part of the executive Power. For where human Powers command what God hath commanded before, their Laws are not constitutive, but only declarative of the duty, only they may be constitutive of the Penalty and Sanction. Both these Powers the Legislative and executive (under which is comprised the Power to Levy moneys, for this cause pay you Tribute, Rom. 13.) were entirely in every Patriarch.  
But when many Patriarchates or Clans were embodied into a larger Regality or Kingdom by voluntary compact, it is easy to conceive that these Powers might be diversely betrusted: And the former (the Legislative Power) might only be entrusted to the elected King and his Successors, in concomitancy with the other Patriarches. But still we are to observe, that if the Elected King and his Successors had only a Vote, in the making Laws, with the other Patriarches, so that the Majority of Votes over ruled, against his Vote, then though he had the name King, he was indeed no King, nor Supreme Governor, but only the chief Magistrate, such were the Kings of Sparta; the Lacedaemonian Government therefore is reckoned truly an Aristocracy or Democracy. But some Nations might perhaps find out a better way, namely, that the Legislative Power was betrusted to the elected Patriarch and his Successors, yet so that it should not be exerted without the consent of the combining Patriarches, but still the Legislative was so in the King, that the Votes of all the combining Patriarches could not constitute Law without a Le Roy Le Voult, the King consents and commands it to be: And this Government undoubtedly is a Monarchy not deprived of any part of the Power Patriarchal, but only restrained in the exercise of one part of it, namely, the Legislative without the concurrence of others.  
But we observed further, that though in a Monarch there might be a restriction of the exercise of the Patriarchal, Legislative power, there could be none in the exercise of the Executive power, for if that could not be exerted but with the consent of others, such a Nominal King was no Monarch or Supreme Governor, but only the chief Magistrates, as we said before. And no man can reasonably suppose, that a Patriarch who had the plenary power (both Legislative and Executive) over his own Clan, and probably was the chief in puissance amongst the Patriarches combining (as the Hethites told Abraham, Gen. 23.6. My Lord thou art a mighty Prince amongst us) would ever consent to abate any thing of his Regalia over his own Clan as to the Legislative, and suffer others to have a restraint upon the exercise of it, unless upon the terms premised, (viz.) That the exerting his Legislative should not indeed be without the Concurence of the other Patriarches, but withal, that all they Voting together should not be able to make a Law without his Royal Authority and consent; and that also the entire, executive Power not only over his own Clan, but even over the Combining Patriarches, and their Clans, should be his, without Compeer or Coordinate: Thus Samuel expounds to the Israelites (amongst whom God himself seemed to reserve the Legislative to himself, having given them a body of Laws necessary to conserve Peace, or do Justice about Inheritances, Injuries Marriages, etc.) the manner of the King whom they would have to go in and out before them after the manner of other Nations, 1 Sam. 8.11.  
We find indeed, that in most of the Eastern Empires, yea and in the Roman Empire (after the Lex Regia was past) both Legislative and executive Powers were without restraint in the Emperor. And the Placita Principum, or Edicta Imperatoria were perfect Laws after the promulgation of them. It was a mistake therefore in him who writ the Life of Julian the Apostate, to call Christianity the Religion of the Empire, when Julian had declared by his Royal Edicts for Paganism: And probably such absolute Monarchys were all which arose out of Conquest, and Compacts issuing from Conquest.  
But in many of the Northern Nations (the Offspring of Japhet, the Elder) we have reason to believe there was a restraint upon the Legislative till the Nobleses Majorum & Minorum Gentium, did at lest legem petere & eligere, request and choose, or propose a Bill to be enacted a Law.  
And the Power to deny a proposed Bill, was in the Prince, and the Power to execute Laws wholly in him, and both without Power in the combining Patriarches to call him to account for Administration of either, or to reassume the Power or any part of it, without the Princes Voluntary consent, these speculations about the passing of the Patriarchal Monarchy into larger Governments gave us Royalists light enough, to discover that the pretensions of the Parliament-Party and the maxims they had espoused were both unpolitical and unpeaceable: Such as those before mentioned; That the People are the original Power, that men are born in a state of Independent Liberty, and consequently in a State of War: That the Power of the Supreme Governor is but a revocable trust, and he liable to censure for Maladministration. And that the King, though singulis Major, is universis Minor; for how can he be less than all who hath the Power of all concentring in him?  
Another suggestion also by that side in the late times I will here take notice of, though it lie not in the direct run and way of my Discourse. And it was this, that a Republic or Aristocracy was more eligible than a Monarchy. In the manage of which their Writers dealt very deceitfully, for they usually compared a King misgoverning, with a Republic Governing well, whereas if they had stated the comparison (as of right it should have been) betwixt a King and a Commonwealth both Ruling well, or both Ruling ill, it would be most evident both from reason and History (to which adds also the experience of the English Nation in the late Confusions) that less evils did arise to the People from a King misgoverning, and gratifying the Lust of his Minions, than from an Aristocracy misgoverning, and every one of them preying for himself and his Dependants, upon the Poor oppressed People; and contrarily, that more good comes to a People by the Government of a wise and good King, then by the Government of even wise and good Nobilissimo's (as at Venice.)  
But that which especially prevailed upon us Cavaliers conscientiously, to engage for our Sovereign, was the consideration of the Government under which we were Born. For we knew it from our Fathers, and their Tradition, and from our Old Historians writing in the Ages past; That this Government was an hereditary Monarchy immemorially; whence we inferred, That all the rights of Monarchy were inherent in our Kings.  
