Four Questions DEBATED.  

Q. 1. Whether the Exercise of the Government of England be totally Subverted? Affirm.  
Q. 2. Admitting the Exercise of Government dissolved, whether the power of Selling is in the People? Affirm.  
Q. 3. Whether as the Case stands it is best to settle the Exercise of the Government in the Person, who would be next by Lineal Descent, if King James the Second was actually dead? Neg.  
Q. 4. Whether 'tis consistent with the Prince's Honour to accept of the Government, especially considering his Declaration was to Redress Matters by a Free Parliament. Affirm.   
WITH An Answer to the Objection that the Convention will not have the Power of a Parliament.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1689.   

Q. 1. Whether the Exercise of the Government of England be totally Subverted. Affirm.  
IT is necessary first to consider what Government is, than what the Ancient Constitution of the Government of England was.  
I shall take Sir Robert Filmer's definition of Government, because he was a man, who endeavoured to maintain the utmost height of Kingly Power in England, and his definition is this, Government is the Exercise of a Moral Power.  
The Ancient Constitution of the Government of England, I take to be that which was agreed on by the King and all the People after the Heptarchy, when the Saxons moulded the Government, and chose Alfred to be King, amongst other things these were part of his Oath; viz. That he should be obedient to suffer right (abbeissant a suffer droit) as well as others of his people. And it was agreed that a Parliament should be held twice every year at London, and this continued from that time to the time of King Edward the Second, as appears by Horn's Mirror of Justice, Cap. 1. Sect. 2. And in the same Section are these words, viz. Et tout soit que le Roy ne devoit aver nul peere en la terre, pur ceo nequidant que le Roy d'sòit tort, si il pecha-vers ascun d'son people, ne nul deses comissairs ne poit estre Judge & party, convient per droit que le Roy ust Compaignions' pur oyer & terminer aux Parliaments trestouts les breves & plaints de torts de la Roy de la Roign, & de leur Infants & de eux especialment de que torts l'en ne poit aver autrement common droit.  
And although the King ought not to have any Peer in the Realm, because the King, if he offend against any of his People, none of his Commissaries may be Judge and Party; it behoveth by right, that the King have Companions to hear, and determine at Parliaments, all the Writs, and Plaints of the wrongs of the King, of the Queen, and their Infants, especially of those wrongs of which any cannot otherwise have common right.  
And that Parliaments were held accordingly is manifest, not only by the Authority of the Mirror, but by the Writs of Summons to Parliament in Edward the First, Second and Third; and though there are affirmative Laws to hold Parliaments once every year, and once in three years, I know not of any Negative Law that there shall not be Parliaments as by the Constitution.  
That King James the Second has totally Subverted the Exercise of Government, by Exercising an Arbitrary Power contrary to all Moral Power, and so the Exercise of Government is Subverted, I shall plainly demonstrate both in Church and State.  

