saith it is altogether false but corrects this afterward saying nisi fortasse in Tyrannidem declinet unless he happen to become a Tyrant of which this Jesuit allows the People to be Judge He might as well have agreed with his Fellows By giving one a Conquest over the other God gives a Conquest Judicially a Psal. Lxxxii I. I. By way of Judgment a Psal. Lxxv. 8. On Kings a King James's Works pag. 531. Every King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe the Paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereunto Ib. A King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to govern according to his Laws in which Case the King's Conscience may speak to him as the poor Widow said to Philip of Macedon either govern according to your Law Aut ne Rex sis b King James's Works pag. 553. I was sworn to maintain the Law of the Land and therefore I had been perjured if I had altered it Ib. pag. 531. All Kings that are not Tyrants or perjured will be glad to bind themselves within the Limits of their Laws And they that persuade them the contrary are Vipers and Pests both against them and the Commonwealth c Pufendorf de Leg. Nat. Gent. VII 6. 10. If he promiseth at his Coronation to govern according to Laws and breaks his Promise he is forsworn and yet that doth not dissolve his Government King James's Works pag. 531. Though no Christian ought to allow any Rebellion of People against their Prince yet doth God never leave Kings unpunisht when they transgress these Limits For Neglect of Government For oppressing the People a Esay X. 7. This is Just and Necessary b Rom. Xiii 2. a Rom. XIII 4. b Rom. XIII 3. c Esay VII 17. a Psal. Lvii. 11. b When Don Pedro King of Castile by his Tyranny had so lost himself at home and gained so many Enemies abroad that his Bastard Brother being set up against him by some of the Neighbouring Kings had driven him out of his Kingdome without Blood he came to our Black Prince who was then at Bourdeaux and desir'd him to bring him back into his Kingdom The Prince called a Council upon it where some of his Friends advised him to forbear telling him the great Evils that this King had done and adding this in the Conclusion All that he hath now to suffer is but the Rod of God sent to chastise him and to give Example to other Christian Kings and Princes of the Earth that they may not do like him Froissart Hist. l. 231. 2 God does this by way of Justice 1 War is an Appeal to God a 1 Chron. Xxix. 11. b Judg. XI 27. 2 It is proper to Kings a Rom. Xiii 6. b 1 Pet. II. 13 14. a Bishop Bramhall's Works p. 834. Private Right and private Justice is between particular Men. Publick Right and publick Justice is between Common-wealths as in a Foreign War b See Pufendorf de Jure Nat. Gent. II. 3. 21. Hooker Eccles. Pol. I. Saith of the Law of Nations that it can be no more prejudiced by the Laws of any Kingdom than these can be by the Resolutions of private Men. c See Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis i. 2. 1. ad 5. d Rom. Xiii 3 4. Mat. xxvi 52. Dudley Digs of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms London 1675. § 3. p. 75. Equals if injur'd they require Satisfaction and upon denial of it attempt to compass it by force they are esteem'd by the Law of Reason and Nations Just Enemies whereas Subjects if they make War upon their Sovereign tho' when wrong'd are worthily accounted Rebels See Albericus Gentilis de jure Belli B. fol. 1. from Pomponius c. 118. tituli Digest de verb. Signif Ulpian c. 24. tit de Captivis See Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis l. 3. 5. Zouch p. 30 de jure inter Gentes l. 6. 3. When they have Just Cause e Justinian Instit. l. 2. As in fear of great Danger f Lord Bacon's Works London 1670 p. 2. in his Considerations on the War with Spain The second of his three Just Grounds for that War was a just Fear of Subverting our Civil Estate And thereupon he says That Wars preventive upon just Fears are true Defensives as well as upon an actual Invasion In his Works London 1638. among his Sermones Fideles p. 189. he goes further in saying justus metus imminentis periculi etsi violentia aliqua non praecessit proculdubio Belli causa est competens legitima A just Fear of imminent Danger tho there has not been any Violence used is but of all Doubt a sufficient and lawful Cause of War g See Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis II. 20 39. And Pufendorf de Jure Naturae Gentium VIII 6. 