 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Testing Americana James Grime Chinese Intentions Shimpei Ara Abandoning Ideology Antonio Fabrizio After Mumbai Blasts Charlie Duerr Sex And Soccer Phillip Wellman An Ally Of Sorts? Molly Nixon As Sea Levels Rise Ben Tait Forgetting Africa Krzys Wasilewski |
Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration remains relevant 300 years later
By Antonio Fabrizio
Posted: Aug 5, 2006
John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is an incredible example of how a 17th century
philosopher’s thoughts may still be relevant and useful to fight religious intolerance. In many aspects,
his writing shapes a theory with strong and consistent arguments to demonstrate why a mutual
religious toleration ought to lead people’s actions.
Originally written in Latin and titled Epistola de Tolerantia, and then translated into other languages, A
Letter Concerning Toleration was written in the midst of religious chaos, after the Reformation had
split Europe in opposing religious groups: Catholics, Calvinists, Protestants and other groups, which
were opposing one another, provoking civil wars and persecutions all over the continent. Only four
years before, in 1685, the king of France had revoked the Edit of Nantes, with a consequent
persecution of thousands of Huguenots; but also in England, Locke’s homeland, the Anglican Church
had widely contrasted and repressed Catholic minorities.
There was, then, an urgent need of avoiding that religious differences could give birth to civil wars. By
writing this Letter, Locke tries to demonstrate why intolerance and religion may not be mixed up. He
highlights, in fact, that toleration should be the “characteristic mark of the true church”, because it is a
principle which may be both drawn from the New Testament and from human reason.
According to him, the “true business” of a church should be neither the interest in the external world
nor the use of compulsive force, but purely the care of people’s souls.
Locke states that a division between spiritual and temporal power is necessary, and that precise and
immovable boundaries have to be set between them. The church should be concerned about men’s
souls, and the commonwealth about external things. Yet it may be necessary, according to Locke, a
definition of what a church is and what a commonwealth is, to avoid possible confusion about their
specific purposes.
A commonwealth is a society of men made up for “procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil
interests”, such as life, liberty, health, and possession of external goods. These civil interests are
guarded by a person, the civil magistrate, who is in charge of an “impartial execution of equal laws”
and protects everyone from others’ violations. If a violation occurs, then the magistrate, who is armed
with the force of his subjects, is entitled to decide a punishment, which consists of a “deprivation or
diminution” of the violator’s civil goods. Yet the magistrate’s jurisdiction is confined only to external
things, and may not be extended to what deals with people’s souls.
On the other hand, a church is a free and “voluntary society of men”, who join together to publicly
worship their God in the way they consider as “effectual to the salvation of their souls”. It is free,
because nobody is born member of any church and everything may not simply depend on one’s
birthplace (which means that there may not be simply a geographical determination of one’s religious
beliefs); and it is voluntary because people choose that church which, according to them, constitutes
the true road to salvation. Yet, since it is a free society, those who discover something erroneous in it,
have the legitimate right to leave.
Locke also highlights that persecution among religious groups is written nowhere in religious texts;
therefore, those who claim they are persecuting people to make them embrace a religious doctrine in
God’s name, are being irreverent towards him. The only arms that a church may possess are
exhortations, admonitions, advices. If one does not comply with these, he or she may be cast out
through excommunication, but no other punishment can be inflicted.
Locke believes that no force may be used, and consequently no “external deprivation” may be
permitted against the excommunicated person.
Only the civil magistrate may give external punishment, although he may never punish people for their
religious beliefs. The consequence of excommunication, therefore, is only a suspension of the union
between the church itself and the excommunicated person, since any society has the right to remove
those who violate its laws, but cannot do anything beyond that.
Locke maintains necessary a mutual toleration among churches, “without any pretence of superiority
or jurisdiction over one another”. No church has the right to deprive other churches and their members
of their liberty or goods. This is the best explanation of what, in A Letter Concerning Toleration, may
not be tolerated: the abuses of a religious group over another, as well as the interference of religion in
the state and vice versa.
Locke also doubts that one Church alone may be the “right one”, because that would lead to its
authority over the so-called heretical ones. Instead, every church is “orthodox to itself; to others,
erroneous or heretical”. Nobody, then, can determine whether a church is right or wrong; that right is
not human but belongs only to “the Supreme judge of all men”, the only one entitled to punish the
erroneous. The opposite principle, instead, leads only to wars, hatred and crimes.
Toleration, however, is an attitude that should belong to everyone, to priests, magistrates as well as
the people. Magistrates and rulers, moreover, may have more secular power, but they do not have the
knowledge of other things, for example they do not know what is the “true religion”. Secular power may
not do anything against any supposed “idolatrous church”.
Locke’s example is about America and Europe: Pagans on one hand, and Christians on the other,
may not be deprived of their goods and liberty nor forced to accept the other party’s religion and beliefs.