First in Church, By setting up the Ecclesiastical Commission, and thereby illegally prostituting all the Clergy to an Arbitrary Power, with a Non obstante to all Laws; this is directly against the Exercise of a Moral Power.  
Secondly, By the Commission to the Bishop of Chester, Chief Justice Wright, and Justice Jenner, by which they turned out the Precedent, and many of the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford, (the same College where Queen Mary began to Tyrannize) to which may be added, the placing Papists in their Room, and putting Massey into the Deanery of Christ-Church, the greatest College in the University, and Dr. Walker in the Headship of University-Colledge. By this means Traitors were made Tutors to young Scholars, (for so are all Englishmen reconciled to the See of Rome) a ready means totally to Subvert the Reformed Religion and Government; for from Universities generally come great Officers in Church and State.   
The dispensing power contrary to an act of Parliament made on purpose to prevent Popery, and arbitrary power by preferring persons in Ecclesiastical, Civil and Military affairs without taking the Test, by means whereof Papists sat in Council with the King, Judges who have the executive power of the Law, and many made for particular illegal purposes were placed in Westminster-Hall, Sheriffs who had the power of Counties (seven of eight in one Circuit) being professed Papists, and a great number of the Justices of the Peace of the same Religion, many Officers in the Army, and Soldiers were displaced, and Roman Catholics placed in their stead, and in Ireland by degrees, Protestants were put out, and Papists put in, and that Kingdom was totally in the power of Roman Catholics.  
Besides, the King owns the Supremacy of the Pope, in all Ecclesiastical Affairs, whereas the Laws of England declare the King Supreme in Matters Ecclesiastical and Civil, and the King owning the Supremacy of the Pope, is a setting up an arbitrary power in all matters of Religion, for if he is Subject to the Pope, and all the Clergy swear Supremacy to the King, this is contradictory, to have two Supreams, one by the Law of the Land Legally established, and another raised by Arbitrary Power of the King destructive to the Constitution of the Church of England; these things manifestly tend to the putting all Power Ecclesiastical, Military and Civil into the hands of Papists, and the dispensing power at once sets up Arbitary Power to destroy all the Laws, and makes the exercise of Moral power to cease.  
If it is objected, That all these things, though they are great misdemeanours, yet they are but misdeameanors which a Parliament may correct, but cannot amount to a subversion of the exercise of Government.  
I answer that although in fact the whole Ecclesiastical, Civil and Military power, was not yet actually vested in Papists (for then all must grant it subverted) yet the acts before mentioned totally subvert the exercise of Government and annihilate the Kingly Office to which there is not requisite the actual destruction of all, but it sets up an Arbitrary Tyrannical Power which may destroy all; and many an instance may be given, when without any actual wrong done upon the Bishops and Clergy or the Nobles and Commons of the Land the exercise of Government may be subverted, as if the King should send to the King of France, etc. to Invade England, and destroy the Subjects of England, though no English man is hurt thereby, nor any Frenchman comes into England, yet the Government is totally subverted; for as King he's bound to protect his people, and when instead thereof, he invites others to destroy 'em, the exercise of Government is subverted, and the Trust reposed in the King forfeited, as if a Keeper of a Park Pulls down the Pales which should keep in the Deer, he forfeits his Office.  
If it is said, He's King, and accountable to none but God, and Subjects must not rebel, nor resist, but suffer and pray.  
I Answer, his being King makes the Crime the greater, for 'tis not so great a wickedness for a foreign King to destroy us, as for our own; for 'tis no breach of Trust in the one, as 'tis plainly in the other; and what Junius Brutus says in his vindiciae contra Tyrannos, when he compares a Tyrant King to a Shepherd, destroying the Sheep, does he say, I am Shepherd, therefore I may destroy them? Junius says, Major lupus, quia pastor, & major tyrannusquia Rex, the greater Wolf because a Shepherd, and the greater Tyrant because a King.   

Q. 2. Admitting the Exercise of Government dissolved, whether the Power of Settling the Exercise of Government is in the People? Affirm.  
Tho' some have said the present case to be the Demise of the King, that I deny, the Demise of the King being but a soft expression of his death, and is only properly so when the King dies; and King James the Second being alive, to call it a Demise of the King is a contradiction.  
Then I argue thus, either the exercise of the Government is in King James the Second, or in some other person, or the power of settling it in the People; but it is not in Kings James the Second, for the reasons before given and some other which follow; nor is it in any other person: Therefore it is in the power of the People to settle it. If any can say it is in any other person let, him assign that person, which he can't, because there can he no claim by descent during his life, for Non est haeres viventis, there must be the death of the Ancestor before the Heir can claim any right.  
Then if there is none to claim any right; there must be a sort of reverter to the people, who first chose the King (as is plainly proved) or a greater absurdity must follow, which is, that a People must remain without Government which I think no man will say, especially in England where many hold Monarchy Jure divino, though I understand not that, or any specifical Government to be so, for then the Israelites Government would not as to the species of it have been so often changed; but Government in general may be said of divine right, as of necessity; then if no person living can claim a legal right, they must consent to the People to choose Representatives to settle the exercise of the Government.   

Q. 3. Whether as the Case stands it is best to Settle the Exercise of the Government in the Person, who would be next by Lineal Descent, if King James the Second was Actually dead? I Answer Negatively.  
BEfore I speak to this Question, I must say, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Orange, by what I have heard concerning her eminent zeal for God, and being an extraordinary, exemplary Pattern of Morality; true is the proverb of Solomon, Many daughters have done virtuously, but she excelleth them all; this looks like flattery, but if Universal report is true, her great humility and wisdom leave no room for such a vanity; I shall therefore plainly give my reasons for my opinion.  

