Based on the excerpt, how did europeans justify settling on land that belonged to indigenous peoples?
"first, if it be unlawful: it must be so, either in respect of the law of god, or in regard to the laws of man. if in respect of god's law, (considering our primary end is to plant religion, our secondary and subalternate ends are for the honor and profit of our nation) i demand a resolution of this plain question: whether it be not a determined truth, that the gospel should be preached, to all the world . . [in] one of these three ways. .
the third belongs to us, who by way of merchandizing and trade, do buy of them the pearls of the earth, and sell to them the pearls of heaven, which action, if it be unlawful, it must proceed from one of these three grounds, either because we come to them, or trade with them, or tarry and dwell and possess part of their country against them."
—virginia company, "a true declaration of the estate in virginia," 1610
a. settling on lands owned by indigenous peoples would allow merchants and traders to more easily interact with those indigenous peoples and convert them to european religions.
b. settling on lands owned by indigenous peoples would ensure profits were earned for european nations if the indigenous peoples weren't open to preaching or trade.
c. settling on lands owned by indigenous peoples would cause the indigenous peoples to convert to european religions to prevent further loss of land.
d. settling on lands owned by indigenous peoples would demonstrate to the indigenous peoples that the profits of trade belong only to those who believe in european religions.