for diſobeying and reſiſting him, ſince he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in the argument, whether this parent, properly ſpeaking, loſes his reaſon; or does, while he retains his underſtanding, that which is as fatal in its conſequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it. This ſimilitude needs no formal application.
But it ought to be remembered, that if the duty of univerſal obedience and nonreſiſtance to our king or prince, can be argued from this paſſage, the ſame unlimited ſubmiſſion under a republican, or any other form of government; and even to all the ſubordinate powers in any particular ſtate, can be proved by it as well: which is more than thoſe who alledge it for the mentioned purpoſe, would be willing ſhould be inferred from it. So that this paſſage does not anſwer their purpoſe; but really overthrows and confutes it. This matter deſerves to be more particularly conſidered.—The advocates for unlimited ſubmiſſion and paſſive obedience, do, if I miſtake not, always ſpeak with reference to kingly or monarchical government, as diſtinguiſhed from all other forms; and, with reference to ſubmitting to the will of the king, in diſtinction from all ſubordinate officers, acting beyond their commiſſion, and the authority which they have received from the crown. It is not pretended that any perſon beſides kings, have a divine right to do what they pleaſe, ſo that no one may reſiſt them, without incurring the guilt of factiouſneſs and rebellion. If any other ſupreme powers oppreſs the