Schlagwort-Archive: amongst

Edward Bagshaw THE GREAT QUESTION CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN RELIGOUS WORSHIP

THE GREAT QUESTION CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN RELIGOUS WORSHIP

THE GREAT QUESTION CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN RELIGOUS WORSHIP,

Briefly stated and tendred to die consideration of all sober and impartial men.

The third edition, Chillingworth Praef. §. 34.

Not protestants for rejecting, but the church of Rome for imposing upon the faith of christians, doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and for disturbing the churches peace, and dividing unity in such matters, is in an high degree presumptuous and schismatical.

London, printed in the year, 1660.

The publisher of this treatise to the christian and candid reader.

Though opinions should be weighed, not by the reputation of the authors which deliver, but by the strength of the arguments which defend them yet it is too usual with unobserving readers, to slight the argument for the author’s sake, and to consider, not so much what is said who it is that says it. Which being the common fate of most discourses, such especially as do at all meddle with that excellent, but too much abused notion of christian liberty, do most expose the writers to censure: The most obvious character that is fastened upon them, being, that they are men either of loose, or else of factious principles: And so being discredited, before the are read, their books, how sober soever, do not remove, but only fettle and fix the preconceived prejudice; as in diseased stomachs, everything they take turns to nourish and to increase the humor.

That this is like to be the fortune of this small treatise, I have reason to expect, and therefore I have suffered it to run abroad in the world without, a name like one of those (unreadable Greek spelling) Pliny mentions, as if it were born of itself and begotten without a parent. That so those few readers it may meet with, may only fasten upon the faults of the discourse itself without diverting themselves unto that question, which all times, as well at Saul’s, have malice enough to make a proverb of, but who is their father? Yet christian reader, that it may appear only with its own faults, and have no aggravating suspicions upon it, from any mistake of the authors design or humor, I have adventured to give thee this account of him.

First, that he is a strict assertor of the doctrine of the church of England, as it is contained in the 39 articles, and for that which is the prime branch of discipline, viz. episcopacy, or the subordination between bishops and presbyters, he doth own it to be of apostolical institution, that is, as he understands jure divino. At least he thinks himself able to speak as much for the order of bishops in the church, as any can for the baptizing of infants, for the change of the Sabbath, or for anything else, which hath no particular divine precept, but only primitive practice and example to warrant it. And therefore in conformity to this principle of his, when the bishops were sunk lowest, not only for pomp but likewise for reputation and when no temptation either of profit or convenience, but rather the contrary, could work upon him, he then chose to be ordained a presbyter by one of them: which is a greater argument of his reality and steadfastness in judgment, then most of those, who now signalize themselves by distinctive habits, can pretend to; since such may reasonably be presumed to wear them, either because they are the fashion, or else the way to preferment.

Secondly, this I must say likewise, that none is more satisfied with the present government, or hath a more loyal and affectionate esteem for his Majesties person and prudence, than this writer: and therefore instead of declaiming against, or too rigid re-enforcing our old rites, fitted only for the infancy of the church these being as it were its swaddling clouts, and at the best do but show its minority he doth heartily wish that all parties would agree to refer the whole cause of ceremonies to  his Majesties single decision: From whose unwearied endeavors in procuring first, and afterwards in passing so full an amnesty of allow civil discord, we need not doubt but we may obtain, that these apples of ecclesiastical contention may be removed out of the way. Which are so very trifles, that they would vanish of themselves, but that some men’s  pride, others want of merit make them so solicitous to continue them lest it those little things were once taken away, they should want something whereby to make themselves remarkable.

Lastly he doth profess yet further that as to himself be needs not that liberty, which here he pleads for, since, though for the present he doth make use of that indulgence, which his Majesty hath been pleased to allow unto tender conferences, i.e. to all rational and sober christians: (the continuance of which, he dares not so much wrong his Majesties goodness, as once to question) yet should his Majesty be prevailed upon for some reason of state, to enjoin outward conformity, this writer is resolved by the help of God, either to submit with cheerfulness or else to suffer with silence.

For as there is an active disobedience, viz. resist which is a practice he abhors, so there is a passive disobedience, and that is, to repine (hadern) which he can by no means approve of. Since whatever he cannot conscientiously do, he thinks himself obliged to suffer for, with as much joy, and with as little reluctance, as if any other act of obedience was called for from him.

