fometimes into Play, to juftifie a moft Wicked and moft Unreafonable Rebellion.

By our Conftitution a King can do no Wrong, has been fully Declar'd by all the Judges and Serjeants at Law; but that a Parliament can do Wrong, we may find De clar'd by another Parliament, if we confult Coke's Inft. p. 4. p. 42.

The Laws do not Inteferer with the King's Supremacy, for the King's Prerogative binds the Subject as much as Magna Charta binds the King. The Argument therefore proves too much, because it proves the Supremacy to be no where, if it proves any thing

at all.

As for the Raifing Money only by Confent of Parliament, this proves no Superiority, because neither can the Parliament Raise Mony without his Confent, which is ftill but equality of Power at least.

Pleas of the Crown are propria caufa Regis, and a Parliament has nothing to do therewith, if therefore the first Conclufion proves the Parliament the Supream Power, the fecond proves the King fo, and what are our Adverfaries the nearer.

The like may be faid of Foreign Leagues which bind even Parliaments, tho' made without their Knowledge and Confent.

Befides, I would know who made thefe Laws that Abridge the King of his Power, if they were made by himself, by the fame

Rea

Reason that it has been declar'd, 4 Inft. p. 42. An Act of Parliament cannot bind a fubsequent one, fo the Act of the Supream Power 500 Years paft, cannot bind the Supream But if thofe Laws were made by a Superiour Power to the King, and that Superior Power remains now, my Question is given up: But this wants to be prov'd.

Power now.

My next Propofition that the Letter of the Civil Law has no External Force without a Power, to Execute thofe Laws needs nò enlarging upon, for 'tis evident Laws cannot Execute themselves, and no Government is fo loose as to put the Executive Power into the Hands of every Individual.

This leads me on to the next Propofition, to Baffle the Abfurdity of the Supream Executive Power being borrow'd from the Legiflative, for the Legislative Decrees what hall be done, and the Executive puts thofe Decrees in Execution; But the bare Execu tion of the Laws without a Power of Interpreting them, is far from deferving the Name of Supream, that we may as well call an Hangman Supream: But if the Power of Interpreting goes along with this Executive Power, this is Equivalent to the Legiflative, for all Laws owe their Vigour to Judicial Interpretations: But the King in this Cafe is fo far from borrowing any Luftre from the Legislative Power, he adds both Luftre and Strength to that. A Man

with

with Legs, and without the power of Walking, is not much unlike fuch Laws as have not the Executive Power to Back 'em.

But if I fhou'd grant the King is the fole Supream Executive Power, in fuch a fenfe, that none can put the Laws in Execution but those Commiffion'd by him. I am very fure fome People can never come at their beloy'd Doctrine of Refiftance under the Umbrage of the Laws of their Country.

But if we Imagine the King only the Minifter of the Legiflative Power, he still alone is Authoriz'd to Act till his Powers are recall'd, which they cannot be without his own Confent, because he is one Branch of the Legiflative Power himself, and has a Negative Voice, and neither Lords or Commons have more.

Surely we fhall now eafily come at the Irrefiftibility of the Supream Executive Power, as fome are pleas'd to call the King.

There is no coming at his Perfon to Depofe, Murther, or Levy War against him, without being Guilty of High-Treafon, which is the Higheft Violation of the Law that can be: I have obferv'd before, that the Crown of England is Subject to God alone, confequently the King does not receive his Power from Parliament.

No Priviledge of Parliament extends to High-Treafon, but Priviledge of Parliament. is a Priveledge of a Body Corporate, but if

this

this Body Corporate is the Supream Power of the Nation. Why fhou'd not the Privelege of Parliament extend to Felony or Treafon.

2

Why cannot the King do Wrong if he is but a Servant to the Parliament, if he offers Violation to their Laws?

If the Parliament is no Body, without the King; How can the King be no more than their Servant.

How can all Authority be deriv'd from, the King alone, as is exprefly faid, I Edw.6. c. 2. if he derives his Power from a Parliament?

By the of Eliz. c. 1. Every Member of Parliament was oblig'd to Swear that the King was the Supream and only Governour in all Caufes.

The Solemn Recognition of his Supremacy likewife 1 Jac. 1. is fo Full and Solemn, that I wonder any Person who pretends to the leaft knowlege of the Law can deny this.

His Power has been agreed to be deriv'd from the Laws of God, as well as the Laws of Man.

The King's fhare in the Legislative Power was always very great. The Tenor of the Acts run in his Name as Ordain'd by him.

I am come now to my laft Propofition, upon which I need fay the lefs, because I have L

laid

laid down the moft Authentick Records as to our Conftitution already.

I afferted that the Supream is an Indivifible Point, by which I mean, that whether it be Invested in one or many, the Power is the fame, nor can be Exercis'd by different Perfons Independantly; and therefore, it cou'd not be in King, Lords, and Commons; for in that Cafe 'tis not always in a Capacity of Acting.

2. The manifeft Superiority of the King over the Two Houses, Conftituted him evidently the Supream Power. Coercion is the most evident Criterion thereof, which the Parliament have not over the King; but the King can Punish them, tho' not as a Corporation, as fingle Perfons, and Offenders, and can Cut them off as fuch. Bracton as Judge Jenkyns has obferv'd, p. 3. tells us, that The King has Jurifdiction over all Perfons in his Kingdom, and a Power to Punish all Delinquents. He Pardons even in Oppofition to a House of Lords, and Commons. He Conftitutes Fudges, even by his own Authority, to Execute the Severity of the Laws. Nor is even a Speaker of a House of Commons Shelter'd from their Fuftice.

To conclude, all that has been laid down in this Book has been Recogniz'd in full and compleat Terms, and made an Act of our Conftitution upon the Reftoration of King Charles; and it was Refolv'd in full Parlia

ment,