Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T14:04:24.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

JOHN LOCKE AND THE TOLERATION OF CATHOLICS: A NEW MANUSCRIPT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2019

J. C. WALMSLEY*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar
FELIX WALDMANN*
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
*
Christ's College, Cambridge, cb2 3bufew23@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

The following Communication presents a newly discovered manuscript by John Locke. The manuscript dates from 1667–8 and it deserves notice as the most significant example of Locke's thought on the toleration of Catholics prior to the Epistola de tolerantia (1689). The manuscript, entitled Reasons for tolerateing Papists equally with others, reveals Locke's engagement with Sir Charles Wolseley's Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest (1668) and significantly informs the compositional history of Locke's Essay concerning toleration (1667–8).

Type
Communication
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The manuscript printed in this article was discovered by J. C. Walmsley in 2015. The article is a collaboration of the authors, who are very grateful for the help provided by Catherine Dixon and Cara Sabolcik of the Greenfield Library, St John's College, Annapolis, Dr Vanessa Wilkie of the Huntington Library, Professor Mark Goldie, Professor J. R. Milton, and Dr Jacqueline Rose. We are particularly indebted to Dr Rose for identifying Wolseley's Liberty of conscience as Locke's source. The serial numbers in nn. 17, 24, 30, 34, 39, 40, 43, 68 refer to Donald Wing, Short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America, and of English books printed in other countries, 1641–1700, ed. John J. Morrison et al. (2nd edn, New York, NY, 1982–94). The manuscript images reproduced below appear by courtesy of the Huntington Library, San Marino, and the Greenfield Library, St John's College, Annapolis.

References

1 Cranston, Maurice, ‘John Locke and the case for toleration’, in Mendus, Susan and Edwards, David, eds., On toleration (Oxford, 1987), pp. 101–21Google Scholar; Marshall, John, John Locke: resistance, religion and responsibility (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 7, 45–7, 53, 76–7, 109–12, 130, 365–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashcraft, Richard, ‘Religion and Lockean natural rights’, in Bloom, Irene et al. , eds., Religious diversity and human rights (New York, NY, 1996), pp. 195212Google Scholar.

2 Simonutti, Luisa, ‘Political society and religious liberty: Locke at Cleves and in Holland’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 14 (2006), pp. 413–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Biddle, John C., ‘John Locke's essay on infallibility: introduction, text and translation’, Journal of Church and State, 19 (1977), pp. 301–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For an overview of this period, see Milton, J. R., ‘The unscholastic statesman: Locke and the earl of Shaftesbury’, in Spurr, John, ed., Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683 (Farnham, 2011), pp. 153–81, at pp. 153–60Google Scholar.

4 For a summary of the debate, see Coffey, John, Persecution and toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689 (Harlow, 2000), pp. 166–79Google Scholar; and Locke, John, An essay concerning toleration and other writings on law and politics, 1667–1683, ed. Milton, J. R. and Milton, Philip (Oxford, 2006), pp. 152–7Google Scholar (hereafter Locke, ECT).

5 King, Peter, The life of John Locke: with extracts from his correspondence, journals and common-place books (London, 1829), pp. 289–91Google Scholar; Bourne, H. R. Fox, Life of John Locke (2 vols., London, 1876), i, pp. 174–95Google Scholar.

6 For the Miltons’ edition, see n. 4 above.

7 Locke, ECT, pp. 25–6.

8 The watermark on fos. 2 and 3 is a horn, resembling Heawood, Edward, Watermarks, mainly of the 17th and 18th centuries (Hilversum, 1950), no. 2686Google Scholar, although the top central flourish is more rounded and pronounced, and the base of the shield is flatter and squarer; fos. 2 and 4 have a countermark (‘PC’), with the letter P drawn in two thin lines and the letter C drawn in the shape of a stenciled outline.

9 For Clarke, see Matthew, H. C. G. and Harrison, Brian, eds., Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar (ODNB), xi, p. 862. The hand endorsing the manuscript (‘Mr. Locke | of Toleration’) differs in orthography and style from Clarke's endorsements in Bodleian Library, MS Locke b. 8, fos. 2v, 14v, 19v, 40r; the hand has several secretary-style forms, and probably dates from the late seventeenth century or soon after. A third endorsement (‘Toleration’) is written in pencil in a later hand, possibly by an auctioneer or dealer. The cover which wraps the manuscript of the Reasons is from a different stock of paper, with a watermark resembling Heawood, Watermarks, no. 760; it appears that the manuscript was wrapped in the discarded envelope of an extraneous letter.

