Reflections on John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration is an essay that represents the analysis of religion and politics of classical liberalism.
Daniel Hinšt, Vice President of the Centre for Public Policy and Economic Analysis; Master of European Studies and Political Scientist
Context
First, we need to be aware of differences between the 17th century when the book was written, and our times in the 21st century. So toleration meant something different than it means today. Second, we need to know that tolerance (if it existed) didn’t mean the same as equality. Therefore, a particular group was tolerated, but it wasn’t equal to others who were privileged. Of course, it was much better for someone at least to be tolerated than to be persecuted or killed because of being different in religious beliefs or confession.
Religious tolerance has been one of the fundamental values and principles of 17th-century (classical) liberalism. It derives from the „harm principle“. John Locke was one of the main thinkers who promoted that idea. As a Calvinist Christian devoted to the Gospel and a liberal in his mind, Locke was aware that it is only God that can judge consciousness and faith. No person could do it instead of God, or civil magistrate. In other words, what someone believes is a personal inward thing and not a subject to outward judging.
Christ
Locke considered toleration as the main characteristic of the true Church. He sees in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that toleration of others is acceptable. „The care, therefore, of every man’s soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself“, Locke said. He points out that „the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate“. True religion consists of an inward dimension, independent from dictate by others. Locke is clear that the government cannot make any intervention in human consciousness. On the other side, the power of the civil magistrate consists of the outward force (to preserve law and order).
Catholics
How does Locke see Roman Catholics of his time? „If a Roman Catholic believes that to be the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbor “. But „that Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate who is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another ruler. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his Government“. These two statements clearly show how Protestants saw the Roman Catholics. Catholic beliefs were tolerated as a matter of private consciousness, but not the practices of Rome.
On the other side, we all know that the Roman Church didn’t tolerate any confession of faith in Christ which was contrary to the papacy. Moreover, the Inquisition persecuted and killed many Protestants across Europe or converted them back to Catholicism. This is the main reason why Protestants but also thinkers of liberalism didn’t want to tolerate the Roman Church. Not because Catholics had different inward consciousness, but because the Roman Church was using the force of persecution and even genocide against those who didn’t recognize the authority of the papacy. It believed that it has the power of judgment to manipulate with the mercy of God.
Protestants
On the other side, Protestants believed, according to the Scripture, that the mercy needed for salvation is a matter of God’s will alone, without any mediation or forceful intervention of any human being, including the Church. This belief represents the fundamental aspect of understanding the Reformed Christian heritage and Calvinism itself. That opened the doors of religious toleration. For those times it represented a change in attitudes towards individual freedoms. There is no doubt that toleration was much higher in those parts that were under the influence of Reformation and Enlightenment than in those territories which were dominated by the monopoly of Rome.
In the meantime, the Roman Church has changed, especially after the Second Vatican Council. So it can be tolerated today because it tolerates others. But another important aspect that Locke mentioned is that the Roman Church cannot be tolerated because its power has a foreign origin, as opposed to the national government. Besides the fact that its power was a mixture of religion and political violence against individual liberty, the Vatican didn’t recognize authorities that weren’t submitted to the papacy. In other words, those who were submitted to the papal authority were considered as against their government.
It was easy for Protestants to be tolerated because their confessional churches were organized according to national divisions, or even established by the monarchs as their heads (like in Scandinavia, Scotland, and England).
It is also interesting to see Locke’s opinion on atheists who deny the being of God. Locke thinks that they are not at all to be tolerated.
Conclusion
In other words, the religious toleration of a particular group needs to be dependable on its will to tolerate and accept others. This means we should not tolerate religious extremists of any kind or those atheists who would not tolerate others. Religion cannot be a subject or an object of any force, but a matter of individual freedom. We can learn from our European history that religion was often a matter of division, even among Christians. But Christians have learned the lessons of their past experiences and conflicts between their confessions. Of course, tolerance means a much broader perspective and includes all religions and those without religious affiliation. But it’s not enough just to tolerate. All civilized societies need to build relations based on dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect.
Additional Readings
Ideje u pozadini Deklaracije o neovisnosti