Having said this concerning the author, I need not speak much concerning the argument, but only this, that it was not written out of vanity or ostentation of wit; but as a question, in which he is really unsatisfied and therefore thought himself bound to impart his doubts: Which having done to many in discourse, with little success or satisfaction; he hath now communicated them to the world, hoping they may light into such men’s hands, who may he prevailed upon, if not to alter the judgment, yet at least to moderate the passion of some, who would put out our eyes, because we cannot see with their spectacles; and who have placed ceremonies about religion, a little too truly as a fence: For they serve to keep out all others from their communion. All therefore which this treatise aims at, is briefly to prove this, — that none is to hedge up the way to heaven; or by scattering thornes (Dornen) and punctilio’s (Nadelspitzen) in it, to make christianity more cumbersome, tedious, and difficult, then Christ hath left it. That is in short, that none can impose, what our Savior in his infinite wisdom did not think necessary, and therefore left free.

Farewell

 

THE GREAT QUESTION

Concerning things indifferent in religious worship

Briefly stated and tendred (vorgestellt) to the consideration of all sober and impartial men.

Question: Whether the civil magistrate may lawfully impose and determine the use of indifferent things, in reference to religious worship.

For the understanding and right stating of this question, I will suppose these two things;

1.That a christian may be a magistrate; this I know many do deny, grounding themselves upon that discourse of our Savior to his disciples, “Ye know”, said he, “that the Princes of the Gentiles do exercise dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so much amongst you:” from whence they infer, that all who will‘ be Christ’s disciples, are thereby forbid any exercise of temporal sovereignty. And I remember amongst many other of the primitive writers, who were of the same opinion, Tertullian in his apology doth expressly say “nos ad omnem, ambitionis auram frigemus”, &c. We Christians says he, have not the least taint of ambition, being so far from affecting honors, that we look not after so much as the aedileship (Ädile), which was the lowest magistracy in Rome; and afterwards of Tiberius, “Tiberius”, says he, “would have become a christian, if either the world did not need or it were lawful for christians to be emperors.”

Many other expressions there are both in Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen, to the same purpose. But because the practice of the christian world, down from Constantine’s time, even in the most reformed churches hath carried it in the affirmative for christian magistracy; and the contrary doctrine, besides the gap it opens to all civil confusion, is built only upon some remote consequences from Scripture, rather than any direct proof; I will therefore admit that a Christian may lawfully exercise the highest place of magistracy, only as the Apostle sais in another case, in the Lord, i.e. no: extending his commission farther than the word of God doth warrant him.

  1. I will suppose that there are some things in their own nature indifferent, I mean, those outward circumstances of our actions: which the law of God hath left free and arbitrary, giving us only general precepts for the use of them either way: Such are, do all things to the glory of God, and do what makes most for edification, and the like, which rules whoever observes, may in things indifferent, either do or forbear them, as he in his christian prudence shall think convenient.

Of these indifferent things some are purely so, as the time and place of meeting for religious worship; which seem to me, to be so very indifferent, that they cannot without great violence, be wrested to any superstitious observance; and therefore concerning these I do not dispute.

Other things there are, commonly supposed indifferent in their own nature, but by abuse have become occasions of superstition: such as are, bowing in the name of Jesus, the cross in Baptism, pictures in churches, surplices in preaching, kneeling at the sacrament, set forms of prayer, and the like; all which seem to some indifferent in their own nature, and by any who is persuaded in his confidence of the lawfulness of them, without doubt may lawfully enough be practiced; yet I hold it utterly unlawful for any christian magistrate to impose the use of them. And that for these reasons:

First, because it is directly contrary to the nature of christian religion in general, which in every part of it is to be free and unforced; for since the christian magistrate cannot, as I think now all protestant writers do agree, force his religion upon any, but is to leave even those poor creatures the Jews and Mahometans to their unbelief (though they certainly perish in it) rather than by fines and imprisonments to torture them out of it; then much less may he abridge his fellow Christian in things of lesser moment, and which concern not the substance of his religion, from using that liberty in serving God, which his conscience prompts him to, and the nature of his religion doth warrant him in. For God as he loves cheerful giver, so likewise a cheerful worshipper, accepting of no more than we willingly perform.

Secondly and more particularly. This imposing of things indifferent, is directly contrary co Gospel precept. Our Savior doth in many places inveigh against the rigid and imposing pharisees, for laying yokes upon others, and therefore invites all to come unto him for freedom. “Take my yoke upon you,” said he, “for it is easy, and my burden is light. And if the son set you free, then are you free indeed. Whereby freedom I do not only understand freedom from sin, but from all human impositions; since the Apostle Paul doth seem to allude unto this place, in that command of his to the Galatians, “stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made you free and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage”; where, that I may prevent an objection, I will grant, that by yoke of bondage, he understands circumcision and other Jewish ceremonies; but from thence I will draw an unanswerable argument against the urging of any other now upon a christian account; for since the mosaical ceremonies which had so much to plead for themselves, upon the account of their divine original; and which even after they were fulfilled by our Savior, still remained indifferent in their use, and were so esteemed and practiced by Paul; yet when once they were imposed, and a necessity pleaded for their continuance, the Apostle writes sharply against them, exhorting the Galatians to stand fast in their liberty, as part of our Saviors purchase. If this, I say, was the cafe with those old rites, then much less can any now impose an invented form of worship, for which there cannot be pretended the least warrant that ever God did authorize it. And it seems altogether needless, that the Jewish ceremonies, should, as to their necessity at least, expire and be abrogated, if others might succeed in their room, and be as strictly commanded, as ever the former were.

For this only returns us to our bondage again, which is so much the more intolerable, in that our religion is styled the perfect law of liberty: Which liberty I understand not wherein it consists, if in things necessary, we are already determined by God, and in things indifferent we may still be tied up to humane ordinances, and outside rites, at the pleasure of our christian magistrates.

To these Scriptures which directly deny all imposition, maybe added all those texts, which consequentially do it, such as are “Do to others, as you would have others do to you”: And who is there that would have his conscience imposed upon? “And you that are strong   bear with the infirmity of the weak; whereas this practice will be so far from easing the burden of the weak; that if men are at all scrupulous, it only lays more load upon them. These scriptures with many hundreds the like, show that this kind of rigor is utterly inconsistent with the rules of christian forbearance and charity, which no christian magistrate ought to think himself absolved from: Since though as a magistrate he hath a power in civil things yet as a christian, he ought to have a care that in things of spiritual concernment he grieve not the minds of any, who are upon that relation, not his subjects, so much as his brethren: and therefore since they have left their natural, and voluntarily parted with their civil, they ought not to be entrenched upon in their spiritual freedom: especially by such a magistrate, who owning the same principles of religion with them, is thereby engaged to use his power, only to support, and not to ensnare them, to bound perhaps, but not to abridge their liberty; to keep it indeed from running into licentiousness (which is a moral evil) but not to shackle, undermine, and fetter it, under pretence of decency and order. Which when once it comes to be an order of constraint and not of consent, it is nothing else but in the imposer, tyranny in the person imposed upon, bondage: And makes him to be, what in things appertaining to religion we are forbidden to be, viz. “the servants of men. Ye are bought”, said the Apostle, with a price and manumitted by Christ, “be you not the servants of men:” which prohibition doth not forbid civil service, for he said a little before. “Art thou called while thou art a servant? Care not for it; but if thou canst be free, use it rather,” implying, that civil liberty is to be preferred before servitude, yet not to be much contended for, but held as a matter indifferent; but when once our masters, shall extend their rule over the conscience, then this precept holds valid, “be ye not the servants of men”

Thirdly, it is contrary co christian practice, of which we have many remarkable instances:

The first shall be that of our Savior Christ, who was of a  most sweet and complying disposition; he says of himself, that he came eating and drinking, i.e. doing the common actions of other men; and therefore he never disclaimed to keep company with any, even the meanest and most despicable sinner; his retinue consisting for the most part of those the Jews called,  (unreadable Greek spelling) i. e. sinners in an eminent find notorious manner; whom as a physician he not only cured; but as a merciful priest sought out to save. Yet when his christian liberty came once to be invaded, he laid aside his gentleness, and proved a stifle and peremptory assertor of it.

To omit many passages, of which his story is full, I shall mention but one and that was his refuting to wash his hands before meat. This was not only a thing in itself indifferent, but likewise had some argument from decency to induce, and a constant tradition from the Elders or Sanhedrim to enforce it, who at this time were not only their ecclesiastical but their civil rulers: Yet all these motives, in a thing so innocent and small as that was, could not prevail with our Savior to quit his liberty of eating with unwashed hands. And in defense of himself, he calls them superstitious fools, and blind guides, who were offended at him; and leaves two unanswerable arguments, which are of equal validity in things of the like nature. As

