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.
Pages:
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199