3. h Albericus Gentilis de Jure Belli I. fol. C. 3. saith it is Defensio Utilis quando verendum ne petamur And Defensio Honesta quando alios tuemur He brings both these together in the Case of Queen Elizabeth's defending the Dutch against the King of Spain Ib. fol. D. he saith She might justly do it for if the Government of the Netherlands should be changed and the King of Spain become Absolute she her self would be in Danger of him He saith this is ipsa Ratio Imperiorum See Grot. de Jure B. P. II. 25. 8. And Pufendorf de Jur. Nat. Gent. VIII 6. 14. ending See Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis II. 20. 40. Especially when also Religion is concern'd Justinian Coll. VI. 7. 4. It is for this Cause that woâ—â—â— have made so many Wars in Africk and Italy namely for Orthodoxy in Religion and for the Liberty of our Subjects Bishop Bilson of the true difference between Subjection and Rebellion Oxford 1625. p. 381. in the Margin has this Position Princes who bear the Sword may lawfully wage War for Religion i Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis II. 20. 48. k See Concil Lateran IV. Canon 4. that it is every Prince's duty to persecute and that in Case he neglect it he thereby forfeits his Dominions See the Oath that every Popish Bishop takes in the Pontisicale Romanum It has these words in it I will persecute all Hereticks and Schismaticks Rebells to our Lord the Pope and will fight against them to the utmost of my Power Suarez de Legibus III. 5. 8. ending Saith Heathen Kings cannot be deprived of their Power by War unless they abuse it to the injury of Christian Religion or the destruction of the Faithful that are under them as is the constant Opinion of Divines Meaning of them in the Roman Church Again III. 10. 6. If Insidels have the Faithful for their Subjects and would turn them from the Faith or Obedience of the Church then the Church has just Cause of War against them
expose not only themselves to be ruin'd but also their Friends and Allies to perish with them in that Case Saevitia est voluisse mori it is a sort of bloody Peaceableness it is cruelty to Mankind to go to that degree of suffering Injuries § 37. But especially when the Cause of God is concern'd to whom we owe all things and ought to venture all for his sake Surely 't is his Cause when it touches Religion which is all that is dear to him in this World And tho' Religion it Self teaches us if it be possible as much as in us lyes to live peaceably with all Men yet as 't is there suppos'd there may be Cause to break the Peace so it adds infinitely to that Cause when it comes to concern our Religion I do not say that Religion is to be propagated with the Sword No nor that Princes may force it on their own Subjects much less upon other Princes or their Kingdoms These are things we justly abhor among those inhumane Doctrins and Practices by which Popery has distinguisht it Self from all other Religions We have the more Cause to abhor it for the sake of a Prince that is the very Scandal of Popery that hath not only exceeded all Heathen Cruelty in the persecuting of his own Protestant Subjects but even forc'd a neighbour Prince to give him Game in his Dominions His butchering the poor Vaudois was barbarity beyond all Example We have reason to believe he would have hunted here next His Dogs had been upon us ' ere this time if God had not wonderfully preserved us God preserve us still from Kings that have that way of propagating Religion § 38. Yet it may be a Question whether such Tyrannies being used on the account of Religion give a just Cause of War to other Princes of the same Religion I speak now of Persecution in such Countries where their Religion is not established by Law It is certainly true which the Apostle says We are all Members of one and the same Body and it is the duty of Members to have the same Care of one another and whether one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it or one Member be honoured all the Members rejoyce with it It is true that Christian Princes especially as they have the charge of that part of Christ's Body that is in their own Dominions so they ought to extend their Care and Compassion to their Fellow-Members elsewhere But whether they ought to concern themselves for them so far as to make War on their account against their Kings by whom they are persecuted nay whether they may lawfully do this is a doubt that may deserve some farther Consideration The Christian Emperors seem to have made no doubt of this For they made War sometimes for no other Cause but that of Religion against such Kings as persecuted the Christians in Their own Dominions Sometimes when they had other Causes of War they preferr'd this before