10 Sotheby and Co., Catalogue of valuable printed books, tracts and pamphlets (13 Mar. 1922), in Sotheby & Co. catalogues (Ann Arbor, MI, 1973–6), pt iii, reel 64, lot 868 (hereafter SC). For earlier Sanford sales, see Sotheby and Co., Catalogue of valuable autograph literary manuscripts and historical documents (28 July 1913), in SC, pt iii, reel 40, lots 194–201; and Sotheby and Co., Catalogue of valuable books, manuscripts and autograph letters, including…letters of John Locke, the property of Col. E. C. A. Sanford (21 Dec. 1915), in SC, pt iii, reel 45, lots 422–7.

11 Maggs Bros., Catalogue 459 (1925), item 425 and plate xvi; Maggs Bros., Catalogue 492 (1927), item 956 and plate xv; Maggs Bros., Catalogue 500 (1928), item 106 and illustration.

12 For Bonner, see New York Times (15 Dec. 1968), and Delaney, John M., ed., A guide to the modern manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (2 vols., Boston, MA, 1989), i, p. 218Google Scholar.

13 The manuscript was first offered by Duttons, Inc., for $175 in 1931 (Sale catalogue of the private library of Paul Hyde Bonner (1931), item 602) and later by Anderson Galleries, Inc., for $100 in 1934 (Collection of Paul Hyde Bonner: first editions and manuscripts of outstanding importance (15–16 Feb. 1934), item 201).

14 For Locke's collaboration with Clarke in politics, see Laslett, Peter, ‘John Locke, the Great Recoinage, and the origins of the Board of Trade’, William and Mary Quarterly, 14 (1957), pp. 370402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knights, Mark, ‘John Locke and post-revolutionary politics: electoral reform and the franchise’, Past and Present, 213 (2011), pp. 4186CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For the first episode, see Goldie, Mark, ‘John Locke's circle and James II’, Historical Journal, 35 (1992), pp. 557–86, at pp. 568, 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 de Beer, E. S., ed., The correspondence of John Locke (8 vols., Oxford, 1976–89), ii, pp. 600–3 (771)Google Scholar.

17 Wolseley's Liberty of conscience…asserted & vindicated (W3310) appeared before his Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest (W3309), and promised its appearance (p. 54). A ‘second’ edition combined both texts (W3311) and described Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest as the ‘second part’ of Liberty of conscience…asserted & vindicated. Locke's page references in the Reasons correspond only to W3309, the first edition of Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest.

18 For Wolseley, see ODNB, lx, pp. 3–5; Harth, Phillip, Contexts of Dryden's thought (Chicago, IL, 1968), pp. 109–11, 293–7Google Scholar; Worden, Blair, ‘Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate’, in Sheils, W. J., ed., Persecution and toleration, Studies in Church History, 21 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 199233, at pp. 87–90Google Scholar; Spalding, Ruth, Contemporaries of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605–1675 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 494–6Google Scholar.

19 De Krey, Gary S., London and the Restoration, 1659–1683 (Cambridge, 2005), p. 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For their association during the Commonwealth and Protectorate, see Christie, W. D., A life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683 (2 vols., London, 1871), i, p. 102Google Scholar; Haley, K. H. D., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), p. 75Google Scholar; Worden, Blair, God's instruments: political conduct in the England of Oliver Cromwell (Oxford, 2012), p. 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For Wolseley's friendship with Anglesey, see Worden, ‘Toleration’, p. 230 n. 148; Lacey, D. R., Dissent and parliamentary politics in England, 1661–1689: a study in the perpetuation and tempering of parliamentarianism (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969), p. 462 n. 3Google Scholar; Bodleian Library, 8° C 345 Linc., Anglesey to Thomas Barlow, 16 Nov. 1676.

21 Fysher, Robert et al. , eds., Catalogus impressorum librorum bibliothecae Bodleianae in academia Oxoniensi (2 vols., Oxford, 1738), ii, p. 694Google Scholar. For an earlier printed allusion to Wolseley's authorship, see Humfrey, John, The authority of the magistrate about religion discussed (London, 1672), p. 31Google Scholar.

