Enquirers Concessions Thirdly From a considerable Instance in our own Government First From the common Notion of a Trust For what is more generally understood by trusting another than that we lodge our concerns with him and put them out of our own disposal When I trust a Man with my Life or Fortune all People agree that I put it in his Power to deprive me of both For to deliver any Property to another with a Power of Revocation is to trust him as we say no farther than we can throw him He that can recover a Sum of Money he has deposited when he pleases to speak properly has it still in his Custody and trusts his Friend no more than he does his own Coffers And therefore if we consult our thoughts we shall find that a Trust naturally implies an entire reliance upon the Conduct and Integrity of another which makes us resign up our Liberty or Estate to his Management imagining them safer in his Hands than in our own In short a Trust where there is no third Person to judg of the performance as in these Pacts between Subjects and Soveraign there is not In this case a Trust includes a Translation of Right and in respect of the Irrevocableness of it is of the Nature of a Gift so that there seems to be only this difference between them that a Gift ought to respect the Benefit of the Receiver whereas a Trust is generally made for the Advantage of him who conveys it Secondly By our Author 's own Concessions a Trustee is sometimes unaccountable for he grants a Man may Sell himself to be a Slave p. 1. And when he has once put himself into this condition his Master has an Absolute Soveraignty over him and an indefeasable right to his service so that notwithstanding all the unreasonable Usage he may meet with he can never come into his Freedom again without the consent of his Lord. This I take to be an uncontested Truth and if it was not St. Peter's Authority ought to over-rule the dispute Who charges those who were in this state of servitude to be subject to their Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward 1 Ep. 2. 18. Thirdly I shall prove the unaccountableness of a Trust from a considerable Instance in our own Government The House of Commons V. g. are certainly Trustees for the Towns and Counties who choose them the People resign up the disposal of their Rights and Properties into their Hands in hopes of a good management But suppose they prevaricate in their Employment and betray their Electors does this Impower the People to lay their Representatives by the heels when they come into the Country or to punish them farther as their Wisdoms shall think convenient If so then the last resort of Justice must lie in the Sovereign Multitude who have neither capacity to understand the reasons of Government nor temper and tenderness to manage it 'T is pitty the Mobile in Henry the 6th his Reign had not this discovery when the Right of choosing Members was limitted to Forty Shillings per Annum Free-hold whereas before all Tenures if not all Persons had the liberty to elect without exception but this Act in all likelihood barr'd no less then a Fifth of the Nation from this principal Post in the Government And if Columbus had not given them a lift by finding out the West-Indies and abating the value of Money their Grievance had continued to this day as heavy as ever We see therefore that the Author's Notion of a Trust will not hold Water and if it would it can do him no Service for I shall prove in the Second place that the Kings of England hold their Crown by Right of Conquest and Succession and consequently are no Trustees of the People I shall begin with the Point of Succession which because it's generally received I shall only mention an Act of Parliament or Two for the proof of it In the first of Edward the Fourth Rot. Parl. where the Proceedings against Richard the Second are repealed it 's said That Henry Earl of Derby afterwards Henry the Fourth Temerously against RightWiseness and Iustice by Force and Arms against his Faith and Ligeance rered Werre at Flint in Wales against King Richard the Second Him took and Imprisoned in the Tower of London in great Violence and Usurped and Intruded upon the Royal Power Estate and Dignity And a little after they add That the Commons being of this present Parliament having sufficient and evident knowledge of the said Unright-wise Usurpation and Intrusion by the said Henry late Earl of Derby upon the said Crown of England knowing also certainly without doubt and ambiguity the Right and Title of our said Soveraign Lord thereunto true and that by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature He and none other is and ought to be their true right-wise and Natural Leige and Soveraign Lord and that He was in Right from the Death of the said Noble and Famous