all the rest which certainly they would not have done if it had not weighed much in their Opinion Of them of the Roman Communion there hath been enough already said to shew their Opinion of this Cause They that are for propagating Religion by the Sword cannot but think it a just Cause of War against any Prince that he persecutes those of their Religion We have a notable Instance of this in Cardinal Pool who was one of the moderatest Papists of his age and yet writ a Book wherein he prest it most earnestly upon the Emperor Charles V. as his Duty to give over his War with the Turk and to turn his Arms against King Henry VIII for oppressing the Catholicks in his Dominions Pope Pius V. whom they have lately made a Saint was as earnest with the Emperor Maximilian and with the Kings of Spain France and Portugal He would have them all make War against Queen Elizabeth for persecuting his Catholicks though she never touch'd one of them till that Pope had forc'd her to it by stirring them up to Rebellion against her with his famous Bull of Deprivation § 39. For the Opinion of Protestants in this matter we have it sufficiently declared in the Reign of that excellent Queen who made War first or last against all the Popish Princes in her neighborhood for persecuting the Protestants in their Kingdoms And herein she was not only justified by the Pens of our greatest Lawyers and Divines but she had also the approbation and assistance of our Parliaments and Convocations It appears she was the rather inclin'd to do this by a Jealousy of State for which there was an evident Cause in those Popish Doctrins before-mentioned For she knew that those Kings accounted her and her People to be Hereticks as well as they did their own Subjects whom they used so very ill for no other Cause but because they were of her Religion And therefore she had Reason to fear that when they had done their Work in the destroying of that Religion at home in their own Kingdoms the same blind Zeal acted by the same Principles would bring them hither at last for the finishing of their Work or as some have worded it since for the rooting out of the Northern Heresie This was such a danger that if she had suffer'd it to grow upon her it had been a betraying of her Trust which she could not have answer'd to God And yet there being no way to prevent it but by making War upon them in their own Kingdoms this ought to be accounted a Defensive War and that made upon very just Cause as hath been already shewn We have Reason to hope that all Popish Princes are not under the Power of those Principles But yet when any of them persecutes his Subjects that are of another Religion beyond the standing Laws of his Kingdom they cannot expect that other Princes which are of that Suffering Religion can be so confident of this as to stand idle and look on and not rather when they see the danger comes towards them to defend themselves from it if they can by beginning a War in that Prince's Dominions § 40. There is yet a greater Cause for this when the Suffering Religion is that which is establisht by the Laws of that Kingdom and yet the King that is sworn to those Laws and therefore bound to support that Religion is manifestly practising against it and endeavours to supplant and oppress and extinguish it What should other Princes or States that profess the same Religion do in this Case They see that such a King is set upon the destroying of their Religion He hath declar'd a hostile mind towards the Professors of it in judging them not capable of enjoying their Temporal Rights If he deals thus with his own People what are Forreigners to expect at his hands Can they think themselves secure because they are at Peace with
But for Heretick Princes he says there that the Church has direct Power over them and may deprive them in punishment of their Infidelity or Heresie Ib. Q. when Religion suffers in another Kingdom 1 Cor. Xii 25 26. Justinian Coll. VI. 7. 