A relação entre poder civil e eclesiástico na Carta sobre a tolerância de John Locke: aporia do limite

Abstract

The transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age was marked by significant changes in how the Western world understood the State and religion. In 17th-century England, this issue first appeared to the philosopher John Locke as a theoretical question during his time as a student at Oxford, and later as a practical political problem when he became an advisor to Lord Shaftesbury. Their involvement in political causes led them into exile in the Netherlands, where Locke met the Protestant liberal theologian Philip von Limborch, who later published Locke’s famous Letter Concerning Toleration. In this work, Locke presents his mature view on the issue, defending a complete separation and independence between the State and the Church. Although both are grounded in human rationality, they serve different purposes: the State manages civil and earthly matters, while the Church is concerned with public worship and the salvation of souls. Lockean tolerance is therefore built on recognizing the origins and limits of each authority as a condition for peaceful civil coexistence. However, tolerance must have limits; otherwise, it risks becoming either antinomianism under the guise of religion or indifference. At this point, an aporia emerges in Locke’s theory: by granting civil authorities the power to judge religious sects and imposing active tolerance as a duty on religious groups, Locke undermines the very separation he defends, subordinating religion to civil power. Through a systematic exegesis of the First Letter and a historical-contextual analysis, this study argues that Locke’s claim to rational neutrality ultimately results in ontological exclusion, encroaching upon the sacred domain it seeks to protect. The monograph is structured in three parts: historical and biographical context, systematic exposition of Locke’s arguments, and a philosophical critique of their internal inconsistencies, contributing to the Brazilian debate on a pluralistic secular State.