Prince his Father Richard Duke of York very just King of the said Realms of England do take and repute and will for ever take and repute the said Edward the Fourth their Soveraign and Leige Lord and Him and his Heirs to be Kings of England and none other according to his said Right and Title In the first of Richard the Third there is another Statute very full to this purpose which begins The Three Estates c. But I shall pass over this and proceed to the Act of Recognition made upon King Iames the First his coming to the Crown Wherein it 's declared That He was Lineally Rightfully and Lawfully Descended of the Body of the Most Excellent Lady Margaret Eldest Daughter of the Most Renowned King Henry the Seventh and the High and Noble Princess Queen Elizabeth his Wife Eldest Daughter of King Edward the Fourth The said Lady Margaret being Eldest Sister of King Henry the Eighth Father of the High and Mighty Princess of Famous Memory Elizabeth late Queen of England In consideration whereof the Parliament doth acknowledge King Iames their only Lawful and Rightful Leige Lord and Soveraign And as being bound thereunto both by the Laws of God and Man They do recognize and acknowledge that immediately upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England and all the Kingdoms Dominions and Rights belonging to the same did by Inherent Birth-right and Lawful and undoubted Succession Descend and come to his Most Excellent Majesty as being Lineally Iustly and Lawfully next and SOLE HEIR of the BLOOD Royal of this Realm as it is aforesaid And thereunto they do most Humbly and Faithfully submit and oblige themselves they Heirs and Posterities for ever until the last drop of their Bloods be spent So much concerning the Succession where by the way we may observe the Deposing Doctrine is directly pronounced unlawful as appears from the
first of Edward the Fouâ—h which Act continues still unrepealed I shall proceed to prove the Norman Conquest for I need go no higher which I shall make good from the best Historians who lived either in or near that time from Doomeseday Book and Acts of Parliament 1. From Historians c. Eadmer Hist. Nov. Fol. 6. a Monk of Canterbury at the time of the Conquest and very intimate with Arch-bishop Lanfrank and with him when News came of the Conqueror's Death Writes That William designing to Establish those Laws and Usages in England which his Ancestors and Himself observed in Normandy made such Persons Bishops Abbots and other Principal Men who could not be thought so unworthy as to be guilty of any incompliance with his new Model knowing by whom and to what Station they were raised All Religious and Secular Affairs He managed at his pleasure And after the Historian had related in what Points he disallowed the Authority of the Pope and Archbishop he concludes thus But what he did in Secular Matters I forbear to Write because it 's not to my purpose and likewise because any one may guess by what has been delivered already at what rate He ordered the State. The next Testimony shall be fetched out of Ingulph Abbot of Croyland an English Man born Secretary to William when Duke of Normandy and made Abbot by him This Author informs us That by hard Usage He made the English submit that He gave the Earldems Baronies Bishopricks and Prelacies of the whole Nation to his Normans and scarce permitted any English Man to enjoy any place of Honour Dominion or Power Hist. Croyl f. 512. But Gervace of Tilbury a considerable Officer in the Exchequer in the Time of Henry the Second and who received his Information from Henry of Blois Bishop of Winchester and Grand-child to the Conquerour is more full to this purpose which he thus delivers After the Conquest of the Kingdom and the just Subversion of Rebels when the King himself and his great Men had viewed and surveyed their new acquests there was a strict Enquiry made who there were which had fought against the King and secured themselves by Flight From these and the Heirs of such as were Slain in the Field all hopes of Possessing eiâ—er Lands or Rents were cut off for they counted it a great Favour to have their Lives given them But such as were called and solicited to Fight against King William and did not if by an humble Submission they could gain the Favour of their Lords and Masters they then had the Liberty of Possessing somewhat in their own Persons but without any right of leaving it to their Posterity Their Children enjoying it only at the Will of their Lords To whom when they became unacceptable they were every where outed of their Estates neither would any restore what they had taken away And when the miserable Natives represented their Grievances publickly to the King informing him how they were spoiled of their Fortunes and that without Redress