4. It is for this Cause that we have made so many Wars in Africk and Italy viz. for Orthodoxy in Religion and for the liberty of our Subjects See Girolamo Catena's Life of that Pope And from him Camden's Annals A. D. 1572. Example in Q. Elizabeths time a Camdeni Annales A. D. 1559. In the Queen's Consultation concerning the demands of Succor for the Protestants of Scotland against the French faction in that Kingdom saith Pessimi Exempli videbatur Principem patrocinium praestare tumultuantibus Principis alterius Subditis At Impietatis ejusdem Religionis cultoribus deesse It seem'd a thing of very ill Example for one Prince to Patronize another Prince's Subjects in Commotion But it seem'd an Impious thing to be wanting to them of the same Religion Whereupon the Resolution was taken Ejusdem Religionis Professoribus Subveniendum Gallos a Scotia exturbandos That the Professors of the same Religion must be helpt and that the French must be driven out of Scotland Ib. A. D. 1562. When she sent the Earl of Warwick with an Army into France she declared she could not but do it unless she would let the Guises do their pleasure with that young King and his Protestant Subjects Quodque Maximum ne suam Religionem Securitatem Salutem ignave prodere videretur And which was chiefly to be considered least she should seem basely to betray her own Religion Security and Safety Ib. A. D. 1585. After Deliberation whether she should take upon her the Protection of the States against the King of Spain this was her Resolution Statuit Christianae Pietatis esse afflictis Belgis ejusdem Religionis Cultoribus subvenire Prudentiae exitiosas hostium Machinationes praevertendo populi sibi commissi incolumitati consulere Hinc Bâ—lgarum patrocinium palam suscepit She did Resolve that it was a duty of Christian Piety to help the Afflicted Dutch being Professors of the same Religion and that it was a point of Prudence by preventing the destructive designs of their Enemies to provide for the Safety of her own People Thereupon she took upon her publickly the Protection of the Dutch b Albericus Gentilis her Professor of Law in the University of Oxford de jure Belli D. Speaking of her War with Spain saith Age age obsiste Principum fortissima nam obsistis Justissime c Bishop Jewell's Defence of the Apology p. 16. c. and Bilson of the Difference between Subjection and Rebellion ubi supra d The Acts of Parliament and Convocation that prove this see at the end of this first Chapter a § 36. Especially where it is the Religion setled by Law An Answer to the Paper delivered by 〈…〉 his 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 of London p 16 17 18 19. Of Licinius he tells us how designing War against his Brother in Law Constantine but not thinking fit yet to declare it first he fell upon the Christians in his own part of the Empire Euseb. Hist. X. 8. Edit Vales. p. 396. B. He began first with the Bishops not suffering them to meet in Synods Vit. Constant. l. 51. Then he turned all Christians out of their places at Court Eufeb Hist. X. 8. Vit. Constant. l. 52. Then he turned all Christians out of the Army and out of Offices Euseb. Hist. Ib. Vit. Constant. l. 54. Then he seiz'd their Estates Ib. Ib. At last he fell on the Bishops Euseb. Hist. X. 8. p. 397. B. At first secretly and cunningly not by himself for fear of Constantine but by his Governors Ib. He killed some Bishops for Praying for Constantine Vit. Constant. II. 2. Then Constantine began to stir thinking it Holy and Pious to remove one and save a Multitude Vit. Constant. II. 3. The Joy of Christians upon his Victory see Eus. X. 9. p. 399. C D. Vit. Constant. II. 19. p. 452. C. Then it makes a Just Conquest a See §. 26. b See §. 35. And Conquest giveth Right Judges XI 24. Dan. II. 21. Jos. Antiq. X. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. Selden de Jure Nat. Gent. VI 17. p. 789. Argent 1665. Ita non solum armis Alexandri se ex Jure quod ei competiit bellico subdidere sed imperio ejus dilatando stipendiarios se libenter tune praebuere nec interea de belli causâ aut Religione dispari soliciti So they not only submitted themselves to Alexander's Arms on the account of that Right which he had gotten by War but then they willingly offered themselves to serve under him for the farther Enlargement of his Empire not troubling themselves the mean while about the cause of the War or the Difference of Religion a Thus David Psal. I. X. 8. CVIII 9. Thus Constantine the Great stiled himself TRIUMPHATOR and Stamp'd his Coin with the words VICTORIA GOTHICA SARMATIA DEVICTA c. DEBELLAIORI GENTIUM BARBARARUM Thus likewise the following Christian Emperors b Justinian Coll. II. 2. 10. We have recovered all Afric and subdued the Vandals and hope to receive of God many yet greater things than these Id. Coll. V. 15. 1. We ordain these Laws to be observed in all Nations under our Government Some whereof God gave us at first others he hath added since and we hope he will still increase a Deut. XVII 15. b Jer. XXI 8 9. c Convocation Book I. 28. c. Doubted when the Cause is certainly unjust a Pufend. de Jur. Nat. Gent. VII 8 9. b Ib. VII 8. 10. Sanderson Obl. Consc. V. 17 c. No doubt when the Cause is certainly Just. a Horn. de Civ II. 9. 