Thomas Seward begins by defending the clergy of the Church of England and the doctrine of baptism against criticisms by the Quakers, before attacking Voltaire for using his ingenuity to undermine religion. He goes on to express concern that Nancy is giving credence to such ideas, admitting that he has not always set the best example but urging her to adhere to the principles in which she has been brought up.

Voltaire opens by saying that when he asked Marie-Anne de Vichy-Chamrond, marquise Du Deffand to urge her friends to speak to Maurepas, it was not for fear that it would do him harm. He turns to the recent appearance of some scandalous letters, asking if the duchesse du Maine is angry that he put Newton above Descartes, or if the duchesse de Villars will react badly to his treatment of her innate ideas as chimeras. He then turns to the Jansenists, whom he says want him to burn for certain of his theological ideas that he published whilst in London. He adds that his English publisher found him very moderate. He goes on to say that he had thought to leave France forever when he gave Tiriot permission two years ago to print this work, and that he has since changed his mind, adding that it is unfortunate that the letters appear in France when he most wants to stay there. He concludes by saying that he does not know if he will return to France. He asks her to send any letters for him to Paris opposite St Gervais as they will find him, asking that she marks her letter (for example with ‘DD’) so that he can easily identify which letters come from her.

De Missy writes to Voltaire about his edition of Voltaire’s tragedy Mahomet. De Missy divides the letter into a series of numbered points. Point One concerns the beginning of Act Three which is in need of revision. De Missy says that he could have corrected the Act himself but did not want to taint Voltaire’s writing. Point Two concerns a few passages that De Missy notes he will not punctuate in line with Voltaire’s intentions. He notes that this is particularly relevant to the first verses of p.55 in At IV. Point Three concerns various corrections in Voltaire’s copy that are in the London edition, and some passages in this edition that have been more heavily corrected than Voltaire’s version. He draws attention to p.7, p.33, p.42, p.45, p.48, and p.50. He asks Voltaire how he would like these sections to read, and whether or not he should follow the example of the London edition. Point Four concerns p.28 where the printer had written ‘They sit’ and Voltaire had not corrected it. De Missy asks if Voltaire’s lack of correction was intentional or not. Point Five concerns a verse on p.13, about which De Missy questions Voltaire’s phrasing. There then follow two paragraphs that are left incomplete, with large gaps in the copy suggesting that De Missy intended to expand on them and complete them. The paragraphs concern the topics of gender, virtues, and vices, with De Missy noting that men and women alike have both vices and virtues, and that one gender cannot be said to be more virtuous than the other. De Missy then goes on to discuss religion, and the ways in which divides between various religious denominations are largely artificial because human action traverses them. He states that he does not want to go to America but would do so tomorrow if they were the place that hated fraud and tyranny. He says he should like to do this journey with Voltaire. De Missy makes mention of the letter to Frederick II that Voltaire had sent him [D2386], adding some further details about the people mentioned in the letter: The Dias brothers, James Shepherd, and Luther. He then turns to Muhammad himself, questioning why Christians should be offended by Voltaire’s play when it shows Islam in a bad light as it was, he writes, founded on deceit and violence, not Christianity which was established with, he suggests, the best faith, great sweetness, and patience. De Missy then turns to Pascal’s comments on inconceivable proposals, problematising Voltaire’s understanding of this notion. De Missy ends his letter with a discussion of a Warning in the English papers from a wife whose husband had left home and not returned, with the wife claiming that if he came back within three days he would be graciously received. He writes that he had discussed this with a friend who concluded that the woman perhaps beat her husband. By means of an ending, he summarises his earlier questions about his edition of Mahomet, and this copy is left unfinished at the reiteration of Point Four.