Five-minute digest
A Letter Concerning Toleration
Summary
A Letter Concerning Toleration is John Locke's argument that the civil government and the church are two distinct societies with different ends, and that the magistrate has no authority to compel belief or worship. Locke wrote it in Latin, as Epistola de Tolerantia, during the winter of 1685–86 while living in exile in the Dutch Republic, addressing it to his friend the Remonstrant theologian Philipp van Limborch. It was printed anonymously at Gouda in 1689. William Popple's English translation appeared in London the same autumn, licensed on 3 October 1689, a few months after Parliament passed the Toleration Act. The library text is that first English edition, with Popple's preface To the Reader, which calls for absolute, just and impartial liberty, and the bookseller's advertisements. Locke opens by calling toleration the chief mark of the true church: anyone who persecutes others for their souls while indulging vice in his own flock shows that he seeks another kingdom than Christ's. He then sets the bounds of the two societies. The commonwealth exists only to secure civil interests, which he lists as life, liberty, health, freedom from bodily pain, and outward possessions. The care of souls does not belong to the magistrate, for three reasons: God has given no man such authority over another; the magistrate's power is outward force, while true religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind; and if princes could impose religion, salvation would depend on the accident of birthplace. A church, by contrast, is a voluntary society that men join to worship God as they judge acceptable to him; it may make rules and expel members, but excommunication must not touch a person's civil goods. Locke goes on to the duties of churches, private persons and clergy toward those who differ from them, and to the magistrate's power over rites and doctrines. Things indifferent cannot be made part of worship by human authority; whatever is lawful in ordinary life, such as Meliboeus killing his calf, is lawful in a religious meeting, and what is unlawful in ordinary life is unlawful there too. The Mosaic commonwealth, an absolute theocracy, offers no model for Christian states. Speculative articles of faith cannot be imposed by law. Toleration has limits. The magistrate need not tolerate opinions contrary to the moral rules that hold society together; churches that claim authority over the property of heretics or that deliver their members to the service of a foreign prince, an example Locke illustrates with a Muslim who obeys the mufti of Constantinople; or those who deny the being of God, since oaths and covenants cannot bind an atheist. Within these limits Locke argues that Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians and Quakers, and also pagans, Muslims and Jews, should hold civil rights, and that religious assemblies grow seditious only when they are treated unequally. A postscript defines heresy and schism.
Top Lessons
Belief cannot be compelled
Locke's central argument is that faith is the inward persuasion of the mind, and force can produce only outward conformity. A worship offered against conscience is not pleasing to God but an added sin. The magistrate's sword is therefore the wrong instrument for the care of souls.
Two societies with two different ends
The commonwealth secures life, liberty, health and property; the church exists for the worship of God and the salvation of souls. Locke holds that confusion between the two has produced endless controversy, and that each keeps its proper authority only by staying within its bounds.
Charity as the test of zeal
Locke challenges persecutors on Christian grounds: if they truly loved souls, they would first correct the open vices of their own flocks. Zeal that burns dissenters while ignoring fraud and fornication among friends reveals a desire for dominion rather than love.
Toleration with stated limits
Locke does not argue that every opinion must be allowed. He excludes teachings destructive of civil society, churches that place members under a foreign prince, and atheists, whose word he believes cannot be secured by oath. These limits rest on his view of what holds a commonwealth together, and readers have debated them since the 1690s.
Verified Quotes
“I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the Business of Civil Government from that of Religion, and to settle the just Bounds that lie between the one and the other.”
“The Commonwealth seems to me to be a Society of Men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own Civil Interests.”
“Civil Interests I call Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of Body; and the Possession of outward things, such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like.”
“All the Life and Power of true Religion consists in the inward and full perswasion of the mind; and Faith is not Faith without believing.”
“A Church then I take to be a voluntary Society of Men, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the publick worshipping of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the Salvation of their Souls.”
“No man can be forced to be Rich or Healthful, whether he will or no. Nay, God himself will not save men against their wills.”
“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 Humane Society, can have no hold upon an Atheist.”
“neither Pagan, nor Mahumetan, nor Iew, ought to be excluded from the Civil Rights of the Commonwealth, because of his Religion.”
Medical Lens
Locke trained in medicine at Oxford, worked with Thomas Sydenham, and served as Shaftesbury's physician, and the Letter repeatedly argues by medical analogy. Health and indolency of body (freedom from pain) appear in his list of civil interests that the state exists to protect. In the passage on whether the magistrate may care for souls, he asks whether a prince could require his subjects to consult only Roman physicians and take no potion or broth not prepared in the Vatican or a Geneva shop, and answers that no one can be forced to be healthy; the law guards health against the fraud or violence of others, not against a person's own neglect. Readers interested in the history of medical ethics may see here an early statement of the distinction between protecting persons from harm by others and compelling them for their own good, though Locke frames it as a point about religion, not medicine.
- Letter, definition of the commonwealth
Health and indolency of body listed among the civil interests the magistrate protects.
- Letter, on the magistrate's care of souls
The analogy of a prince compelling subjects to consult only Roman physicians and take remedies from the Vatican or a Geneva shop; no one forced to be rich or healthful.