The Long Parliament tvvice defunct: or, An answer to a seditious pamphlet, intituled, The Long Parliament revived. Wherein the authors undeniable arguments are denied, examined, confuted: and the authority of this present Parliament asserted, vindicated. By a zealous yet moderate oppugner of the enemies of his prince and country. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A91212 of text R203196 in the English Short Title Catalog (Thomason E1053_2). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 81 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A91212 Wing P4003 Thomason E1053_2 ESTC R203196 99863243 99863243 115433 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A91212) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 115433) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 156:E1053[2]) The Long Parliament tvvice defunct: or, An answer to a seditious pamphlet, intituled, The Long Parliament revived. Wherein the authors undeniable arguments are denied, examined, confuted: and the authority of this present Parliament asserted, vindicated. By a zealous yet moderate oppugner of the enemies of his prince and country. Prynne, William, 1600-1669, attributed name. [8], 40 p. printed for Henry Brome at the Gun in Ivy-lane, London : 1660. Sometimes attributed to William Prynne. "The Long Parliament revived" is by Sir William Drake. Annotation on Thomason copy: "Decem 3.". Reproduction of the original in the British Library. Apply to Sir William Drake: Long Parliament revived. eng Drake, William, -- Sir. -- Long Parliament revived England and Wales. -- Parliament -- Early works to 1800. Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1649-1660 -- Early works to 1800. A91212 R203196 (Thomason E1053_2). civilwar no The Long Parliament tvvice defunct: or, An answer to a seditious pamphlet, intituled, The Long Parliament revived.: Wherein the authors und [Prynne, William] 1660 14203 15 0 0 0 0 0 11 C The rate of 11 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words. 2007-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-02 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-03 Pip Willcox Sampled and proofread 2007-03 Pip Willcox Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Long Parliament TVVICE DEFUNCT : OR , AN ANSWER TO A SEDITIOUS PAMPHLET , INTITULED , The Long Parliament Revived . WHEREIN The Authors undeniable Arguments are Denied , Examined , Confuted : AND The Authority of this present Parliament Asserted , Vindicated . By a Zealous yet moderate oppugner of the Enemies of his Prince and Country Christianae perfectionis est , pacificum esse etiam cum Pacis inimicis , Spe correctionis , non consensu Malignitatis : Vt si nec Exemplum nec cohortationum Discretionem sequantur ; causas tamen non habeant , quibus odisse nos debeant . Aug. London , Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun in Ivy-lane , 1660. To the Reader . T Was not an Ambition to speak in Print , nor to lay lime-twigs for any other advantage , which encouraged my Pen to this undertaking : These are toyes to delude those who understand little of the World , and less of their own Merits . Wouldst thou know the Occasion ? T was this . About a week since , I had the happiness to visit some of my Learned and judicious friends . Their discourse was a while various , till it was fixt on The Long Parliament Revived . And therein ( having no Learning in the Common Lawes ) their judgements were fluctuating and uncertain But the Novelty of the question and the confidence of the Author , had enclined them , though not to an Assent , yet to a favourable Censure of his Opinion . A stranger among them would needs prove it to be true , and produced only that it was the sence of the City for his evidence . At length they demanded my judgement . I discoursed the question at large , answered their objections , refuted their Arguments , and in the end left them well satisfied that it was but a Parradox . One of them ( whose commands are to Mee more obligeing then the Acts of a Posthumous Parliament ) enjoyned me to commit my thoughts to paper , and hath since condemned them to the Press . Whether he were in this my friend or my enemy , be thou the judge . I have been forced in this Argument to make most use of reason , deduced either from its first principles , or the common notions of our Law . For the question is a transendent and in vain it were to look presidents either in our Law-books or Histories . Several Arguments are used , but those upon the exposition of the Act it self 17. Car. I conceive to be of themselves a full Answer to the Authors principle objection . This question might have been the triumph of a more able Pen : But that the Eagles do not quarrey upon flies . And if some one of the Sages of the Law had undertook this task ; the Author might have pleaded , Qui bonam tuetur causam , dum victus est , non vincitur , That he was conquered by the man , not by the truth . But now against any such suggestion , the undertaking of the question by one of a lesse Name , is a sufficient Counterplea . I shall willingly abide the sentence of the judicious . But to censure before thou understandest , is to condemn a man unheard . If I have brought any Light to the Question or benefit to my Countrey by this small Labour ; my desires herein are in their Haven . As for thy favour I shall neither Flatter it , nor Refuse it . Farewell . Anno 17. Caroli Regis . An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning , proroguing , or dissolving of this present Parliament . WHereas great Sums of money must of necessity be speedily advanced and provided for relief of his Majesties Army and people in the Northern parts of this Realm , and for preventing the imminent danger this Kingdom is in , and for supply of other his Majesties present and urgent occasions , which cannot be so timely effected , as is requisite without Credit for raising the said moneys : Which Credit cannot be obtained until such obstacles be first removed , as are occasioned by fears , jealosies , and apprehensions of divers his Majesties ▪ Loyal Subjects , that this present Parliament may be adjourned , prorogued , or dissolved , before Iustice shall be duely executed upon Delinquents ▪ publick grievances redressed ; a firm Peace between the two Nations of England and Scotland concluded , and before sufficient provision be made for the repayment of the said moneys so to be raised . All which the Commons in this present Parliament assembled having duely considered , do therefore humbly beseech your most excellent Majesty that it may be declared , and Enacted . And be it Declared and Enacted by the King our Soveraign Lord , with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled , and by the Authority of the same , that this present Parliament now assembled shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose . Nor shall be at any time or times , during the continuance thereof , prorogued , or adjourned , unless it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed for that purpose . And that the House of Peers shall not at any time , or times , during this present Parliament , be adjourned , unless it be by themselves , or by their own Order : And in like manner , that the House of Commons shall not at any time , or times , during this present Parliament , be adjourned , unless it be by themselves , or by their own Order . And that all , and every thing , and things , whatsoever done , or to be done , for the adjournment , proroguing , or dissolving of this present Parliament , contrary to this Act , shall be utterly void , and of none effect . THE LONG-PARLIAMENT TWICE DEFUNCT , Or , An ANSWER To a Seditious Pamphlet , called The LONG-PARLIAMENT Revived . THE Contrivers of evil Designes , are not more sollicitous to accomplish their mischievous Ends , then they are Crafty to palliate and mask the course of their undue proceedings . For deformity and an ill-favoured aspect , is entayl'd upon wicked and unhandsome Actions , and the soul of Man hath retained so much of its original Righteousness and primitive Light , that it starts , and feels the effects of Antipathy upon the first discovery of a foul and vicious Object , when ever it ventures it self abroad undiscovered and appearing in its own ugly proportions . And therefore evil minded Men finde it both the safest , and the surest , and the easiest way to hide their pernicious purposes under the fair and plausible pretences of Vertue , or Religion , or the publick good . That great Heretick in Religion and Policy , Machiavil hath taught them the same Lesson , who though he rejects Conscience in the substance as no good Guide , yet he perswades his disciples to embrace the empty shew of it , as the best Vizard in the World . But Truth is Eagle-eyed and can look through all their thin pretences , and measure their perverse intentions by the end to which their actions are naturally tending , and the effects which they are likely to produce . Herein can be no Hypocrisie , no Disguises to elude the inquiries of a wise Observation . The means they use do certainly point out the Ends they aime at , as he that shoots at a mark will be thought to intend to hit it if he could , whatsoever he tells us to the contrary . The Author of the late Pamphlet called The Long-Parliament Revived , hath rendred himself an example of the truth of this Assertion , who being great