2
moral and political teaching, but to combat certain theological errors that, if allowed to
prevail, would make free government impossible. We would do well to take that part of
his philosophical project as others that have historically received much more attention.
The American Founders, as is well known, borrowed liberally from Locke’s
political philosophy to justify their revolution and ground their new regime. The place of
religion in that regime has been a long-standing subject of dispute. The fact is, many of
the Founders were as influenced in their religious as in their political thinking by John
Locke—Jefferson and Franklin come immediately to mind. An exploration of Locke’s
religious thought should shed light on the proper role of religion in the liberal regime.
Whether America is the “best regime” depends in no small part on whether religion
occupies an appropriate place in its life. From Locke’s point of view, it would also
depend on the character of its religion. That question will be the focus of a large part of
this essay.
It is my contention, against some recent interpretations, that Locke takes his
theology seriously, that is, he is sincere when he says there can be no natural law without
a legislating and enforcing deity, and that natural law is truly the basis of his political and
moral philosophy. This confirms the importance of religion to the liberal regime, and the
importance of getting the theology right. If liberalism is right, Robert Filmer must be
wrong, as must the radical Islamists of today; but how do we know this? And how do we
know what god truly does expect from us? Locke’s answer, it seems to me, is embodied
in a rational or natural rather than a scriptural theology. To be sure, he appeals to Biblical
authority when it supports his natural theology—and even sometimes when it does not—
for, at a practical level, he is more interested in bringing Christianity as far as possible
into line with liberalism, than in spreading natural theology. To the end of his life, Locke
retained an intense interest in Biblical exegesis, but he always remained true to the dicta
of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that “Reason is natural revelation,” and
that it must be used to “regulate” our assent to alleged supernatural revelations (IV.19.4,
14; cf. IV.17.24, IV.18; First Treatise §86). In a word, “natural religion” is to be
Convention