THE Long Parliament REVIVED: OR, An Act for continuation, and the not dissolving the Long Parliament (called by King Charles the First, in the year 1640.) but by an Act of Parliament.  
With undeniable Reasons deduced from the said Act to prove that that Parliament is not yet dissolved.  
ALSO, Mr. William Prin his five Arguments fully answered: whereby he endeavours to prove it to be dissolved by the King's Death, etc.  
By Tho. Phillip's Gentleman, a sincere Lover of his King and Country.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold at the Castle and Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXI.   

Anno 17. Caroli Regis.  
An Act to prevent inconveniencies which may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving of this present Parliament.  
WHereas great Sum: of money must of necessity be speedily advanced and provided for relief of his Majesty's Army and people in the Northern parts of this Realm, and for preventing the immanent danger this Kingdom is in, and for supply of other his Majesty's present and urgent occasions, which cannot be so ●●●ely effected, as is 〈◊〉 without Credit for raising the said moneys: Which Credit cannot be obtained until such obstacles be first removed, as are occasioned by fears, jealousies, and apprehensions of divers His Majesty's Loyal Subjects, that this present Parliament may be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved before Justice shall be duly executed upon Delinquents; public 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 duly 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 Sovereign 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 voi●, and of none effect.   

The Long Parliament revived.  
TO the end the Peace of this Nation may be established upon a firm and lasting Foundation, and that after one shipwreck, hardly escaped, we run not blindfold again upon a more fatal, and irrecoverable Rock of confusion: The Author of this small Paper (out of tender compassion to his native Country, and with all humble respects of due allegiance, and honour to his Royal Majesty that now is) hath thought fit (with the premised Act of Parliament) to offer some few Arguments to the World naturally flowing from the authority and reason of it: Which if timously hearkened to, may yet prove a healing remedy against the sad breaches of this shattered Kingdom; and prevent those other mischiefs, which the obstinacy of injudicious and self-willed persons will inevitably bring upon themselves and us. And if convincing reason may bear the sway in this perverse Age, wherein every man would make his petty private designs to be his Law, rather than common equity, or the established Law of the Nation, he doubts not of the desired success he aims at, with God's blessing, in this ensuing Discourse.  
That the safety and happiness of this Kingdom lies in Parliaments rightly constituted, and in the preservation of their just and lawful Privileges, I suppose there are none, of what different judgements soever in other things, who are Subjects of this Nation, and of sober principles, but will readily grant it. And if so, the contrary thereunto will then without doubt as easily be concluded.  
Which Maxim being yielded in reference to other Parliaments; it must by proportion hold as true in relation to the Long Parliament called by the late King Charles the first, of blessed memory in the year 1640. Whose being and Legal Authority is still so visibly existent by virtue of the forementioned Act; that when the Subjects of this Nation have seriously considered of it, they will doubtless see they have no reason to hold themselves safe in their Lives, Liberties, and Estates, till it have made provision in that behalf, and it be legally dissolved according to the Tenor of the said Act by Act of Parliament for that purpose.  
And therefore, being that so great a dissecurity to the Subjects, and the Peace of the Kingdom is incumbent hereupon (as who doth not evidently perceive it, in case that Parliament is yet in its legal force and being) how much doth it concern every Subject of this Nation to be groundedly satisfied in this particular, by a solid answering of those objections that seem to militate against the verity of this assertion: That men's minds may be settled, together with the Peace of the Nation upon a sure Foundation of Law and righteousness; and we may not, like the waves of the Sea, be still fluctuating too and fro in doubts and uncertainties by the divers winds of men's contrary judgements and opinions, to the continual hazard of our dearest concernments.  
To evidence the still legal being of that foresaid Parliament, the Act speaks sufficiently for itself in plain and express terms: Yet to make it more clear, these following Arguments, from the Act itself and the Title of it, do more apparently evince it.  
1. To begin with the Title: Which is, An Act to prevent inconveniencies that may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving of this present Parliament: Which inconveniencies are specified in the following preamble of the said Act, whereof chiefly one is this. Lest Credit should not be obtained for raising of moneys for relief of his Majesty's Army, and people in the North, and for supply of other his Majesty's present and urgent occasions through the continued fears of the Subjects, lest the Parliament may be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, before sufficient provision be made for repayment of the said moneys to be raised.  
In which words there are two things principally to be considered in reference to the intent and meaning of this Act, why it was made.  