with Childe of a Paradox destructive to the peace of this Nation , could not be satisfied till by the Midwifry of the Press he was delivered of his Chymerical Birth , though with the hazard of his Liberty in the production . For though the whole scope and designe of his book be only to ferment the Minds of the Vulgar , and as he calls them , injudicious sort of people , and to blow the Trumpet of Sedition to the disturbance of the publick happy peace : Yet he hath the Forehead to preface his old rags with plush , and to begin with these crafty Insinuations , viz. To the End the peace of this Nation may be established upon a firm and lasting foundation and that after one shipwrack hardly escaped , we run not again upon a more fatal and irrecoverable Rock of Confusion , The Author of this small paper out of tender Compassion to his native Countrey , and with all humble respects of allegiance to his Royal Majesty that now is , hath thought fit to offer Arguments to the world , &c. which if timously harkened unto , may yet prove a healing Remedy against the sad breaches of this shattered Kingdom and prevent Mischeifs . Sure this man was an Apothecary he is so good at gilding of his bitter Pills . Let us therefore inquire whether the substance of his discourse do correspond and suite with these fair and plausible pretentions of Loyalty , and the publick benefit of these Nations . Which will the better appear if we Consider , First , the rancour of his heart against the present Government , expressed in the fourth page of the Pamphlet , to this effect , viz. That when the subjects of this Nation have seriously considered of his Arguments , which ( as he would have it ) do prove the being and Legall authority of the Long Parliament visibly existent by vertue of the Act 17. Car. They will doubtless see they have no reason to hold themselves safe in their lives , liberty and estates till it have made provision in that behalf , and be legally dissolved . What is , if this be not to sow Sedition , and to lay the foundations of a new Warre , and to angle for proselytes of Rebellion , which the Phantastick baites of the vindication of Laws and the Subjects security ? We have ( one would think ) bought the experience of trusting the pretence of fears and jealousies at too dear a rate , to be again involved in the sad consequence of a pernicious Credulity . The present age is too wise to thrust themselves into a true and real slavery , to avoid a painted one . And therefore the Author might have spared that clause which gives the lie to his proemial flourishes , and is not likely to serve to the ends he intended it , the generality of the people ( blessed be God ) being now of true and loyal principles and of a Conformable temper to the government established . Secondly , the Consequence of the opinion he defends , will plainly demonstrate that the Author is no such great friend to the publick good of his native Countrey , as is pretended . For then he would have it to follow , that the present Parliament is of no authority to binde the subjects of this Nation , and that their Acts have not the force of Laws , and if so , then all their Acts are voide and of no force that they have made in order to those excellent ends of restoring his sacred Majesty to his just birth-right , and the Laws and liberties of the people to their free exercise and splendor , which this present Parliament have , to their eternal glory and honor , with great prudence and moderation effected ? How will the Author and the Nation be sure of another Act of Oblivion , of so full and comprehensive Mercy as that which is already passed and published . If that should not be an Act of Parliament , it is only the Kings Declaration which is pleadable in no Court for any mans discharge . Besides his Majesties Declaration from Breda referres to this Parliament now sitting , and by his letters to them , hee obliged himself by his Royal word to passe those Laws which are already Enacted , and others now in Agitation for the quiet settlement of the Nation , and therefore he is not concerned in Honor or Conscience ( for otherwise he is not obliged ) to give his Royal Assent to those Acts when they shall be presented to him by the Long-Parliament if they could get a being quasi ex post liminio as the Author hath conceited it . And let him be confident the desires of the Nation are utterly against it , who will never willingly be brought to seek a plaister from those very men that have broken their heads . Thirdly , the Authors malevolent nature appears in this , That relying upon one distinction only , that there is a difference betwixt the nature of a Parliament in its ordinary constitution , and a Parliament strengthened by a special Law made to that purpose , and some few shreds out of the third Institutes , he dares to cross the general opinion of learned men , and like a pigmy upon the shoulders of a giant , bid defiance to all opposers ; 't is a curst cow that will be fighting though she hath short horns , and he hath a great minde to swimming that will adventure to cross the Seas in a cockboat . But not to dwell in the porch ; it will be agreed to the Author , that Parliaments rightly constituted in the general , are very instrumental for the safety and happiness of this Kingdome , and that the Members of Parliament ought to enjoy their due privileges . But his inference will not hold in applying the general rule to every particular Parliament . For though the general constitution be good and convenient to the nature of our Government , yet some of the particular instances may be defective and erronious in their judgement and proceedings . And no wonder , seeing the rule in Livy is generally true , in consilijs major pars plerumque vincit meliorem . We have had insanum Parliamentum of old . And the effects of the late Long Parliament , caused by the faction and perversness of some predominant parties amongst them , even to the dissolution of our Government , is a sufficient proof in the judgement of sober and unbiassed persons , that the general thesis ought to be understood with several limitations . And although the Members of Parliament ought to enjoy their lawfull privileges , yet it doth not follow that therefore those men should be permitted to sit whose Authority is determined by the course of Law , as shall be hereafter most manifestly proved . His particular Arguments are drawn from the body and preamble of the Act of 17 Caroli . First from the preamble he endeavours to prove by way of Implication , That that Parliament intended to secure themselves against all the causes of dissolution , as well by the Kings Death as otherwise , and thus he argues in effect , That the Parliament being necessitated to borrow money for the publique Service ( for he waves the other ends mentioned in that preamble of that Act , and therefore I shall take no notice of them in the discourse ) and seeing no body would trust them because it was hazardous , they might be dissolved before repayment , therefore was the Act made to establish their continuance till the money being satisfied they did dissolve themselve by Act of Parliament ; But saith the Author , If they had been notwithstanding dissolvable by the Kings Death , the Act had been of no effect , because their dissolution was still hazardous ; the Kings life ( saith he ) being more uncertain then other mens , and so ex absurdo he reasons , That the Parliament shall not be intended to omit this cause of their dissolution out of the said Act . To this I answer , That the principle end of this Act being only to secure the payment of the publique debts , which they were then contracting . If the security of those debts did not so depend upon the Parliament , that they would be necessarily lost , if they were unpaid at the time of their dissolution ; then that Parliament was not absolutely necessitated to secure their sitting till those debts were paid , it being sufficient to establish themselves against being dissolved by the Kings will , which had most often recurrence , and whereof they stood in most danger . But those debts which they then contracted , were either secured by Act of Parliament , actually made and passed at the time of the money borrowed , or they were not . If they were secured by Act of Parliament , that Act was as good a security after the Parliament dissolved , as it was while the Parliament continued . But if they were not so secured , the debts were as likely to be paid , and the Creditors had the same security ( viz. the Honour and Justice of the Kingdom , which is all the security or compulsive power Creditors have against Parliaments ) for the repayment thereof by a subsequent Parliament , as by the Parliament then sitting which borrowed the money , which is apparent ; first , because the Parliament then sitting , by the Authors own confession , took no care for repayment of the said money , and another Parliament could not possibly be more remisse ; Secondly , because those debts were the publique debts of the Kingdom , contracted by their Representatives in Parliament , in their publick , and not in their individual Quality , and therefore every following Parliament , comming under the same Representation , ●●ere bound to take the same care for the payment ●hereof , being a part of their publique Service or Employment . And it is no strange thing for a latter Parliament to pay sums which