2. as quoted by Pufend. Jur. Nat. Gent. VII 7. 3. If one Prince overcomes another that unjustly provokes him and hath deserv'd it by other Injuries he hath forthwith a Lawful Power against him whom he hath so overcome and is not to stay for the Consent of the People whom he hath brought under his Dominion Pufendorf there says that where there was a Just Cause of Invasion there the getting of a Country into Possession makes for the obtaining of the Dominion thereof and is confirm'd by the Consent of the Subjects and their following Covenant But that till this is had the State of War continues and there is no Obligation nor Faith and so no Dominion Dudley Digs of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms c. §. 4. p. 132. Puts an Objection That if the Conqueror comes in by Force he may be turn'd out by the same Title In Answer to it he saith de Jure he cannot For though Conquest be a name of greater Strength only and be not it self a Right yet it is the Mother of it because when the People are in his Power they pass their Consent
him They cannot unless Treaties are more Sacred then Laws Or can they rely upon his Oath But they see he hath broken it And therefore they have reason to Judge that either he makes no Conscience of an Oath or he thinks Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks or he hath a Superior that can dispense with him or that will absolve him from the guilt of Perjury in such Cases where Religion is concern'd In short they are sure of his Will to destroy them and cannot be sure of his Oath to the contrary Wherein then can they be safe But in his Want of Power to do them hurt But he will not want Power if they let him go on for he is getting it as fast as he can He is now strengthning himself by those ways that he takes to be absolute Lord of his own People And he is now weakning Them by oppressing all those among his People whom he knows to be their Friends and Well-wishers He doth both these things together He daily lessens their Party and makes them as many more Enemies as he gains Men over to his Religion And if that be such a Religion as pretends to a Right of destroying Men of other Religions knowing this they know what they are to expect When this pretended Right is armed with Power it will certainly fall upon them So that they must begin before he is ready for them or else it will be too late to do any thing for their own Preservation But as it is necessary for them to do this for themselves so they ought to do it much the rather for the Sakes of their oppressed Brethren That by a timely asserting of their own Right they may also deliver them from the Evils they suffer at present and save them from that Destruction which is coming upon them As it was Just and Necessary on those former Accounts so this makes it a Pious Cause and therefore the more Worthy of a true Christian Prince It has been judg'd so by them whose Names we have in great Veneration We have the Examples of our own Princes here in England in the best of Times since the Reformation These the Reader may find collected to his Hand in an excellent Book that hath been lately published But this may as well be shewn in the Examples of them whom our Princes chose to follow as their Patterns namely of the Christians in Primitive times and especially at the time of the first Nicene Council In these times we find that Constantine and Licinius having shar'd the Roman Empire between them had pass'd a Decree together at Milan for Christianity to be the establish'd Religion And when afterward Licinius in his part of the Empire would have oppress'd it contrary to Law for that cause Constantine the Great made War upon him and in prosecution of that War thrust him out of his Empire For which he was so far from being blamed by any Christian in those times even by those that had been Licinius's Subjects as most of those Bishops were that sate in the Nicene Council that they all gave him the highest Praises and Encomiums and Blessed God that had sent them that happy Deliverance by his means Eusebius was Licinius's Subject and he afterwards writ the Life of Constantine the Great in which they that please may read whole Chapters to this purpose § 41. As that is a Just War which is made upon Just and sufficient Cause so the Effect of such a War being a Conquest is Just which is the Fourth thing we are to consider Conquest being the way by which a Kingdom or Dominion is taken from a Sovereign Prince against his Will and by which another Prince gets it into his Possession as often as this happens there arises a Question between