 |
| Walls of intolerance separating Protestant and Catholic working class communities in Belfast. (photo via changesinlongitude.com) |
Religious or ethnic toleration does not mean to agree with any minority. Toleration is the courage or the will to stop any majority in its attempts to crush the minority.
The “Letter Concerning Toleration”(1689) by John Locke was written after centuries of wars, persecutions and intolerance between various Christian denominations in Europe. The letter was published
after the protracted and bloody wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes and the English Act of Toleration, Westphalia. These were all attempts to regulate and bring an acceptable modus vivendi and peace to a divided European society. The major struggles were of course between Catholicism and Reformation churches, but there was also a continuing intolerance toward “non normative”, “heretical” or “dissenting” groups. John Locke belonged to a non Trinitarian sect, was constantly under suspicion, and naturally he was very much in favor of norms and guidelines for toleration under the protective arm of the state.
Dissenting and“heretical” groups have been part and parcel of Christianity from the very early days of Christianity and Christology. John Locke could not have written such a seminal work if he was not himself persecuted and living under extreme pressure, as a non –Trinitarian Socinian in exile in the Low Countries as a victim of intolerance. In those days Holland was, perhaps the only part of Europe “where a man could
profess and even express unorthodox opinions without imprisonment or torture”.[1]
after the protracted and bloody wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes and the English Act of Toleration, Westphalia. These were all attempts to regulate and bring an acceptable modus vivendi and peace to a divided European society. The major struggles were of course between Catholicism and Reformation churches, but there was also a continuing intolerance toward “non normative”, “heretical” or “dissenting” groups. John Locke belonged to a non Trinitarian sect, was constantly under suspicion, and naturally he was very much in favor of norms and guidelines for toleration under the protective arm of the state.
Dissenting and“heretical” groups have been part and parcel of Christianity from the very early days of Christianity and Christology. John Locke could not have written such a seminal work if he was not himself persecuted and living under extreme pressure, as a non –Trinitarian Socinian in exile in the Low Countries as a victim of intolerance. In those days Holland was, perhaps the only part of Europe “where a man could
profess and even express unorthodox opinions without imprisonment or torture”.[1]
 |
| Who shall we burn next? Who's the target today? |
continuously experienced schisms, dissentions and theological disagreements from the group that eventually succeed in mustering the most followers. The majority religion is often a reflection of the governing secular power and its elites or vice versa, facilitating and even inciting intolerance and violence
toward the minorities. The Age of Enlightenment was no exception with widespread tensions and war caused by and leading to religious intolerance.
toward the minorities. The Age of Enlightenment was no exception with widespread tensions and war caused by and leading to religious intolerance.
 |
| Religious intolerance and violence terrorize more humans than we suspect. A toddler watches in horror the riots in Short Strand Catholic enclave in East Belfast. (Photo via CFP) |
followed by the majority. Dissenting or splinter groups were not a new phenomenon in seventeenth century Europe, nor were they an exclusively European challenge. From its earliest days, Christianity had an ambiguous start.[3] Christians were themselves considered undesirable by Jews, “a rival twin of
unrepentant renegades and tainted heretics”[4]. Shaping of Christianity, as we know it today, was a long, arduous and often a very bloody process. The establishment of what became as the normative or orthodoxy
went through endless phases: theological and actual wars of assertion and exclusion between all the tendencies and interpretations of the Scriptures and later “saints”, clergy or philosophers claiming to hold the absolute truth. The very nature of the eventually accepted Scriptures ,which became normative, was
a matter of huge debates and struggles in early Christianity and a somehow
sloppy process.
 |
| John Locke was an Arian Socinian, rejecting the Holy Trinity doctrine of Christian orthodoxy. His theory on Toleration is of capital importance. |
universally accepted as “normative” and which ones would be destined for the dustbin. Many Scriptures or otherwise interesting and valid theological opinions were rejected and discarded. Some texts were modified while others were retained as the “true and acceptable” words of God. The selection process used was arbitrary and greatly influenced by secular powers. The sects or philosophers and their followers that were left out of the emerging orthodoxy did not necessarily die. While the officially approved majority had the very
difficult task of keeping “heretics” away, many of these marginalized Christian beliefs survived. On the other hand, the emerging orthodoxy, mostly in Constantinople and to some lesser degree in Rome, had to consolidate and enforce their beliefs through edicts, state intervention, councils and sheer persecution. Inter Christian intolerance was therefore well established by the fourth century.