they must be forced to pass into other Countries At length upon Consultation it was Ordered That what they could obtain of their Lords by way of Desert or Lawful Bargain they should hold by unquestionable Right but should not Claim any thing from the Time the Nation was Conquered under the Title of Succession or Descent Upon what great Consideration this was done is manifest says Gervace For they being obliged to compliance and obedience to purchase their Lords Favour therefore whoever of the Conquered Nation Possessed Lands c. Obtained them not as if they were their Right by Succession or Inheritance but as a Reward of their Service or by some Intervening Agreement Gervase of Tilbury or the Black Book in the Exchequer Lib. 1. Cap. de Murdro de necessar observ The next Testimony I shall produce is out of Gulielmus Pictaviensis who lived about the time of Ingulph This Writer speaking of King William's Coronation adds cujus Liberi atque nepotes c. i. e. whose Children and Posterity shall Govern England by a just Succession which he Possessed by an Hereditary Bequest Confirmed by the Oaths of the English and by the Right of his Sword Gul. Pict fol. 206. Farther Ordericus Vitalis who lived in the Reign of William the Second tells us How William the First Circumvented the Two great Earls of Mercia and that after Edwin was Slain and Morcar Imprisoned then King William began to show himself and gave his Assistants the best and most considerable Counties in England and made Rich Colonels and Captains of very mean Normans Oder Vital fol. 251. The same Author relates That after the Norman Arms overcame England and King William had reduced it under the Government of his own Laws he made Fulcard a Monk of St. Omers Abbot of Thorney Ibid. fol. 853. Henry Arch-deacon of Huntington who lived in the Reign of King Stephen is full to the same purpose Anno Gratiae 1066. perfecit Dominus Dominator c. i. e. In the Year c. the great Ruler of Kingdoms brought that to pass which he had long intended against the English for he delivered them over to be destroyed by the Rough and Politick Nation of the Normans fol. 210. And in another place more particularly When the Normans had Executed the just Decree of God upon the English and there was not any Person of Quality of English Extraction remaining but all were reduced to Servitude and Distress insomuch that it was Scandalous to be called an English Man William the Author of this Iudgment dyed in the Twenty first Year of his Reign Ibid. fol. 212. Matthew Paris Who wrote towards the end of the Reign of Henry the Third agrees with the forementioned Testimonies his Words are these fol. 5. Dux Normannorum Willielmus c. i. e. Duke William having fortified the Cities and Castles and Garrisoned them with his own Men Sailed into Normandy with English Hostages and abundance of Treasure whom when he had Imprisoned and Secured he hastened back into England that he might liberally distribute the Lands of the English who were forcibly disseized of their Estates amongst his Norman Soldiers who had helped him at the Battle of Hastings to subdue the Country and that little that was left he put under the Yoak of perpetual Servitude And in another place he tells us That King William brought Bishopricks and Abbys under Military Service which before that time had been free from all Secular Servitude but then every Bishoprick and Abby was Enrolled according to his Pleasure and charged how many Knights or Horse-men they should find for him and his Successors in times of War fol. 7. I might add many more Authorities of Antient Historians but these I suppose are sufficient As for Modern Writers I shall only cite Mr. Cambden who thus delivers his Sence of this matter Britan. p. 109. Victor Gulielmus c. i. e. William the Conqueror as it were to make his
Victory the more remarkable Abrogated the greatest part of the English Laws brought in the Customs of Normandy and ordered the Pleadings to be in French And outing the English of their Antient Inheritances Assigned their Lands and Mannors to his Soldiers Yet so as he reserved the Paramount Lordship to himself and his Successors by Homage That is that they all should hold their Estates by the Feudal Laws and that none but the King should be Independent Proprietors but rather a sort of limited Trustees and Occupants in Tenancy From these Citations we have all imaginable Marks of an entire Conquest The Laws and Tenures and in some measure the Language of the Country were changed The Saxons were Transplanted into Normandy and dispossed of their Estates as appears not only from the forementioned Historians but from Doomse-day Book where we find that almost all the great Proprietors were Normans Now this Survey was made at the latter end of the Conqueror's