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　dominus　servi　pro　derelicto
  habiti；　dominium。
  236。　〃Arlter　casus　est；　si　rex　in　alicujus　clientelam　se　contulit；
  ac　regnum　quod　liberum　a　majoribus　et　populo　traditum　accepit；　alienae
  ditioni　mancipavit。　Nam　tunc　quamvis　forte　non　ea　mente　id　agit　populo
  plane　ut　incommodet；　tamen　quia　quod　praecipuum　est　regiae
  dignitatis　amisit；　ut　summus　scilicet　in　regno　secundum　Deum　sit；　et
  solo　Deo　inferior；　atque　populum　etiam　totum　ignorantem　vel　invitum；
  cujus　libertatem　sartam　et　tectam　conservare　debuit；　in　alterius
  gentis　ditionem　et　potestatem　dedidit；　hac　velut　quadam　rengi
  abalienatione　effecit；　ut　nec　quod　ipse　in　regno　imperium　habuit
  retineat；　nec　in　eum　cui　collatum　voluit；　juris　quicquam　transferat；
  atque　ita　eo　facto　liberum　jam　et　suae　potestatis　populum　relinquit；
  cujus　rei　exemplum　unum　annales　Scotici　suppeditant。〃…　Barclay；　Contra
  Monarchomachos；　I。　iii。；　c。　16。
  Which　may　be　thus　Englished：
  237。　〃What；　then；　can　there　no　case　happen　wherein　the　people　may　of
  right；　and　by　their　own　authority；　help　themselves；　take　arms；　and　set
  upon　their　king；　imperiously　domineering　over　them？　None　at　all　whilst
  he　remains　a　king。　'Honour　the　king；'　and　'he　that　resists　the
  power；　resists　the　ordinance　of　God；'　are　Divine　oracles　that　will
  never　permit　it。　The　people；　therefore；　can　never　come　by　a　power　over
  him　unless　he　does　something　that　makes　him　cease　to　be　a　king；　for
  then　he　divests　himself　of　his　crown　and　dignity；　and　returns　to　the
  state　of　a　private　man；　and　the　people　become　free　and　superior；　the
  power　which　they　had　in　the　interregnum；　before　they　crowned　him　king；
  devolving　to　them　again。　But　there　are　but　few　miscarriages　which
  bring　the　matter　to　this　state。　After　considering　it　well　on　all
  sides；　I　can　find　but　two。　Two　cases　there　are；　I　say；　whereby　a　king；
  ipso　facto；　becomes　no　king；　and　loses　all　power　and　regal　authority
  over　his　people；　which　are　also　taken　notice　of　by　Winzerus。　The　first
  is；　if　he　endeavour　to　overturn　the　government…　that　is；　if　he　have
  a　purpose　and　design　to　ruin　the　kingdom　and　commonwealth；　as　it　is
  recorded　of　Nero　that　he　resolved　to　cut　off　the　senate　and　people
  of　Rome；　lay　the　city　waste　with　fire　and　sword；　and　then　remove　to
  some　other　place；　and　of　Caligula；　that　he　openly　declared　that　he
  would　be　no　longer　a　head　to　the　people　or　senate；　and　that　he　had
  it　in　his　thoughts　to　cut　off　the　worthiest　men　of　both　ranks；　and
  then　retire　to　Alexandria；　and　he　wished　that　the　people　had　but　one
  neck　that　he　might　dispatch　them　all　at　a　blow。　Such　designs　as　these；
  when　any　king　harbours　in　his　thoughts；　and　seriously　promotes；　he
  immediately　gives　up　all　care　and　thought　of　the　commonwealth；　and；
  consequently；　forfeits　the　power　of　governing　his　subjects；　as　a
  master　does　the　dominion　over　his　slaves　whom　he　hath　abandoned。
  238。　〃The　other　case　is；　when　a　king　makes　himself　the　dependent
  of　another；　and　subjects　his　kingdom；　which　his　ancestors　left　him；
  and　the　people　put　free　into　his　hands；　to　the　dominion　of　another。
  For　however；　perhaps；　it　may　not　be　his　intention　to　prejudice　the
  people；　yet　because　he　has　hereby　lost　the　principal　part　of　regal
  dignity…　viz。；　to　be　next　and　immediately　under　God；　supreme　in　his
  kingdom；　and　also　because　he　betrayed　or　forced　his　people；　whose
  liberty　he　ought　to　have　carefully　preserved；　into　the　power　and
  dominion　of　a　foreign　nation。　By　this；　as　it　were；　alienation　of　his
  kingdom；　he　himself　loses　the　power　he　had　in　it　before；　without