The Nicene Creed was signed in modern day Iznik near Constantinople in 325 CE. It defined the Holy Trinity and rejected anti-Trinitarianism. The creed is still read today in most churches as affirmation of the form of Christian theology accepted by mainstream "established churches". The picture below is the Creed's version in Armenian, called Havadamk (Հաւատամք, Նիկիական Հանգանակ).
Manichaeism, Arianism, Donatism, Gnosticism Appollinarism, Montanism, Origen, Tertullian, Marcion and various other theological schools were therefore rejected and varying degrees. Their leaders and followers were persecuted during the early period of Christian orthodox consolidation period, especially up to the fifth century. These marginalized groups were excluded by the majority within what became considered and applied as the “accepted” Christology that gave itself rise to Heresiology or the study of the heresies.[5]
difficult task of keeping “heretics” away, many of these marginalized Christian beliefs survived. On the other hand, the emerging orthodoxy, mostly in Constantinople and to some lesser degree in Rome, had to consolidate and enforce their beliefs through edicts, state intervention, councils and sheer persecution. Inter Christian intolerance was therefore well established by the fourth century.
Manichaeism, Arianism, Donatism, Gnosticism Appollinarism, Montanism, Origen, Tertullian, Marcion and various other theological schools were therefore rejected and varying degrees. Their leaders and followers were persecuted during the early period of Christian orthodox consolidation period, especially up to the fifth century. These marginalized groups were excluded by the majority within what became considered and applied as the “accepted” Christology that gave itself rise to Heresiology or the study of the heresies.[5]
The resulting intolerance started to became institutionalized and deeply rooted in popular and ecclesiastical behavior. The early ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325 CE), Constantinople (381CE), Council of Ephesus (Nestorian Controversy, 431 CE), Monophysitism and Chalcedon (451) were Empire-sponsored initiatives or machinations designed both by Church and by State, in perfect communion in case of Constantinople. These councils passed legislation and issues creeds and edicts to curb any perceived dissent to the young Christian theology. These attempts to standardize and crystallize the emerging normative theology were
necessarily accompanied by fierce denunciation of any dissent with harsh penalties to the guilty groups or leaders.
The theological flood of ideas was overwhelming from all corners of the burgeoning Christian world around the Mare Nostrum, the Mediterranean Sea. Overlapping and diverging views about fundamental issues such as damnation, salvation and Christian were major challenges. Therefore the emerging Christian ultimate reality, social expressions, personal expressions and the ultimate transformation[6] of the swelling number of devotees had to be defined and refined. The definition of the Holy Trinity was probably the major contentious issue that divided the Christian early world. The nature of the Son, the Holy Ghost and their relation to God was never a unifying concept. The final definitions eventually adopted by the ecumenical councils, especially the Nicene Creed, set the standard of what it meant be a ‘real’ Christian and who gets accepted or left out as heretic. Those who do not accept the Nicean Creed and its concept of the Trinity were heretics and practically not even Christians.
necessarily accompanied by fierce denunciation of any dissent with harsh penalties to the guilty groups or leaders.
 |
| John Toland:Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) appeared and created even more waves in the restless religious landscape in England. |
 |
| Huguenots Protestants fleeing France from La Rochelle port- by Luykens, 1696: Up to 200,000 Huguenots are thought to have fled France in the years after 1685, ending up in places as far afield as North America, South Africa, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and England. (via Gravaud Family) |
 |
| Anti Hate and Intolerance police task force in Glasgow, Scotland: Can brute force be the answer to stop hate? Can uniformed policemen help stop hate crimes and change attitudes? (Photo via theglaswegian.co.uk) |
quite equal to the Father. Jesus/logos was created and therefore could not be God himself and was human”.[7] The bitter rejection process of Arianism through the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople helped define the major orthodoxy of Christianity that is accepted today by the mainstream Orthodox, Catholic and Reformation churches and their followers.
It is important to note that Arianism never died and was particularly strong in northern Europe with the arrival of the Germanic tribes of Goths and Vandals who adopted Arianism before converting to orthodox Catholicism. Nevertheless, the non Trinitarian doctrines were never completely wiped out until its marginal
revival during the sixteenth and seventeenth century both in England and Northern Europe. Arius was eventually excommunicated after a very divisive battle but his ideas somehow thrived and continue to this day under various names such as the various Unitarian Churches.
