Locke’s views on toleration and natural law have recently received a ‘reassessment’ at the hands of John William Tate. This article demonstrates some of the many and various ways in which Tate has mangled Locke’s positions and misconstrued the views of interpreters of Locke (myself included) whose interpretations he finds uncongenial. It finds that there are no textual grounds for Tate’s claims and invites readers to reassess whether and how far they ought to be taken seriously.
Anon., attr. Thomas Burnet (1699). Third Remarks Upon An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. London.
2.
HarrisI (1998) The Mind of John Locke., Revised edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
HarrisI (2007) The legacy of Two Treatises of Government. Eighteenth-Century Thought3: 143–167.
4.
LockeJ. von LeydenW (1954) Essays on the Law of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
LockeJ. AbramsP (1967) Two Tracts on Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Locke J (1968) In: Klibansky R (ed.), Gough JW (trans.). Epistola de Tolerantia / A Letter on Toleration. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7.
LockeJ. NidditchPH (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
8.
Locke J (1976–) In: de Beer ES (ed.). The Correspondence of John Locke. 8 vols. to date. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9.
LockeJ. LaslettP (1988) Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
NacolEC (2011) The risks of political authority: Trust, knowledge and political agency in Locke’s second treatise. Political Studies59(3): 580–595.
11.
ParkerS (1681) A demonstration of the divine authority of the law of nature and of the Christian religion, London, Printed by M. Flesher for R. Royston.
