John Locke and the Authority of Church and State

Anglophonia ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 289-296
Author(s):  
Graham Alan John Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Locke Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
D. N. DeLuna

A correction of an article originally published in vol 17 (2017). In 1675, the anonymous Letter to a Person of Quality was condemned in the House of Lords and ordered to be burned by the public hangman.  A propagandistic work that has long been attributed to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and less certainly to his secretary John Locke, it traduced hard-line Anglican legislation considered in Parliament that year—namely the Test Bill, proposing that office-holders and MPs swear off political militancy and indeed any efforts to reform the Church and State.  Careful examination of the text of the Letter, and that of one of its sources in the Reasons against the Bill for the Test, also circulated in 1675, reveals the presence of highly seditious passages of covert historical allegory.  Hitherto un-noted by modern scholars, this allegory compared King Charles II to the weak and intermittently mad Henry VI, while agitating for armed revolt against a government made prey to popish and French captors.  The discovery compels modification, through chronological revision and also re-assessment of the probability of Locke’s authorship of the Letter, of Richard Ashcraft’s picture of Shaftesbury and Locke as first-time revolutionaries for the cause of religious tolerance in the early 1680s.  Even more significantly, it lends support to Ashcraft’s view of the nature and intent of duplicitous published writings from the Shaftesbury circle, whose members included Robert Ferguson, ‘the Plotter’ and pamphleteer at home in the world of skilled biblical hermeneutics.  Cultivated for stealthy revolutionary purposes, these writings came with designs of engaging discrete reading networks within England’s culture of Protestant dissent.


2021 ◽  
pp. 33-64
Author(s):  
Karen Armstrong

Ever since John Locke argued that religion was essentially a “private search” and must be radically excluded from political life, we have prided ourselves in the West on the separation of church and state. John Esposito, of course, has famously ignored this shibboleth. In the past, students were not content to acquire a purely academic understanding of their faith; their aim was not to earn a doctorate or a professorship. Instead, they expected to be spiritually transformed by their studies—an experience that propelled them out of the classroom and back into the mundane, messy, and tragic world of politics. This essay traces this theme in Indian and Chinese traditions as well as in the three monotheistic faiths. All insist that poverty, inequity, cruelty, and exploitation are matters of sacred import and that after achieving Enlightenment one must, as the Buddha insisted, “return to the marketplace” and work practically and creatively to heal the suffering of humanity—a message that is sorely needed in our tragically broken world.


2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-90
Author(s):  
Ivan Matic

The subject of this paper will be the analysis of the question of religious toleration in the political thought of seventeenth century English philosopher John Locke. The first part of the paper will discuss the foundational principles of Locke?s political thought, particularly his contract theory. The second part will be dedicated to situating his positions on freedom of religion within the domain of that theory, accentuating the moment of separation between church and state. The final part will analyze the implications of religious toleration, as well as its limits, upon which Locke?s criterion of freedom of religion will be critically examined.


1997 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McCabe

Contemporary liberals who advocate strict separation between church and state often defend themselves by suggesting that such a position is the only one compatible with the principle of liberal neutrality, whose origins go back to John Locke's first Letter on Toleration. This essay argues that this line of reasoning is mistaken. While Locke did endorse the neutrality principle, he did not endorse strict separation, and this fact suggests that the connection between liberal neutrality and strict separation is not as secure as many liberals have assumed. This examination of Locke's attitudes toward neutrality and strict separation aims both to clarify what is at stake in contemporary debates over strict separation in liberal states and to consider the conditions that would have to be met to mount a Lockean argument against weakening church-state separation in contemporary liberal states.


2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-610
Author(s):  
Paul Guyer

AbstractTwo foremost spokesmen for the German Enlightenment, Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant, continued the defence of the separation of church and state that was at the heart of the Enlightenment in general and advocated by such great predecessors as Roger Williams and John Locke and contemporaries such as James Madison. The difference between Mendelssohn and Kant on which I focus here is that while Mendelssohn argues against his critics that Judaism is the appropriate religion for a specific people without being appropriate for all, thus implying more generally that different religions are appropriate for groups with different histories, Kant argues first that Judaism is not a genuine religion at all, second that Christianity provides the most suitable symbols or aesthetic representations of the core truths of the religion of reason, and finally that in any case all historical religion will ultimately fade away in favour of the pure religion of reason. Kant’s assumptions are tendentious and his conclusion implausible; Mendelssohn’s view that religion and differences of religion are here to stay provides a far stronger basis for genuine toleration and a strict separation of church and state.


Author(s):  
Ian Harris

The standard modern view of Locke portrays him as a simulacrum of John Stuart Mill or John Rawls. This chapter decisively shifts the terms in which Locke is understood away from this standard view. It shows that with Locke religious worship is neither private nor optional, and is a matter of duty rather than right primarily — a duty prescribed by natural law. Natural law led Locke to jurisdiction, and, more precisely, to two corresponding jurisdictions, the eccesiastical and civil. The different ends implied in these two jurisdictions and the different ways in which they were established made church and state free from each other's direction. Worship is not tolerated by the state, for the state has no jurisdiction over it; rather, it is free. Conversely the state is required to coerce religious or irreligious groups, whether Roman Catholics or atheists, who undermine the possibility of independent civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions.


Author(s):  
James H. Hutson
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document