1. The first is ab inconvenienti, the inconveniences which may follow at this time, (1.) the dispute of the pretended Prince of Wales.  
2. If the two Princesses die without issue, the Government will go to Papists, viz. to Spain, etc.  
3. Desert is the best cause of reward, and who has deserved most, aught to have most given; 'tis plain who has recovered England, and the consequence is as plain.  
4. The Princess has more advantage, than she or her Sister could expect; for the life of the King, and the claim of a Prince and Children, that may be of the King, make them at a more remote distance, than if he who recovered them, and the people be let in for his life, which is no more than the Law gives to a Husband by the Courtesy of England.  
5. He is next Heir Male, tho' not by Males.  
6. A Princess, not so able to make War, the great end of Israel's choosing a King was to fight their Battles, which a Woman can't do.  
7. The Allies engaged with the Prince to defend the Protestant Religion is very considerable, and if his Power should cease by the death of another, it would be dangerous.  
8. Great ingratitude to put him in possibility of being worse, than if he had never come, for if the Princess dies, he has no longer power to proceed.  
9 'Tis ungrateful to make him a subject in that Kingdom for which he has done more, than all the Kings of England ever did.  
10. As his Power dies, so his person may not be safe, if a subject; for he maybe indicted by any man.  
11. May be in more hazard of Assassination.  
12. The Lords and a great number of the Commons who were legally chosen in former Parliaments, thought fit the public administration should be in the Prince.   
I know some are of opinion to have the Prince and Princess, King and Queen, to which I only say, that such joint-power in governing never was in England, and the consequences are difficult (if possible) to judge, and though some say the administration may be in the Prince only during the joint lives of the Prince and Princess. I answer, if the Princess is Queen, Regal Power is inseparable from her person, as was said by some, and not denied by any of the Judges in the case of Shipmoney, and it was said to be a proprium quarto modo, which a King or Queen as such must have, and then to have joint-power, will make both equal, and if they should differ, what should be done?   

Q. 4. Whether 'tis consistent with the Prince's Honour to accept of the Government, especially considering his Declaration was to Redress Matters by a Free Parliament?  
I Answer, taking it for granted (which I need not) that at the Princes coming he could not, yet what the King did since his coming readers it clear and plain, viz.  

1. The Kings own Judgement against himself for issuing Writs to Elect, proves he thought a Parliament of necessity, and then destroying most of them, taketh away the only remedy, and he which does so to a desperately sick man, murders him as sure, as he who stabs him to the heart.  
2. Then the taking the great Seal and carrying it no man knows whither, stays the Spring of Justice, so that no Originals out of the Chancery can be filled for the Subject to have relief in any real Action; nor in many personal Actions where Original Writs are requisite.  
3. His going with Sir Edward Hales a person notorious being set up to maintain the Arbitrary Dispensing Power, justifies his Dispensing Power still, by these he has brought the power into the people whose Representatives have the right of settling the Government as in wisdom shall be thought fit; for though some object it cannot be, for want of a Writ to call them, yet upon long Debate in the House of Commons, when this Objection was started, the Lord Chief Justice Hales said, That though he would not maintain the Commons called according to Form by Writ, yet they being met were a good House of Commons, for the Parliament is not the Kings, etc.— but the Parliament of England, and they being duly chosen by the People, were the Legal Representatives of the People to Act as a Parliament, and to say the Convention has Power to settle the Government if self, as to the Exercise, and not to have the force of a Parliament, seems strange; besides, no man can say but this Convention will be a Supreme Power, and for the Supreme Power to have any thing Legal to be above their reach, is to say they are Supreme, yet there is something above their Power, & cujus est dare ejus est disponere, if they have Power to give the Exercise of the Government itself, which is the highest Act, and not to be able to make Laws for the Establishing, and the manner of Exercise, opposes that plain Maxim.   
To conclude, The extraordinary Providence of God, whose Wonders His Highness has seen in preserving Him and the Fleet in the Deeps, and what we have heard and seen since he came on Shore, makes it apparent that the Lord hath sent him, and it would make a Heathen (like Nabuchadnezzar) confess it, because no other God can deliver after this sort, and the works of God being all perfect, it is to be hoped, that there are yet greater things to be done by him, for the refining and reforming Matters in Church and State. England had Lucius the first Christian King, as most say. Constantine the first Christian Emperor was Born here; the first Reformation began here, and who knows, but what is remaining, viz. the refining of all things (which the best want) may be accomplished here to the Glory of God, and the honour of him who he has sent. I wish he may put him upon whose Shoulders the Government of all things in Heaven and Earth is laid, into the possession of his inheritance to the uttermost ends of the Earth.  
FINIS.