22 Folger Shakespeare Library, V.a.358: J[ohn] B[radshaw], Antilibertinisme (c. 1668–9), p. 1.

23 Cambridge University Library, Syn.7.68.70, no. 4; Trinity College, Cambridge, K.16.16 (12); Congregational Library, London, 18.2.1 (10/11), 81.2.104; Ushaw College Library, Durham University, XIX.F.2.7D; Harris Manchester College, Oxford, T:12/12 and T:12/13; Bodleian Library, C 9.2 (11) Linc.; Folger Shakespeare Library, 139–739q and 149–447q. A copy belonging to Thomas Barlow (1608/9–91), the bishop of Lincoln, reports that ‘The Author (as I am informed by those who may know) [is] Sr. Charles Wolseley’ (Bodleian Library, C 9.2 (11) Linc.). This copy provided the basis for the ascription in Fysher et al., eds., Catalogus (n. 21 above).

24 Routh Library, Durham University, Routh 66.E.19/14. Smith, Joseph, A descriptive catalogue of Friends’ books (London, 1863), p. 38Google Scholar, notes that the Liberty of conscience is ‘supposed by William Penn’. The source of Smith's conjecture is unclear; a copy of W3310 in the Library of the Religious Society of Friends, London (545/4), is wrapped in a sheet inscribed ‘Nameless but supposed to be by Wm. Penn’, but another copy (6/15) in the Library has an inscription by Smith himself, noting that its title is ‘entered in my Catalogue, under Anonymous’.

25 Library Company of Philadelphia, 931.Q.12. For this copy, see Wolf, Edwin II and Hayes, Kevin J., The library of Benjamin Franklin (Philadelphia, PA, 2006), p. 853 (3710)Google Scholar.

26 Harris Manchester College, Oxford, T:12/12 and T:12/13.

27 Trinity College, Cambridge, I.15.61 (7) and X.37.33 (9); Regent's Park College, Oxford, 2.g.27; Exeter College, Oxford, P6 17 (8) and P6 17 (9); Queen's College, Oxford, UU.b.1213 (6); Christ Church, Oxford, E.293 (2); Bodleian Library, B 18.5 (3) Linc.; New College Library, Edinburgh, B.a.b.18/8, B.c.6.11/2, B.c.2.7/12; Columbia University Library, Pamphlet 208 Z4 v.3; Union Theological Seminary, McAlpin 1668 W867 L and 1668 W86; University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, X 261.7 W83L2; Northwestern University Library, 261.7 W867l; Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, Stuart Tracts v, pp. 1609–756, 47; Beinecke Library, Yale University, Mhc8 1668 W83; Watkinson Library, Trinity College, BX5203.5.G65 1644; Boston Athenaeum Library, Tract B1, 18; Newberry Library, Case C 726.986.

28 For Ponder, see ODNB, xliv, pp. 796–8, and Harrison, F. M., ‘Nathaniel Ponder: the publisher of The pilgrim's progress’, The Library, 15 (1934–5), pp. 257–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Okeley, William, Eben-ezer: or, A small monument of great mercy (London, 1675), sig. H3vGoogle Scholar.

30 The catalogue, which includes a work first published in 1673 (C5064A) and sold by Ponder in 1678 (C5065), is present in three copies of Owen, John, Of the mortification of sin in believers (London, 1668)Google Scholar: Bodleian Library, Vet. A3 f.852, Congregational Library, London, 23.1.35, and University of California, Davis, BV4625.O8 1668.

31 Ponder's stock included 150 copies of Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest in 1692, when the remainder was sold to a consortium of bookdealers: The National Archives, Kew, C8/377/55, 31 May 1692, partly printed in Mandelbrote, Giles, ‘The organization of book auctions in late seventeenth-century London’, in Myers, Robin, Harris, Michael, and Mandelbrote, Giles, eds., Under the hammer: book auctions since the seventeenth century (London, 2001), pp. 1550, at pp. 37–50Google Scholar.

32 Green, Mary Anne Everett, ed., Calendar of state papers, domestic series, Nov. 1667–Sept. 1668 (London, 1893), p. 357 (2927)Google Scholar.

33 For Darby, see John S. T. Hetet, ‘A literary underground in Restoration England: printers and dissenters in the context of constraints, 1660–1689’ (doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, 1987), pp. 160–94; Hetet does not identify Darby as the printer of the Liberty of conscience pamphlets (p. 212).

34 The ornaments are (1) an initial A (W3310, p. 5, W3311, p. 3); (2) an initial T (W3309, p. 3), printed in Hetet, ‘A literary underground’, p. 208; (3) a fleur-de-lis (W3310, p. 5, W3311, p. 3); (4) a crowned Celtic harp (W3309, p. 3); (5) a four-part fleuron (W3310, title page); (6) a heart-shaped urn (W3309, p. 12, W3310, pp. 5, 54, W3311, pp. 3, 51); (7) a goblet (W3309, p. 12, W3310, pp. 5, 54, W3311, pp. 3, 51). Among those used by Ponder's known printers, ornaments matching the aforementioned in size and appearance recur nonpareil in Darby's publications, and in the stock used by Simon Dover (d. 1664?) and his widow Joan (d. 1708/9), whose ornaments Darby acquired c. 1664–6, and which are marked with an asterisk in the following list: ornament (1) appears in G134A (p. 1), S5955 (p. 3); ornament (2) appears in B5535* (sig. A2r), M1508A* (p. 1), H3763A (sig. A2r), A1061 (sig. A2r); ornament (3) appears in B3629* (sig. G2v), D2117* (p. 24), B5535* (sig. A2r), M1508A* (p. 21), A1435A (sig. A2r), H2285 (p. 1), M1371A (sig. A8v), S2481 (sig. Br), S5956 (p. 1); ornament (4) appears in M1508A* (pp. 13, 31), P3403A (second title page), S2481 (sig. [π3v]), S5956 (p. 1); ornament (5) appears in K624 (sig. A2r), S2472 (p. 97); ornament (6) appears in B3629* (sig. G2v), D2117* (p. 24), S5955 (title page), A1061 (sig. A8v); ornament (7) appears in B3629* (sig. G2v), D2117* (p. 24), A1061 (sig. A8v). For the use of printers’ ornaments to incriminate Dover in 1664, see Hetet, ‘A literary underground’, pp. 164–5; for their use to identify Darby in a different context, see Malcolm, Noel, ‘The making of the Ornaments: further thoughts on the printing of the third edition of Leviathan’, Hobbes Studies, 21 (2008), pp. 337CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Locke owned three works published by Ponder: David Clarkson's Primitive episcopacy (1689) and the first and second parts of Andrew Marvell's The rehearsal transpros'd (1672–3); Harrison, John and Laslett, Peter, eds., The library of John Locke (Oxford, 1971), pp. 109 (735), 185–6 (1931–3)Google Scholar.

36 For this connection, see Marvell, Andrew, The prose works of Andrew Marvell, ed. Dzelzainis, Martin and Patterson, Annabel (2 vols., London, 2003), i, p. 27Google Scholar.

37 For Owen, Ashley, and Locke, see Ashcraft, Richard, Revolutionary politics and Locke's ‘Two treatises of government’ (Princeton, NJ, 1986), p. 112Google Scholar; Marshall, John Locke, pp. 5–6. Wolseley also had a demonstrable connection with Robert Ferguson (d. 1714), the conspirator, whose link to the Ashley circle before 1679 is controverted (Daniell, F. H. Blackburne, ed., Calendar of state papers, domestic series, 1673–1675 (London, 1904), p. 327Google Scholar (1697), and F[erguson], R[obert], A sober enquiry into the nature…of moral virtue (London, 1673), sigs. A3r–5rGoogle Scholar; Marshall, John Locke, p. 79 n. 8).

38 De Krey, Gary S., ‘Rethinking the Restoration: dissenting cases for conscience, 1667–1672’, Historical Journal, 38 (1995), pp. 5385, at p. 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 [Wolseley], Liberty of conscience (W3309), pp. 8, 19, and [Wolseley], Liberty of conscience…asserted & vindicated (W3310), p. 29.

40 [Wolseley], Liberty of conscience (W3309), pp. 3, 9, 11.

41 For an overview of how the question of Catholic toleration was treated in these debates, see Miller, John, Popery and politics in England, 1660–1668 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 91120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 For an example of Locke dating the new year from 25 March, see (inter alia) De Beer, ed., The correspondence of John Locke, i, pp. 263–4 (187), 332–7 (241).