  1. That this was not a plant, of his father’s planting, and therefore it should be rooted up whereby our Savior intimates, that as the Pharisees had no divine warrant to prescribe such a toy as that was, so God would at last declare his indignation against their supererogatory worship, by pulling it up root and branch. From whence I gather this rule, that when once human inventions become impositions, and lay a necessity upon that, which God hath left free; then may we lawfully reject them, as plants of mans setting, and not of Gods owning.
  2. The second argument our Savior uses is, that, these things did not defile a man, i. e. as to his mind and confidence. To eat with unwashed hands was at the worst, but a point of ill manners, and unhandsome perhaps or indecent, but not an impious or ungodly thing; and therefore more likely to offend nice stomachs, than scrupulous consciences. Whose satisfaction in such things as these our Savior did not at all study. From whence I inferre (schließe), that in the worship of God we are chiefly to look after the substance of things; and as for circumstances, they are either not worth our notice, or else will be answerable to our inward impressions; according to which our Savior in another place, says, “O blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter that so the outside may be clean, hereby implying, that a renewed hearty will be sure to make a changed and seemly behavior; whereas the most specious outside is consistent with inward filth and rottenness. So that they who press outward conformity in divine worship, endeavor to serve God the wrong way, and often times do only force carnal and hypocritical men to present God a sacrifice which he abhors; while co others that are more tender and scrupulous, they make the sacrifice itself unpleasant, because they will not let it be, what God would have it, a free-will offering.
  1. My second instance shall be the resolution of the Apostles in that famous and important Quaere, concerning the Jewish ceremonies, whether they were to be imposed or not. After a long dispute to find out the truth (unreadable Greek spelling, says the text) Peter directly opposes those rites, why, says he, do ye temp God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples? Intimating that to put a yoke upon others (and to impose in things indifferent is certainly a great one) from which, God hath either expressly freed us, by commanding the contrary; or else tacitly freed us, by not commanding them: This is nothing else but to tempt God, and to pretend to be more wise and holy than he. Again, James decries those ceremonies upon this score, least they should (unreadable Greek spelling,) be troublesome to the converted Gentiles; implying, that however men may think it a small matter, to impose an indifferent thing, yet indeed it is an infinite trouble and matter of disquiet to the party imposed upon, because he is thereby disabled from using his liberty, in that which he knows to be indifferent.

Upon the hearing of these two, the result of the whole council was the brethren should not be imposed upon, although the arguments for conformity were more strong then, than now they can be; because the Jews in all probability, might thereby have been the sooner won be over to the christian persuasion. The decree which that apostolical, and truly christian synod makes

  1. From the stile they use, it seems good (say they) to the Holy Ghost, and to us, — so that whoever exercises the same imposing Power, had need be sure he hath the fame divine authority, for fear he only rashly assumes what was never granted him.
  1. From the things they impose, it seems good, &c. (say they) to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Whence I observe,
  1. that they call their imposition (unreadable Greek spelling) a weight, or burden, which is not unnecessarily to be laid on the shoulders of any.
  1. they say, they forbid only (unreadable Greek spelling) these very necessary things, to show, that necessary things only, and not indifferent, should be the matter of our imposition.

For whereas some gather from hence, that the church, i.e. where a state is christian, the christian magistrate hath a power to oblige men to the doing of things he commands, though in their own nature they be indifferent; because they suppose that the Apostles did so; as for example, in forbidding to eat blood. Therefore consider,

