not now ſpeak of thoſe extraordinary recourſes to firſt principles, which are neceſſary when the contracts of ſociety are in danger of diſſolution, and the law proves too weak a defence againſt the violence of fraud or oppreſſion. And yet the want of attending to this obvious diſtinction has occaſioned theſe doctrines, of abſolute power in the prince and of national reſiſtance by the people, to be much miſunderſtood and perverted by the advocates for ſlavery on the one hand, and the demagogues of faction on the other. The former, obſerving the abſolute ſovereignty and tranſcendent dominion of the crown laid down (as it certainly is) moſt ſtrongly and emphatically in our lawbooks, as well as our homilies, have denied that any caſe can be excepted from ſo general and poſitive a rule; forgetting how impoſſible it is, in any practical ſyſtem of laws, to point out beforehand theſe eccentrical remedies, which the ſudden emergence of national diſtreſs may dictate, and which that alone can juſtify. On the other hand, over-zealous republicans, feeling the abſurdity of unlimited paſſive obedience, have fancifully (or ſometimes factiouſly) gone over to the other extreme: and, becauſe reſiſtance is juſtifiable to the perſon of the prince when the being of the ſtate is endangered, and the public voice proclaims ſuch reſiſtance neceſſary, they have therefore allowed to every individual the right of determining this expedience, and of employing private force to reſiſt even private oppreſſion. A doctrine productive of anarchy, and (in conſequence) equally fatal to civil liberty as tyranny itſelf. For civil liberty, rightly underſtood, conſiſts in protecting the rights of individuals by the united force of ſociety: ſociety cannot be maintained, and of courſe can exert no protection, without obedience to ſome ſovereign power: and obedience is an empty name, if every individual has a right to decide how far he himſelf ſhall obey.
In the exertion therefore of thoſe prerogatives, which the law has given him, the king is irreſiſtible and abſolute, according to the forms of the conſtitution. And yet, if the conſequence of that exertion be manifeſtly to the grievance or diſhonour of the kingdom, the parliament will call his adviſers to a juſt and ſevere ac-
