Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

Assess Locke’s Argument For The Separation Of The Church & The State.

John Locke’s political philosophy stressed a high degree of importance on stability and
this was the foundation of his argument in “A letter Concerning Toleration” that
advocates a secular state and the separation of religious and governmental institutions.
This essay intends to assess the strength of this argument through critical analysis of its
main premises and the historical context in which it was written. Ultimately, it will
conclude that his argument is valid and sound, primarily because the required functions
of the state do not incorporate any religious doctrines.

In order to sustain an assessment of Locke’s argument, it is important to first

understand in detail what this argument was. ‘The State’, usually referred to by Locke as
the magistrate, is the supreme legislative power that legitimately holds authority only
through the pursuit of “life, liberty, health and…possession of outward things” (1968, 67).
Its role is solely to guarantee relief from what he describes as the ‘inconveniences’ of the
state of nature and provide these four main civil goods. Its supremacy is unconditional,
unlike ‘the church’, which he believes to be “A free society of men, joining together of their
own accord for the public worship of God” (1968,71). This supposes an inherent
incompatibility between the states undisputable supremacy against the church’s
subscription under free will and, therefore, the “Necess(ity) above all to distinguish
between the business of civil government and that of religion” (1968, 65). Furthermore,
where the church seeks to promote the pursuit of internal or personal interests
(primarily salvation), the state acts in accordance with “The preserv(ation) and secur(ity)
of all the people in general” (1968, 67). The state acting and legislating in this manner
clarifies its role and therefore underpins the crucial distinction between it and the
interests of theological institutions.

Locke presents three main premises that support his argument for the separation of the
church and the state, the first of which concerns the “Care of Souls” not being “Committed
to the civil magistrate by God” (1968,67). This refers to the fact that the attention of
people’s intrinsic self-concerns was not a task given to the magistrate by God, rendering
it as an agenda to be tackled by a separate body. The second premise entails this,
depicting that coercion cannot convince us of theological truths or force us to hold
personal beliefs and that the magistrates power “Consists wholly in compulsion”, (1968,
69) outlining the state’s incapacity to impose these beliefs even if it felt so inclined.

1
1000022c
 Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

It has, in essence, the ability to ensure conformity in that which is susceptible to

coercion (external behaviour, for example), but not ensure conformity in belief. The
third premise concerns the problem of a theocratic society on an international level. In
saying that “Amid the variety of opinions that different princes hold about religion, the
narrow gate that leads to heaven would inevitably be open to very few”, he portrays the
thought that the coincidence of birth in a particular country and the associated
magistrate to which one is therefore subordinate should not be a factor in “Man’s eternal
happiness or misery” (1968, 71). Locke is conveying that influencing one’s path to
heaven or hell is not the duty of the state because of its inherent territorial constraints
and that this pursuit of internal salvation is one to be aided by a religious body that can
be followed regardless of coincidence of birth.

Having outlined his premises for advocating a secular society, they must be scrutinized
in order to assess his argument as an entity. The first premise, that the state has no God-
given right to pursue the “Salvation of our souls”, has its validity rooted in the origins of
the state itself. Setup by the bond of people living in the state of nature who collectively
sought escape from its ‘inconveniences’, Locke’s civil government coerced power and
provided public goods, both central foundations for its legitimacy. Salvation, on the
other hand, is unequivocally a private good and should therefore be persuaded rather
than dictated. God, as the all-perfect being, would not sponsor any “Authority of one man
over another as to compel other men to embrace his religion” (1968, 67) and given that a
legitimate state must exercise authority, it can have no concern for religion. This first
reason for promoting separate political and religious bodies can be further validated
through comparison with another of Locke’s arguments that advocates religious
toleration. One of his main reasons for supporting a plural society that accepted diverse
religious practice was due to our existence as “Mere mortals” who “Cannot comprehend
God” (1979, 121). If we cannot understand God’s nature, the essence of this phrase
entails, why should civil government constrain our choice in how to follow him. Tying
these two premises for separate arguments together, one realises further that the
magistrate, composed of these ‘mere mortals’, has no legitimate right to coerce religious
practice given its lack of understanding of God.

2
1000022c
 Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

The second premise supporting Locke’s argument (that the states’ use of force has no
ability, let alone right, to persuade our minds about internal interests) is given credence
by a metaphor that he uses. He says “Confiscate a man’s goods, imprison or torture his
body: such punishments will be in vain, if you think they will make him change his inward
judgement of things” (1968, 69), a convincing example of how the state, through the
legitimate use of punishment, can merely control our behaviour rather than our inner
thoughts and beliefs. Furthermore, “Civil power ought not to prescribe articles of faith…by
Civil law. For if no penalties are attached to them, the force of law vanishes, while if
penalties are attached they futile for convincing the mind” (1968, 69). This depicts
Locke’s view that if the state was to try and exercise religious control, it would either
undermine its own legitimate sovereignty through failure to penalise religious
transgressions or it would penalise it and ultimately fail in its objective.