were drawn on the Kingdom by a precedent Parliament , witnesse the paying off the Souldiers by the Honourable Assembly now sitting , which Souldiers were the most part of them first set on work by the Long Parliament , since which time , till now , we could never have the happinesse to shake hands with them , So that it appears that there was no such great necessity , as the Author insinuates , to Bulwark themselves against a dissolution by the Kings Death , which was a remote possibility . But that in case that accident had happened ( which was unlikely ) the debts notwithstanding would not have been lost , but had been in as much likelihood to have been paid by the next Parliament , as if the Parliament in 17 Caroli had not been dissolved by the Kings Death . Secondly , at the time of this Act made , there was no danger of the Kings death , nor any suspition that it would happen within so short a time as was sufficient for them to have raised the said monies , and therefore they shall not be reasonably intended to have made provision against the Kings death . For his late Majesty of ever blessed Memory was sprung of longaevous Parents , and was in the Meridian of his age , of a strong and healthfull constitution , and of great temperance in his diet and recreations , which are all symptomes or causes of a long life ; and therefore 't is unlikely they should mistrust he would die within one or two years , which was time more then sufficient for the raising and payment of the sums borrowed . Thirdly , if the case had been so that his Majesty had been of a languid and valetudinarious habit of body , yet the Act had not been fruitless . For a Parliament may be dissolved either by the Kings pleasure , or by discontinuance , or by the Kings death . But seeing by this Act they were defended against being dissolved by the Kings pleasure ( as is agreed by all parties ) whereof there was most danger : I conceive the Author will not deny , but that their Session was more established by this Act then it was when it lay open to all the three accidents or causes of dissolution . An estate determinable upon the surrender or forfeiture of the particular tenant is a lesse defeasible estate then another estate determinable by his death , surrender or forfeiture . And now reader , you may breath a little , and consider the emptiness of the Authors argument conceived upon the preamble of this Act , which appears to be like the crackling of Solomons thorns under a pot , makes a great blaze and a great noise , but contributes little of solid heat to the vessel that hangs over it . Yet to be further quit with him before I dismisse the preamble , I shall thereupon frame this argument which I think flowes more naturally from it then his deduction , That it appears from the preamble the Parliament only intended to suspend the Kings prerogative and the ordinary course of dissolving them till they had cleared their credits and repayed the money borrowed , for this they make the principal end and drift of that Act , and when the end of an Act of Parliament is satisfied , the Act looses its force , Aquisito fine cessat operatio , which is proved by those temporary Statutes for Assesments &c. when the money is paid , the Statute is become of no further use or effect . And therefore if all the ends for which the Act 17. Caroli was made be satisfied accordingly by the payment of the money therein mentioned , to be borrowed upon the security of that Parliament , Then is the suspension taken off , and the Kings prerogative , and the ordinary course of dissolution of Parliaments is revived again as it was before that Act made , and by consequence they are dissolved by the Martyrdom of his late Majesty . Now the Learned and worthy Patriot Mr ▪ Prynne asserts that the ends of this Act are all satisfied , and the Author doth not endeavour to prove the contrary . But if the moneys by them borrowed be not paid . Yet I suppose the authority given them by that Act , ceased before the Kings death for not performing the ends of that Act within the time which was limitted them by the construction of Law and Reason . And for proof hereof , and our more orderly proceeding we will inquire what time was allowed them by a rational interpretation of that Act to performe the ends in that Act designed . There is no man , I think , so irrational as to imagin , that by this Act they are a perpetual Parliament ; First , because it is contrary to the end designed in the preamble . Secondly , because it is against the fundamental Constitution of the politick government of this Kingdom , & against all the presidents and books of Law , which alwayes mention successive Parliaments ; Thirdly , 't is against the Liberty of the Subject , which a Parliament cannot alter in so principal a part , especially seeing the Lawmakers may be intended reasonably to do it for their own benefit , who in their own cases , by the Law of Reason , can be no co●petent Judges . And that for many inconveniences , In successive Parliaments the Country have every time power to chuse a new , and 't is not often ( though sometimes ) seen , that one man is chosen in many successive Parliaments : which variation is necessary for several Reasons ; Sometimes because they would ehuse persons aptly qualified in parts or Affections , or both , to the Matters of State then in agitation ; Sometimes they elect persons having interests by their own greatnesse or alliance to procure some particular businesse of Consequence effected for the County or Corporation for which they serve , So that to endeavour a perpetual Parliament , would prejudice the people 's repeated election , which is not to be allowed . Besides , this inconvenience would follow a perpetual Parliament , that the persons chosen may be altered in Body , Mind or Morals , and so unfit for that service , yet their authority would be continued ; For a Knight , Citizen or Burgesse can make no proxie , and Sicknesse , &c. is no cause of Removal . And further , if those persons should grow old in that power , they would engrosse the offices of the kingdom into their own hands , and by great means , and friends , and privilges overtop their Countrymen and make them meer Under-woods . And if it be proved that this Act doth not establish this Long Parliament in an absolute perpetuity , Then it is to be considered what is the time of their duration , within the meaning of this Act ; for if it be construed that they have a continuance till they dissolve themselves , without restraining their continuance to the time of the performance of those ends for which the said Act was made : This is potentially a perpetuity , and cannot be abridged but by 〈◊〉 own wills , which would never militate ( as he phrases it ) against their own advantages . So that then this exposition labours under the same Absurdities and Inconveniences with the former , and therefore not to be supposed . Therefore I conceive the most natural and genuine interpretation of this Act is , to make the drift and purpose of this Act , the limits of its continuance , and this drift is the payment of the said debts ; And seeing by the rules of the Common Law , which may be confirmed by Reason , when an indefinite time is given for the performance of a voluntary Act possible to a third person , the Act ought to be done within convenient time ; hence I infer , that if the publique debts which were the end of the making of this Act , be not satisfied by the Long Parliament ; yet because they have had time and power more than sufficient between the making of that Act , and the Kings death , to have raised and paid them off , and did actually levy monies , amounting to a far greater sum , which were otherwise imployed . The Gentlemen of that Parliament ought not to take advantage of their own neglect ; but having surpassed the time which by Law and Reason was sufficient to accomplish those ends , they lost the advantage they gained by that Statute , the Kings Prerogative , and the ordinary course of Dissolution relapsed into its old Chanel , and consequently the said Parliament was by the Kings death actually dissolved . And so much is argued by way of Admission , That the Act of 17 Car. did provide against all the Causes of Dissolution , but not granting it ; for I doubt not , but I shall prove the contrary afterwards in this Discourse . But now we must hasten to the body of the Act . His second Argument is drawn from the body of the Act , the words whereof are these , viz. That this Parliament be not dissolved unless by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose . Whence he concludes , that this negative Clause is exclusive of all the causes of Dissolution ; which I deny : But before I give my reasons I shall observe . That seeing this Act is derogatory in a matter of the highest nature to the Law and Custome of Parliament , but especially to the Kings Prerogative , which the Law supports and cherishes as a ballance to the two other Estates , to preserve the perfect Crasis and equal Temper of the Politick Government . The general words therof shall be expounded strictly in reference to the thing altered , and beneficially as to the reviviscency of the Law and Custome of Parliament , and of the Kings Prerogative , which in obedience to some necessity was for a time laid afleep and suspended ; for 't is a rule , that bonum necessarium extra terminos necessitatis non est bonum . This