Incredibly, more than three hundred years later, these principles still prove topical and in many
regions of the world it is still hard to have them recognized. However, they really worked across the
“old continent” in the 18th century, with the spread of Enlightenment, and have made of Europe the
most tolerating place on earth.
### ### ###
Antonio Fabrizio is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Antonio Fabrizio
Posted: Aug 5, 2006
John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is an incredible example of how a 17th century
philosopher’s thoughts may still be relevant and useful to fight religious intolerance. In many aspects,
his writing shapes a theory with strong and consistent arguments to demonstrate why a mutual
religious toleration ought to lead people’s actions.
Originally written in Latin and titled Epistola de Tolerantia, and then translated into other languages, A
Letter Concerning Toleration was written in the midst of religious chaos, after the Reformation had
split Europe in opposing religious groups: Catholics, Calvinists, Protestants and other groups, which
were opposing one another, provoking civil wars and persecutions all over the continent. Only four
years before, in 1685, the king of France had revoked the Edit of Nantes, with a consequent
persecution of thousands of Huguenots; but also in England, Locke’s homeland, the Anglican Church
had widely contrasted and repressed Catholic minorities.
There was, then, an urgent need of avoiding that religious differences could give birth to civil wars. By
writing this Letter, Locke tries to demonstrate why intolerance and religion may not be mixed up. He
highlights, in fact, that toleration should be the “characteristic mark of the true church”, because it is a
principle which may be both drawn from the New Testament and from human reason.
According to him, the “true business” of a church should be neither the interest in the external world
nor the use of compulsive force, but purely the care of people’s souls.
Locke states that a division between spiritual and temporal power is necessary, and that precise and
immovable boundaries have to be set between them. The church should be concerned about men’s
souls, and the commonwealth about external things. Yet it may be necessary, according to Locke, a
definition of what a church is and what a commonwealth is, to avoid possible confusion about their
specific purposes.
A commonwealth is a society of men made up for “procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil
interests”, such as life, liberty, health, and possession of external goods. These civil interests are
guarded by a person, the civil magistrate, who is in charge of an “impartial execution of equal laws”
and protects everyone from others’ violations. If a violation occurs, then the magistrate, who is armed
with the force of his subjects, is entitled to decide a punishment, which consists of a “deprivation or
diminution” of the violator’s civil goods. Yet the magistrate’s jurisdiction is confined only to external
things, and may not be extended to what deals with people’s souls.
On the other hand, a church is a free and “voluntary society of men”, who join together to publicly
worship their God in the way they consider as “effectual to the salvation of their souls”. It is free,
because nobody is born member of any church and everything may not simply depend on one’s
birthplace (which means that there may not be simply a geographical determination of one’s religious
beliefs); and it is voluntary because people choose that church which, according to them, constitutes
the true road to salvation. Yet, since it is a free society, those who discover something erroneous in it,
have the legitimate right to leave.
Locke also highlights that persecution among religious groups is written nowhere in religious texts;
therefore, those who claim they are persecuting people to make them embrace a religious doctrine in
God’s name, are being irreverent towards him. The only arms that a church may possess are
exhortations, admonitions, advices. If one does not comply with these, he or she may be cast out
through excommunication, but no other punishment can be inflicted.
Locke believes that no force may be used, and consequently no “external deprivation” may be
permitted against the excommunicated person.
Only the civil magistrate may give external punishment, although he may never punish people for their
religious beliefs. The consequence of excommunication, therefore, is only a suspension of the union
between the church itself and the excommunicated person, since any society has the right to remove
those who violate its laws, but cannot do anything beyond that.
Locke maintains necessary a mutual toleration among churches, “without any pretence of superiority
or jurisdiction over one another”. No church has the right to deprive other churches and their members
of their liberty or goods. This is the best explanation of what, in A Letter Concerning Toleration, may
not be tolerated: the abuses of a religious group over another, as well as the interference of religion in
the state and vice versa.
Locke also doubts that one Church alone may be the “right one”, because that would lead to its
authority over the so-called heretical ones. Instead, every church is “orthodox to itself; to others,
erroneous or heretical”. Nobody, then, can determine whether a church is right or wrong; that right is
not human but belongs only to “the Supreme judge of all men”, the only one entitled to punish the
erroneous. The opposite principle, instead, leads only to wars, hatred and crimes.
Toleration, however, is an attitude that should belong to everyone, to priests, magistrates as well as
the people. Magistrates and rulers, moreover, may have more secular power, but they do not have the
knowledge of other things, for example they do not know what is the “true religion”. Secular power may
not do anything against any supposed “idolatrous church”.
Locke’s example is about America and Europe: Pagans on one hand, and Christians on the other,
may not be deprived of their goods and liberty nor forced to accept the other party’s religion and beliefs.
Incredibly, more than three hundred years later, these principles still prove topical and in many
regions of the world it is still hard to have them recognized. However, they really worked across the
“old continent” in the 18th century, with the spread of Enlightenment, and have made of Europe the
most tolerating place on earth.
### ### ###
Antonio Fabrizio is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |