You might think that the sociopolitical issues of the modern era are a progressive step forward, one the likes of which has never been attempted before--but you'd be wrong. In the year 1689, John Locke sent a letter to an anonymous recipient who was later identified as a dear friend of his; this document outlined numerous mistakes the English church was making, specifically in regards to its parochial view of others not sharing its religion. But enough history for now, the true purpose of this work--and ultimately Locke's evident opinion--was that religious tolerance of others not of Protestant convictions was critical to peace and understanding between people, and moreover, was what Christ would want for His church. Locke brilliantly articulates this in a variety of ways, from establishing an inductive argument, to frequent rhetorical questions, to overwhelming the reader with reason after reason enclosed in example after example for the defense of tolerance and its benefits over the way of thinking of the time.
It is clear from the very commencement of Locke's essay that he is forming an argument based upon logic and the precepts of Christ, nothing else. By first summarizing the then current state of Christianity and listing its cherished morals from the Bible, Locke then takes these very ideals and turns them back against believers who are intolerant of the Catholics. Why does he do this? Locke's purpose here is to encourage a narrowminded and law-oriented Protestant Christian society to accept an outside sector of Christianity---the most logical way to accomplish this is to bare forth their own rules and demonstrate to them that the very beliefs they uphold do not prohibit, but mandate, that they tolerate those who do not agree with their exact code. This concept of Locke's argument is quite evident in the following passage:
"If, like the Captain of our salvation, they sincerely desired the good of souls, they would tread in the steps and follow the perfect example of that Prince of Peace... not armed with the sword, or other instruments of force, but prepared with the Gospel of peace and with the exemplary holiness of their conversation....The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light" (Locke,3).
Locke doesn't use anything but the laws of the Church here---and there is a distinct reason. If Locke were to introduce some new novel idea with liberal evidence outside the Church, his ideas might be rejected as progressive nonsense spit out by a bleeding heart. Using rules clearly outlined in the Church's code, on the other hand, allows Locke to appeal to ethos and establish his credibility as a reasonable and understanding speaker. After all this, Locke concludes with an inductive statement which really summarizes his purposes:
"And if anyone that professes himself to be a minister of the Word of God, a preacher of the gospel of peace, teach otherwise, he either understands not or neglects the business of his calling and shall one day give account thereof unto the Prince of Peace."
One might view this as Locke's thesis statement so to speak, his declaration that so serious is this issue that those who do not practice tolerance will eventually have to be held in judgement for their sinful actions. There could not be a more direct sentence entailing Locke's purpose. Not only is he saying that the Church should respect other sects, but that it is a sin not to.
Following this, we might take a brief look at how often Locke asks the audience questions then immediately answers them. Why might he do this? Locke repeatedly asks these questions because he is attempting interaction on behalf of the reader, making them deeply consider the issues he raises. If Locke were to merely state every fact he discovered about proper belief, and not invite the audience to participate in this venture, the audience may very well become indifferent to his purposes. We can see this clearly in the following excerpt:
"Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in matters of religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All men know and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped; why otherwise do they compel one another unto the public assemblies? ...These things being thus determined, let us inquire, in the next place: How far the duty of toleration extends, and what is required from everyone by it?..." (Locke, 42).
Here, Locke naturally leads his audience into the next phase of his writing by provoking them first with a question before he answers it with his own defenses; he does this near the start of every paragraph. We know that Locke's intentions regarding this writing are persuasive, thus a question that allows the reader to analyze their own beliefs is much more effective than commanding an audience to think a certain way. As he implores his readers to accept another group, honey is most assuredly more coaxing than vinegar.
The final method Locke employs is the sheer volume of reasons and words he uses to persuade his audience. The text itself would be enclosed by approximately 30 pages, and this is just a letter! Locke does not include filler to make up this space either---every paragraph, every sentence, every word includes a logical example or defense for tolerating those with divergent beliefs. Just this amount of text would exhaust the reader, causing them to relent and realize that Locke truly does understand even the minute intricacies of the issue, as he is able to knowledgeably write upon these topics with extreme detail. This might seem like a flimsy strategy, but it is actually quite effective when one reads paragraph after paragraph, each arranged in the same logical order. Take for example these two paragraphs, noting specifically their structure:
1. "But, to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church (if a convention of clergymen, making canons, must be called by that name) is for the most part more apt to be influenced by the Court than the Court by the Church... To conclude, it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes laws to another man's religion pretend to do it by his own judgement, or by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others. The decisions of churchmen, whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known, cannot be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all their suffrages joined together add a new strength to the civil power. Though this also must be taken notice of — that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way of worship." (Locke, 39).
2. "But, after all, the principal consideration, and which absolutely determines this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for me in following it... In a word, whatsoever may be doubtful in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me. In vain, therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will come of their own accord, if they believe not, their coming will nothing avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences." (Locke, 40).
As you can easily tell, both of these paragraphs begin with a kind of concession, then conclude with a holistic statement. Now imagine approximately eighty of these paragraphs in order---this is his letter, and we needn't say more.
Therefore, through exhaustive analysis and critique of the Church, audience interaction, and inductive reasoning, John Locke successfully persuades his readers that the Catholic Church is to be accepted and respected by their fellow brothers and sisters of Christ who are avid defenders of Protestantism. Such methods are quite brilliant, and, as we have seen, would be quite rhetorically effective. Whew, John Locke certainly doesn't have to elaborate further----I'm convinced, I give up.
Works Cited:
Locke, John. “John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration.” Constitution Society: Everything Needed to Decide
Constitutional Issues, Constiution Society, www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm.
Voxeurop.edu, Voxeurop, voxeurop.eu/files/images/article/catholics-vs-protestants.jpg.
コメント