  1. that this is quite contrary to the Apostles scope, whose business was to ease and free, and not to tie up their brethren; and therefore they say, they merely do lay upon them things very necessary.
  1. That all those things they forbid, were not indifferent, but long before prohibited by God, not only in the ceremonial, but in his positive law, and therefore obligatory, whereupon the Apostles call them necessary, i.e. things necessary to be forborne, even before they had made any decree against them: As
  1. (unreadable Greek spelling) i.e. the meat of things offered to idols: To eat of them was not in all cases indifferent; for to so it with conscience of the idol, i.e. intending thereby to worship the idol, this was a thing against the second commandment. But if a man was convinced that the idol was nothing, and therefore the meat, though consecrated, was free to him: Yet if his weaker brother was offended; he was then to abstain in observance of christian charity and condescencion: But if the eater himself did doubt, then was he to forbear for his own peace and quiet’s sake, for to eat, while he was unsatisfied whether it was lawful or not, was nothing else but to condemn himself, as the Apostle says, “He that doubts is (not damned as we render it, but (unreadable Greek spelling)) — condemned i.e. self condemned if he eat, because he doth that which he inwardly doth either not approve, or else at least suspects, that it is not lawful: So that the case of eating (unreadable Greek spelling), being so nice, and so apt co be mistaken: The Apostles do make their prohibitionuniversal, as that which was most safe, and least subject to scruple.
  1. (unreadable Greek spelling) Blood; i.e. flesh with the blood; or, as some, raw flesh; and things strangled; to eat these was not indifferent, but prohibited long before by God, in his law given to Noah. And therefore the Apostles prohibition here, is not to be interpreted, as their giving a temporary law, with respect had to the then constitution and economy of the Jews (as some I think weakly and without ground from Scripture, imagine) but rather as their reviving and re-enforcing an old law, which being given by God to Noah, both then was, and still is obligatory to all his posterity, God having no where dispensed with it.
  1. Lastly, (unreadable Greek spelling), if you render it fornication, then it is evidently contrary to those precepts of purity, holiness and perfection, which God everywhere requires. But if you expound it, as many learned men do, unlawful copulations; then the prohibition enforces upon us the observance of those laws concerning marriage, which are recorded in Levit.18 and which is evident, are not in their own nature indifferent, since marrying with our mother, sister or daughter, the heathen Plato and the Grecian laws condemned even by the light of nature. And God, there in that chapter, calls the contrary practices, abominable customs; for which he threatens to root even the heathen out, v.27.ad fin.

From what hath been said out of this instance, 1. conclude, that since, i.e. the Apostles, though divinely inspired, yet did not impose any rites upon the church , by their own proper power, but join themselves with the Holy Ghost, as being acted and commissioned by him. Since, 2., they use no arguments from decency to justify their imposition, nor by any unnecessary burden upon any, by forbidding or enjoining things purely indifferent but only prohibit such things, as they call, and it is clear from what has been said, were necessary. And lastly, since the retaining some of the more innocent and less burdensome ceremonies of the Jews, in point of order and convenience only, would in all probability have been the readiest means to bring chat precise and superfluous people unto a compliance with the Gospel; and without doubt for that reason would have been enjoined, had the Apostles conceived they had any power to have meddled with them.

Hence I conclude, for persons,

1. Who have no such authority.

2. in things much more indifferent.

And lastly, where the necessity of conformity is nothing near so pressing and urgent. For such, I say, to take upon themselves an arbitrary and an imposing power, it is altogether unwarrantable, and consequently sinful.

  1. My last instance shall be that of the Apostle Paul, who was of an universally complying carriage; he says of himself, that he became all things to all men even to Jews at a Jew, &co. with many more words to the same purpose. And to show his liberty, he circumcised Timothy, though a Greek, that he might gain the Jews in those parts. But when once a sect of men rose up, who began to preach the necessity of circumcision, he doth in many places sharply inveigh against them, calling them dogs, evil workers, and in derision, (unreadable Greek spelling), or the concision, and concludes his epistle to the Galatians, with bidding them to beware of such, as labored to boast in their flesh i. e. sought to bring them unto a conformity in those outward ordinances. Nay so jealous and precisely careful was that Apostle of this great christian privilege and charter, viz. freedom in indifferent things; that he could not brook so much as Peters suspicious carriage in that particular, but for his dissimulation, and pretending to be less free, then he was;

Paul says, that he openly reproved him to his face. And for other false brethren, who crept into their assemblies, merely to spy out their liberty, and without doubt, used the fame arguments for conformity, which many do now; the Apostle says, he resisted them, and yielded not to them, so much as for a moment.

And that he might forever preserve his Galatians from being ensured, and brought under bondage again, he leaves them the caveat, I mentioned before, stand fast in your liberty, &e. From whence I infer, that so long as a thing is left indifferent, though there be some suspicion of superstition in it, we may lawfully practice it, as Paul did circumcision; but when any shall take upon them to make it necessary, then the thing so imposed presently loses not its liberty only, but likewise its lawfulness; and we may not without breach of the Apostles precept, submit unto it: Because we thereby do own, that those whose injunctions we obey, had a power to impose; and so by assenting, we become abettors and promoters of their usurpation.

  1. My last argument against impositions shall be taken from the inconveniences that attend such a practice. For though I lay little stress upon such kind of arguments (because truth is to be tried by its evidence, and not by its consequences) yet because,
  1. In principles, on which moral actions are grounded, the inconveniences do use to be weighed, and that doctrine for the most part seems most true, at least most plausible, which is attended by fewest inconveniences and because,
  1. the opposers of liberty, haw very little elseto urge for themselves, but by pretending the many inconveniences that flow from it.

Therefore I shall clearly prove that many more absurd and more destructive and fatal consequences attend the doctrine of impositions, then the doctrine of christian liberty, as,

  1. The first inconvenience is the impossibility to fix a point where the imposer will stop. For do but once grant, that the magistrate hath power to impose, and then we lie at his mercy, how far he will go. For the unmarried state of the clergy, holy unction, consecrating the host &co. are as indifferent in their own nature, as using the cross, or surplice. And if the magistrate hath indeed lawful power to impose, he may as well command those, as these, especially if he be convinced that they are either decent or convenient; at which door have entered in all those gross fooleries, which are in the popish worship: Any of which, take them singly and apart from the circumstances which determine them, so they are indifferent, and may, for ought I know, be conscientiously observed.

But put them together and consider the power which imposes, and the end which continues them, so they are the grossest idolatry, and the vilest tyranny that ever yet was practiced. For we are for the most part mistaken in the notion of popery, if we see a surplice, or a cross, or organs, or bowing, we presently cry out popery: Whereas I think it a more manifest sign of popery to forbid these things, as we do, under penalties, then to practice them with freedom. If, I understand anything of Antichrist, his nature seems to consist in this that he acts in a way contrary to Christ i.e. instead of a spiritual, he brings in a devised worship; and instead of freedom, lays a constraint even upon our devotion. So that, as John in his revelation says of him, “Men shall neither buy nor sell, who have not a mark; i.e. who do not serve God in that outward way, which he commands. So that whoever doth own the doctrine of imposition though in the smallest circumstance of worship he brings in the essence, though not the name of popery; and lays down that for his foundation, on which all the will-worship, which this day reigns in the world, is bottomed.

For whatever opinions we have concerning the necessity of bowing, kneeling or the like, while they stand confined to our private practices, they are at worst but hay and stubble, which will perish at the day of account, though he that doth them may very well be saved. But when once a man goes further and not content with his persuasions, envies his brother that liberty, which he himself desires to enjoy; and seeks to obtrude his conceits upon others, who perhaps are not so well satisfied as he is: Whoever doth this, becomes impious to God, by invading his sovereignty, and lording it over another man’s conscience; and likewise injurious to men, by pressing such things, as are only baits to the careless, and traps for the conscientious. I know very well, that the Argument is specious and often urged — why should men be so scrupulous? Most pleading for ceremonies, Lot did for Zoar, are they not little things? But l answer, 1. that a little thing unwarrantably done is a great sin. 2. That a little thing unjustly gained, makes way for a greater: and therefore we should not let the serpent get in his head, how beautiful soever it seems, lest he bring in his tail, and with that his sting – how curious even almost to superstition, our Savior and his Apostles especially Paul, were in this point, I have already mentioned; by whose example we are little profited, if we do not learn, that in impositions we are not so much to consider how small and inconsiderable the thing imposed is, as how lawful it is: Not, what it is in itself, as whither it tends, and what will he the consequence of it admission. For the smaller the thing imposed is, the more is our christian liberty invaded, and consequently the more injurious and sinful is its imposition.

  1. The second inconvenience is, that it quite inverts the nature of christian religion; not only by taking away its freedom, but likewise its spirituality; our Savior says, that God will now be worshipped not in show and ceremony, but in spirit, and in truth; whereas this doctrine of imposition, places it in such things, in the observance of which, superstition will be sure to out-do devotion. But true religion like the spirits of wine or subtle essences, whenever it comes to ne opened and exposed to view, runs the hazard of being presently dispirited, and lost. In the service of God there is a vast difference, between purity and pomp, between spirit and splendor; whereas the imposer only drives at, and improves the latter; but of the former is altogether secure and careless, as is evident in those places, where uniformity is most strictly practiced.
  1. This doctrine making no provision at all for such as are scrupulous and tender, supposes the same measure of faith in all: Whereas nothing is more clear, then as the Apostle says concerning things offered to idols, so concerning ceremonies, I may say, that all have not knowledge. But to this day many there are utterly unsatisfied with the lawfulness of any, and most are convinced of the uselessness of them all. Whose consciences, how erroneous soever, yet are to be tenderly and gently dealt with; lest by our rigid commanding what they can by no means comply with, we bring them unto that dangerous dilemma, either of breaking their inward peace and comfort, by doing outwardly what they do not inwardly approve of: Or else of running themselves upon the rocks of poverty and prejudice, by disobeying what is commanded. For though we are upon all occasions to suffer gladly, yet let not Reuben smite Ephraim; let us not receive our wounds in the house of our friends, for then our sufferings will be sharpened from the consideration of the unkindness, that our brethren should put us upon the needless trial of our faith and patience, especially in such things, which white the imposer calls indifferent, he thereby acknowledges, that they may very well be spare.
  1. The last inconvenience is that by impositions, especially when the penalty is severe, we seem to lay as much weight and stress upon these indifferent things, as upon any the most material parts of our religion. This rigid irrespective obtruding of small things makes no difference at all between ceremony and substance. So that a man who were not a Christian at all, would find as good, nay perhaps better usage from the imposer, then he who laboring and endeavoring to live up to other parts of christian faith, shall yet forbear to practice these ceremonies: Which is not only harsh and cruel, but very incongruous dealing, that a Jew or Mahometan, should be better regarded, than a weak and scrupulous Christian. This is nothing else, but to deal with our fellow Christians, as Jephtha did with the Ephraimites, to kill them for no weightier crime, than because they cannot pronounce Shibboleth.