 |
| The Armenian Genocide of 1915 "officially" started around 1895 with the indiscriminate killings and the deportation of Christian Armenian from theirancestral homeland. The Ottoman Empire was in total disarray and defeated during WWI, leading to centrally planned mass executions of the minorities within its sustainable borders (modern Turkey). The unprecedented massacres of around 1.5m Armenians has gone both unpublished and unrecognized by Turkey, the legal inheritor of Ottoman realm. This is a classic case of religious and ethnic intolerance pushedto its most extreme limits. |
ecumenical Christianity.
 |
| All denominations make symbolic but not very fruitful efforts, at least they often do not publicly voice their differences and pray together for inter-faith tolerance. (Photo via http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ecumenical-guests.jpg) |
the continent in the name of the True Church. However, all Christian denominations shared the same faith in the Nicean, Chalcedonian creeds, council decisions and the ecumenical precepts that made Trintarianism the only normative system, be it Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Calvinist or Puritan. Believing in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as three consubstantial elements is the common denominator of all “Christian” churches. Socinians were not welcome in that extended family.
 |
| Some are persecuted for their version of the "Bible" or their interpretation of the Scriptures. But which Church can claim to hold the "truest of the truths"? Is there an absolute Truth? Who can punish the other claiming to hold the only absolute truth? |
(twelfth century), the Waldensian tragedies and the massacres at Merindol, John Hus, and John Wycliffe were all notable victims of intolerance.
age where the war of religious ideas was reaching new heights and taking new dimensions, such as atheism and deism. The Socinian Locke was himself exiled to the Low Countries for his safety. John Locke wrote his famous A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689.He was writing to his friend Limbroch, a Dutch Arminian.
John Locke was born in 1632, educated in Oxford where he received a master’s degree in science and
later was admitted to the prestigious Royal Society. He also got a degree in medicine, though he seldom practiced in that field. Locke became the family physician of Earl of Shaftesbury, a man with liberal political
ideas.[9] When Lord Shaftesbury fled to Holland in 1682, Locke followed him there in 1683 and remained there until “after the successor, King James II, had been removed by the successful revolution of 1688”. Locke returned to England the following year in 1689. That was also the year A Letter Concerning Toleration was first published. Locke was known to be a Socinian, named after an Italian theologian Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) who rejected orthodox Roman Catholic religious doctrines and espoused Unitarian (non Trinitarian) theology seeing Jesus as fully human.[10] Socinian thoughts were later espoused by an Englishman John Biddle (1615-1662), whose teachings were instrumental in establishing the non Trinitarian doctrine in England in the seventeenth century and of which Locke was a follower.
later was admitted to the prestigious Royal Society. He also got a degree in medicine, though he seldom practiced in that field. Locke became the family physician of Earl of Shaftesbury, a man with liberal political
ideas.[9] When Lord Shaftesbury fled to Holland in 1682, Locke followed him there in 1683 and remained there until “after the successor, King James II, had been removed by the successful revolution of 1688”. Locke returned to England the following year in 1689. That was also the year A Letter Concerning Toleration was first published. Locke was known to be a Socinian, named after an Italian theologian Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) who rejected orthodox Roman Catholic religious doctrines and espoused Unitarian (non Trinitarian) theology seeing Jesus as fully human.[10] Socinian thoughts were later espoused by an Englishman John Biddle (1615-1662), whose teachings were instrumental in establishing the non Trinitarian doctrine in England in the seventeenth century and of which Locke was a follower.
The major arguments presented by Locke in his Letter were indeed far- reaching. He was not the first person to propose religious toleration, but he was certainly one of the most influential. The Letter was written in a period of intense debate on toleration as well as persecution of dissent under William of
Orange. It was clearly written about and in support of the dissenters’ resistance to government imposition of Anglican uniformity and struggle for religious toleration, including civil equality, in Restoration England.[11]
Orange. It was clearly written about and in support of the dissenters’ resistance to government imposition of Anglican uniformity and struggle for religious toleration, including civil equality, in Restoration England.[11]
 |
| The concept of Holy Trinity is both amazing and controversial. The schema above explains the Who's Who of that complex structure as understood by the Christian orthodoxy that includes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant faiths. Trinity has been the source of many controversies and several sects that were rejected as''heresies'' by the "established" churches. |
religious worship”[12] during the Glorious Revolution: Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians and non
conformist Quakers, making up to “ten percent of the national population”. On the other hand, the struggle between the Socinians and the orthodox opponents reached its climax in the 1690’s,[13]
the same period that John Toland’s Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) appeared and created even more waves in the restless religious landscape in England.
In Letter Concerning Toleration Locke defines the Church as being a “voluntary Society of Men, joining themselves together of their own accord to worship God”.[14] He stresses the freedom of all individuals to join any church they choose, “as nobody is born a member of any church”. Faith and belonging to a church are not therefore hereditary, nor are they certitude in terms of beliefs they behold and teach. Locke challenges the divine right of bishops or their right to succession, as there are different ways, all acceptable, to worship or organize congregations. He chastises the inventions and falsehoods and interpretations of Priests, “as if they were of Divine Authority”[15] He clearly states that violence should not be used or incited by Church as the clergy have no right to prosecute anyone. The reason given by Locke is an ethical one: joining a Church is a voluntary action and therefore “men do not renounce any of their natural rights” when they become a member of a congregation. The worst a church can do to an unorthodox member is to expel him from membership.[16] The concept of Church infallibility is an important building block in his logic limiting the powers of the church hierarchy and giving to the power and privilege of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures to the reader. In a separate document entitled “Infallibility”,
Locke denies the necessity hence the powers grant to any interpreter (clergy).
He writes:
conformist Quakers, making up to “ten percent of the national population”. On the other hand, the struggle between the Socinians and the orthodox opponents reached its climax in the 1690’s,[13]
the same period that John Toland’s Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) appeared and created even more waves in the restless religious landscape in England.
 |
| The Molotov Cocktail ignited by poverty, rage, fear, hatred, desperation, unemployment and plain ignorance. (Photo via abc.net.au) |
Locke denies the necessity hence the powers grant to any interpreter (clergy).
He writes:
Not after so many messengers is necessary to add an interpreter. Therefore it is agreed that it is not necessary to grant there be an Infallible Interpreter of Holy Scriptures in the
Church...Besides, disagreements among Christians concerning divine things sufficiently show that there has been no infallible interpreter.[17]
Church...Besides, disagreements among Christians concerning divine things sufficiently show that there has been no infallible interpreter.[17]
The underlying message is that the clergy is not infallible and therefore the Church has no right whatsoever to persecute anyone who espouses dissenting views. A similar logic is applied to the limitation of powers of civil
authorities in religious matters: religion is the preserve of church. Therefore the civil power of the magistrates must stay clear from interfering in places or worship, as long as the Commonwealth is not negatively affected by their behavior. The care of souls does not belong to the Magistrate, because “every man’s Soul
belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself”[18] The argument is to deny the civil authorities the right to prosecute any citizen in matters concerning his soul. Locke concludes by advocating total freedom of any Church from any kind of interference from the Magistrates, and presumably vice versa:
belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself”[18] The argument is to deny the civil authorities the right to prosecute any citizen in matters concerning his soul. Locke concludes by advocating total freedom of any Church from any kind of interference from the Magistrates, and presumably vice versa:
The Magistrates have no Power to impose by his Laws, the use of any Rites and Ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already received, approved and practiced by any Church: because if he did so, he would destroy the church itself, the end of whose institution is only worship God with freedom, after its own matter.[19]
 |
| Toleration Gives Way to violence and hatred: Another Republican funeral in Derry, Northern Ireland (Photo via Paul Mcerlane, The Guardian) |
produces interesting exceptions. Locke’s far- reaching toleration related arguments have their own restrictive limits and are not extended to everyone. He excludes all Catholics from his large blanket of toleration, because he sees them as untrustworthy because of their allegiance to the secular Papal power. England had a deep running opposition to the Church of Rome since Mary Tudor, “with the fear that the country would fall under the influence of foreign powers if Catholics ascend to power. These fears were somehow justified at the time of the Spanish Armada, but in later years the treat had little substance”[22] In any case the supposed allegiance of all Catholics to papal temporal and secular powers disqualified them from any toleration as suspect and untrustworthy. This was based on the premise that the Pope is the head of a foreign power and therefore potentially “Papists” could be traitors. Catholics lived in England but were believed to consider Rome as their true state. Moreover, Locke disqualifies the atheists along with the Catholics and
does not see them worthy of any tolerance.
does not see them worthy of any tolerance.
