Prynne, “Demurrer,” Part I. p. 73. Footnote 85: Copley, “Case of the Jews is Altered,” p. 4. Footnote 86: “View of the Jewish Religion.” Footnote 87: See especially Prynne’s “Demurrers,” and “Anglo-Judæus,” by W. H. Only three ungrudging defences of the Jews were published—Copley’s “Case of the Jews,” D. L.’s “Israel’s Condition and Cause Pleaded” (a very feeble reply to Prynne), and Collier’s “Brief Answer.” Footnote 88: Dury, “A Case of Conscience.” Harl. Misc., vol. vii. p. 256. Footnote 89: “Life of Henry Jessey,” pp. 67–68. Footnote 90: Philo-Judæus, “The Resurrection of Dead Bones,” p. 102. Footnote 91: State Papers, Domestic. Interregnum, vol. i. 76, p. 353. Footnote 92: _Ibid._, p. 374. For text of petition, see _infra_, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiv. Footnote 93: Harl. Miscellany, vol. vii p. 618. Footnote 94: _Infra_, p. lxxxiv. Footnote 95: State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 374. Footnote 96: State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 375. Footnote 97: _Ibid._, pp. 378–379. For text of Circular see _infra_, p. lxxxiv. Footnote 98: _Publick Intelligencer_, December 10, 1655. Footnote 99: The list of members is given in State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 378. Footnote 100: _Publick Intelligencer_, loc. cit. Footnote 101: [Henry Jessey.] “A Narrative of the late Proceedings at Whitehall Concerning the Jews, &c.,” Harl. Misc., vii. p. 623. See also Burton (_pseud._ _i.e._ Nathaniel Crouch), _Judæorum Memorabilia_. Footnote 102: _Ibid._ Footnote 103: That the Judges’ decision was given at the first meeting of the Conference is clear from a statement made by Nye to Prynne on the morning of the second meeting (“Short Demurrer,” p. 4). Footnote 104: _Publick Intelligencer_, loc. cit. Footnote 105: _Ibid._ Footnote 106: _Judæorum Memorabilia_, p. 170. Footnote 107: Barlow, “Several Miscellaneous and Weighty Cases of Conscience” (1692), Fifth Treatise. See also p. 1 of the Bookseller’s Preface. Rev. S. Levy believes (_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, iii. p. 152) that this opinion was drawn up at the request of Robert Boyle. This is improbable, as it is clear from the resemblances between Barlow’s recommendations and the report ultimately drawn up by the Committee of the Council (_infra_, p. lxxxiv), that the opinion was submitted to the Whitehall Conference, and Boyle was not a member of that body. Goodwin, who was President of Magdalen College, is much more likely to have asked Barlow for the opinion, especially as we know that he was in favour of “due cautions” (_Jud. Mem._, p. 174). Footnote 108: _Jud. Mem._, p. 174. Footnote 109: _Ibid._, pp. 170, 175. Footnote 110: State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76 (1655), p. 412. Footnote 111: This is shown by two letters in the Domestic State Papers (see _Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. p. 46). Footnote 112: Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 321. Footnote 113: