It is interesting that he should have adopted this position; for in 1676 he had uttered the thought that not even the demands of conscience[3] can justify rebellion.

That was, however, before the tyranny of Charles had driven him into exile with his patron, and before James had attempted the subversion of all constitutional government.

To deny the right of revolution was to justify the worst demands of James, and it is in its favor that he exerts his ablest controversial power.

"The true remedy," he says, "of force without authority is to oppose force to it." Let the sovereign but step outside the powers derived from the social contract and resistance becomes a natural right.

But how define such invasion of powers?
The instances Locke chose show how closely, here at least, he was following the events of 1688.