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
reverence, respect, and superiority: and then the odds that
remains, is, that he, who opposes the unjust agressor, 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 un-king himself. His words are,
Quid ergo, nulline casus incidere possunt quibus populo sese
erigere atque in regem impotentius dominantem arma capere &
invadere jure suo suaque authoritate liceat? Nulli certe quamdiu
rex manet. Semper enim ex divinis id obstat, Regem honorificato;
& qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resisit: 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 &
superior efficitur, reverso ad eum sc.
Pages:
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199