removed by an article of our Confession of Faith, which hereby is turned into a court creed: Then welcome Hobs de cive, with all the rest of Pluto's train, who would babble us into a belief, that the world is to be governed according to the pleasure of wicked tyrants. I would fain hope at length the world would be awakened out of such ridiculous dreams, and be ashamed any more to own such fooleries. And it may be, our two royal brothers have contributed more to cure men of this moral madness than any who went before them. And this is the only advantage, I know, that the nations have reaped by their reign. 9. Though we deny that conquest can give a just title to a crown; yet we grant, in some cases, that by the peoples after-consent it may be turned into a just title. It is undeniable, when there is just ground of the war, if a prince subdue a whole land, who have justly forfeited their liberties, when by his grace he preserves them, he may make use of their right now forfeited, and they may resign their liberty to the conqueror, and consent that he be their king, upon fair and legal, and not tyrannical conditions. And even when the war is not just, but successful on the invading conquerors side, this may be an inducement to the conquered, if they be indeed free and unengaged to any other, to a submission, dedition, and delivery up of themselves to be the subjects of the victor, and to take him for their sovereign: as it is like the case was with the Jews in Caesar's time, whose government was translated by dedition to the Roman power; in the translation, when a-doing, there was a fault, but after it was done, it ceased; though the beginning was wrong, there was a post-fact, which made it right, and could not be dissolved, without an unjust disturbance of public order. Whence, besides what is said above, in answer to that much insisted instance of Christ's paying tribute, and commanding it to be paid to Caesar, the difficulty of that instance may be clearly solved. That tribute which he paid, Matth. xvii. 14. &c. and that about the payment whereof he was questioned, Matth. xxii. 21. seem to be two different tributes. Many think, very probably, they were not one and the same tribute. It is a question, for whom, and by whom that of Matth. xvii. was gathered; it is most likely, it was gathered by the officers of the temple for its service: however, the payment was made, with such caution (tacitely declining the strict right to exact it from him, but to avoid offence, in an act in itself unobliging) that their claim is left as much in the dark, as if the question had never been moved. The other, Matth. xxii. was exacted for Caesar: but to that captious question our Lord returns such an answer, as might both solve it, and evade the snare of the propounder, giving a general rule of giving to God and to Caesar each their own, without defining which of them had the right to the payment