First, For the obtaining of Credit, in order to the raising of considerable Sums of money for supply of the Kings, and Kingdoms great necessities: which could never have been done, (as by the Act itself is supposed) had not this Act been made: It being the only ground and foundation of encouragement for the Credit which was to be given in order to the raising of the said moneys; and did accordingly effect it.  
Secondly, The Parliament could not without this be in any secure condition to make provision for the repayment of the said money so to be raised, in regard that through defect of such an Act, the Parliament might be in continual danger to be untimely dissolved, (and by the clear scope of the Act, 'tis accounted an untimely dissolution, if dissolved before the said provision be made) therefore the dissolution of the said Parliament before such provision made for repayment of the said moneys, which is not yet done, is expressly contrary to the true meaning and intention of this Act.  
And if this Act were made purposely to prevent the untimely dissolution of the Parliament, (as it stands express in the Title) than it cannot but have respect to the King's Death, as well as to any other means of untimely dissolution: The Parliament well knowing the King's life was as uncertain, yea, in some respects more uncertain than the life of other men: And therefore could not choose but so understand it, if they intended this Act to be any security for the moneys borrowed, or to be borrowed upon their Credit.  
Secondly. In the substance and body of the Act 'tis delivered in express terms, That this present Parliament shall not be dissolved, but by an Act of Parliament. Whence it follows, that if not dissolvable, unless by an Act of Parliament, than it is exclusive to all other ways and means of dissolution (as the interruption by armed violence, the forcible omission of days of adjournment, the violent, or natural death of the King) or whatsoever else might be done or have happened legally to dissolve it, had not this Act been made or constituted.  
Thirdly, and lastly, To make all clear, without any exception, in the close of the said Act it is expressed, That all, and every thing, and things, whatsoever done, or to be done, for the adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving of this present Parliament, contrary to this Act, shall be utterly void and of none effect. Which clause you see looks backward, and forwards in reference to whatsoever had a legal power and tendency before this Act to dissolve the Parliament. Against which this Act hath now fully provided, that neither what hath been done for the time past, nor whatsoever shall be done for time to come, shall dissolve this Parliament, excepting an Act of the said Parliament. Whence I argue, That all those things that otherwise legally would or might have dissolved this Parliament, had not this Act been made, have no force or efficacy to dissolve this, but only an Act of this present Parliament. All other Parliaments having no legal capacity till this be legally dissolved: unless it be granted that two Parliaments may have both of them legal capacity at one and the same time. Which I believe there are none so absurd as to aver; no more, than that two Kings may have a legal capacity at one time in the same Kingdom.  
But because there are divers objections, that seem to oppose the premises, and the legal being and capacity of the said Parliament, I shall endeavour to answer them as strongly, and yet as briefly as I may to every ordinary Readers understanding.  
The first, and grand Objection of all is the death of the late 
See his true and perfect narrative of what was done and spoken by and between Mr. Prin and the old, and newly forcibly secluded members, beginning fol. 24. and so forwards, Printed in the year 1659.  King that summoned this Parliament in the year 1640. and is argued by Mr. Wil Prin. Because, saith he, it hath been frequently resolved by Parliaments themselves, the reverend Judges, and our Law Books, by King Charles his own Declaration, and his Judges, and Council, that the deposition and death of the King doth actually dissolve the Parliament, etc.  
To which I answer by way of Concession, that the Death of the King doth legally, or according to Custom, dissolve a Parliament that is only called and constituted by the King's Writ; but not a Parliament constituted and confirmed by an Act of the three Estates. Let Mr. Prin, or any other Lawyer show me any Law or precedent to that purpose, and I will presently yield the Cause.  
If Mr. Prin would have spoken home to this Case, he should have made it appear where, or when it had been resolved by Parliament, the Judges, and our Law Books, etc. that in case of an Act of Parliament made for the Session, and continuance of a Parliament, till they should dissolve themselves by an Act, that such a Parliament hath been, or shall nevertheless be dissolved by the King's death, which it is believed he will find a very hard task to prove.  
Secondly, He objects, the Parliament is no standing Court, sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws, but summoned and constituted by the Kings Writ of Summons, and Royal Prerogative, when, and where he pleaseth, and adjourned, prorogued, and dissolved by his Writ alone in point of Law, etc.  
I answer again, by way of Concession; that Parliaments, according to their wont and bypast Customs, were no certain Courts, sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws. But yet may be made such by Act of the three Estates. Witness the Triennial Parliament.  
