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 & 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: & restituendae injuriae illatae, non 
recedendi a debita reverentia propter acceptam injuriam.  
Praesentem denique impetum propulsandi non vim praeteritam 
ulciscenti jus habet.  Horum enim alterum a natura est, ut vitam 
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 
tyrannus est (modicum enim ferre omnino debet) resistere cum 
reverentia possit, Barclay contra Monarchom.  1. iii. c. 8.

     In English thus:

     Sec. 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 shew an hatred, not only to 
some particular persons, but sets himself against the body of the 
common-wealth, whereof he is the head, and shall, with 
intolerable ill usage, cruelly tyrannize over the u7hole, 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.

     Sec. 234.  Thus far that great advocate of monarchical power 
allows of resistance.

     Sec. 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, & 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 any body 

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, desire for 
his pains, a civil, respectful cudgeling where-ever 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