Reign many Years after his taking the Oath which is by some so much insisted upon as appears from Ingulphus If it 's Objected that William the First granted King Edward's Laws To this I Answer 1. That most of King Edward's Laws were only Penal and respected Criminals as we may learn from Ingulph Hist. Croyland in fine Secondly These Laws of King Edward were not granted by the Conqueror without his own Amendments and Refinings upon them as is evident from the Charter of Henry the First as it stands in Matthew Paris fol. 55. Lagam Regis Edvardi vobis reddo cum eis Emendationibus quibus Pater eam Emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum i. e. I Grant you King Edward ' s Laws with those Amendments which my Father made in them by the advice of his Barons And that these last Words may not be thought to weaken the Testimony it 's not improper to observe that these Alterations are said to be made only by the Advise not by the Authority of the Barons and yet these Barons were Normans too as is sufficiently plain from what has been discoursed already But To Conclude the proofs of this Argument several of our Parliaments acknowledge William the First a Conqueror The Acts all of which it would be very tedious to name run thus in the Preamble Edward V. g. by the Grace of God the Fourth after the Conquest c. Now this is a plain Concession that the Rights of the Subjects were derived from the Crown and in all likelihood was intended to hint as much And therefore unless the Norman Conquest had been evident and unquestionable the Lords and Commons who were always very Tender of their Liberties would never have consented that the Statutes should have been Penned in such a Submissive Style If it be Objected That the Conqueror took an Oath to observe the Laws of the Realm In Answer to this I observe 1. That we have seen already in some measure what sort of Laws these were and how they were managed by him Secondly Neither Pictaviensis Eadmerus Ordericus Vitalis Henry of Huntington or Matth. Paris Write of any Oath taken by the Conqueror Florence of Worcester is the first that mentions it Flor. Wigorn. fol. 635. The Words of the Oath are these Se velle Sanctas Dei Ecclesias ac Rectores earum defendere nec non cunctum Populum sibi subjectum justa Regali Providentia Regere rectam Legem Statuere tenere Rapinas Injustaque Iudicia penitus interdicere i. e. That he would protect Holy Church and the Hierarchy that he would Govern all his Subjects fairly and take a Royal care of their welfare That he would make Equitable Laws and observe them and wholy Prohibit Rapine and Perverting of Iustice. From this I observe Two things First That the Legislative Power was all of it lodged in the Conqueror Why else did he Swear to make Equitable Laws For if the Constitution had been settled as it is at present the Parliament could have hindred him from making any other Secondly The Oath is Couched in very general Terms and admits of a great Latitude of Exposition so that the Conqueror was in a manner left at his liberty to interpret the Obligation as he thought fit Thirdly This Oath was voluntarily taken by the King some Years after he had forced the whole Nation to Swear Allegiance to him We are therefore if it were only for this reason to interpret the Oath to his advantage And to suppose that he would not Swear himself out of his Conquest and Reign at the Discretion of those he had so entirely Subdued so that it should be in their Power to Unking him either upon a real or pretended Breach of his Oath Fourthly We may observe that the Kings of England are in full Possession of the Crown immediately upon the Death of their Predecessors and therefore King Iohn Edward the First and Henry the Fifth had Allegiance Sworn to them before their Coronation From whence it follows that as Swearing does not make them Kings so neither can Perjury though truly Objected un-make them again which will appear more evidently if we consider Fifthly That Perjury in it self does not imply a forfeiture of any Natural or Civil Right Indeed the dread of it ties up a Man's Conscience faster and if he proves guilty makes him lyable to a severer Vengance from God Almighty than simple unfaithfulness upon which account an Oath is counted a considerable security for the performance of a promise And therefore for the greater satisfaction of their Subjects Princes usually Swear to observe those Stated Measures of Justice which were either fixed by themselves or their Predecessors And if they happen to fail in the performance though they forfeit their Honor and the Divine Protection yet there accrues no Right from thence to the People to re-enter upon their fancied Original Liberty For the Duty of those under Authority except where it 's expresly conditional