For　till　the　mischief　be　grown　general；　and　the　ill　designs　of　the
  rulers　become　visible；　or　their　attempts　sensible　to　the　greater　part；
  the　people；　who　are　more　disposed　to　suffer　than　right　themselves　by
  resistance；　are　not　apt　to　stir。　The　examples　of　particular
  injustice　or　oppression　of　here　and　there　an　unfortunate　man　moves
  them　not。　But　if　they　universally　have　a　persuasion　grounded　upon
  manifest　evidence　that　designs　are　carrying　on　against　their
  liberties；　and　the　general　course　and　tendency　of　things　cannot　but
  give　them　strong　suspicions　of　the　evil　intention　of　their
  governors；　who　is　to　be　blamed　for　it？　Who　can　help　it　if　they；　who
  might　avoid　it；　bring　themselves　into　this　suspicion？　Are　the　people
  to　be　blamed　if　they　have　the　sense　of　rational　creatures；　and　can
  think　of　things　no　otherwise　than　as　they　find　and　feel　them？　And　is
  it　not　rather　their　fault　who　put　things　in　such　a　posture　that　they
  would　not　have　them　thought　as　they　are？　I　grant　that　the　pride；
  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　rela