43 Bodleian Library, B 18.5 Linc., includes a flyleaf inscription, recording the date of items bound with W3309 as ‘Mich: Terme 1667’. Wolseley's Liberty of conscience, the magistrates interest and Liberty of conscience…asserted & vindicated are not listed in Arber, Edward, ed., The term catalogues, 1668–1709 (London, 1903–6)Google Scholar, but the works indisputably appeared before April 1668. [Wright, Abraham], Anarchie reviving (London, 1668)Google Scholar, attacks Wolseley's first edition at length; Wright's work is dated 15 April 1668 on its final page (p. 74), and it identifies W3309 and W3310 on sig. A1r and pp. 7, 13.

44 Locke, ECT, pp. 162–91, which describes F as a ‘first draft’ of the Essay.

45 Ibid., p. 172.

46 The identification of the 1922 Sanford sale (n. 10 above) supersedes the provenance of F and H in ibid., p. 190.

47 The watermarks in the manuscript of the Reasons, in sheet F, and in quire D resemble Heawood, Watermarks, no. 2686; the countermark is present in the manuscript of the Reasons and quire D, but absent from F, owing to a truncation of the sheet. For the watermarks in quires A, B, C, and E, see Locke, ECT, p. 163.

48 For the full set of editorial conventions adopted for the presentation of texts in this article see Section III below.

49 Compare Locke, ECT, p. 292.

50 Compare ibid.

51 Ibid., p. 303.

53 Ibid., p. 306.

54 Milton, J. R., ‘The genesis and composition of the Essay’, in Stuart, Matthew, ed., A companion to Locke (Oxford, 2016), pp. 123–39Google Scholar; Locke, John, An essay concerning human understanding, ed. Nidditch, P. H. (Oxford, 1975), pp. 78Google Scholar.

55 The signatures of the quires in the Essay were only added after the work as a whole was completed. Quires B and C were evidently written before the fair copy in quire A was made; that quire D was designated later in this sequence has no bearing on the relative priority of its composition.

56 De Beer, ed., The correspondence of John Locke, i, pp. 109–12 (75).

57 Locke, ECT, pp. 28, 306–7.

58 Ibid., pp. 284–5.

59 Locke, John, Epistola de tolerantia. A letter concerning toleration, ed. and trans. Gough, J. W. and Klibansky, Raymond (Oxford, 1968), pp. 133–5Google Scholar: ‘Ea ecclesia ut a magistratu toleretur jus habere non potest, in quam quicunque initiantur ipso facto in alterius principis clientelam et obedientiam transeunt’, and Locke, John, A letter concerning toleration and other writings, ed. Goldie, Mark (Indianapolis, IN, 2010), p. 52Google Scholar. For a different interpretation of this point, see Anthony Brown, ‘Anglo-Irish Gallicanism, c. 1635 – c. 1685’ (doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, 2004), pp. 267–9.

60 Bodleian Library, MS Locke c. 27, fos. 30a–b, is a draft of a ‘test’ of allegiance for Catholic priests in the hand of Peter Walsh (c. 1618–88), endorsed ‘Papists Test’ by Locke (fo. 30bv). For Locke's interest in Walsh, see Brown, ‘Anglo-Irish Gallicanism’, pp. 266–7, and ECT, pp. 147–8, correcting Locke, John, Political essays, ed. Goldie, Mark (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 222–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Locke, ECT, p. 40.

62 For Ashley's stance, see Haley, The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 162–7, 326, and John Spurr, ‘Shaftesbury and the politics of religion’, in Spurr, ed., Anthony Ashley Cooper, pp. 127–51, at pp. 141–7.

63 Seaward, Paul, The Cavalier Parliament and the reconstruction of the old regime, 1661–1667 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 32Google Scholar.

64 National Library of Israel, Ms. Var. 294, p. 3, possibly in reference to the works identified in Bodleian Library, MS Locke f. 14, pp. 9, 19, 22, 24, and Milton, J. R., ‘The date and significance of two of Locke's early manuscripts’, Locke Newsletter, 19 (1988), pp. 4789, at pp. 72, 86 n. 38Google Scholar. This manuscript was previously in private hands (Bodleian Library, MS Film 79); its new location was identified in 2016 by J. C. Walmsley.

65 The National Archives, Kew, PRO 30/24/47/30, fo. 43r.

66 Locke, ECT, p. 26.

67 For a comparison, see Locke's fragmentary notes on Parker's, Samuel A discourse of ecclesiastical politie (London, 1669)Google Scholar, in Locke, ECT, pp. 322–6.