is not Cancelled and Discharged by the mis-behaviour of their Superiors For Example supposing a Father Swears to remit some part of his Authority in the Family and that he will Govern only by such a prescribed Rule his forgeting his Oath afterwards does not void or lessen his Power nor excuse the Children in their Disobedience And to make the Instance more direct if possible The Kings of Persia were Soveraign Monarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch calls them and were Worshiped as the Images of God and could never be set aside but by Death Yet these Princes took an Oath at their Inauguration as Grotius observes from Xenophon and Diodorus Siculus Neither was it lawful for them to alter certain Laws as appears from Daniel and Iosephus The Kings of Aegypt likewise as Grotius relates from Diodorus Sic. had a full and unaccountable Authority they did as he speaks summo Imperio uti yet they were bound to the observance of a great many things which if they neglected to perform they could not be
our Government which as the Enquirer acknowledges lodges the Militia i. e. the Power of the Sword singly in the King. So that without his Order none of his Subjects can Form themselves into Troops or carry the face of an Army without being lyable to the highest Penalties And whereas he urges That if we have a Right to our Property we must likewise be supposed to have a Right to preserve it He means by Force To this I Answer First That a Man may have an unquestionable Right to some Things which he has no Warrant to recover Vi Armis but must rest the Enjoyment of them with the Conscience and Prudence of another E. G. If the Father of a wealthy Person falls into deep Poverty he has an undoubted Right to a Maintenance out of his Sons Estate and yet he cannot fairly recover it by Force without a Legal Provision for this purpose To bring the Instance nearer home The Right of making War and Peace is an Indisputable Branch of the King's Prerogative yet unless his Subjects assist him this Authority can seldom be exerted to any Successful effect because his Majesty cannot Levy Money which is the Sinews of War without the consent of Parliament Farther every one who is injured in his Property and endeavours the regaining of it by course of Law has without doubt a Right to have Justice done him But if the Court where the Cause is depending happens to be mistaken or corrupted I desire to know whether it 's Lawful for him to raise his Arrier Ban upon such a Disappointment Our Author is obliged by his Principle to say no and therefore he must either Answer 1. That the Party aggreived ought to appeal to a higher Court to which it may be replyed That it 's possible for him to meet with the same misfortune theÌ„re for our Constitution does not pretend to any Insallible or Impecable Judges 2. His Second Answer must be that this is a Private Case and therefore a Man is bound to submit to ill usage rather than disturb the publick Peace But to this I return that we may suppose a general failure of Justice through Subornation Bribery c. and then the Oppression will be of a publick and Extensive Nature and yet if a grievance of this Magnitude should continue unredress'd after complains our Author will not allow us the benefit of any rougher Methods for he frankly tells us That it 's not lawful to Resist the King upon any Pretence of ill Administration in the Execution of the Law. Pag. 14. so that by his own Argument we may have some very considerable Rights which it 's not justifiable to demand of the Government with a drawn Sword. Secondly This Liberty of Resistance dissolves all Government For as I have already Observ'd when every man is the Judge of his own Priviledges i. e. when he is made the Authentick Interpreter of the Laws and may use all the force he can get at his discretion against the State he is then most certainly to be govern'd by no body but himself And therefore Thirdly This Liberty must be the worst security for Peace and Property imaginable as I shall shew more at large by and by As for his limiting Resistance To plain and visible Invasions This is a very feeble Remedy against Confusion For since every one is made Judge of the Evidence and the generality are naturally over credulous and apt to believe ill of their Governours when designing Men have once impos'd upon their understandings and almost har'd them out of their sences then every thing will be plain to them but their Duty Thus it was plain that Charles the First intended to introduce Popery though possibly never any Person since the Reformation gave â—etter proof of his Adherence to the Church of England than that â—rince Thus likewise at the beginning of this present Revolution it was plain to the greatest part of the Nation that his