To these inconveniences I might add the certain decay of the growth of religion as to its inward purity, while there is this disguise and mask of needless ceremonies upon it to keep it under; but those which I have already urged, are so great, that those which are commonly insisted upon by men of another persuasion, are not at all to be put into the balance with them; as will appear by this brief answer to their main objections.

  1. They object that this will be the way to beget all manner of disorder and confusion; that every man will have a several fashion and custom by himself; and for want of uniformity and ceremony, the unity and essence of religion will perish. But I answer,
  1. Doth any pled for Baal? He that will abuse the principle of liberty, to justify his licentiousness of life, let him know that the magistrate bears not the sword in vain, but has it to cut off such offenders. If you suffer as Christians, said the Apostle, rejoice at it; but let none suffer, as a thief, murderer (unreadable Greek spelling), seditious person, a state-incendiary, or as a busy intermeddler in other men’s matters, for he that doth these things suffered justly; nor can he plead anything from the Gospel, which is a rule of strictness, to exempt him from punishment. But

2.This disorder, which is so vehemently and so tragically aggravated, and for the prevention of which, ceremonies must be invented and forced, is indeed nothing else but a malicious and ill-founding name, put upon an excellent and most comely thing, i.e. variety, For as God, though he be a God of order, hath not made all men of one countenance, and in the world hath given several and divers shapes to many things, which yet are the same for substance; so in the assemblies of his people, who all come to honor him, and agree in the essence of his worship, why should we doubt, but God will be well pleased with their variety in circumstances? The exercise of which not only their consciences do prompt, but God himself doth induce them to, because in his word he hath not prescribed anyone outward form, that all should necessarily agree in; but in such things hath left them to the dictates of their own spirits, and the guidance of christian prudence; which variety is so far from being a confusion, that nothing can be more comely and harmonious, as serving to set out the indulgence of God, the arbitrary actings of the Holy Spirit, and the liberty of the Saints, who can preserve unity in mind, without uniformity in behavior.

  1. The second Objection is, the practice of the Jewish Princes, who as soon as ever they were installed in their Kingdoms, set upon reforming the house of God, and imposing upon all a form of worship: Which since all Scripture is written by divine inspiration, and for our instruction, seems to be a leading case that christian Princes should imitate them, and do so likewise. But l answer, i.e. though arguments taken from analogy are of very little weight, when positive precepts are required, yet I will grant, that the piety of the Jewish, is, and ought to be exemplary to the christian magistrates — but withal I deny the inference, since the Jewish Princes, when they reformed religion, they therein followed a divine law, which did command it from them, and which, in the minutest circumstances, had provided for uniformity worship from which rigor and restraint all Christians are absolved, and therefore it is very unconcluding to argue from the Jews, who had; to the christian magistrate, who wants divine authority. To this is also objected,
  1. That since things necessary to the worship of God, be already determined by God, and over them the magistrate hath no power; if likewise he should have no power in indifferent things, then it would follow that in things appertaining to religion, the christian magistrate had no power at all — which they think to be very absurd – so the reverend and learned Mr. Hooker, and Dr. Sanderson. But I answer,
  1. It is no absurdity at all, that Princes should have no more power in ordering the things of God, then God himself hath allowed them. And if God hath no where given them such an imposing power, they must be content to go without it. But in this case, where will the christian magistrate find his warrant, the Scriptures being utterly silent, that he is now to take such authority upon him, which, because the thing concerns not man, but the worship of God, had it been thought necessary and fit, would certainly not have been omitted.
  1. It is so far from being an argument for impositions, to urge that the thing imposed is indifferent, that there cannot be a stronger argument against them: Since it is as requisite to christian practice, that things indifferent should still be kept indifferent, as things necessary, be held necessary, – As I have already proved.