And further, By an extraordinary grant of his late Majesty, this Parliament was made a standing Court to sit constantly by a positive Law, till they should please to dissolve themselves. He having been pleased by the said grant, for the better security of his Subjects, to wave his Royal Prerogative and power of dissolution; and to give his consent for the nulling of all other means tending thereunto.  
And for what Mr. Prin intimates further in the said Objection: That because all Writs of Summons are actually abated by the King's death, as well as all other Commissions, and Patents of all Judges, Justices, etc. That therefore this Parliament must needs be dissolved.  
I answer: That doth not at all follow, till he can make it appear, that there is no more validity in an Act of Parliament of the three Estates, than there is in a mere Writ of Summons, or a Commission or Patent granted only by the King: For though this Parliament was summoned by the King Writ, yet 'tis manifest, its continuance and confirmation did not at all depend upon that (for then he might still have dissolved it when he pleased) but upon the Act of the three Estates, who had established it by Law, and so was now no more dissolvable by the King's Death than any other Statute Law, or Act of Parliament whatsoever. And therefore is not depending on so fickle a thing as a Writ of Summons, or a Patent, or Commission given the Judges, and which the King may take away and repeal again at his own pleasure.  
And to illustrate this more by an instance, I shall desire to ask Mr. Prin this Question. Put case that there are certain urgent necessities (as before specified in the Act) that the Parliament hath of great Sums of Money for preserving the Peace of the Kingdom. This money they must takeup upon their Credits: But they see no ways how to raise, or repay it, unless their Session be continued for seven years. Therefore to get Credit for raising the said Money, and time to reimburse, or give security to the Lender's, they obtain the King's consent to an Act for their continuance during the said term (with this Proviso inserted) though the King by any accident should happen to die before the said security were given, or the moneys paid. Whether doth the Parliament in this case continue in force and efficacy after the King's Death, or is it then actually dissolved?  
If Mr. Prin grant it a Parliament in force after the King's Death upon this consideration (as I conceive he cannot deny it) then 'tis apparent, that 'tis not the King's Death barely that doth of itself dissolve a Parliament, viz. I say, a Parliament established by a Law: and consequently than not this Parliament, the reasonbeing alike for the one as for the other.  
But if he shall aver, (which to me is incredible) that notwithstanding such an Act, yet by the King's Death 'tis legally dissolved. Then it will necessarily follow, that Parliament security (which was ever looked upon till now as inviolable) is most dangerous, and of all others lest to be trusted, and the Subjects had need be warned to take heed of it; seeing it must wholly depend upon so uncertain a thing as the King's Life; which as it throws no small dishonour upon that High Court, So it will be no little prejudice to public emergencies. For if the King die half a year after the Moneys borrowed, and before the security be given (and he hath no surer or longer a lease of his life than other men) all the said moneys must absolutely be lost, and so the Subjects defrauded: No future Parliament being bound to make good the Acts and Deeds of a Former, further than they will or please themselves: And it is to be wish, that the Kingdom may not now too sadly have experience of it.  
Thirdly, Mr. Prin objects, the King's name in which the Writs for Election are issued forth: That because they go out in the name of the King reigning, and so calls the persons elected to advise with him personally; and the Parliament to be convened is called his Parliament, and is 〈…〉 cons 〈…〉 of the arduous businesses of the Kingdom concerning him &c. Therefore when the King dies who called the Parliament to advise and consult with himself, the Parliament must necessarily be dissolved, unless they could be supposed to consult and advise with him of the weighty affairs of his Kingdom after his decease.  
To this I answer first, That though the Writs of Summons run, to consult with the King personally or by name, yet they say not, to consult with him only, and so are not so exclusive (having respect to the reason and equity of the Law) but that the same Parliament may also consult with his Successor, of the Peace and safety of the Kingdom do require: Granting this Maxim to be undeniably true, that the safety of the people is the supreme Law.  
And though the Parliament summoned by the King's Writs be called his Parliament, yet his death doth no more vacate it (being established by Law) than it doth other Laws by the same King made, which are most properly called his Laws, because enacted with his personal consent: and yet we know that they are not so his, but that they are also the Laws of his Successors, and are so commonly called.  
Besides, By con●ituting the Parliament to dure till they dissolve themselves by an: Act, the King virtually waved the authority of his Writs of Summons, in which Writs the Parliament is expressed to be called to consult with him by name: No such thing being in the least said or expressed in the Act by which this Parliament is now confirmed to continue, etc. Therefore it matters not, neither is it at all to the purpose in this case, how, or in what name the Writs of Summons, whereby this Parliament was first called, were issued forth: Forasmuch as this Parliament consists no longer by any authority derivative from those Writs, (that Foundation being wholly taken away) but only by Act of the three Estates, as is evident in that the King could not now dissolve it by his personal Authority any more. And if his personal Authority, he being living (which is affirmative) could not dissolve it; then his death, which is but negative, or a cessation of the influence of his personal Authority, can much less do it.  