The views of Locke concerning heresy are particularly interesting and strong. The scope and the“limits of human knowledge being so narrow and the probability of error on speculative matters so great, that we can never know for certain that our religious opinions are correct and all others false and heretical”.[24]
Locke explains that heresy is basically a separation made between men of the same religion. He says that when the stronger part or the majority separates itself from the minority with the help of the magistrates, the state can conveniently make anyone guilty of heresy. He defends the viewpoint that themajority does not determine the ultimate or absolute truth, especially when they espouse interpretations and teachings that are not expressly thought by the Scriptures.[25]
Locke explains that heresy is basically a separation made between men of the same religion. He says that when the stronger part or the majority separates itself from the minority with the help of the magistrates, the state can conveniently make anyone guilty of heresy. He defends the viewpoint that themajority does not determine the ultimate or absolute truth, especially when they espouse interpretations and teachings that are not expressly thought by the Scriptures.[25]
 |
| Catholics, depicted as crocodiles, not welcome in "Protestant America". Locke did not extend Toleration to Catholics either, arguing that they pledge allegiance to a foreign power, the Vatican. |
Locke takes a very permissive and liberal view of all non orthodox sects, as the majority or established religions cannot prove that these dissenters are wrong in what they believe. Lutherans, Anabaptist, Calvinists and other sects are all entitled to their opinions, yet Locke does not specifically mention non Trinitarians like
himself. Theses minority groups must be totally free to preach their teachings and interpretations directly from Holy Scripture[27], without undue intervention or intolerant action. He obviously dislikes the word “heresy”. Locke also thinks that the word religious “schism” should be avoided, as the ones separating from the larger group may not necessarily be wrong in their interpretation of the Scriptures, the unique source of Christian truth that can be interpreted freely by the faithful. Locke thinks that the real motives behind state-sanctioned intolerance are rooted in ignorance of theology and natural science. A ruler may be able to produce a semblance of outward conformity by prosecuting his subjects out of arrogance, cruelty and love of power. Moreover, persecuting “heretics” for the sake of their own spiritual welfare is sheer hypocrisy.[28]
Therefore Locke sought protection for minorities when persecution and intolerance was rampant. States,
he says, are to regulate this temporal world. They cannot and should not saveus or regulate our lives through other means such as salvation, dogma and faith. States should secure and enforce laws and regulations that secure liberties of the citizens as well as their earthly properties. It is interesting to deduce that states cannot impose or guide us as to which theological club to adhere to (sect, fringe religious group or the established
majority church). This is the prerogative of each person as he or she believes or sees fit, according to his or her inner beliefs. Free exercise of religion is therefore a must to all the Protestant sects. It is important to note that in the Letter, Locke did not refer directly to his Socinian faith. He obviously wrote it as a dissenter, and went as far as discarding the very notion of heresy as a notion, but Socinian or Arianism was not dealt in a direct way. Perhaps this was because of the enormous risks involved if he chose to do so.
majority church). This is the prerogative of each person as he or she believes or sees fit, according to his or her inner beliefs. Free exercise of religion is therefore a must to all the Protestant sects. It is important to note that in the Letter, Locke did not refer directly to his Socinian faith. He obviously wrote it as a dissenter, and went as far as discarding the very notion of heresy as a notion, but Socinian or Arianism was not dealt in a direct way. Perhaps this was because of the enormous risks involved if he chose to do so.
In a late essay entitled “The Reasonableness of Christianity”(1695) Locke says that he is actually
accused of being a Socinian by association or to the least an atheist that shares their views by not openly condemning their “faith”.
Locke seems to deny belonging to the faith by adding a one paragraph later: “I shall leave the Socinians themselves to answer the charges against them, and shall examine the proof of my being Socinian [29]accused of being a Socinian by association or to the least an atheist that shares their views by not openly condemning their “faith”.
In The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke was “silent about Christological and Trinitarian
matters” and repeated the aforementioned position that he had never confirmedbeing a Socinian.[30] He was either very tired or simply afraid to pursue that debate in the public sphere.
 |
| Peace of Westphalia (1648) was a short term solution to bloody and most often absurd religious conflicts in Central Europe. |
Protestant Christians to other members of Abrahamic religions and beyond. Locke states that neither pagan, nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion”[31]. He basically pleads for toleration of all sects (with the exceptions we discussed above) and the separation of the state and the Church as they willall “suffer one another to go to heaven everyone his own way”. Individual freedoms and the rise of different dissenting sects and faith systems were a challenge to the established normative social orders, highlighted by the innovative ideas and rational thinking fostered by the Age of enlightenment.
