Kings are men as well as others, that is to say, liable to be mistaken, and, in some instances, to fail in point of duty. Of this the people cannot be ignorant, and on this footing they have treated with their sovereign. It is therefore right to overlook the lesser faults of sovereigns, and to have a regard to the laborious and exalted office, with which they are invested for our preservation. But if the sovereign should push things to the last extremity, so that his tyranny becomes insupportable, and it appears evident, that he has formed a design to destroy the liberty of his subjects, then they have a right to rise against him, and even to deprive him of the supreme power. This I prove, 1. by the nature of tyranny, which of itself degrades the sovereign of his dignity.
Sovereignty always supposes a beneficent power.
The one gives no more right than the other, and we may lawfully oppose force to violence. But it is highly evident, that, if the people were obliged to suffer every oppression from their sovereigns, and never to resist their encroachments, they would be reduced to a far more deplorable state, than that, which they attempted to avoid, by the institution of sovereignty. It can never surely be presumed, that this was the intention of mankind. Even a people, who have submitted to an absolute government, have not thereby forfeited the right of asserting their liberty, and taking care of their preservation, when they find themselves reduced to the utmost misery. Let us therefore conclude, that never any nation had an intention to submit their liberties to a sovereign in such a manner, as never to have it in their power to resist him, not even for their own preservation.