James Kuhle

"By Consequence and Implication only": Accusations and Defenses of Locke’s Christology from A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul

Introduction

"by consequence and implication only": accusations and defenses of locke’s christology from a paraphrase and notes on the epistles of st. Paul. Investigate John Locke's Trinitarian-evasive Christology and accusations of Socinianism. Examining his 'A Paraphrase on St. Paul,' this article reveals Locke's irenic approach to theology.

Abstract

Throughout his life, John Locke came under heavy criticism for maintaining a Trinitarian-evasive posture in his theological writings. This led many over the past three centuries to regard the English philosopher as anti-Trinitarian, and more particularly, a Socinian. These heterodox charges primarily resulted from implications of his philosophical writings and a misunderstanding of his intentions in The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), without paying much attention to his personal exegesis project, A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (published posthumously between 1705-7). In both theological writings, Locke prioritizes irenicism and chooses not to directly address the Trinity. This article first surveys contemporary criticisms and defenses of Locke’s Christology with particular emphasis on the exchange between Dr. Winch Holdsworth and Catharine Trotter Cockburn as a microcosm of how Locke’s critics and supporters leveraged his silence for their arguments. Next, this article examines these charges of “Socinianism” as it pertains to Christology by comparing Locke’s treatments of widely recognized Trinitarian passages in Paraphrase with those of notable Trinitarians in seventeenth century England. Although it is clear from Paraphrase that he rejects a Socinian Christology, the Trinitarian-evasive Locke remains hesitant to reveal his Christological position. Instead, his comments establish the conditions for multiple Christological positions, once again underscoring his irenic priorities.

Review

The article, "By Consequence and Implication only," offers a compelling re-examination of John Locke's Christology, focusing particularly on his often-overlooked *A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul*. It adeptly tackles the centuries-old debate regarding Locke's alleged anti-Trinitarianism or Socinianism, arguing that these accusations largely stemmed from implications of his philosophical work and misinterpretations of *The Reasonableness of Christianity*. The core thesis posits that Locke's theological posture was driven by a deep commitment to irenicism and a deliberate choice to remain Trinitarian-evasive, rather than an explicit endorsement of heterodox positions, despite clearly rejecting a Socinian Christology in his *Paraphrase*. The methodology employed is particularly robust and illuminating. By first surveying the contemporary criticisms and defenses, exemplified by the exchange between Winch Holdsworth and Catharine Trotter Cockburn, the article effectively contextualizes how Locke's silence was leveraged by both sides. The subsequent detailed comparison of Locke’s treatments of key Trinitarian passages in *Paraphrase* with those of his 17th-century Trinitarian contemporaries is a significant strength. This comparative analysis moves beyond mere assertion, providing concrete textual evidence to demonstrate that while Locke indeed avoided explicit Trinitarian language, his exegesis was distinct from Socinian interpretations and instead established a framework allowing for multiple Christological positions, thereby underscoring his primary irenic intent. This article makes a valuable contribution to Locke scholarship, offering a nuanced and well-researched perspective that challenges reductive classifications of his theological thought. By meticulously analyzing *Paraphrase*, it convincingly demonstrates that Locke was not a closet Socinian but a figure carefully navigating complex theological terrains with a view to promoting peace and intellectual latitude. The concept of "Trinitarian-evasive" as distinct from "anti-Trinitarian" or "Socinian" is a critical distinction that should inform future studies of early modern theological controversies. This work is highly recommended for anyone interested in Locke’s intellectual development, the history of Christology, and the intricate relationship between philosophy and theology in the early modern period.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.