And farther, By way of interrogation I would ask Mr. Prin, Whether he will grant any more privilege (in the case of the King's Death) to a Parliament established by a Law, than he will do to a Parliament only called and constituted by the King's Writs, (between which he cannot surely but say there is a very wide difference.) And if he yields the privilege doth excel (as he must needs) on the side of that Parliament that is established by a Law: In what sense can he conceive it to be, as the case here put, unless by the duration of its Authority after the King's Death who called it: Of which Privilege the Parliament only constituted by the King's Wrics comes fhort, and fails, as before acknowledged, by the King's Death.  
And I would fain know what reason there is, that a strained exposition of a Statute Law as this is (that this Parliament should be dissolved by the King's Death) should take place against the express literal sense of it, which is, (that it shall not be dissolved, but by an Act:) When as the strained sense also is evidently dangerous, unsafe, and prejudicial to the public, but the literal exceeding beneficial.  
The calling of Parliaments, in this or that King's name, to consult or advise with this or that King, these are but circumstantial things, and done for order's sake, and nothing of the substantials and essence of the Government and Kingdom's welfare. And therefore if Parliaments, called in this or that King's name, to advise with this or that King, should continue in force (though there were no Act for it) after this or that King's Death, there were no danger or inconvenience in it (how much less when an Act, as now, implicitly passed to that purpose) but rather the contrary. They may consult with as much safety and advantage to the Kingdom with the Successor, as they did with the deceased King.  
But to dissolve Parliaments rashly and untimely may throw a well-setled Kingdom into very great and hazardous difficulties: And how sad a thing were it, and how contrary to the general rule of the people's safety (which in the Government of a Nation ought to be valued before any thing, and is the end of Government) if for circumstances the general welfare and Peace of the Kingdom must be hazarded.  
Fourthly, As to what M. Prin objects concerning a man by his Will or Deed, or the King by his Commission, or the Parliament by special Act and Order authorising and impowring any three persons jointly to sell Land, give Livery and seisin, execute any Commission, etc. and that in case any of them die, the two survivers jointly, or severally can do nothing; because their authority and trust was joint and not several, etc. Applying this to the Parliament, which being (as he now expresseth it) a Corporation compacted jointly of the King, Lords, and Commons House, and three Estates, that therefore the Death of the King necessarily dissolves it notwithstanding this Act.  
I answer, This doth no more prove it than any of his former Arguments. For this similitude doth not hold proportion, nor come up to our present Case.  
For we have not here to do with one Estate or more that hath absolute power in itself (and intends to execute it) to constitute other persons for any office or trust, as a single person, etc. that makes a Will or Deed doth constitute three or more persons in trust for the execution of his Will or Deed, whose joint power being expressed in the said Will or Deed, it necessarily fails upon the death of any one of them, because jointly and not severally entrusted.  
But with a Parliament, Who have voluntarily engaged themselves upon a trust and Credit received from the people for their security, with the consent of the King making a Law to preserve their Session, and establish their own Authority against all means of their untimely dissolution till they had honourably discharged their trust, and given security and satisfaction to those that gave them Credit: Which nothing concerns any Power or Authority to be given to others, whether three or more persons (according to Mr. Prins instance) to be executed jointly, wherein a failer may be through any one of their deaths.  
But because there seems something still to be unanswered to this Objection in reference to the conjunctive power of the Parliament consisting of three Estates. Therefore this also is fully resolved in the following answer to what Mr. Prin intimates concerning the Kings being a part of the Parliament: Who saith,  
That because the King is a part of the Parliament: Therefore if the King dies, the Parliament must needs be dissolved.  
To which I answer, That the King is rather a part of the Parliament in his Politic than in his personal capacity, which is always subject to death, but his Politic never. With this agrees that famous Lawyer Sir Edward Cook, (see the third part of his Institutes, Chapter the first) where speaking of the High Court of Parliament, and of what persons it consisteth, saith in the first place, and in express words: That it consists of the King's Majesty sitting there, as in his Royal Politic capacity, etc. And if so, than the Parliament dies not in all cases when the King dies: (and if this holds good in any case, then surely in case of an Act to that purpose.) For though his person be dead, yet his Royal Authority lives, as is sufficiently evident by the Force and Authority of all our Laws till repealed by Act of Parliament.  
But besides, it may thus farther be argued clearly. The Members of the two Houses of Parliament, though many of them die (as oft times it comes to pass, and 'tis possible they may all die by degrees before the Parliament rise) yet the Parliament is not dissolved, because they are not now the very same individual persons that were chosen first by the King's Writs of Summons. 'Tis sufficient that there have been new Writs issued forth from that House, or Estate of Parliament whereof they were Members, whereby new Elections, etc. have been made, and so other Members returned to supply the places of the dead ones. And if this be good in the case of the two Houses of Parliament, etc. (which no man that understands Law, and the usage of Parliaments will deny) than it is much more good in the case of the King's Majesty's Person: Whose Royal Estate and Authority is so evident, that it is a declared, undeniable Maxim in our Laws, He never dies. So that what new Writs do legally for supply of the places of the dead Members to continue the Estate and Authority of the two Houses of Parliament: that, and much more eminently the King's immediate succession to the Crown after his Fathers, or Predecessors death doth do, by virtue of his Royal birthright and Title of Inheritance. There being this grand difference, between Members of Parliament dying, and the King. They so die, that their Authority cannot be revived, but by new Elect●ons, or Writs of Summons. But the King so dies, that his Authority still lives by immediate succession. Whence it is that the Royal Seat is never vacant, that there should be a failer to make good the Royal Actions of the Predecessor. And thus the third Estate in Parliament always Living, the joint power still continues, and so there is no necessity the Parliament should dissolve, as Mr. Prin affirms, due circumstances and actions being weighed, and the necessities of the Kingdom well considered.  
Fifthly, Therefore by what hath been said already, Mr. Prins fifth and last Argument must needs be out of doors, which is this, That because the end of Parliaments is to enact new Laws, and repeal others, etc. which cannot be done but by the King's assent: And this Parliament being to be dissolved by an Act, and an Act being now impossible to be made by that King for the dissolution of it, he being dead; therefore his Death must needs dissolve the Parliament notwithstanding this Act.  
I answer in the Negative, In no wise. For though he be dead, as aforesaid in his personal, (which Mr. Prin seems to answer too weakly in his following objection) yet not in his Politic capacity. And therefore if the dead King cannot enact Laws by the Parliament, yet his Successor can, who comes immediately to the Crown after his Father's death. And as hath been showed, 'tis no ways inconvenient, but may many ways be advantageous to the Public; That should the King chance any ways untimely to be taken away, the Parliament should continue after the King's death. Whose death if it should necessarily, as Mr. Prin affirms, dissolve the Parliament; so untimely a dissolution, as the case might stand, might prove very dangerous, and pernicious to the Kingdom.  
Besides, The Act doth not limit the Parliaments dissolution as lawful only, if it be done by an Act of that King then living, when the Act was made: But in the general it limits it to an Act of Parliament: that it shall not be dissolved but by an Act of Parliament. And why the Predecessors authority and consent should not be as binding to his Successor in this case, till so dissolved, as in case of any other Law made with his consent, I would very gladly know a solid reason for it: Being that to all intents and purposes an Act for confirmation, or dissolution may be as virtual and efficacious without any prejudice by the consent and authority of the Successor, as of the Father.  
And further, the Act is also herein express, that by no other way or means, but by an Act of Parliament, it shall be dissolved. Which being it cannot be done by the dead King, but may be done by the Successor, it ought so to be dissolved, or else it must and doth by virtue of this Act still remain legally in full being and authority.  
Sixthly, As to what may be objected concerning the dissolution of this Parliament by an Act, when the secluded Members were lately admitted. The Argument is so weak, that I thought wholly to have omitted the least mention of it. Yet in regard it is objected by some, who seem to receive satisfaction by it, and there to acquiesce, I shall give this answer in brief to it.  
First, That at the best that was but an Act (so called) of the House of Commons; and so consequently far short of the authority of an Act of Parliament, or any legal pretence of it: which only consists of King, Lords, and Commons. And therefore by any such appellative Act, this Parliament can no ways be dissolvable.  
And further, The utmost authority that the House of Commons hath given them by the foresaid Act (for the continuation of this Parliament till they dissolve themselves by an Act) is but to adjourn themselves by an Order of their own House, as is express in the said Act. By which 'tis evident, they have no power to dissolve themselves; much less, by any Act they can do to dissolve the Parliament.  