the two Princes whether of them hath a Right to that Kingdom or Dominion For the deciding of this Question it must be by such a Law as is common to both the Parties whose Rights are to be judg'd by it That cannot be the Law of the Kingdom for though the Prince that is disseiz'd was obliged by that Law while he was in Possession yet now it seems he is not and it never was a Law to the Prince that is now in his place It must therefore be a Superior Law such as is common to all Sovereign Princes in their Affairs with one another and that as hath been already shewn is ordinarily the Law of Nations I say Ordinarily because there is yet a Superior Law namely the Law of God whether written in our Hearts which we commonly call the Law of Nature or whether an express Revelation from God such as was sometimes given to Men in ancient Times either of these may derogate from the Law of Nations For this being made up of Customs observ'd by Princes and States among themselves is always subject to the will of him that is Lord of Lords and King of Kings But whether or how far this may alter the case will be considered afterwards at present we are only to consider what Judgment can be made of it according to the Law of Nations § 42. By this it seems to be plain that the Right should go along with the compleat Possession So as that wheresoever this is once settled whether by length of time or even sooner by a general Consent of the People there it ought to be presum'd there is a Right at least there ought to be no farther Dispute of it There seems to be the same Reason for this that there is for the Law of Nations it self for if that Law was ordain'd for the Peace of Mankind this quieting of Possession must be a part of it for there can be no end of Wars otherwise Accordingly we see in a Dispute between Gods Ancient People the Jews and the Heathen Nations about them when they differ'd about a Title to Land it was agreed that whatsoever Conquest they had made on either side they should hold it as being given them by their God This appears by Jephtha's Speech to the King of Ammon that had Chemosh for his God Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us them will we possess That 's a plain Evidence so far as it goes But that is only for part of a Country But we have as great Proof that God gives even Kingdoms in this manner Dan. II. 21. There Daniel having receiv'd a full Account from God of a Vision which King Nebuchadnezzar had seen and forgot when he saw what it was that it contain'd the Fates of Empires that were to grow up successively in the World he adores the Majesty of God with an humble Confession of his Prerogative in these words It is He that changes the Times and the Seasons It is He that removes Kings and sets up Kings Both these ways of Expression
signifie one and the same thing For the Chaldeans reckon'd the Times and the Seasons by the Years of their Kings Reigns as we do by the Years of our Kings Reigns at this day And therefore according to the Change of their Kings there was also a change of the Times and the Seasons They were the Changes of Four great Empires which God here considered not as being the greatest in the World but as being those to which his People were to be subject They were subject successively to those Four great Empires of the Babylonians the Persians the Greeks and the Romans Those Four are understood in this Vision by Josephus and by all the Jews that have written and by all the Primitive Christians But these words being so understood afford us a plain Instance of this Doctrine They shew that it is by way of Conquest that God puts down one and sets up another For so the Babylonian Empire was put down by Cyrus who set up the Persian in its stead The Persian Empire was put down in their last King Darius and Alexander set up the Macedon in its stead The Macedon Kingdom was put down in their last King Perseus and the Roman was set up in its stead All these Kingdoms were changed by Conquests that they made one upon another And so it was by those Conquests that God removed Kings and set up Kings Which though we see not yet that it was any more than by the Permissive Providence of God yet that was enough to make the People of God become Subjects to those Kings that came in by no other Title I do not say but they would have opposed the making of one of those Conquests namely that of Alexander the Great because King Darius was then living But when they saw they could not Oppose the Conquest being already made then Just or Unjust they submitted to it and having submitted they were subject