ambition； and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great
disorders in commonwealths； and factions have been fatal to states and
kingdoms。 But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the
people's wantonness； and a desire to cast off the lawful authority
of their rulers； or in the rulers' insolence and endeavours to get and
exercise an arbitrary power over their people； whether oppression or
disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder； I leave it to
impartial history to determine。 This I am sure； whoever； either
ruler or subject； by force goes about to invade the rights of either
prince or people； and lays the foundation for overturning the
constitution and frame of any just government； he is guilty of the
greatest crime I think a man is capable of； being to answer for all
those mischiefs of blood； rapine； and desolation； which the breaking
to pieces of governments bring on a country； and he who does it is
justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind； and is
to be treated accordingly。
231。 That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the
properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all
hands； but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted； hath
of late been denied； as if those who had the greatest privileges and
advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which
alone they were set in a better place than their brethren； whereas
their offence is thereby the greater； both as being ungrateful for the
greater share they have by the law； and breaking also that trust which
is put into their hands by their brethren。
232。 Whosoever uses force without right… as every one does in
society who does it without law… puts himself into a state of war with
those against whom he so uses it； and in that state all former ties
are cancelled； all other rights cease； and every one has a right to
defend himself； and to resist the aggressor。 This is so evident that
Barclay himself… that great assertor of the power and sacredness of
kings… is forced to confess that it is lawful for the people； in
some cases； to resist their king； and that； too； in a chapter
wherein he pretends to show that the Divine law shuts up the people
from all manner of rebellion。 Whereby it is evident； even by his own
doctrine； that since they may； in some cases； resist； all resisting of
princes is not rebellion。 His words are these： 〃Quod siquis dicat；
Ergone populus tyrannicae crudelitati et furori jugulum semper
praebebit？ Ergone multitudo civitates suas fame； ferro； et flamma
vastari； seque； conjuges； et liberos fortunae ludibrio et tyranni
libidini exponi； inque omnia vitae pericula omnesque miserias et
molestias a rege deduci patientur？ Num illis quod omni animantium
generi est a natura tributum； denegari debet； ut sc。 vim vi repellant；
seseque ab injuria tueantur？ Huic breviter responsum sit； populo
universo negari defensionem； quae juris naturalis est； neque
ultionem quae praeter naturam est adversus regem concedi debere。
Quapropter si rex non in singulares tantum personas aliquot privatum
odium exerceat； sed corpus etiam reipublicae； cujus ipse； caput est…
i。e。； totum populum； vel insignem aliquam ejus partem immani et
intoleranda saevitia seu tyrannide divexet； populo； quidem hoc casu
resistendi ac tuendi se ab injuria potestas competit； sed tuendi se
tantum； non enim in principem invadendi： et restituendae injuriae
illatae； non recedendi a debita reverentia propter acceptum
injuriam。 Praesentem denique impetum propulsandi non vim praeteritam
ulciscendi jus habet。 Horum enim alterum a natura est； ut vitani
scilicet corpusque tueamur。 Alterum vero contra naturam； ut inferior
de superiori supplicium sumat。 Quod itaque populus malum； antequam
factum sit； impedire potest； ne fiat； id postquam factum est； in regem
authorem sceleris vindicare non potest； populus igitur hoc amplius
quam privatus quispiam habet： Quod huic； vel ipsis adversariis
judicibus； excepto Buchanano； nullum nisi in patientia remedium
superest。 Cum ille si intolerabilis tyrannis est （modicum enim ferre
omnino debet） resistere cum reverentia possit。〃… Barclay； Contra
Monarchomachos； iii。 8。
In English thus：
233。 〃But if any one should ask： Must the people； then； always lay
themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny… must they see
their cities pillaged and laid in ashes； their wives and children
exposed to the tyrant's lust and fury； and themselves and families
reduced by their king to ruin and all the miseries of want and
oppression； and yet sit still… must men alone be debarred the common
privilege of opposing force with force； which Nature allows so
freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury？ I
answer： Self…defence is a part of the law of Nature； nor can it be
denied the community； even against the king himself； but to revenge
themselves upon him must； by no means； be allowed them； it being not
agreeable to that law。 Wherefore； if the king shall show an hatred；
