weak　hands　of　justice　in　this　world；　and　have　the　power　in　their　own
  possession　which　should　punish　offenders。　What　is　my　remedy　against
  a　robber　that　so　broke　into　my　house？　Appeal　to　the　law　for　justice。
  But　perhaps　justice　is　denied；　or　I　am　crippled　and　cannot　stir；
  robbed；　and　have　not　the　means　to　do　it。　If　God　has　taken　away　all
  means　of　seeking　remedy；　there　is　nothing　left　but　patience。　But　my
  son；　when　able；　may　seek　the　relief　of　the　law；　which　I　am　denied；
  he　or　his　son　may　renew　his　appeal　till　he　recover　his　right。　But
  the　conquered；　or　their　children；　have　no　court…　no　arbitrator　on
  earth　to　appeal　to。　Then　they　may　appeal；　as　Jephtha　did；　to　Heaven；
  and　repeat　their　appeal　till　they　have　recovered　the　native　right　of
  their　ancestors；　which　was　to　have　such　a　legislative　over　them　as　the
  majority　should　approve　and　freely　acquiesce　in。　If　it　be　objected
  this　would　cause　endless　trouble；　I　answer；　no　more　than　justice　does；
  where　she　lies　open　to　all　that　appeal　to　her。　He　that　troubles　his
  neighbour　without　a　cause　is　punished　for　it　by　the　justice　of　the
  court　he　appeals　to。　And　he　that　appeals　to　Heaven　must　be　sure　he　has
  right　on　his　side；　and　a　right；　too；　that　is　worth　the　trouble　and
  cost　of　the　appeal；　as　he　will　answer　at　a　tribunal　that　cannot　be
  deceived；　and　will　be　sure　to　retribute　to　every　one　according　to
  the　mischiefs　he　hath　created　to　his　fellow…subjects…　that　is；　any
  part　of　mankind。　From　whence　it　is　plain　that　he　that　conquers　in　an
  unjust　war　can　thereby　have　no　title　to　the　subjection　and　obedience
  of　the　conquered。
  177。　But　supposing　victory　favours　the　right　side；　let　us　consider　a
  conqueror　in　a　lawful　war；　and　see　what　power　he　gets；　and　over　whom。
  First；　it　is　plain　he　gets　no　power　by　his　conquest　over　those
  that　conquered　with　him。　They　that　fought　on　his　side　cannot　suffer　by
  the　conquest；　but　must；　at　least；　be　as　much　free　men　as　they　were
  before。　And　most　commonly　they　serve　upon　terms；　and　on　condition　to
  share　with　their　leader；　and　enjoy　a　part　of　the　spoil　and　other
  advantages　that　attend　the　conquering　sword；　or；　at　least；　have　a　part
  of　the　subdued　country　bestowed　upon　them。　And　the　conquering　people
  are　not；　I　hope；　to　be　slaves　by　conquest；　and　wear　their　laurels　only
  to　show　they　are　sacrifices　to　their　leader's　triumph。　They　that　found
  absolute　monarchy　upon　the　title　of　the　sword　make　their　heroes；　who
  are　the　founders　of　such　monarchies；　arrant　〃draw…can…sirs；〃　and
  forget　they　had　any　officers　and　soldiers　that　fought　on　their　side　in
  the　battles　they　won；　or　assisted　them　in　the　subduing；　or　shared　in
  possessing　the　countries　they　mastered。　We　are　told　by　some　that　the
  English　monarchy　is　founded　in　the　Norman　Conquest；　and　that　our
  princes　have　thereby　a　title　to　absolute　dominion；　which；　if　it　were
  true　（as　by　the　history　it　appears　otherwise）；　and　that　William　had
  a　right　to　make　war　on　this　island；　yet　his　dominion　by　conquest　could
  reach　no　farther　than　to　the　Saxons　and　Britons　that　were　then
  inhabitants　of　this　country。　The　Normans　that　came　with　him　and　helped
  to　conquer；　and　all　descended　from　them；　are　free　men　and　no
  subjects　by　conquest；　let　that　give　what　dominion　it　will。　And　if　I　or
  anybody　else　shall　claim　freedom　as　derived　from　them；　it　will　be　very
  hard　to　prove　the　contrary；　and　it　is　plain；　the　law　that　has　made
  no　distinction　between　the　one　and　the　other　intends　not　there
  should　be　any　difference　in　their　freedom　or　privileges。
  178。　But　supposing；　which　seldom　happens；　that　the　conquerors　and
  conquered　never　incorporate　into　one　people　under　the　same　laws　and
  freedom；　let　us　see　next　what　power　a　lawful　conqueror　has　over　the
  subdued；　and　that　I　say　is　purely　despotical。　He　has　an　absolute　power
  over　the　lives　of　those　who；　by　an　unjust　war；　have　forfeited　them；
  but　not　over　the　lives　or　fortunes　of　those　who　engaged　not　in　the
  war；　nor　over　the　possessions　even　of　those　who　were　actually
  engaged　in　it。
  179。　Secondly；　I　say；　then；　the　conqueror　gets　no　power　but　only
  over　those　who　have　actually　assisted；　concurred；　or　consented　to　that
  unjust　force　that　is　used　against　him。　For　the　people　having　given
  to　their　governors　no　power　to　do　an　unjust　thing；　such　as　is　to
  make　an　unjust　war　（for　they　never　had　such　a　power　in　themselves）；
  they　ought　not　to　be　charged　as　guilty　of　the　violence　and　injustice
  that　is　committed　in　an　unjust　war　any　farther　than　they　actually　abet
  it；　no　more　than　they　are　to　be　thought　guilty　of　any　violence　or