68 [Wolseley], Liberty of conscience (W3309), p. 7: ‘It disobliges the best sort of men in every party, whom the State should most cherish and engage.’

69 Ibid., p. 12: ‘Christendom cannot…afford an instance that ever any State or People, where Divine-Knowledge, by Liberty of Conscience, and a Liberty for the Gospel was once spread, were in the least danger of turning Apostates to Popery, but have grown daily more and more into a detestation of it.’

70 Ibid., p. 13: ‘Liberty of Conscience will breed men up with an irreconcileable dislike to all imposition in Religion and Conscience, and so unite them in a general abhorrence of Popery.’

71 Ibid., pp. 16–17: ‘Those that are of his Opinion, he may think them, in his private judgment, better Christians than others; but there is no Policy so to distinguish them, as if they were thereby better Subjects than others.’

72 Ibid., p. 17: ‘A Prince should seat himself in his Throne, with an equal Political Aspect to all his Subjects, and employ them, as their fitness for his Service qualifies them.’

73 Ibid., p. 17: ‘Let a Prince but choose men to serve him, whose Ability and Fitness carries the evidence of his choice, and other Exceptions will soon vanish.’

74 Ibid., p. 17: ‘Let a Prince once give Liberty of Conscience, and he obliges all Parties to him, and makes them wholly depend upon him.’

75 Ibid., p. 18: ‘let him not lay violent hands upon mens persons, because he cannot satisfie their understandings; that is Zeal without Knowledge, and Religion without a Rule’.

76 Ibid., p. 18: ‘To say a Magistrate is lukewarm in Religion, because he will not force men to his Opinion, is to say, He is lukewarm, because he will not do a thing, that Christ hath no where required of him; and do a thing, that is to no purpose to do, for that very end for which it is done.’

77 Ibid., p. 20: ‘Nay, there is nothing under the Sun to promote an Opinion in Religion, like making men suffer for it.’

78 Ibid., pp. 3–4: ‘Those who in their Principles largely differ from each other, when they come to be all bound up together in one common volumn, and linked in the same chain of Persecution and Suffering, will be sure to twist themselves into an united Opposition, to such an undistinguishing severity: Whereas the thing in it self rightly considered, So many divided Interests and Parties in Religion, are much less dangerous than any, and may be prudently managed to ballance each other, and to become generally more safe, and useful to a State, than any united party or interest whatever.’

79 Ibid., pp. 4–5: ‘’Tis marvellous prudence to separate between Conscience and Faction, which can never be, but by a liberty for the one, that so they may distinctly punish the other.’

80 Ibid., p. 5: ‘For the errors you may suppose men possessed withal, as an eager Persecution is apt to make the Professors of them, think them more than ordinary Truths, and themselves some great men in maintaining them; so it makes others seek after that, when driven into a Corner, which were it in the open streets, no man would regard.’

81 Ibid., p. 7: ‘All standers-by, the generality of a Nation looking on, must needs be dis-satisfied, to see a plain honest man, upright and punctual in all his dealings amongst men, punished meerly for his Conscience to God.’

82 Ibid., pp. 7–8: ‘If we look into that which naturally occasioneth several Opinions in Religion, ’tis that which a Prince should for his own Interest highly encourage, and that is Knowledge.’

83 Wolseley here argues against imposition in religion as a means to secure the assistance of the most serious-minded and industrious.

84 Ibid., p. 9: ‘A Subject that gives the same testimony of his Fidelity to his Prince, that others do, and behaves himself in all Civil Concerns, as a faithful and profitable Member of the Commonwealth.’

85 Ibid., p. 9: ‘As every Subject hath an Interest in his Natural Prince.’

86 Ibid., p. 9: ‘Let Liberty of Conscience be once fitly given, and the root of all mens hopes and pretensions, that desire publick mischief, is pulled up.’

87 Ibid., p. 9: ‘We shall never have a flourishing Trade without it.’

88 Ibid., p. 10: ‘’Tis the King of Englands true Interest to become Head of all the Protestant party in the World.’

89 In this section, the handwriting is somewhat looser.

90 Ibid., p. 11: ‘How can we otherwise justifie forcing men, where such Principles are avowed, but by a flat denyal of them, and recurring to those Popish Weapons of the absolute Power of the Church.’

91 Wolseley notes that persecution had driven some Protestants to make common cause with Catholics.

92 The underlining of ‘Toleration’ is in a darker ink, suggesting that it was added later.