It is true we found the Royal, Legislative Authority by Ancient Custom was not put in exercise without the consent of the two Houses of Parliament: And Custom is Common-Law in England. And that thus it was we had no reason to be displeased; nor did we solicitously inquire into the Original of that usage whether in the Primitive coalition of the Government the several Patriarches of Angels, Jutes and Saxons had so compacted with him whom they consented should be the Universal Monarch over them and their Clans, or rather whether our Kings had granted that high Privilege to our Fathers the Valiant Angles, Jutes and Saxons to engage their Valour and fidelity in their warlike expeditions, and after extended the same Privilege in a great measure to the Britain's growing up into one People, with us; or whether any other way this came about we could not tell; thus we found it, and found the Government the best tempered Government in the World. And we bless God for it, and rejoiced under the shadow of it.  
Only this we judged from the preambles of ancient Statutes, and from the King's Coronation Oath, That the two Houses did Legem petere & eligere, but the King did Legem far & jubere, the Privilege of the two Houses of Parliament was to choose and desire such a Bill to be a Law, and the Prerogative of the King to enact and will it. If herein we were mistaken, we were mistaken.  
But be it as it will, we Primitive Cavaliers were far from designing to remove the Ancient Landmarks which our Fathers had set: Nor did we ever think it agreeable to modesty, for us private Men to set bounds to the Power of the Parliament, during its Session, further than that they could do nothing to any Effect without the Royal Assent. We believed therefore they could call any Subject to account for ill behaviour in any Office, Military or Civil, by Bill of Attainder or otherwise, according to the Usages of Parliament, they could change Tenors, put down some Courts of Justice, erect new ones, and what not? If the King Consented; and we found that our Kings seldom denied the desires and Requests of their Parliaments in matters fit and just. But we detested the contrivance of some Factious Men, who brought the Rout to call for Justice against the Earl of Strafford and Archbishop Laud. And though there have been oft Factions in Parliaments since that unhappy Distinction of a Court-Party and a Country-Party, and though the Rump Parliament had cast us into horrid Confusions, and rob us of the best of Kings, yet were we not weary of Parliaments, or forward to enslave ourselves or our Posterity: We therefore with thankfulness to God above all, and to our good Kings, and Parliaments under them, remembered that Parliaments were the great Conservers of the English Liberties against all unjust Judges and Officers, and how they oft attempted, even in Popery times, and at last Effected the deliverance of the Kingdom and Church of England from the Usurpation of the Bishop of Rome, and secured the People from the cruelties of the Bloody Clergy thereof.  
But though we owned thus, that our Kings had not exercised the Legislative Power immemorially without the proposal and consent of the two Houses, yet we easily discovered the cheat of that Parliament comment on the Political maxim, Coordinata se invicem supplent (though the proper words are Coordinata se invicem Complent;) whence they of that side argued, That seeing Coordinates' do mutually supply and complete one another, and that the King withdraw from his Parliament, the two Houses (whom they judged Coordinate with the King in the Legislative) might supply by an ordinance his absence or dissent: which is an inference contrary to all reason and sense; for the true sense of that Maxim is this, That Coordinate, (suppose three) do so mutually supply force to, and complete on another, that the concurrence of no two of them is Efficacious to the intent for which they are Coordinate, without the Concurrence of the third: Thus if we should yield a Coordination as to the Legislative Power betwixt the King and two Houses; yet the Votes of the two Houses are no Law in England without the Royal Assent.  
Obj. It was then usually objected, That this Doctrine puts the King and either House, into a capacity to hinder a good and wholesome Law.  
Sol. To this it is answered, that the Laws in being are to be supposed sufficient in the Judgement of our Fathers of the last Age, to conserve the State in its being; and whether the Bill proposed be conducing to the better being of it or no, must be submitted to the judgement of the King.  
But still we looked upon the executive Power of Law as wholly and entirely Inherent in our Sovereign without Compeer or Coordinate: who could at his pleasure derive that Power to others Legally Commissioned by him, to put the Laws in Execution. And that therefore the Power of the Militia, of making Judges and Officers, of conferring Honours, of making War, or Peace, or Leagues with Foreigners, was wholly in the King. But if any of the King's Officers violate our Rights and Privileges, either Civil or Ecclesiastical, which are by Acts of Parliament or Immemorial Custom instated on the Subject, the Subject might sue the violaters in the King's Courts.  
So that greater security for the Rights of any People, I think cannot, by any human Wisdom be invented, than what we Englishmen enjoy. For First, we have the protection of the King's Royal Authority, whose interest it is (seeing the Throne is Established by Justice) to make his Officers Peace, and his Exactors Righteousness, Isai. 60.17. Next we have the security of the Laws in being, and of the Reverend and Learned Judges, Commissioned for the execution of them; who we may think will be very unwilling to infringe our Rights by Law Established; both because they are for the same accountable at all times to the King, and also to a Parliament when it shall sit; and likewise because they cannot enslave us by denying us the just protection of the Laws, at a cheaper rate than enslaving their own Posterity also. And lastly, We have the security of Parliaments, who cannot only propose and enact with the Royal Assent new Laws for our future defence against unjust Officers, but can also call them to account for the breach of the Laws already made: this was the Political Creed of the old Cavaliers: and we triumphed in the Victory of Truth, (when any being convinced of the agreeableness of our Principles both to Scripture, Reason and the Constitution we were under) came over and Espoused our cause: Thus it appears from what we have said, that we Cavaliers had the better cause; but our Sins ruined us and it, and deprived us of the best Earthly King in the World, who was Murdered by Bloody Men; our high provocations drawing God into the quarrel against us: Though after he had Scourged us, he was pleased in infinite Mercy, and by Miraculous Providence, to make up our breaches in the happy Restoration of his Sacred Majesty who now Reigns; and long may he Reign over us and our Children.  
GOD SAVE THE KING.  
FINIS.   

LONDON, Printed By George Croom, at the Blew-Ball in Thames-street, over against Baynard's Castle, 1684.