being premised I doubt not but I shall give a full Answer to the Authors second Argument . And therefore I make a Question , whether an Act of Parliament by express and apposite words , which is stronger than our Case can continue their own being after the death of the King in whose life it was summoned . First , because that after the death of the King , if they be a Parliament , they are either such by the Common law and custom of Parliament ( which is a principal and fundamental part of the Common law of the Land ) or by the special Statute , so by both they cannot be a Parliament . But they are not be a Parliament by either of those two wayes , for the reasons hereafter alledged , Not by the Common law and custom of Parliaments ; because ( as the learned Mr. Prynne hath proved in his said booke , and the Author agreeth it , and 't is not doubted by any man that hath any understanding in the Law ) That Parliament , as it was a Parliament by the Common law , naturally determined by the demise or death of the King : Nor are they a Parliament by the especial Statute , because then it would be another thing distinct from that Parliament which was summoned in the Kings life , to which the power of Representation , which was conferred upon the Members thereof , by the people in their Election cannot extend ; for the Country being enabled to choose them by the Kings writ , the persons elected received no power from them , but according to the tenour of the Kings writ , which determining with the Kings life , the power of representing the people , wbich they received at their Election was then likewise determined , and by consequence they were no longer the peoples Representatives ; and therefore no Parliament . Or to expresse it in plainer terms , If they be a Parliament after the Kings death by the force of their own Act , as I have proved , they must be , if they be a Parliament ; Then it would follow , that a Parliament by their own Act may only create another Parliament , to exist after they themselves so constituted are dissolved ; and the consequence of this would be , that the people should be bound by the Laws of that other Parliament to which the people never consented being made by persons that were not chosen by them to be their immediate Representatives , which is absurd ▪ There is nothing materially to be objected to this in my opinion , but that the people are parties by representation to the Act that constituted the second Parlrament , and so the second Parliament might sit by their mediate , though not by their immediate choyce and election . To which I answer , That the power that the people gave to their Representatives at their Election was limited and confined to their persons in that quality , and is not transferrible either to other persons , or to themselves in another quality ; because all Authorities are confidences in the persons authorized to some certain end ; and therefore are personally and strictly taken , and cannot be communicated to others , or themselves in another manner than they were at first given . As for ample , If I submit my self to the arbitration of a Stranger to stand and fall by his judgement and decree ; though I am bound to stand to his sentence , yet if he transfer over the power I gave him to another , I am not obliged by the award of the 3d person . So if there be Arbitrators which are limited to make their arbitration during the life of a third man , If they award within that time , that what award they themselves shall make after the death of the third person , shall be good and binding to the parties concerned ; Such award would be voyd , because they are not arbitrators after the death of the third person , by the choyce and submission of the parties concerned ; but by their own award ; which was beyond the intention of the parties that gave them power , and if they could hand over their authority beyond the date of the first limitation of its continuance , they might do the same thing infinitely , which is absurd and inconvenient , and against the nature of an Authoritie . Secondly , I conceive it will be a hard a matter for the Author to prove , that a Parliament hath a legal power ordinarily as a Parliament , to alter the Fundamental laws , which are so concorporate with the essence of Government , that one cannot subsist and be the same without the other , unlesse it be in a case of great & invincible necessity , which dispences with the punctilio's of all Laws , or by the peoples consent specially signified , and the implyed consent by their ordinary Election shall not be suffiicient . And 't is not a general sentence cited by the Author out of the 3d ▪ Institutes will evince the contrary . Which position I prove , First , because the Author might have found in his beloved third Institutes , That it is the course for the Members of Parliament to desire leave to consult with their Counties before they consent to any new Law of extraordinary and important alteration . Secondly , it being the Root and foundation of all the Liberties of the Subject , not to be bound by any new Law to which they are not parties by their imdiate Representatives , and to make successive Elections : It will not be reasonably intended , That the people did intrust them with their authority to those ends , viz. to change the Government , or to deprive them of their fundamental privileges , as I have before shewed is done by this Act , according to the Authors interpretation . Thirdly , the Lawes of England are of two sorts , either they concern the being , or the well-being of the Policy of this Nation ; Those of the last kinde are the proper work and object of Parliamentarie power , these may be enacted , repealed , revived , corrected , expounded , and as to them a Parliament hath unlimited jurisdiction , as by the particular examples cited by my Lord Cooke appears ; But those Lawes that concern the Being of the Kingdom , as 't is a Government , are inalterable , except in the special cases of Necessity or the peoples special Consent ; Because first , those first and fundamental Lawes are the foundation and the Measure of the usefulnesse or disadvantage of all the other Lawes , which are collateral to the Essence of Government ; All Lawes being fitted to the nature of Government , as a garment is shaped to the body , and therefore those Laws ought to be as Standards to support and regulate all the rest . Secondly , because an Error in such alteration would be fatal , and next door to an Impossibility to be redressed ; If the Walls or the Roof of a building be altered , there is no great danger , but to move a stone in the foundatiō , threatens the whole structure with a certain downfall . I may say of it as my Lord Burleigh to his Son in another case , To attempt a change in the essentials of Government , is like a Stratagem in War , wherein to faile once is to be undone for ever . And that the limits of the natural duration of a Parliament , is part of the Fundamental Laws of this Nation is so clear , and common a Truth , that it needs no further proof . Fourthly , every Statute hath the formality of a Law , by the Law and Custom of Parliament , because a Constitution agreed on by persons chosen by the people with the Royal Assent , without the material Circumstances required by the Law and Custom of Parliament , is ordinarily no binding Law , which proves that the Law and Custom of Parliament , gives the essence & formality of every possitive Law , as t is a Law ; and therefore it cannot be altered in the substantial part of it , except in the cases before excepted ; For all the power and force which a Statute hath to command obedience as it is a Law , being derived from the Law and Custom of Parliament , if this Law might be altered by a Statute , it would then follow , That the force and effect of one and the same Law , could be bent against it self , and have an efficiency to its own destruction ; which is repugnant and unnatural , and not to be imagined . And for a further proof of the premisses , I do affirm , That there be several things which a Parliament cannot do by their Act de jure , though de facto , sometime it be done , as to make a Law that a man shall be Judge in his own cause , or any other thing which is against natural equity , the Act is void , quia jura naturae sunt immutabilia . So if an Act be made to Condemn and Attaint a man of Treason , without hearing him in the way of a legal Tryal , although my Lord Cook saith , that the attainder standeth of force , because there is no higher Court to controul it , yet he addeth this clause to shew it is not good de jure , viz. Auferat oblivio si potest si non , utcunque silentium tegat , for ( saith he ) the more High and Honourable the Jurisdiction of the Court is , the more Just and Honourable ought they to be in their proceedings , and to give example to inferiour Courts . I shall not mention the Books cited by Mr. Prynne , which pertain hither , but refer the Reader to his Book . But to come nearer , t is the Judgement of a whole Parliament , in these words , viz. It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament , upon demand made of them on the behalf of the King , That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disherison of the King and his Crown , to which they were sworn . And my Lord Cook saith , That although it might be done ( i. e. de facto ) yet it is against the Law and Custom of Parliament . Now the said Act of 17 Caroli according to the Authors Interpretation , is expresly against the Prerogative of the Kings Successor , to call his own Parliament , and hath many other inconveniences , which need not to be here again repeated , and therefore in the words of the Parliament in Edward the 3d. his time ; They could not make an Act to bear such an Interpretation , to the disherison of the King and his Crown , &c. Yet I will not deny but that the Kings Majesty might binde up his own hads , and suspend his ordinary power from an actual dissolution of the Parliament ; morally ▪ by his promise , or legally , by an Act made for that purpose . For a Parliament may bee dissolved either by an external principle which is accidental , viz. the declaration of the Kings pleasure ; or by an internal principle which is natural , viz. the want of entring their Continuances , or the Kings death , whereby the Kings writ , which is the authority they have to convene together , is determined . Now the King ( as over his Subjects ) so he hath a soveraignty over his own Will , and being obliged by his Royal assent to that Act , he might and ought to stave off the accidental cause of their dissolution . But for the aforesaid Reasons , I doubt whether the Kings Majesty , or his two Houses , or altogether , could legally change the substance of the Parliament , and defend it against the natural Causes of its Dissolution . This being understood under the limitations expressed in my first Thesis or Position . But that which I will rely upon is this , that admitting it be in the power of a Parliament with the Royal assent by their Act to make themselves a Legal Parliament after the Kings death by apt words ; Yet in the Act of 17. Caroli there are no such words , as according to the rules of Law will bear any such construction . For the words , That this Parliament shall not be dissolved unless it be by Act of Parliament , are a general negative , which by a proper interpretation cannot extend to all the causes of dissolution , but only to that which most often happened , and which was the pretended grievance at that time , viz. the dissolution by the Kings will and Pleasure : For it belongs to the Judges to expound the general Statute Laws according to reason and the best convenience , and to mould them to the truest and best use . And in all times the Judges have excepted particular cases out of the general negative or affirmitive words : of Statutes , though such particular cases have come within the comprehension of the general words . Where the letter of those Statutes in the largest extent of it doth intrench upon the Kings Prerogative or the nature of the thing , or enforces to an inconvenience or an impossibility . By the Satute of Magna Carta c. 11. 't is enacted , That common pleas shall not follow ( or be sued in ) the Kings Court ( or Bench ) which is a general negative clause , yet notwithstanding because 't is a maxime in Law that the King is present in every Court ( and cannot for that reason be non-suited ) It is clear Law and so holden , that the King is not within these general words , but may sue in his Bench or in any other Court at his pleasure . In the Marquess of Winchesters Case , though there was an Act of Parliament 28. H. 8. that the Lord Norris should forfeit all his rights , &c. Yet adjudged that a right of action being an inseparable incident to the person attainted could not by general words be made separable contrary to its nature ; and therefore were not given to the King by the generality of that Law . So in Englefields Case , though the Statute 33 H. 8. gives all conditions of persons attainted to the King , which being a general word comprehends all sorts of conditions , yet a condition of revocation of uses by any writing under the hand of the Duke of Bedford that was attainted being appropriated to his own personal act was not forfeited within that general Statute . The Statute of Winchester is a general Statute , that the Hundred , &c. shall make satisfaction for all Robberies and Felonies done within the Hundred ; Yet Resolved , that the Hundreds shall make no satisfaction for the robberies of a house , because the house was the Owners Castle , and he might have defended himself , and so t was inconvenient that the Hundred should be put to take care of him that had ability to preserve himself and his goods : Nor for a robbery done in the night , because it was the Travellers folly to travel by night , and it was impossible that the Hundred ( who by intendment were in their beds ) should take notice of such a Robbery . The Statutes of Marlebridge , cap. 4. Westm. 2d . cap. 49. and 25 E. 3. cap. 16. are in the general Negative ; Yet the Judges have so expounded those Statutes , that they extend not to many particular special cases which are within the general Comprehension of those words . It were infinite to enumerate all of them ; Therfore to apply this . Seeing it is agreed by the Author , and otherwise proved , That it is the nature of a Parliament ordinarily to be determined by the Kings death ; and the contrary is ( as I have proved ) against the liberty of the Subjects election , and in prejudice of the Kings Successors prerogative of calling his own Parliament , and this general Clause may be very fully satisfied by suspension of the Kings prerogative to dissolve them at his will and pleasure ; 'T is against all reason and president , that it should be extended any further to change the essential nature of a Parliament , abridge the subjects Liberty , and shackle the prerogative royal , withou● any special and expresse words to manifest certainly that the intention of the Lawmakers was such , without any manner of Question . For if they had intended to preserve themselves against discontinuance , and the Kings death , they would have added such special words as these , viz. That this Parliament shall not be dissolved by the Kings Majesty , nor by neglect of the due entring of Adjournments , nor by his Majesties death , but onely by Act of Parliament : Which would have made their Intention manifest ; and in such Case they would never have been contented with general words , which are uncertain and ambiguous . And lastly , if I should admit , which can never be evinced , That the said negative Clause should fortifie the Parliament against all the causes of dissolution , as it stands singly by it self ; yet upon consideration of the other part of the same Statute , it will appear that there are other words which do restrain the generallity of the former negative clause or sentence , and shew , that the intent of that Parliament was never to continue themselves a Parliament after the Kings death . And to prove this : It is a good Rule in Law , that it is most natural and genuine to expound one part of the meaning of a Statute by an other . The first general clause of the Statute 17 Car. respects the Effect , viz. That they shall not be dissolved , &c. and this I call Conservatory . And after comes another clause , which respects the Cause of their dissolution , viz. And that all and every thing and things , done or to be done for the Adjournment , proroguing , or dissolving of this present Parliament , contrary to this present Act , shall be utterly void and of none Effect . Which Clause is prohibitory of the Cause of their dissolution . And in this last Clause it appears , that the Cause of dissolution which they intended to prevent , was something that should consist in Action , by the words ( thing or things done or to be done ) Which words could be applicable only to an actual dissolution by the Kings Pleasure . For the non-entry of continuance upon adjournments , is not a Thing , but a Defect , nor Done , but Omitted ; and the Kings death is not a Thing , but a Cessation of his personal Being , and of the dependents thereupon . Nor is an Action , but a Termination or Period . So that the last clause which respects the cause of their dissolution , extending only to a dissolution by the Kings pleasure , the Author cannot with any Reason or Modesty strain or extend the negative words of the former general Sentence , which Respects the Effect , to any of the other wayes of Dissolution , unlesse hee would have the Effect , as 't is an Effect , to be broader and more capacious than the Cause , which is not to be endured . So that it is evident , that this later Sentence restrains the general words of the former , to the particular kind of dissolution by the Kings pleasure ; and upon the whole , that the Long Parliament had no establishment of their continuance against a dissolution by discontinuance or the Kings death , which having both happened during their Session , they are twice dead instead of being once revived . And now let the impartial and understanding Reader judge what reason the Author had to trouble the world with this Paradox , which is built by him upon so sandy foundation , that it is no glory to demolish and kick it down . It is the humor of some Men to make Election , rather to doe Mischief , than to doe Nothing . Though I cannot but speak him ingenuous ; yet I could wish he had exercis'd his Curiosity in a matter of lesse dangerous consequence to himself and the Peace of these Nations . There remain some Little things to be discussed and answered in the Authors discourse of the Existency of the Long-Parliament , which I shall touch only , and dismisse the Question . To Mr. Prynnes first Argument he answers , That the Kings death legally dissolves a Parliament ; but not such a Parliament as is established by an Act of the three Estates , and requires a president to the contrary . This distinction is fully answered before in this Discourse by my arguments upon the body of the Act : So that Mr. Prynnes Objection stands in its full force and efficacy . And for his president , this is iniquum petere , to demand an example of that which is without a parallel in any of the former Ages . It sufficeth , that we have evinced by Reason and a legal interpretation of the Act of 17 Car. that the Long Parliament hath no legal existence . To Mr. Prynnes second Objection he furnishes out the same distinction ; for hee hath no weapons to fight with but a fork , and if that break he must despair of Victory . But he fortifies his distinction with an Interrogatory , upon which he frames a Dilemma , which is answered before , viz. That a Parliament cannot de jure extend its continuance beyond the Kings life in whole time they were summoned , but by the peoples special consent , or an invincible necessity : And this is not to be such a pedling necessity as the pretence of borrowing of Money in our particular case . He sayes , That Parliament security was ever looked upon as inviolable , viz. ( as I think he means ) just and punctual , and it hath been alwayes so esteemed before and since that Act , and moneyes have been alwayes borrowed in great Sums upon their Security , without scrupling their Dissolution . Ask any Citizen of London , he will give you a president of it which is not beyond the memory of man . Yet I confesse , that if the Moneys borrowed by the Long Parliament in 17 Car. were not paid by that Parliament ( although they sate till the Kings death , which was many years afterwards ) 't is most certainly true , that the general Rule did fail in that particular instance . And till now very few of this Kingdom did ever know or suppose that that Parliament had left the Nation in Debt : So that the Author hath no Reason to expect the Thanks of the House at their resitting , for making this discovery so publique . To Mr. Pryns third Objection he opposes the same magnanimous distinction , which surely is not of French extraction , for it shrinks not at the 3d. charge . But 't is now almost out of breath , and therefore to second it , he sayes , that the King virtually waved the authority of his Writ of Summons , and fearing that for all this it may be repulsed , he sounds a Barley by another Interrogation , which is in effect but his old distinction wheeled off and re-enforced , & this as I have said , is all answered before in this discourse , and I would not tire my Reader with repetitions . To Mr. Pryns fourth Objection he sayes nothing material , only that passage must not escape unanswered , viz. That the King is a part of the Parliament in his politick , rather then in his natural capacity ; and therefore when the King dies , the Parliament dissolved not , because the politick capacity remains after his death . To which I answer , That the intent and use of a Parliament , is to advise that particular King that summons it , and all their counsels must be directed to him as he is a Man capable of Advice and assent : And when he writes Le Roy le veult , it is his personal act , though as this act gives the instrument which he signes the validity and efficacy of a Law , it is done by his Royal Authority . And further , every Parliament ought to begin and end by his personal presence , or by him in representation ; which shewes , that every Parliament depends upon the person of the King ; And this is further evident , by the ordinary dissolution of the Parliament at his death . And to the Authors application , that a Parliament may be such though the Kings person be utterly withdrawn , because his politick capacity lives and is present with them . This is an out-worn and thredbare Distinction , which the common story of the Knights being perjured in his politick , and going to Hell in his natural Capacity sufficiently confutes . For the politick capacity is a second Notion , and cannot subsist but in the natural ; To which it is so strictly united , that it is inseperable otherwise than by our understanding , which cannot alter the nature of any thing . The Murthering of his late Majesty , as it was Treason , was an offence against his politick capacity as he was a King , though that horrid and shamelesse Butchery was committed against his natural person as he was a Man . But that saying that the King is a part of the Parliament must be cautiously understood , because a mistake in it , hath been a great cause or pretence of all our late Civil Wars . For , hence some would infer a Coordination of power in the Parliament , which cannot , I conceive , be made good by Reason or the Laws of this Nation ; For the King hath undoubted power to call and dissolve Parliaments , which are properties inconsistent with a coordinate power . The Stile of all Acts anciently was by way of Petition , ( that it may be enacted ) which doth not smell of co-ordinate authority , and the Act of 17 Car. was in like form . The Members cannot consent upon condition , which shewes , that the binding power of an Act , as it is a Law , doth not passe from them , ( for cujus est dare , ejus est modificare ) but only a bare assent , which is necessary to perfect the Act of another , as in Atturnments . The Members during the Continuance of Parliament may be committed , and be punished for Treason , which could not be , if they were in a Coordination with the King ; And the Writs of Summons , under favour , ( notwithstanding my Lord Cooks marginal notes ) do confirm this assertion . I shall conclude with the Testimony of the learned Grotius , Jure Belli , in these words , Multum falluntur , qui existimant , cum Reges act a sua nolunt esse rata , nisi a Senatu , aut alio Coetu aliquo probentur , partitionem fieri potestatis : nam quae acta , eum in modum rescinduntur , intelligi debent , rescindi Regis ipsius imperio , qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit , ne quid fallaciter impetratum , pro vera ipsius voluntate haberetur . And yet t is most true , that in our Legal Monarchy the King cannot make or alter any Law without the assent of his Peers and Commons in Parliament : So that upon the whole it appears , That the King is so a part , as he is the head of the Parliament and Nation ; and though it be true , that totum est dignius sua parte , yet the head must be a part of this totum , or else that Maxime is untrue and fallacious . To Mr. Pryns fifth Objection , he chops in again the distinction of the Kings politick and natural capacity , which my former confutation hath rendred toothlesse . But he sayes the dissolution of the Parliament by the Kings death , might prove dangerous and pernicious to the Kingdom , I answer , he that intends to be believed , must not affirm things in general terms , which do nihil ponere , and to which no certain answer can be given . Again , 't is presumption in the Author to think himself wiser then all the ages that liv'd before him , who finding no inconvenience , have derived the custom down to our times , and 't is a known good Rule , Oportet neminem esse sapientiorem Legibus . To his answer to the sixth Objection , affirming , That the Parliament was not dissolved by the Act passed lately , upon the Admission of the Secluded Members , for their dissolution , because it was but an Act of the House of Commons only , which is no Act of Parliament . I answer that it is most true , That it was no Act of Parliament according to Law ; But by the Authors favour , those very men ( that were the greatest part of the Commons of the Long Parliament then living ) ought not themselves , nor their advocate , to say that they were no Parliament , for they imposed an Assessement upon the Nation , and stiled their Instruments , Acts of a Parliament , so that those men shall never in reason averre any thing in disability of their own Acts , though they were otherwise not agreeing with the rules of Parliamentary proceedings . Besides that Act at least amounts to a Declaration of their Judgement , that they were dissolved , and it was true , for they were long before dissolved by the Kings death . To his answer to the seventh Objection , That this Act 17 Car. is not void , although the Bishops ( who were outed before this Act passed ) did not assent to it . I shall say obiter , That 't is the hope of the greatest part of the Learned , Loyal and Moderate party of this Nation , that this present Parliament , ( if the necessity of other more important affairs would permit ) or some other Parliament , will out of their zeal to Common Justice , and the honour and safety of the Kingdom , take the Case of the Reverend Bishops into consideration , and restore unto them their ancient honours and privileges of sitting in the House of Peers : Their undoubted and very ancient right , and the necessity of their Re-establishment , in order to the preservation of the ancient policy of this Nation , for the better support of the Royal Authority , for the ballancing of the other two Estates , for the benefit of the Clergy of this Nation , who have no Representatives in Parliament , for the preservation of the rights and privileges of the Church , and for the better