not only to some particular persons； but sets himself against the body
of the commonwealth； whereof he is the head； and shall； with
intolerable ill…usage； cruelly tyrannise over the whole； or a
considerable part of the people； in this case the people have a
right to resist and defend themselves from injury； but it must be with
this caution； that they only defend themselves； but do not attack
their prince。 They may repair the damages received； but must not；
for any provocation； exceed the bounds of due reverence and respect。
They may repulse the present attempt； but must not revenge past
violences。 For it is natural for us to defend life and limb； but
that an inferior should punish a superior is against nature。 The
mischief which is designed them the people may prevent before it be
done； but； when it is done； they must not revenge it on the king；
though author of the villany。 This； therefore； is the privilege of the
people in general above what any private person hath： That
particular men are allowed； by our adversaries themselves （Buchanan
only excepted）； to have no other remedy but patience； but the body
of the people may； with respect； resist intolerable tyranny； for
when it is but moderate they ought to endure it。〃
234。 Thus far that great advocate of monarchical power allows of
resistance。
235。 It is true； he has annexed two limitations to it； to no
purpose：
First。 He says it must be with reverence。
Secondly。 It must be without retribution or punishment； and the
reason he gives is； 〃because an inferior cannot punish a superior。〃
First。 How to resist force without striking again； or how to
strike with reverence； will need some skill to make intelligible。 He
that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the
blows； or in any more respectful posture； without a sword in his
hand to abate the confidence and force of the assailant； will
quickly be at an end of his resistance； and will find such a defence
serve only to draw on himself the worse usage。 This is as ridiculous a
way of resisting as Juvenal thought it of fighting： Ubi tu pulsas； ego
vapulo tantum。 And the success of the combat will be unavoidably the
same he there describes it：
Libertas pauperis haec est；
Pulsatus rogat； et pugnis concisus； adorat；
Ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti。
This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance； where
men may not strike again。 He； therefore； who may resist must be
allowed to strike。 And then let our author； or anybody else； join a
knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and
respect as he thinks fit。 He that can reconcile blows and reverence
may； for aught I know； deserve for his pains a civil； respectful
cudgelling wherever he can meet with it。
Secondly。 As to his second… 〃An inferior cannot punish a
superior〃… that is true； generally speaking； whilst he is his
superior。 But to resist force with force； being the state of war
that levels the parties； cancels all former relation of reverence；
respect； and superiority； and then the odds that remains is… that he
who opposes the unjust aggressor has this superiority over him； that
he has a right； when he prevails； to punish the offender； both for the
breach of the peace and all the evils that followed upon it。
Barclay； therefore； in another place； more coherently to himself；
denies it to be lawful to resist a king in any case。 But he there
assigns two cases whereby a king may unking himself。 His words are：
〃Quid ergo； nulline casus incidere possunt quibus populo sese
erigere atque in regem impotentius dominantem arma capere et
invadere jure suo suaque authoritate liceat？ Nulli certe quamdiu rex
manet。 Semper enim ex divinis id obstat； Regem honorificato； et qui
potestati resistit； Dei ordinationi resistit； non alias igitur in
eum populo potestas est quam si id committat propter quod ipso jure
rex esse desinat。 Tunc enim se ipse principatu exuit atque in privatis
constituit liber； hoc modo populus et superior efficitur； reverso ad
eum scilicet jure illo quod ante regem inauguratum in interregno
habuit。 At sunt paucorum generum commissa ejusmodi quae hunc
effectum pariunt。 At ego cum plurima animo perlustrem； duo tantum
invenio； duos； inquam； casus quibus rex ipso facto ex rege non regem
se facit et omni honore et dignitate regali atque in subditos
potestate destituit； quorum etiam meminit Winzerus。 Horum unus est； si
regnum disperdat； quemadmodum de Nerone fertur； quod is nempe
senatum populumque Romanum atque adeo urbem ipsam ferro flammaque
vastare； ac novas sibi sedes quaerere decrevisset。 Et de Caligula；
quod palam denunciarit se neque civem neque principem senatui
amplius fore； inque animo habuerit； interempto utriusque ordinis
electissimo； quoque Alexandriam commigrare； ac ut populum uno ictu
interimeret； unam ei cervicem optavit。 Talia cum rex aliquis meditatur
et molitur serio； omnem regnandi curam et animum ilico abjicit； ac
proinde imperium in subditos amittit； ut do