And here it is worth the observing, (before I pass over this Act of the House of Commons, whereby it was endeavoured to dissolve the Parliament) That in their judgements and consciences there was need of an Act to dissolve the Parliament: And therefore by this Act of theirs they did implicitly grant, that before the passing of the said Act the Parliament was not then dissolved: (and so consequently did acknowledge it not to be dissolved by the King's Death, which happened many years before,) and if not dissolved by the King's Death: then much less by the said Act of the House of Commons, (which carries not the least shadow of legal Authority with it, as aforesaid, for the dissolution of it) and therefore by the judgement of the said House, rightly understood, 'tis still legally in force and being.  
But because some do Object, that in regard the Lords spiritual (to wit) the Bishops, were oured the House of Peers before the passing this Act for continuation of the Parliament, whereby their Votes and Consents were never had in the Case, that therefore it was an illegal Act, and so fell void in it se●f.  
I answer briefly, That the Abbots and Priors (29. in number, 
See Sir Edw. Cook in his third part of Instit of the High Court of Parliament, how the Lords give their Voices, Pa 35.  who were formerly Lords of Parliament, and held per Baroniam from the King, and had their Seats and Votes in the House of Peers as well as the Temporal Lords) were dissolved in the Reign of King Henry the 8th. And yet all Parliaments since, with all their Acts, have been held for Legal and Authentic without the least question or contradiction of their Authority, and therefore is as little to be scrupled here in our present Case, which is the same; The Bishop's Privilege and right to sit in Parliament being also null and made void, as well as theirs by Act of Parliament. Whereunto much more might here be said to this purpose, but that I would not be tedious.  
Seventhly, I have but one word more, which answers most fully and unquestionably all Mr. Prins Objections at once, or what else may be said for the dissolution of this Parliament by the King's Death. And that is taken from the supreme legislative authority under God, that the three Estates, viz. King, Lords, and Commons, legally called, have over all persons and Causes in the whole Nation: By virtue whereof they have power to do the highest actions the Nation is capable of, 
See Sir Edw. Cook the third part of his Institutes of the H●gh Court of Parl. of the power and Jurisdict. of the Parl. fol. 36. who saith, That the Power and jurisdiction of the Parl. for making of Laws, in proceeding by Bill, is so transcendent and absolute, as it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds, etc.  though it be even to the dismembering of the Parliament itself, and dissolving a considerable part of it, or altering any other Fundamental Constitutions they please, so they see it necessary for the public good (as particularly in the Case of the Bishops, called the spiritual Lords, and by some affirmed to be the third Estate in Parliament, who nevertheless have been excluded by an Act of the King, Lords, and Commons, from their ancient right of sitting and voting in Parliament, when in their wisdoms their Session there appeared hurtful to Church and State,) For who may question or control the Actions of a lawful Parliament, while none in the Kingdom can so much as pretend to be above them. And if their authority be of so large an extent, even in matters of greatest weight and moment: then much more in things of far inferior, and much less concernment, as is the confirmation of a Parliament to continue after the King's death who called it, if the three Estates shall see good to pass an Act, as now they have done to that purpose, (implicitly, though not in express terms) the King happening to die before it hath been dissolved by an Act of Parliament, as by the three Estates hath been firmly enacted, it should be so dissolved, and no otherwise.  
By this time it may be hoped the legal being and Authority of the Long Parliament is sufficiently evident; The truth whereof being so clearly proved both by Law and Reason, how much doth it unfold to us the sad and dangerous estate of the Kingdom, whilst under the Constitution of such powers as neither in Estate, Liberty, or Life, (though otherwise of good Inclinations to the Public) can give the Nation any legal security.  
For though many excellent things have been done by the singular wisdom of this present Parliament, now sitting, that are of special tendency in themselves for the good and safety of the Nation through his Majesty's most gracious condescension, for which we have infinite cause to bless God; Yet herein the great unhappiness; That whilst their Authority is not legally founded, the Nation can promise themselves no assurance for 
Vide Postscript  the lasting enjoyment of those benefits and securities they have given it, being, 'tis to be feared, and too justly, they fall void of themselves by virtue of the said Parliaments illegal Policy and Constitution.  
Therefore how much were it to be wished, that the Supreme Legislative Authority of the Nation might again revert into that Channel by which the Peace and Settlement of the Nation, through His Majesty's most Gracious Influence, might durably, and without question, be provided for, and preserved.  