Majesty had made a League with the French King to Extirpate the Protestants and their Religion Though now the World sees there never was a more Malicious and unreasonable Calumny invented But though Reports of this Nature are never so monstrous and nonsensical yet at this rate we shall never want a Demonstration for a Rebellion as long as such loose Principles as the Enquirer advances are allowed His Thirteenth Section contains nothing but Objections which to do him Justice are fairly put considering the small compass they are drawn into How well he gets clear of the Difficulties he was sensible of the Reader must judge for now we are coming to his Fourteenth and Dead doing Paragraph in which he offers to take off all the Arguments which are made for Non-resistance Now before I reply distinctly to his Answers I shall endeavour to offer something more than I have urged already in Consutation of his main Principle And here it 's not amiss to observe That the Enquirer in his Ninth Section Makes the Measures of our Submission much shorter than those of the Ancient Christians because Our Religion is Established by Law. By vertue of which Distinction he makes our Faith fall under the consideration of Property and from thence concludes by Implication That we may resist our Prince in defence of it But we are to consider though our Religion has a legal Settlement yet we have no Authority to maintain it by Force Nay our Laws are express as it 's possible against all manner of Resistance as himself acknowledges Now the Law is certainly the Measure of all Civil Right and therefore to carve out our selves a greater Security than the Law allows is Destructive of all Government If the Mobile get this hint it 's to be feared they will give him no occasion in their Second Expedition to admire them for Burning and Plundering with so much Temper and Moderation Further he grants by Consequence That the Roman Emperours were irresistable For I don't find that he allows the Primitive Christians a Liberty of Resistance though they were invaded in their Lives and Properties as well us in their Religion Now if these Emperours were irresistable I desire to know what made them so if he Answers the Laws I Reply That the English Constitution is as full against taking Arms to oppose the King as is possible If he Replies That it was unlawful to resist the Roman Emperours because the making of Laws was wholy in their own Power but where the Legative Authority is partly in the King and partly in the People the Case is otherwise To this I Answer That the Division of the Legislative Power does not weaken the Obligation of a Law when all the Distinct Authorities concur to the making of it E. G. I Question not but our Author will grant that the English Laws though the People have a share in Enacting them are as perfect and ought to be as inviolable as those in Turkey where all depends upon the Princes Will Therefore if the
was not counted a good Protestant who would not believe them How well they have been proved since the World knows And here I cannot omit taking notice what a Frantick and Ruinous Maxim it is to assert That it 's Lawful for the People to set their Kings aside upon a bare jealousie and apprehension of Rigour Give them but this Liberty and an Impostor will easily fright them into a State of Nature and carry them whether he pleases If we may renounce the Government as often as any bold Pretence is made against it and translate our Allegiance upon conjecture and report the contests about Dominion would be so frequent and terrible yet we had better Disband into Solitude than live any longer together If Calumnies and Aspersions and all undemonstrated Reports ought to go for no more are sufficient to cancel our Obedience then no Prince can have any Title as long as there is either Knavery or Folly in the World. This Principle lays a Foundation for a Rebellion every Week and renders all Government impracticable By acting in this manner we put it in the Power of Slander and Perjury to determine the weightiest points of Justice and make it an easie Task to over-turn a Kingdom with a Lye. If it be urged that it is needless to search after farther proof that the Subversion of Protestancy was intended because a Prince of his Majesties Perswasion and Zeal must necessarily think himself obliged to pursue a design of this Nature Before I return an Answer I shall just Observe that Religious Zeal though it acts upon misinformation is really a commendable Quality For it 's an Infallible sign of a good Intention it argues great Charity to the Souls of Men and a generous desire to propagate Truth and to promote the Glory of God. To speak freely I cannot be heartily angry with a Man though his Methods of Discipline are never so unacceptable