without any more Controversie Therefore also Just and Religious Kings have reckoned their Conquests 〈◊〉 the great things that God wrought in 〈◊〉 means and accounted them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subjects whom they had gain'd by 〈◊〉 Sword as them that were born in thâ—â—â— Dominions Therefore also God hath commanded his People to give Obedience to the Kings that came in by Conquest without any other Title Nay to such as were capable of no other for they were forbidden to set a Stranger over them which was not their Brother And yet they were Subjects to Strangers such as Cushan Eglon and Jabin c. And in Zedekia's time God commanded them upon pain of Death to become the Subjects of Nebuchadnezzar who had made a full Conquest over them and held their Lawful King Jeconia then in Captivity This is plainly the Doctrine of that Convocation which sate in the beginning of King James I. his time and therefore it cannot but be very Unjust to charge any Man with Singularity or Novelty that goes in the Steps of so many and so great Authors § 43. Yet it cannot be denied that many others and those also Men of great Learning and Judgment have not gone on so smooth with this Doctrine they think it gives too much to the Success of a War without due regard to the Cause on which it was made But it is the Cause that makes a War either Just or Unjust And though the Events of both these may be the same for either of them may end in a Conquest by which God puts down one and sets up another yet whether this be Justly obtained or Unjustly it makes a great Difference For whereas the latter happens through the Judgment of God for the Punishing of a Sinful Prince or Nation it doth not appear that he that is the Instrument of this acquires any Right by it more that those Pirates or Robbers who are Instrumental likewise in the Punishing of Inferior Transgressors And if God gives no Right to him whom he sets up then it remains still in him whom he has put down So that he is rightful King still though he is out of Possession and the other is but an Usurper that is in Possession In this Case if the Usurper has no Pretence of Right no Prescription of time no Consent of the People but only an unjust Possession how a Subject ought to behave himself towards him even this is a DIFFICULT QUESTION in a most learned Man's Judgment Who yet Judges that even here it may be not only Lawful but a Duty to obey him that is in Possession when the Legal King is reduced to that pass that he can no more do the Office of a King to his People For saith he the Kingdom cannot be without Government and if the Usurper preserves the Kingdom a Lover of his Country ought not as things are to give any farther cause of trouble by his unprofitable Contumacy But then put case the Usurper hath Sworn the People to him and doth the Office of a King which it seems in his Judgment doth not take away the Duty that is owing to that former King how one can pay his Duty to both the expel'd Legal King and to such an Usurper This our Author says is A MOST DIFFICULT SCRUPLE and so it seems both by his and our most Learned Casuist's handling the Question where they shew how far one ought and how far one ought not to comply with such an Usurpation But these Difficulties are only in case the Possession is obtained by a War that was certainly unjust for if the Cause of the War was but doubtful and a Conquest follows upon it there is no place for these Difficulties Much less where the cause of War was certainly Just for if a Conquest follows upon this it gives a Right and then there is no Usurpation § 44. We judge of doubtful things by those that are certain and therefore to speak of these first Being certain that the Cause of War is Just we are as certain of the Effect of it So that if it be suffer'd to run on to a Conquest this also is Just and we ought to look upon it as the Execution of a Sentence of God by which acting as a Judge in the way of Justice he puts down one and sets up another And this being follow'd by the Peoples attorning their Allegiance the Right is as fully settled in him that comes in in this manner as if he came in by the ordinary way of Succession § 45. The Right of a Conquest being so clear when the Justice of the War is certain there is the less to be said of the Case when there is a doubtful Cause of War If the Effect of such a War be a Conquest it is evident that the Right of this Conquest ought to be judged of very favourably for he that hath Conquered is now in Possession And therefore according to that common Saying which is most true in