In reference to which I shall humbly take the boldness to offer it as a weighty and serious consideration to this present Parliament now sitting, whether they should not do well (for their own safety as well as the Nations) to advise his Majesty in this particular; (They only having the privilege and opportunity now effectually to do it) their case in point of safety or danger being the same with the rest of the peoples, when once they shall come to be dissolved.  
But now here, because the fears and scruples which at first apprehension are apt to arise in the hearts of the Generality of the Kingdom, may seem a great Obstruction in Prudence against the return of that Parliament to sit again, in reference to the danger of perpetuating of it, Who therefore may be ready to say, By so doing me may enslave King and Kingdom to such a yoke of Bondage as we may never be able to break off our own necks, or the necks of our Posterity any more.  
I shall give hereunto this closing answer; That the scruple is very rational; and though such a thing there is a possibility they might do or attempt, (though very improbably effect) if they should so wickedly abuse their trust; yet those fears will soon be removed from wise and discreet persons, if we do but seriously consider, That the far greater number of the Members surviving are of the secluded Party, who were thrust and forced out of the House for their Loyalty to the King: Or of those that withdrew themselves upon the offence given by occasion of the Army's violence against King & Parliament; and have been the chief Instruments of his present Majesties happy restoration. And therefore, being persons so qualified, we may easily believe they will not be very willing to draw such an Odium upon their unstained Credits, as will inevitably follow, besides the further mischiefs will be apt to ensue to themselves, and the Nation by renewed discontents) should they go about to engross the Authority of the Nation any longer in their own hands than will be necessary for public safety with his present Majesty's Approbation? Who for further security against those fears may easily summon them together by his Proclamation to Whitehall, or where else he pleaseth, before their Session again in Parliament, and there receive their personal promise, and engagement to confirm the Acts of this present Parliament, and to prepare a Bill the first thing they do at a certain time to be agreed on betwixt his Majesty and them to dissolve themselves, and for his Majesty's issuing out Writs for the summoning of a new Parliament, that so things may sweetly return again without violence or injury done either to his Majesty's Prerogative, or his People's Liberties into a regular and legal way of proceeding to the general security and satisfaction of the whole.  

POSTSCRIPT.  
BEcause there are great and general dissatisfactions concerning this present Parliament, so called, now sitting, in question of its legal right and authority,, (being the Author's design is nothing else but the peace and security of his native Country,) and a thorough healing of our wounds and breaches) he humbly desires further to offer these few following particulars to the grave and serious consideration of those that are more learned in the Laws, in hopes that some eminent person of that profession will give a solid and judicious resolution to them.  
First, Sir Edward Cook in the third Part of his Institutes, writing of the High Court of Parliament, and of what persons that Court consists, speaking of the Temporal Lords, as Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, who sit there by reason of their dignities which they hold by descent or Creation, saith, that every one of these being of full Age ought to have a Writ of Summons ex debito justitia.  
Where note, two things are required to the legality of their Session in Parliament.  
First, That they be of full Age. And if that be a qualification legally required of Peers (for it will easily be granted to be most absurd and unjust, that they that have not power by Law (as all Infants under age have not) o dispose of any part of their own Estates, or to make one legal act to that purpose) that such should have a share in the supreme power to judge, vote, and dispose of the Estate & Authority of the whole Kingdom.) I say then by rule of proportion, that it is a qualification as necessarily required of the Commons upon the said consideration. And it were happy for this Nation therefore that it were better looked after for the future, that so those mischiefs may be prevented which too often ensue to the Public by bringing such green heads into so wise and grave a Council.  
Secondly, 'Tis required to their legal Session in Parliament, that the said Lords have Writs of Summons; which these now sitting in this present Parliament never had.  
Next, The said Sir Edward Cook in the forecited place saith, that the Commons, which he calls there the third Estate of the Realm, consisting of Knights of Shires for Counties, Citizens of Cities, and Burgesses of Burroughs, they all are respectively to be elected by the Shires or Counties, Cities and Burroughs, by force of the Kings Writ ex debito justitia. But the Commons of this present Parliament were not so chosen; but by force of a Writ in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England.  
Thirdly, He saith, that at the return of the Writs the Parliament cannot begin but by the Royal presence of the King; ei●her in person, or by representation. By representation two ways: Either by a Guardian of England by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, when the King is in remote parts out of the Realm. Or by Commission under the Great Seal of England to certain Lords of Parliament, representing the Person of the King, he being within the Realm in respect of some infirmity, See Sir Edward Cook in his third Part of Institutes of the High Court of Parliament concerning the beginnings of Parliaments, Page 6.) But this Parliament began without the Royal presence of the King either in Person or by Representation.  