who I am perswaded has no other Design than to carry me to Heaven though I had much rather he would permit me to go thither my own way because it 's almost impossible I should go any other For Rigour is usually very unfortunate both to the Proselyter and Proselyted It creates Prejudice and Aversion to the one and makes no more than a Hypocrite of the other But to proceed to the Objection in order to the confuting of which I shall endeavour to prove these Two things First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity Secondly That in all humane probability such a Method would prove Unsuccessful First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity The Doctrine of the Church of Rome I conceive is to be collected these Four ways Either from her eminent Divines The Bulls of Popes The Decrees of Councils or the usual Practice which when a Case is doubtful ought to be taken for the Sense of a Communion To begin with their Divines Cassander a Person of great Learning and Judgment and whose Writings were never censured insists upon gentle Methods for the propagation of Religion disapproves of Severity and tells us it has been a miserable occasion of the spreading of Schisme De Offic. Pii Viri pag. 187. 196. But because it may be objected this Author was more gentle in his Censure and allowed a greater Latitude than the generallity of Communion I shall subjoyn the Testimonies of others of a straiter Principle and who are well known to carry up Popery to the height 1. Thomas Aquinas yields 22 ae q. 10. Art. 11. c. That Unlawful Worship Ritus Infidelium under which Words he comprehends an Heretical Religion as appears both from this Conclusion and from his next Question 22 ae q. 11. 1. May be tolerated in some cases Which he proves 1. Because the Church ought to take her Measures of Government from the Administrations of Providence Now God permits many ill Practises in the World least a forcible Restraint should prevent a greater Good or prove the occasion of a greater Evil. Therefore Infidels and Hereticks have been sometimes tolerated by the Church when their Numbers were great and Discipline could not take place without the hazard of giving great Offence without occasioning a Commotion or civil Disturbance and hindring the Salvation of those who by fair means might by degrees be won over to the Catholick Faith. These Arguments for Toleration are much stronger now than they were either in Aquinas his Time or before it And therefore if he had lived since the Reformation we have reason to believe he would have pressed them more at large Which probably is the reason why Cardinal Lugo who wrote since the Counsel of Trent is more full and particular in the point For though he won't allow a Tolleration but upon a very great Occasion yet in such a case he acknowledges That a Catholick Prince may give Liberty of Conscience to his Heretical Subjects For this Opinion he quotes Acquinas and says he Was followed by the rest of the Divines particularly naming Suarez Coninch and Hurtado He adds That this Practice has been used by many of the most Pious Christian Princes who Tolerated open Heresie when they could not oppose it without the danger of a greater Inconvenience For this Urgent Occasion causa gravissima is then supposed to happen as he proves from Hurtado When Religion is likely to be more damnified by the denial than by the grant of such an Indulgence when the People are in danger of growing Mutinous and Diserderly by strict Usage And therefore in an Heretical Country such a Liberty of Conscience may be granted without any difficulty And in a Catholick one too when things are desperate He proceeds farther and tells us That such an Allowance to Hereticks is a thing Lawful in its self and therefore when a Prince has passed his promise he ought punctually to keep it Lugo de Virt. div Fid. Disp. 19. Sect. 4. Numb 121. 123. 128. 130. We see therefore That in the Opinion of these Schoolmen though none of the kindest we are not to be roughly managed till the Major part of us are gained by dint of Argument which is so improbable a supposition in England that I think we need not trouble our selves about the Consequences of it It 's true Bellarmine de Laicis Lib. 3. Cap. 18. pretends to prove by Scripture the Fathers and Reason That Kings ought not to permit a Liberty of belief but then he supposes their Authority to be Absolute as appears from his Instances of the Jewish Kings and Roman Emperors Therefore his Doctrine does not oblige Princes who have only a Part though a Principal one in the Legislative Power especially when a different Communion is Established by the Laws of the Realm which cannot be Repealed but by consent of Parliament A King when he exceeds his Prerorogative is in some measure out