Locke on religion

John Locke drew up the basic contours of the modern conception of religion as internal and private in his “Letter Concerning Toleration.”

He made a sharp distinction between religious and civil realms: “The end of a religious society, as has already been said, is the public worship of God, and, by means thereof, the acquisition of eternal life. All discipline ought therefore to tend to that end, and all ecclesiastical laws to be thereunto confined. Nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods. No force is here to be made use of upon any occasion whatsoever. For force belongs wholly to the civil magistrate, and the possession of all outward goods to his jurisdiction.”

As is evident, this contrast rests on the conviction that the essence of religion is internal: “All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing.” Outward professions are nothing “if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true.” The church’s realm is the care of souls, and everything external is committed to the civil magistrate.

This rests on a radical disjunction of Old and New. Locke notes that the Jewish commonwealth was “an absolute theocracy,” and then goes on to say that this is quite contrary to the NT: “if anyone can show me where there is a commonwealth at this time, constituted upon that foundation [ie, established by God], I will acknowledge that the ecclesiastical law do there unavoidably become a part of the civil, and that the subjects of that government both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity with that Church by the civil power. But there is absolutely no such thing under the Gospel as a Christian commonwealth. There are, indeed, many cities and kingdoms that have embraced the faith of Christ, but they have retained their ancient form of government, with which the law of Christ has not at all meddled. He, indeed, has taught men how, by faith and good works, they may obtain eternal life; but He instituted no commonwealth. He prescribed unto His followers no new and peculiar form of government, nor put He the sword into any magistrate’s hand, with commission to make use of it in forcing men to forsake their former religion and receive His.”

This is a statement of staggering historical inaccuracy: Cities and kingdom that “embraced the faith of Christ” retained “their ancient form of government”? Tell that to all the medieval kings who had to swear fealty to Jesus or the Trinity; tell that to the emperors who sought papal anointing; tell that to Alfred the Great whose laws were expressly based on the Ten Commandments; tell that to Henry standing in the snow outside Gregory’s castle at Canossa.