 Title page of the first English translation. | |
| Author | John Locke |
|---|---|
| Original title | Epistola de Tolerantia |
| Translator | William Popple |
| Language | Latin |
| Subject | Liberalism,Religion |
| Published | 3 October 1689 |
 |
| Part ofa series on |
| John Locke |
|---|
Works (listed chronologically) |
| People |
| Related topics |
A Letter Concerning Toleration ( Epistola de Tolerantia) byJohn Locke was originally written in Latin in 1685-1686 toPhilipp van Limborch and published in English translation in 1689 byWilliam Popple without Locke’s knowledge.[1] Its initial version was inLatin, and it was immediately translated into other languages. Locke's work appeared amidst a fear thatCatholicism might be taking overEngland and responds to the problem of religion and government by proposingreligious toleration as the answer. This "letter" is addressed to an anonymous "Honored Sir": this was Locke's close friendPhilipp van Limborch, who published it without Locke's knowledge.[2]
In the wake of the discovery of theRye House Plot andCharles II's persecution of theWhigs, Locke fled England to Amsterdam in theDutch Republic in September 1683.[3][4] Throughout his life, Locke was interested in the debate aboutreligious toleration. The question was much debated inHolland during Locke's stay, and in October 1685,Louis XIV of Francerevoked theEdict of Nantes that had guaranteed religious toleration forFrench Protestants.[5]
In theDutch Republic, Locke metPhilipp van Limborch, aProfessor of Divinity. It was to be a discussion with Limborch that persuaded Locke to temporarily put aside his work onAn Essay Concerning Human Understanding and put forth his ideas on toleration. Locke wrote theLetter during the winter of 1685–86.[6]
One of the founders ofEmpiricism, Locke develops aphilosophy that is contrary to the one expressed byThomas Hobbes inLeviathan, in supporting toleration for variousChristian denominations. Hobbes did allow individuals to maintain their own religious beliefs as long as they outwardly expressed those of the state, however, and it has been argued that Locke's rejection of Catholic Imperialism was the ultimate basis for his rejection of the government's interest in spiritual salvation.[7]
"That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate," Locke argued, "which is so constituted that all who enter itipso facto pass into the allegiance and service of another prince".[8] If this were to be tolerated, "the magistrate would make room for a foreign jurisdiction in his territory and...allow for his people to be enlisted as soldiers against his government".[9] This has been interpreted by historians as a reference to the Catholic Church, with the Pope being the prince to whom Catholics owed allegiance.[10][11][12][13][14]
However, more recently, scholars have challenged the idea that Locke opposed tolerating Catholics in all circumstances.[15][16][17]Mark Goldie argues that the traditional interpretation of Locke's position on Catholics "needs finessing, since he did not exclude the theoretical possibility of tolerating Catholics...if Catholics could discard their uncivil beliefs, they could then be tolerated".[18] Goldie asserts that Locke was opposed not to Catholicism as such butantinomianism, the belief that ordinary moral laws are superseded by religious truth.[19]Scott Sowerby also claims that Locke left open the possibility that Catholics could be tolerated if they adopted tolerant principles and rejected political allegiance to the Pope.[20]
John Marshall has argued that several passages in theLetter demonstrate that Locke believed that Catholics "in their terms of worship and religious speculative beliefs...deserved their worship to be free".[21] Marshall also notes that "The combination of Locke’s comments in the Letter suggests that during [its] composition ... Locke was once again struggling over how to discriminate between the series of associated political principles which for him made Catholics intolerable, and the religious worship and other religious beliefs of Catholics which deserved toleration."[22] A confirmation of these positions seems to come from a 2019 discovery of a previously unknown manuscript, dated 1667–8, titledReason for tolerating Papists equally with others, in which Locke makes his earliest arguments for religious toleration.[23]
In one of the last paragraphs, Locke argued againstatheists: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated."[24] This critique excluded all atheistic varieties of philosophy and all attempts to deduce ethics andnatural law from purelysecular premises.[25] There exists also a passage added in a later edition of theEssay concerning Human Understanding, where Locke perhaps questioned "whether 'atheism' was necessarily inimical to political obedience."[26]
Toleration is central to Locke's political philosophy. Consequently, only churches that teach tolerance are allowed in his society. Locke's view on the difficulty of knowing theone true religion may suggest that religion is not personally important to Locke. Still, it also may point to the deep uncertainties surrounding religious belief in a time of political and intellectual conflict. In contrast, Locke's view on atheism suggests that he was far from considering religion unimportant. As an empiricist, he considered practical considerations, such as how the peace of civil society would be affected by religious toleration. Closely reading the text also reveals that Locke relies onBiblical analysis at several key points in his argument.
There were immediate responses from theHigh Church Anglican clergy, published byThomas Long andJonas Proast. Long believed the letter represented an atheistically disguised Jesuit plot for the Roman Catholic Church to gain dominance by bringing chaos and ruin to the English Church and State. Proast attacked the Letter and defended the view that the government has the right to use force to cause dissenters to reflect on the merits of Anglicanism, the True Religion. Locke's reply to Proast developed into an extended, controversial exchange.
Works related toA Letter Concerning Toleration at Wikisource
A Letter Concerning Toleration public domain audiobook atLibriVox