establishment of the integrity of Orthodox Religion ; being strong and important advocates for their so just Restitution . After which short digression , I answer , That if an Act of Parliament , that divests so many Members of the same Parliament of their rightfull and ancient privileges , and lawfull inheritance , without any crime committed or alleged , or without being called to answer in any judicial way of proceeding , be good and valid , then the Authors position is true , and not to be denyed ; But if such an Act be against natural justice and equity , and against the law and custom of Parliament , ( for I shall desire the liberty to be sceptical in this particular ) then on the otherside it will appear , that the Bishops were excluded against their Wills , and they being so great a part of the House of Peers , that their voices if they had been present , might by joyning with other Lords of the same opinion , have carried the Act of 17 Caroli in the Negative ; It follows that the Seclusion of the Bishops rendred that Act , and all other Acts made after their Seclusion , void and of none effect . And this case of the Bishops hath no similitude with the point in Mr. Bagshaws reading ( lately printed ) because there the Bishops are supposed voluntarily to absent themselves , or being present to dissent , and so an Act passed by the greater number of voices . Nor doth the case cited by the Author , come up to the case in question . For there the Baronies being appropriate to the Abbots , as they were Abbots , when by Act of Parliament their Abbies were given to the Crown , and the Covent or Society of Regulars dissolved ; the Correlative , viz. the Covent being destroyed , they ceased to be Abbots , and consequently their Baronies which they enjoyed as Abbots ( the foundation failing ) were naturally annihilated . But the Bishops though they were Barons of the Realm , ratione fundi & officii Episcopalis : Yet the Act which ousted them of their Peerage , left them Bishops as they were before the Act , and it was the Bishoprick that was the Foundation of their Temporal Dignity . And there is a great difference between the taking away of an Estate , which by consequence destroys a Dignity that depends upon it , and an Act which directly and intentionally strikes at the substance of the Dignity it self , which appears by the particular instance , that the Abbots were not quarreld at for their Baronies , but for the Dissolutenesse and Enormity of their Abbeys . And to his project , That if the King would please to permit the Long Parliament to sit ; To prevent their perpetuating themselves , ( which ( saith he ) may inslave the King and Kingdom to such a yoak of Bondage , as we may never be able to break off our own necks , or the necks of our posterity any more ) his Majesty may Summon them before their sitting , and take their personal Promise and Engagement to confirm the Acts of this Parliament , and the first thing they do within a certain time to dissolve themselves . I would willingly know what colourable ground or pretence there can be for such a proposal ? For First , they are dissolved and of no authority , as I have before manifestly proved . Secondly , the security of their performance is only a Promise or Engagement , which are easily broken , and if it were an Oath , and they should by mischance do contrary to it , 't is very probable that the Author would pretend he could Salve up their Credits and their Consciences too ; again , with his usual Distinction of their natural and politick capacity . Thirdly , if they should break their Promise or Engagement , by the Authors own confession ( for he sayes , the Objection is very rational ) both the King and People are enthrall'd to a perpetual bondage , and where there is so little assurance on the one side , and so much danger on the other , the Prince cannot in common Prudence put his own and his Kingdomes safety and honour upon so great a hazard , as to depend upon the Honesty of a certain number of Men ; who possibly may fail his expectation , especially ( as in this case ) for their own Advantages . To the Postscript . HE begins his Postscript with a falshood ; and t is not likely that he will penetrate farre into the House that stumbles in the Porch : For there are not any great nor general dissatisfactions concerning the legality of this present Parliament , whose authority he endeavours to shake , because First , the Lords had no writs of Summons . Secondly , the Commons were not chosen by the Kings Writ . Thirdly , That this Parliament began not with the Royal presence . To the First I answer , that the use of a Summons is but to give notice to the Peers of the certainty of the Time and Place of their Convention , and to authorise their Meeting , which is the substantial part of the Summons . Now the King at his coming into the kingdom found them all met together , and therefore the ends of a Summons being ▪ already satisfied by their being met at one time and place , and this meeting being authorized by the Kings personal presence , there was no need of an actual Summons ; And the writ is but a legal circumstance : so that a Failer herein , is but a defect in Formality , and not in Substance . To his Second I answer likewise , they are the Authors own words , page 10. of his Book , that the calling of Parliaments in this or that Kings name , to consult or advise with this or that King , these are but Circumstantial things , and nothing of the essentials of Government and the Kingdoms welfare ; Which is true , if it be rightly applyed . And the Substance or end of the Kings writ is to authorise the Country to Elect , and to notifie the time and place of their Meeting , which was signified by that Writ whereby this Parliament was called . And as to the deficiency of that Writ that it ran in the Name of a Commonwealth , that fault is but in the point of formality . And every one knew that at that time , though the writs spoke a Commonwealth , yet they meant the Kings Majesty . And the Author cannot deny , but that all the circumstances of a free and legal Election were pursued in the choyce of those honourable and worthy persons that are now sitting in this present Parliament , which shews , that herein likewise there is no deficiency in Substance , but only in Circmstance . Now the Substantial part being well observed , the necessity of the then present State of affairs in England , was and is a good justification and excuse of the defects alleged only in Circumstance and Ceremony : Necessitas Legum irridet vincula ; For even the divine Lawes do admit a dispensation in the particular instances of an invincible necessity , as the Laws of the Shew-bread , and that of the Sabbaoth . And therefore much more ought it to prevail against the smaller Ceremonies in question , enjoyned by the Law of this Nation , which is a human Law . And this may be proved , First because that in the Case in Question it will not be reasonably supposed , That they who first laid the foundations of the policy of this Nation did intend that those punctilio's in the writ of Summons should be so strictly observed , That in a Case of so great Necessity as ours was , the non-observance of them should vitiate their Acts , who are not deficient in any of the material and substantial requisites to a Legal Parliament . And this is the argument of Grotius in his Jure Belli in a like case . Secondly , seeing the circumstantial instances , which the Author excepts against in this Parliament do only regard convenience , ( for the Kings pleasure is the substance of the power that is given to the Lords to meet , and to the Counties and Boroughs to elect Members to serve in Parliament , and the end of the Writ of Summons is only for the more convenient and certain manifestation of the Kings pleasure , in order to a consultation for the publique good : ) It follows that when by reason of some extraordinary evil or danger , which oppresses or threatens the kingdom , it appears to be utterly inconvenient to the weal-publique , and impossible , to use those Circumstances ( as it was at the Calling of this Parliament ; ) That in such a special case those Circumstances ought to be omitted , because herein they are useless , nay opposite to the ends to which they were ordained in their first Institution . Thirdly , 't is common ( as in all other Laws ) so by the Laws of England , to allow a special priviledge to all those cases which are ushered in by a Necessity not to be resisted , as you may read at large in Plowden , Fogassas case , fo. 9. & 13 , 18 , 19. Not to trouble my Reader with particular cases , in a matter that will brook no Denyal . Now who knows not , that at the Time of the Calling of this Parliament , there was an Armed power in this Kingdom inimical to the restauration of his Sacred Majesty , and the ancient and legal Government of this Nation ; And that to have summoned the Peers at all , or the Commons , in the Kings name , might then have been the occasion of a Civil Warr , and have hindred all those excellent Defigns which by a more calm and prudent managery have been since effected and brought to passe : And therefore it is plain , that there was a necessity of calling the Parliament ; because nothing but a Parliament could repair the breaches of the Nation , and the Parliament could be called in no other Manner , then it was without the hazard of a new War , and ( Victory being uncertain ) of the dissolution of Government . But it may be Objected , That the Necessity ended with the Kings coming into England , and therefore another Parliament ought afterwards to have been legally called . To which I answer , That the Necessity which occasioned the Calling of this Parliament , was not only to invite home his Majesty , but to confirm and secure him in the Throne , and to do such other things for the Safety and Peace of the Nation as could be only done by them with security to the King and Kingdom ; And therefore the Necessity of their sitting continued : First , till they had pass'd the Act of Oblivion ; because it being offered of the Kings free grace , who was not otherwise bound but by his Royal word in his Declaration from Breda , which referred to such Exceptions as this present Parliament should make : It had been unsafe for the Nation , and would have be got fears in a great number of guilty minds , which might quickly have broken out into open Commotions , if this Parliament had been dissolved before that Act had been pass'd for their Pardon and Indemnity . Secondly , The King and kingdom were not safe , whilst an Army was on foot , that was but a reconcil'd Enemy ; and had not the authority of this Parliament over-awed them till , and in , their disbanding , No man is certain ( and it had been great Folly to have put a matter of that import into hazard ) whether they might not have broken their Faithes and Allegiance , being spurred on by Despair , to have attempted some great Rebellion , which might have brought us into a Relapse of all our Miseries , before an other Parliament could have been summoned and Convened . They who know the History of that Army , will not think such an accident impossible : And therefore this Parliament was necessitated to sit till they had disbanded the Army , and effected all the other businesses that were depending thereupon , or in order to that End , which are now well nigh , but yet not fully perfected . Thirdly , I conceive that the Kings Majesty is the only and proper Judge when this necessity will be at an end , wherein ( as in all other things ) there is no doubt but he will govern his Counsels with such care and prudence , as will describe him not to be more desirous of the love and affection of his particular Subjects , then he shall be tenderly cautious , for the establishment of the peace and happinesse of the Nation in general . As to the Authors third Exception , That the Parliament was not begun with the Kings personal or representative presence , what I have already said is a full Answer . But I might say further , that there is no necessity that I should yield to him , that this exception is true . For all the Acts of this Parliament which have the effect of Laws , were made with the Royal Assent , since his Majesty was personally present with them , and though they met sometime before , yet that doth not hinder but that it might begin to be a Parliament upon his Majesties first access to the two honourable Houses . And in the general , I affirm that the power and faculty of determining what is a Parliament , according to the Laws of this Nation , lies not in any Subject as such , but in the Kings Majesty , or the Parliament , or both together , or in the Judges of the Land . But the King and Parliament have by their Act , entituled , An Act for removing and preventing all Questions and Disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this present Parliament , with particular mention of all the Authors three Exceptions , determined the Question against the Authors rash and inconsiderate opinion . And the Judges of the Land do every day impliedly adjudge the same thing , by allowing the benefit of the Act of Oblivion to all those that are within the words or meaning of the said Act. So that the Author ought not to have interposed his little opinion , seeing it is a certain truth , That the judgment of the Judges of the general Courts of Record is the Law of the Land , till it be altered by something else , of as high or a higher nature and quality . Again , the principal defects which are alledged in the assembling of this Parliament , are the want or defect in the Writs of Summons , which is only a legal signification of the Kings command or authority for their Election and Convening ; And this is supply'd by the Kings confirmation afterwards , in the aforesaid Act. It being a rule in Law , That Omn-is rati habitio mandato aequiperatur , a confirmation afterwards is looked upon in Law as the same thing with a command in the beginning . There is no need to cite any Cases to prove this , whereof there is no scarcity of Instances , if I asserted a long discourse . Not to insist upon his unmannerlinesse with the present honourable Houses , I shall only wonder at his boldnesse and folly , who might have been fore warned by that passage in the 3d Instit. chap. Parliament , which he so much Inculcates , viz. Arthur Hall , a Member of the House of Commons , for publishing and discovering the Conferences of the House , and writing a Book to the dishonour of the House , was adjudged by the House of Commons to be committed to the Tower for 6. months , fined at five hundred Marks , and expelled the House . Yet I know the Authors case is somewhat differing , he being ( t is said ) no Member of the House of Commons . But to conclude , 'T is a strange thing that there should be some who cannot be contented either with rain or sun-shine , Neque morbos nostros nec Remedia nostra ferre possumus , was an old complaint , but much more applicable to the dregs of time , wherein we are fallen . We were before tormented with the anguish of our wounds , and now we quarrel with our Plasters ; and like the great City mentioned by Aristotle , because we cannot finde , wee make the causes of our own Distempers . But the body politick hath had already too much of Blood-letting , & there is no man but hath found a miserable experience too of the Phlebotomy of Purses . Why then being poor , should we by our folly seek to banish from our selves the only good Companion of Poverty , Quietness ? There was never any Government so perfect but it had some Naevi in the Constitution , and some Errors and Miscarriages in the Practice . He must take order to go to Heaven , that will not brook Defects on Earth . And therefore we ought not critically too ensure the Actions of our Superiors , because we know not all the circumstances that encouraged and gave occasion for their Counsels , and if we did we must make abatement of some grains to humane frailty , and the short-sightednesse of our knowledge , and the multitude of Accidents which can neither be foreseen , nor prevented . Such are the Judgements of the Wise and Moderate . But Detractors are the Authors of their own Blindnesse , and are like Flyes which refuse the sound parts of the body , but suck and aggravate the unsound and the Raw . They have Pharisaicall consciences , and make that which they account Vertue in themselves , to be a Crime unpardonable in all the World besides , Nil mihi vis & vis cuncta licere tibi ; There is no need to apply it . I shall only adde one Lesson that the late wars have taught me , To resist the Prince ( besides the sting of Conscience ) can tend to no good End in Policy . For every unlawfull change is destructive or hurtfull to the first instruments of that change : ( The most of those men that were the first movers in the late Wars , or their Executors , will make affidavit of the truth hereof . ) And if the Prince prevails ( which is most likely ) the Rebels are undone in their Lives , Relations , Estates . If the Rebellious prevail , the stirring spirits among them will rule and tyrannize over the Rest , till by supplanting one another they make way for the Princes Restitution : so that after all the Calamity , losse and danger of a warre , and the subjection to the Tyrannical government of their Equals , the greatest and best end of all is this only ; to be as they were ; and like the Dove of Noah , after a tyresom and dangerous journey in the Air , to return into the Ark again for rest and safety . I hope the Nation will not any longer be deluded by Impostors , who make Religion and the Liberty of the Subject the stalking horses to their own privat Designs ; but that if they must needs contend , they will rather strive who shall be most forward to be an instrument for the advancement of Religion , and the settlement of this hitherto distracted Nation upon the Pillars of Justice and a Lasting Peace . Eritis insuperabiles , si fueritis inseperabiles . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A91212e-300 P. 3. P. 4. Perfect Narrative ▪ 3d Instit. 8 , & 12. Cor l. 6. f. 31. P. 5. First Argument Second Argumen : 3d Instit. p : 14. 3 Instit. 35 , 37. 3 Instit. 41. Hobard 87. 3 Instit. 37. Libr. Citato . Ro Parl. 42 E. 3. num . 7. 3 Instit. 14. Ibid. in Margine . Arg. 3. Hob. 346. 2d Instit. 23. Co. l. 3. f. 2. Co. li . 7. f. 13. Co. l. 7. f. 6. Plowd 204 , 205. Mr. Pryns true and perfect Narrative , p. 24. Argum 4. 3d Instir . 6. 28. Plowden 213. 3d Instit 25. 3d Instit. 35. l. 1 , c. 3. ● 18. Fortesc . cap. 9. P. 17. Seldens Titles of Honor p. 282 , 347. Grotius de jure Belsi l. 2. c. 21. sect. 10. P. 18 , 19. P. 18. P. 19. 1 Kings c. 21. Matth. 12. 1. ● . 1. c. 4. sect. 7. 3d Instit. 23. Conclusion . Seneca . Politio● . Martial . Machiav . in Princ.