The issue of religious toleration or the lack of it dates back to the early centuries of Christology when the
normative orthodoxy arose, often violently eliminating the dissenting theologies. Just before the Age of the
Enlightenment, the Christian Europe went again through shock waves as the Reformation movement further split Christianity into new normative churches, creating even more marginalized minority groups. Toleration is often described as a necessary evil that must be kept under control. The idea is not necessarily for the majority to agree with a minority, such as dissenters in England or Huguenots in France but rather to force a workable modus vivendi. Toleration does not mean agreeing with the minority, nor does it imply to espouse or condone. It simply meant that the majority does not prosecute, persecute or openly harass those
who think or prey differently. The idea that toleration is a virtue is another fallacy. There is virtue in toleration: the virtue of restricting the majority and avoiding unnecessary tension and even bloodshed within a society. Therefore it can be strongly argued that toleration not only avoids tensions, but in fact it beneficial to the society it espouses. In the early days of Christianity, “from Paul to Origen the conviction widely prevails that heresies and dissent were necessary and useful for the construction of orthodoxy”. [32] This early convenient tolerance was unfortunately diluted with passing centuries and the exclusion and intolerance in order to ‘secure the contours’ of the established churches. Religious peace or nonaggression is essential for any
political stability, a prerequisite for having the appropriate environment for commerce, travel, expansion and economic prosperity.
The issue of religious toleration or the lack of it dates back to the early centuries of Christology when the
normative orthodoxy arose, often violently eliminating the dissenting theologies. Just before the Age of the
Enlightenment, the Christian Europe went again through shock waves as the Reformation movement further split Christianity into new normative churches, creating even more marginalized minority groups. Toleration is often described as a necessary evil that must be kept under control. The idea is not necessarily for the majority to agree with a minority, such as dissenters in England or Huguenots in France but rather to force a workable modus vivendi. Toleration does not mean agreeing with the minority, nor does it imply to espouse or condone. It simply meant that the majority does not prosecute, persecute or openly harass those
who think or prey differently. The idea that toleration is a virtue is another fallacy. There is virtue in toleration: the virtue of restricting the majority and avoiding unnecessary tension and even bloodshed within a society. Therefore it can be strongly argued that toleration not only avoids tensions, but in fact it beneficial to the society it espouses. In the early days of Christianity, “from Paul to Origen the conviction widely prevails that heresies and dissent were necessary and useful for the construction of orthodoxy”. [32] This early convenient tolerance was unfortunately diluted with passing centuries and the exclusion and intolerance in order to ‘secure the contours’ of the established churches. Religious peace or nonaggression is essential for any
political stability, a prerequisite for having the appropriate environment for commerce, travel, expansion and economic prosperity.
© Krikor Tersakian, November, 2011, Montreal, Canada.
[1]John Locke. Dover publication, New York, 1667. p.211,
[2] "Nonconformist." Encyclopædia
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia
Britannica, 2011. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/417591/Nonconformists>.
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia
Britannica, 2011. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/417591/Nonconformists>.
[4]
Vallée, 20.
Vallée, 20.
[5]
Vallée, 20
Vallée, 20
[6]
Frederick Streng. Nature and Study of Religion, Belmont, Ca, 1985 Chapter 1, page 4
Frederick Streng. Nature and Study of Religion, Belmont, Ca, 1985 Chapter 1, page 4
[7] Vallée, 87
[8]
Harvey Cox. What is “Christian” – Christianity in the World Today, Concordia University, page 361.
Harvey Cox. What is “Christian” – Christianity in the World Today, Concordia University, page 361.
[10]
Faustus Socinus." Encyclopædia
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica
Inc., 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551856/Faustus-Socinus>
Faustus Socinus." Encyclopædia
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica
Inc., 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551856/Faustus-Socinus>
[11]
James H.Thully. Introduction to a “Letter concerning Toleration”, Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1983, p.2
[13]
Vere Chappelle, The Cambridge Companion to Locke, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994. page 22.
Vere Chappelle, The Cambridge Companion to Locke, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994. page 22.
[14] Locke John: A
Letter Concerning Toleration, Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana,U.S.A. 1983.p. 28.
Letter Concerning Toleration, Hackett Publishing Company, Indiana,U.S.A. 1983.p. 28.
[15]
O’Connor, 212.
[17]
John Locke, Writings on Religion, Edited by Victor Nuovo,Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 2004. p. 70
John Locke, Writings on Religion, Edited by Victor Nuovo,Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 2004. p. 70
Locke, 41
Locke, 56
[26]
Nicholas Jolley. Locke: His Philosophical Thought.
Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K. 1999., page 193
Nicholas Jolley. Locke: His Philosophical Thought.
Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K. 1999., page 193
O’Connor, 212-213
[29]
John Locke. Writings on Religion, Edited by VictorNuovo,Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 2004.p. 211-212
John Locke. Writings on Religion, Edited by VictorNuovo,Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 2004.p. 211-212
[30]
Chappell, 184.
Chappell, 184.
