And this is the difficulty that seems chiefly to stick with the most reasonable of those, who from a mere scruple of conscience refuse to join with us upon the revolution principle; but for the rest, are I believe as far from loving arbitrary government, as any others can be, who are born under a free constitution, and are allowed to have the least share of common good sense.

In this objection there are two questions included:  First, whether upon the foot of our constitution, as it stood in the reign of the late King James, a king of England may be deposed?  The second is, whether the people of England convened by their own authority, after the king had withdrawn himself in the manner he did, had power to alter the succession?

As for the first; it is a point I shall not presume to determine, and shall therefore only say, that to any man who holds the negative, I would demand the liberty of putting the case as strongly as I please.  I will suppose a prince limited by laws like ours, yet running into a thousand caprices of cruelty like Nero or Caligula.  I will suppose him to murder his mother and his wife, to commit incest, to ravish matrons, to blow up the senate, and burn his metropolis, openly to renounce God and Christ, and worship the devil.  These and the like exorbitances are in the power of a single person to commit without the advice of a ministry, or assistance of an army.  And if such a king as I have described, cannot be deposed but by his own consent in parliament, I do not well see how he can be resisted, or what can be meant by a limited monarchy; or what signifies the people’s consent in making and repealing laws, if the person who administers hath no tie but conscience, and is answerable to none but God.  I desire no stronger proof that an opinion must be false, than to find very great absurdities annexed to it; and there cannot be greater than in the present case:  For it is not a bare speculation that kings may run into such enormities as are above-mentioned; the practice may be proved by examples not only drawn from the first Caesars or later emperors, but many modern princes of Europe; such as Peter the Cruel, Philip the Second of Spain, John Basilovitz[12] of Muscovy, and in our own nation, King John, Richard the Third, and Henry the Eighth.  But there cannot be equal absurdities supposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain, that princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by any tolerable administration; till provoked by continual oppressions, no man indeed can then answer where the madness of the people will stop.

[Footnote 12:  Peter the Cruel is Pedro of Castile.  Ivan Basilovitz was the first emperor of Russia who assumed the title of Czar.  He was born in 1529, and died in 1584.]

As to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England convened by their own authority, upon King James’s precipitate departure, had power to alter the succession?