EDITORnThomas FlemingnMANAGING EDITORnKatharine DaltonnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, ]r.nASSISTANT EDITORnTheodore PappasnART DIREGTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinGONTRIBUTING EDITORSnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.].nBrown, Samuel Francis, GeorgenGarrett, Russell Kirk, E. ChristiannKopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDING EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton ReednEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnASSOCIATE PUBLISHERnMichael WardernPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuy C. ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-435-0715.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Cathy Corson at (815) 964-5811.nU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1991 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nChronicks (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061. Second-class postage paid atnRockford, IL and additional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicks, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesnk MACtZINE OF A H E I K I N (UlTUREn4/CHRONICLESnVol. 15, No. 9 September 1991nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnOn ‘Edmund Burke’nCertainly an article on Edmund Burkenby Conor Cruise O’Brien is sufficientnprovocation to justify almost any mayhemnon the part of a distinguishednscholar of Burke. But Mr. Stanlis hasnallowed himself to be lured too far in hisnreview of that article for Chroniclesn(Vital Signs, May 1991), into an argumentnagainst John Locke resultingnfrom O’Brien’s misunderstanding ofnboth Burke and Locke.nThe argument is misdirected by twoncurious difficulties for a Burke scholarn— failure to consider sufficiently thenhistorical context, and being overlyninfluenced by the modern liberal interpretationnof Locke. Twentieth-centurynliberals such as Ceorge Sabine, embarrassednat having no important nonsocialistntheorist for their cause, havensought to picture John Locke, whonwrote half of his work on religiousnthemes and was a practicing Anglicann— and whom the modern historiannSidney Ahlstrom has called a “defendernof the faith” — as a Cartesian, socialndemocratic rationalist. But it just doesnnot fit, no matter how hard disciplesnlike O’Brien have tried.nThe liberal Locke caricature was sonworn by the 50’s that Leo Straussncould only rescue it by creating thenfantasy of what he slyly called Locke’sn”partial” law of nature. For it is extremelyndifficult, not to recognize thatnLocke was a believing Christian whonaccepted revelation as well as reasonnand science. More important, by attackingnLocke in this manner, Straussncriticizes both Locke and Burke fornwhat Mr. Stanlis calls philosophicalndualism.nThose who are misled by the clearnwritings of Locke upon religious subjectsnrest their defense, as Mr. Stanlisnultimately does, on the fact that Lockenhad orthodox critics in the Anglicannchurch, and that liberal deists tended tonlike Locke. Yet the explanation for bothnwas simple: Locke was, in fact, a libertariannChristian who believed in tolera­nnntion. So were many other Christiansnwhose credentials few would question,nsuch as Lord Baltimore,nCharles Carrol of Carrolton, ornLord Acton.nIt is true that Locke had a minimalndefinition of what had to be believed tonbe a Christian. That is because hensupported both a state church andntoleration. If citizens were required tonbelong to or at least support an Englishnstate church (as Roman Catholicsnwould not), toleration would requirenthat church members be forced tonsubmit to a minimum of doctrinalnbeliefs. That minimum — that JesusnChrist was Lord and Saviour and thatnhis commands were to be followed — isnbased upon Jesus’ Last Supper statementn(“Eternal life is this: to knownYou, the only true Cod, and JesusnChrist whom you have sent”) and isnnot a bad minimum if one is lookingnfor such.nWhy did Voltaire like Locke? Yes,nhe probably did think Locke’s messagenof freedom would destroy Christianity.nBut Locke thought Christianity wasnhardier, and it has been. Mr. Stanlisnemphasizes that “unlike Locke, Burkenaccepted the Church of England justnas itwas.” But that is the point. ThenChurch of England was more tolerantnin Burke’s time than it was in Locke’s,npartially due to Locke’s influence. Itnstill held the faith, but it had stoppednbeheading dissenting Englishmen.nMr. Stanlis makes much of the factnthat Locke did not tolerate Catholicism.nBut a non-Catholic king wouldnnot be accepted as head of the churchn— and nontoleration clearly was thenonly politic position for Anglicans whondesired to keep their heads to take. BynBurke’s time toleration was relativelynsafe. Even a Catholic like myself findsnit difficult to argue that a believingnAnglican should be required to be anmartyr for Rome in order to be called anChristian.nStanlis’s argument becomes pathbreakingnwhen he claims that “Lockenapproved the Revolution of 1688 notn