Finally, the third premise is another perfectly plausible ground for advocating ‘the
separation of the church and the state’. By supposing the disregard of his first two
premises, Locke imagines a world segregated by states intertwined with religious
bodies, leading to the coincidence of one’s birth determining the “Salvation of their
souls”. “If mere mortals were obliged to ignore the dictates of their own reason and blindly
accept the doctrines imposed by their prince,” he argues, how could they find the “One
way to heaven”. Locke clearly believed that thoughtlessly subscribing to the doctrines of
a theocratic state would leave the “Narrow gates that lead to heaven…open to very few”
(1968, 71). The will of God would of course want make heaven accessible to all that earn
their place, and Locke supposes that a theocratic state would be unable to facilitate this.
It seems to be conclusive, then, that the state has no right to impose religious belief and
it would also be fundamentally impotent in trying to do so, ipso facto supporting the
separation of the church and the state. This is perhaps a direct critique of the Hobbesian
state, one whose “Essential prerogative”, according to Tom Sorrell, was to dictate what
“Religious doctrines must be taught” (2005, 309) and therefore incorporate the church
as a department of the state.

Having assessed the specific premises that provide the rational foundation for Locke’s
arguments, the overarching reason as to why he presents it must be addressed. The
argument as an entity is a component of Locke’s wider political philosophy that,
amongst equality and other concepts, stresses the need for political stability.

3
1000022c
 Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

In setting out the influences for the growth of political stability in England, Plumb
realises its explicit presence in Locke’s work; “Behind much of his philosophy there lies an
attachment to a rigid and stable magistrate” (1974, 55). His reason, it would therefore
seem, of presenting the argument was to convince the reader of the relationship
between secularism and political stability, a critical component his political thought. “In
order that public goods may be no excuse for religious tyranny, nor religious liberty for
licentiousness” Locke writes, “The functions of the state and church must be distinguished”
(1968, 73). Religious integration can be politically de-stabilising through the promotion
of values that undermine the states supremacy, he believed, and the church should
therefore be a detached institution. For without the presence of political stability, we
face the constant threat of returning to the state of nature and the associated
‘inconveniences’. Locke’s reconciliation of this problem would allow stable and
harmonious pursuit of internal and external interests through the respective bodies, the
church and the magistrate.

Despite presenting a comprehensive argument for separating the church and the state,
the historical context in which it was conceived is “Crucial in assessing all of Locke’s
work” (2006, 190) and must therefore be evaluated before drawing any conclusions. His
political philosophy was obviously influenced by the external surroundings of his life,
and perhaps the strongest of these was the years leading to the ascent of William II to
the throne, a politically tumultuous time due to the conflicting religions that eventually
provoked the revolution. As a Catholic monarch, James II persecuted those that
disagreed with state-voiced religious dogma right through the mid 1600’s, distinctly
overlapping with Locke’s life. His reign sparked political opposition and tension, and it
was this instability that Locke would have directly witnessed and possibly been inspired
to reconcile in “A letter concerning toleration”. His constant stress on the importance of
political stability itself, however, perhaps has its roots in the general consensus for
needing stability after the failed Puritan Revolution and its conflicts. This was also
something that Locke would have experienced first hand and Tetlow concurs that this
was another catalyst in his “Arguments for more magisterial imposition that stability
could develop from” (2006, 190).

4
1000022c
 Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

A conclusion of this argument is perhaps best encapsulated by Locke himself,

declaring that the considerations he presents “Seem to be sufficient for us to conclude
that the whole power of civil government is concerned only with men’s civil goods”. It is at
this stage where he puts forward a critical distinction between theology and politics,
claiming, “Civil government is confined to the care of things in this world, and has nothing
to do with the world to come” (1968, 71). This distinction is the core of his argument that
is further validated by its significant position in Locke’s political jigsaw that stresses
such importance on stability, rather than the pursuit of personal salvation. However,
one must not misinterpret his argument and be led to the assumption he was against
religion altogether, for he strongly advocated a pluralist society and was extremely
tolerant of religious practice. Locke’s society, as a result of our inherent nature as
“Religious animals”, would perhaps share many features with “Modern
America…(despite) having a constitutional disestablishment of the church, ecclesiology is
highly political” (2006, 188). The similarities between them are not merely coincidental,
however, given Locke’s employment by the Earl of Shaftesbury and associations with
members of the Royalist elite who immigrated to Virginia, allowing him to influence
American political philosophy.

5
1000022c
 Politics 2A: Early Modern English Political Thought

Bibliography

Locke, J (1968) “A Letter Concerning Toleration” Oxford Clarendon Press

Locke, J (1979) “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” Oxford University Press,
USA

Marshall, J (1994) “John Locke: resistance, religion and responsibility” Cambridge

University Press

Marshall, J (1961) “John Locke, toleration, and early Enlightenment culture : religious
intolerance and arguments for religious toleration in early modern and "early
Enlightenment" Europe” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Montuorni, M (1983) “John Locke on toleration an the unity of God” J.C.Gieben,

Amsterdam

Owen, J “Locke’s Case for Religious Toleration: Its Neglected Foundation in the Essay
Concerning Human Understanding”, Emory University

Plumb, J.H (1974) “The Growth of Political Stability in England, 1675-1725” Humanities
Pr

Sorrell, T (2005) ”Hobbes and Locke on Religious Toleration”

http://cco.cambridge.org/uid=17532/pdf_handler?id=ccol0521836670_CCOL0521836670
A017&pdf_hh=1. Cambridge Online Collections, Consulted 19/11/11

Tetlow, J.E (2006) “The theological context of John Locke's political thought” Catholic
University of America

6
1000022c