Fourthly, That the substance of the Writs of Summons must continue in their original Essence without any alteration or addition, unless it be by Act of Parliament. (See the same Sir Edward Cook in his third Part of Institutes of the High Court of Parliament concerning Writs of Summons of Parliament, Page 10.) But how great an alteration and addition to the substance of the Writs of Summons is this, to issue them forth in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England without the least authority of Parliament, which by the express Statute ought only to be issued forth in the name of the King.  
And therefore if there be any weight in Mr. Prins foresaid Argument to null a Parliament because of the King's Death who called it, in regard the Writs of Summons were issued forth in the name of that King deceased, with whom by name the Members of Parliament were called to consult and advise, but now cannot: It will, I conceive, be no hard question to resolve, (and it were good Mr. Prin would undertake it without partiality, or affection) Whether the Parliament doth not ipso facto fall void, and all the Acts of it, further than they shall be confirmed by a lawful Parliament, which is not called by any Writs of the Kings at all: But only by Writs, as aforesaid, in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, (and by those Writs, none but the Commons) with whom they are summoned to consult too about the businesses of a Commonwealth, (which these times have sufficiently taught us the meaning of) and not with the King about the arduous businesses of His Kingdom.  
These premised illegalities considered, in reference to this present Parliament (the legal being and capacity, as premised, of the Long Parliament being supposed to be here totally waved) Whether is this a lawful Parliament, and capable to make legal and binding Acts? Or having been declared a lawful Parliament by an Act by themselves made since their Session with the King's consent, Whether can the King's consent make them such, though otherwise unlawful in their Call, Principle, and Foundation?  
For I would put the case the King should have come in while Oliver, or Richard's Parliaments had been sitting, (to which the Lords, as now, should have presented themselves without Writs of Summons) and his Majesty, under that constitution, should have consented to a Bill to grant them a lawful Parliament: Would that at all have made them so, under such a Constitution? Can that which is unlawful in itself, and contrary to the Fundamental Constitutions of the Nation be made lawful barely by the King's Consent?  
Which if it shall be pleaded in the affirmative (though I very much question whether any understanding Lawyer will venture his reputation on it) I shall desire then to be instructed in a better Argument to make good the lawful being and authority of the Long Parliament. For surely, if a Parliament be lawful merely because of the King's consent, passing an Act to that purpose, though otherwise utterly unlawful in its Call and Foundation: Then doubtless that Parliament is much more lawful, and in its legal being that was founded upon a lawful Call, and had the King's consent to an Act to authorise it to continue till they dissolve themselves by an Act. And if that be still a lawful Parliament, than I am sure upon that account this can be none, nor no other, till that be legally dissolved.  
To which there is this further to be added concerning the intentions generally of the whole Nation in reference to this Parl. by the best information I can gather: That it was never in the least meant that these should sit to pass Acts as a lawful Parl. (w ch was only like to prove a snare to the people as other Parl. of the like nature, so called, have done through the disputableness & unwarrantableness of their Authority.) But only, that for the present necessity they might bear the face of Parliamentary Authority for preserving the Peace of the Nation till his Royal Majesty, that now is, might be happily restored, (the Kingdom panting after him as their only means of settlement) and so soon as that was effected then to dissolve in order to the sending forth his Majesty's Royal Writs of Summons for calling a Parliament according to the ancient Custom and Fundamental Constitution, (the old Parliament being first legally dissolved) that so all things might return again into a legal and uncontrovertible way of proceedings, to the quiet of all men's minds, and satisfaction of the whole Kingdom, who are sufficiently weary of the mischiefs of irregular actings by illegal Authorities.   

Conclusion.  
IF the power of the Sword, or other arbitrary proceedings do not interpose to interrupt free debates, and the course of Law and Justice: which the Author hopes there is now no cause to fear as formerly (all Estates and Degrees in the Nation having sufficiently seen the inconvenience, and tasted the smart of such unrighteous actings) he doubts not (upon a serious consideration of the foregoing Arguments, if men will lay aside passion and self Interest) but that right foundations will shortly again be restored, that knowing our groundwork to be sure and unquestionable; the Subjects of all sorts in the Kingdom may with all safety and cheerfulness submit too, and act under the lawful powers in being, every one sitting in Peace under his own Vine and Figtree, blessing the God of his Salvation: Which is daily the Author's earnest and most hearty prayer.   
FINIS.