  transferring　any　the　least　right　to　those　on　whom　he　would　have
  bestowed　it；　and　so　by　this　act　sets　the　people　free；　and　leaves
  them　at　their　own　disposal。　One　example　of　this　is　to　be　found　in
  the　Scotch　annals。〃
  239。　In　these　cases　Barclay；　the　great　champion　of　absolute
  monarchy；　is　forced　to　allow　that　a　king　may　be　resisted；　and　ceases
  to　be　a　king。　That　is　in　short…　not　to　multiply　cases…　in　whatsoever
  he　has　no　authority；　there　he　is　no　king；　and　may　be　resisted：　for
  wheresoever　the　authority　ceases；　the　king　ceases　too；　and　becomes
  like　other　men　who　have　no　authority。　And　these　two　cases　that　he
  instances　differ　little　from　those　above　mentioned；　to　be
  destructive　to　governments；　only　that　he　has　omitted　the　principle
  from　which　his　doctrine　flows；　and　that　is　the　breach　of　trust　in
  not　preserving　the　form　of　government　agreed　on；　and　in　not
  intending　the　end　of　government　itself；　which　is　the　public　good　and
  preservation　of　property。　When　a　king　has　dethroned　himself；　and　put
  himself　in　a　state　of　war　with　his　people；　what　shall　hinder　them　from
  prosecuting　him　who　is　no　king；　as　they　would　any　other　man；　who　has
  put　himself　into　a　state　of　war　with　them；　Barclay；　and　those　of　his
  opinion；　would　do　well　to　tell　us。　Bilson；　a　bishop　of　our　Church；　and
  a　great　stickler　for　the　power　and　prerogative　of　princes；　does；　if
  I　mistake　not；　in　his　treatise　of　〃Christian　Subjection；〃
  acknowledge　that　princes　may　forfeit　their　power　and　their　title　to
  the　obedience　of　their　subjects；　and　if　there　needed　authority　in　a
  case　where　reason　is　so　plain；　I　could　send　my　reader　to　Bracton；
  Fortescue；　and　the　author　of　the　〃Mirror；〃　and　others；　writers　that
  cannot　be　suspected　to　be　ignorant　of　our　government；　or　enemies　to
  it。　But　I　thought　Hooker　alone　might　be　enough　to　satisfy　those　men
  who；　relying　on　him　for　their　ecclesiastical　polity；　are　by　a
  strange　fate　carried　to　deny　those　principles　upon　which　he　builds　it。
  Whether　they　are　herein　made　the　tools　of　cunninger　workmen；　to　pull
  down　their　own　fabric；　they　were　best　look。　This　I　am　sure；　their
  civil　policy　is　so　new；　so　dangerous；　and　so　destructive　to　both
  rulers　and　people；　that　as　former　ages　never　could　bear　the
  broaching　of　it；　so　it　may　be　hoped　those　to　come；　redeemed　from　the
  impositions　of　these　Egyptian　under…taskmasters；　will　abhor　the　memory
  of　such　servile　flatterers；　who；　whilst　it　seemed　to　serve　their　turn；
  resolved　all　government　into　absolute　tyranny；　and　would　have　all
  men　born　to　what　their　mean　souls　fitted　them…　slavery。
  240。　Here　it　is　like　the　common　question　will　be　made：　Who　shall
  be　judge　whether　the　prince　or　legislative　act　contrary　to　their
  trust？　This；　perhaps；　ill…affected　and　factious　men　may　spread　amongst
  the　people；　when　the　prince　only　makes　use　of　his　due　prerogative。
  To　this　I　reply；　The　people　shall　be　judge；　for　who　shall　be　judge
  whether　his　trustee　or　deputy　acts　well　and　according　to　the　trust
  reposed　in　him；　but　he　who　deputes　him　and　must；　by　having　deputed
  him；　have　still　a　power　to　discard　him　when　he　fails　in　his　trust？
  If　this　be　reasonable　in　particular　cases　of　private　men；　why　should
  it　be　otherwise　in　that　of　the　greatest　moment；　where　the　welfare　of
  millions　is　concerned　and　also　where　the　evil；　if　not　prevented；　is
  greater；　and　the　redress　very　difficult；　dear；　and　dangerous？
  241。　But；　farther；　this　question；　Who　shall　be　judge？　cannot　mean
  that　there　is　no　judge　at　all。　For　where　there　is　no　judicature　on
  earth　to　decide　controvers