indifference to religion. His “Speechnon the Acts of Uniformity” {Mil) wasnhis response to two Church of Englandnclergymen, “minimalists” like Locke,nwho on grounds of reason and consciencenhad petitioned Parliament tonbe relieved from subscribing to thendoctrines of their Church. His politicalnrebuttal to their petition turns upon hisnimportant distinction between “thenoriginal rights of nature” for individualsnand the civil and legal rights ofninstitutions created by positive law andnconventions, a basic principle in hisnpolitical philosophy. Since the disaffectednclergymen were free to followntheir conscience outside the Church,nBurke’s religious rebuttal was that “thenmatter . . . does not concern toleration,nbut establishment.”nUnlike Locke, Burke believed thatnmembership in the Church was a moralnduty, not a voluntary relationship tonbe determined arbitrarily and whimsicallynby each individual. In his rebuttalnto the two clergymen, he cleverly usednLocke against his two disciples:nIf the Church be, as Mr. Lockendefines it, a voluntary society,netc., then it is essential to thisnvoluntary society to excludenfrom her voluntary society anynmember she thinks fit, or tonoppose the entrance of anynupon such conditions as shenthinks proper. For, otherwise, itnwould be a voluntary societynacting contrary to her will,nwhich is a contradiction innterms. And this is Mr. Locke’snopinion, the advocate for thenlargest scheme,of ecclesiasticalnand civil toleration tonProtestants (for to Papists henallows no toleration at all).nBurke was well aware that Locke’s famousnand much admired theory ofnreligious toleration, in A Letter ConcerningnToleration (1689), was whollynsectarian, but on the broad all-inclusivenbasis of a generalized Protestantism.nThis did not distinguish it in principlenfrom the more narrow, bigoted antipoperynof the Levellers and Puritannsects of the Commonwealth. Burkenalso knew that in his lifetime, whennreligion and politics were closely intertwined,nLocke’s total lack of tolerationnfor Roman Catholics was what gavensanction to such systems of persecutionnas the Penal Laws against Catholics innIreland, and the rule of the ProtestantnAscendency.nNot only in religion, but also in theirnpolitics regarding the Revolution ofn1688 and the Whig tradition, Burkenand Locke are in entirely differentncamps. Burke approved of the Revolutionnof 1688 on constitutional groundsn— that it was morally necessary, legallynlegitimate, and politically prudent tonprevent James II from establishing absolutenmonarchy, and to return Englandnto its traditional form of constitutionalnlimited monarchy, with powerndivided and balanced by Parliamentarynrule. Burke never considered the king’snCatholicism as a legitimate factor in hisnconstitutional reasons for opposing hisnrule. To him, 1688 was “a revolutionnnot made but prevented,” because thenking was in revolution to the constitution,nand 1688 completed the Restorationnthat was made in 1660.nLocke approved of the Revolutionnof 1688 not on constitutional grounds,nbut out of religious bigotry againstnCatholics. He was eager to replacenJames with William, not in order tonrestore constitutional limited monarchy,nsince his real convictions did notninclude such a regime as a legitimatenform of government. He preferrednWilliam because he believed that nonCatholic had a legitimate claim to thenCrown. Locke’s anti-papist revolutionarynactivities were clearly evident duringnthe decade before James becamenking, in his intimate association withnhis patron. Lord Ashley, later First Earlnof Shaftesbury, whose hatred of Catholicismnwas pathological. Shaftesburynwas involved or was the leader of anseries of movements to prevent Jamesnfrom becoming king, including theninfamous “Popish Plot,” an unsuccessfulnattempt to place the Duke of Monmouth,nCharles II’s illegitimate son, onnthe throne, and the Exclusionist effortsnin Parliament. For his revolutionarynactivities Shaftesbury was charged withnhigh treason and imprisoned in thenTower of London, and Locke found itnprudent to go into exile in Holland.nThe year after his return to Englandnin 1689, Locke published his TwonTreatises of Government, with a prefacenthat was intended to create thenimpression that these works were writtennto justify the Revolution of 1688.nLocke’s motive was to obscure hisnnnformer revolutionary activities, to disguisenhis radical Commonwealth antimonarchicalnpolitical philosophy,nwhich the Whig aristocracy of 1689nstrongly opposed, and to thus win thenfavor of the Whigs by convincing themnhe was in harmony with their politicalnviews. The myth his preface creatednwas highly successful, and he confirmednit by his conservative behavior,nwhich entailed refraining from anynrevolutionary activity between 1689nand his death in 1704. Thus throughoutnthe entire 18th century there was anwidespread conviction that Locke wasna good Whig in the tradition of thenRevolution of 1688.nThis popular Whig myth endurednfor 266 years, until Peter Laslett shatterednit in 1956 in his superb edition ofnLocke’s two treatises. He proved thatnLocke wrote his two treatises betweenn1678 and 1681, not to justify thenfuture revolution, but in support ofnShaftesbury’s anti-Catholic policy.nMoreover, Laslett showed that Locke’snpolitics were rooted in “the Good OldnCause” of the Commonwealth Levellers,nnot in the Whig politics of thenaristocracy in 1688.nFor O’Brien to admit that Locke’snpolitics is rooted in the radical theoriesnof the Commonwealth Levellersnwould compel him to abandon hisnclaim that Burke is in the politicalntradition of Locke. If the Whig traditionnbegins with the Levellers of thenCommonwealth, then Locke, notnBurke, is the archetypal true Whig.nBut if it derives from the Revolution ofn1688, then Locke’s claim to the Whigntradition is illegitimate, and Burke is itsntrue voice. In 1790, since the conflictnwas over whether the French Revolutionnwas an extension of 1688, Burkenwas perfectly right to deny that Pricenand his colleagues in the RevolutionnSociety could claim 1688 as their justificationnof the French Revolution.nWhen Burke noted of Price and hisncolleagues that “in all their reasoningsnon the Revoluhon of 1688” they havenin mind “a revoluhon which happenednin England about forty years before,”nhe identified Price with the Commonwealthnradicals and thus connectednhim with Locke’s politics.nRichard Ashcraft has recently shownnthat Locke’s ties with the Levellersnmakes his politics far more radical thannhistorians have supposed, and makes itnMAY 1991/53n