在這篇文章中，筆者處理當代對洛克宗教寬容理論過度去脈絡化，過度世俗化的詮釋，以當代洛克研究者沃德倫的詮釋爲例，勾勒出當代對洛克寬容理論的理解圖像，筆者以爲這種世俗詮釋了導致洛克寬容理論背後的神學脈絡與議題之忽略，因此本文探討此一脈絡，指出洛克與普洛斯特之間的爭議並不在於「政治權力干涉信仰是否有效」這樣一種「手段-目的」的討論，除此之外，此種世俗詮釋所導向的懷疑主義也忽略了洛克對於基督教爲唯一眞宗教的信念與其論辯對手其實是一樣堅定不移，本文藉由釐清這些面向要指出的是，唯有在避免這些誤解之後，洛克的宗教寬容理論才能眞正與其《政府論次講》中對政治權力本質的探討，政教關係之論述等主題銜接起來。

This essay argues against the prevailing secular perspective of the reading of John Locke’s theory of religious toleration. I argue that this secular understanding of Locke neglects the deep theological concerns hidden behind his account of civil peace. In order to make this argument, I explore Jeremy Waldron’s influential interpretation of Locke, and in the second section, I emphasize the theological context of Locke’s criticism of infallibility. Finally, I argue that the skepticism of Locke’s theory of religious toleration in fact seemingly comes from the secular interpretation discussed above.