  oppression　their　governors　should　use　upon　the　people　themselves　or
  any　part　of　their　fellow…subjects；　they　having　empowered　them　no
  more　to　the　one　than　to　the　other。　Conquerors；　it　is　true；　seldom
  trouble　themselves　to　make　the　distinction；　but　they　willingly
  permit　the　confusion　of　war　to　sweep　all　together；　but　yet　this　alters
  not　the　right；　for　the　conqueror's　power　over　the　lives　of　the
  conquered　being　only　because　they　have　used　force　to　do　or　maintain　an
  injustice；　he　can　have　that　power　only　over　those　who　have　concurred
  in　that　force；　all　the　rest　are　innocent；　and　he　has　no　more　title
  over　the　people　of　that　country　who　have　done　him　no　injury；　and　so
  have　made　no　forfeiture　of　their　lives；　than　he　has　over　any　other
  who；　without　any　injuries　or　provocations；　have　lived　upon　fair
  terms　with　him。
  180。　Thirdly；　the　power　a　conqueror　gets　over　those　he　overcomes
  in　a　just　war　is　perfectly　despotical；　he　has　an　absolute　power　over
  the　lives　of　those　who；　by　putting　themselves　in　a　state　of　war；
  have　forfeited　them；　but　he　has　not　thereby　a　right　and　title　to　their
  possessions。　This　I　doubt　not　but　at　first　sight　will　seem　a　strange
  doctrine；　it　being　so　quite　contrary　to　the　practice　of　the　world；
  there　being　nothing　more　familiar　in　speaking　of　the　dominion　of
  countries　than　to　say　such　an　one　conquered　it；　as　if　conquest；
  without　any　more　ado；　conveyed　a　right　of　possession。　But　when　we
  consider　that　the　practice　of　the　strong　and　powerful；　how　universal
  soever　it　may　be；　is　seldom　the　rule　of　right；　however　it　be　one
  part　of　the　subjection　of　the　conquered　not　to　argue　against　the
  conditions　cut　out　to　them　by　the　conquering　swords。
  181。　Though　in　all　war　there　be　usually　a　complication　of　force
  and　damage；　and　the　aggressor　seldom　fails　to　harm　the　estate　when
  he　uses　force　against　the　persons　of　those　he　makes　war　upon；　yet　it
  is　the　use　of　force　only　that　puts　a　man　into　the　state　of　war。　For
  whether　by　force　he　begins　the　injury；　or　else　having　quietly　and　by
  fraud　done　the　injury；　he　refuses　to　make　reparation；　and　by　force
  maintains　it；　which　is　the　same　thing　as　at　first　to　have　done　it　by
  force；　it　is　the　unjust　use　of　force　that　makes　the　war。　For　he　that
  breaks　open　my　house　and　violently　turns　me　out　of　doors；　or　having
  peaceably　got　in；　by　force　keeps　me　out；　does；　in　effect；　the　same
  thing；　supposing　we　are　in　such　a　state　that　we　have　no　common　judge
  on　earth　whom　I　may　appeal　to；　and　to　whom　we　are　both　obliged　to
  submit；　for　of　such　I　am　now　speaking。　It　is　the　unjust　use　of
  force；　then；　that　puts　a　man　into　the　state　of　war　with　another；　and
  thereby　he　that　is　guilty　of　it　makes　a　forfeiture　of　his　life。　For
  quitting　reason；　which　is　the　rule　given　between　man　and　man；　and
  using　force；　the　way　of　beasts；　he　becomes　liable　to　be　destroyed　by
  him　he　uses　force　against；　as　any　savage　ravenous　beast　that　is
  dangerous　to　his　being。
  182。　But　because　the　miscarriages　of　the　father　are　no　faults　of　the
  children；　who　may　be　rational　and　peaceable；　notwithstanding　the
  brutishness　and　injustice　of　the　father；　the　father；　by　his
  miscarriages　and　violence；　can　forfeit　but　his　own　life；　and
  involves　not　his　children　in　his　guilt　or　destruction。　His　goods　which
  Nature；　that　willeth　the　preservation　of　all　mankind　as　much　as　is
  possible；　hath　made　to　belong　to　the　children　to　keep　them　from
  perishing；　do　still　continue　to　belong　to　his　children。　For
  supposing　them　not　to　have　joined　in　the　war　either　through　infancy　or
  choice；　they　have　done　nothing　to　forfeit　them；　nor　has　the
  conqueror　any　right　to　take　them　away　by　the　bare　right　of　having
  subdued　him　that　by　force　attempted　his　destruction；　though；
  perhaps；　he　may　have　some　right　to　them　to　repair　the　damages　he　has
  sustained　by　the　war；　and　the　defence　of　his　own　right；　which　how
  far　it　reaches　to　the　possessions　of　the　conquered　we　shall　see
  by…and…by；　so　that　he　that　by　conquest　has　a　right　over　a　man's
  person；　to　destroy　him　if　he　pleases；　has　not　thereby　a　right　over　his
  estate　to　possess　and　enjoy　it。　For　it　is　the　brutal　force　the
  aggressor　has　used　that　gives　his　adversary　a　right　to　take　away　his
  life　and　destroy　him；　if　he　pleases；　as　a　noxious　creature；　but　it
  is　damage　sustained　that　alone　gives　him　title　to　another　man's　goods；
  for　though　I　may　kill　a　thief　that　sets　on　me　in　the　highway；　yet　I
  may　not　（which　seems　less）　take　away　his　money　and　let　him　go；　this
  would　be　robbery　on　my　side。　His　force；　and　the　state　of　war　he　put
  himself　in；　made　him　forfeit　his　li