Lastly, it is much more suited to the nature of the Gospel that christian Princes should reform religion, rather by the example of their lives, then by the severity of their laws; and if they may show their power at all in this case, it should rather be b y subtracting then by adding. By taking away all impertinences, which may hinder the progress of it, rather than by obtruding unwarrantable methods, to tie all men up to such outward forms; as may make piety suspected only for policy disguised.

Much more might be said for this from authority, but I willingly wave it. For if Scripture and reason will not prevail to hinder impositions, I have no cause to expect that any sentences from antiquity should. Only this is certain, that all the writings of the Christians for the first three hundred years, are full of nothing else, but such arguments as evince a liberty, more absolute and universal then I contend for. And likewise it may be of some weight, that the churches doctrine was then more pure, their discipline more strict and severe then now; and yet they had nothing but mutual consent, either to establish or protect it, the magistrates being all against them. But when once Constantine took upon him to manage the affairs of the church, and by penal laws, ratified and confirmed church-orders, he laid that foundation of antichristian tyranny, which presently after him, his son Constantius exercised, against the assertors of the trinity: And, the churches worldly power increasing as fast, as the purity of religion did decrease; the bishops of Rome within a few years, gained to themselves, and have ever since practiced severely against such, whom they call heretics, i.e. deniers of their factious doctrine; and opposers of their most ungospel-like, but indeed most politic and prudential impositions, whose furious and bloody tenets, like subtle poison, have run through the veins of almost all professors, scarce any sort even of protestants, allowing to others that liberty of religion,  which at the beginning of their sects, they justly challenged to themselves.

Nor is there any hope, that the world should be freed from cruelty, disguised under the name of zeal, till it please God to inform all magistrates, how far their commission reaches , that their proper province is only over the body, to repress and correct those moral vices, to which our outward man is subject: But as for christian religion, since it is so pure and simple, so free from state and worldly magnificence, so gentle and complying with the meanest christian, and withal so remote from harshness, rigor and severity, there the magistrate most consults Gods honor and his own duty, if being strict to himself, he leaves all others in these outward ceremonies to their inward convictions. Which liberty, is so tar from weakening, that it is indeed the security of a throne; since besides gaining, the peoples love (especially the most conscientious and sober of them) it doth in a special manner entitle him to Gods protection:  Since in not pretending to be wiser then God, he gives religion that free and undisturbed passage, which our Savior seems by his life and death to have opened for it.

FINIS.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

 

 

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 58, Absatz 58,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 58, Absatz 58,

St Peter might well oppose the putting on this yoke on the necks of the disciples not only because it so galled the Jews, but also being taken off and broken by God himself was not to be renewed; but this will not concern other things of indifference. If we grant that things indifferent may be called yokes, it will follow from the metaphor that they are heavy perhaps but not unlawful, trouble-some not criminal, and so are taxes and tributes and all penal laws, which if yokes are not to be put upon the necks of Christians they may upon the same score plead for forbearance.

But who knows not that the stubborn necks of the people do often call for yokes and those strong and heavy without which it would be impossible they should be kept in order? But the yoke here spoken of is of far another nature than the imposition of indifferent things, the question was, as appears, whether the ceremonial law was still in force and obliged the converted Gentiles, whether circumcision were necessary to salvation.

This the believing Pharisees plead for, but St Peter opposes and confutes, showing that God put no difference between the circumcised and uncircumcised but that they equally believed and received the Holy Ghost; the synod therefore by a decree quits them from subjection to the ceremonial law, and only forbids them fornication (which was then generally in those countries esteemed a very trivial and almost indifferent thing and therefore might well be ranked amongst eating of things strangled which were thought to carry as much guilt in them) and some other things which were necessary (not in their own nature) for the better uniting believers, Jews and Gentiles, and to prevent scandal and offence between the strong and weak brethren.

All the inference that can be drawn from hence is, that though the ceremonial law was a heavy yoke and is not now to be put upon the necks of Christians, yet the exigencies of the Church and the condition of Christians may make the imposition of many things, (that are in their own nature indifferent) necessary.

Petrus konnte sich mit gutem Recht der Auferlegung dieses Jochs auf die Nacken der Schüler widersetzen. Nicht nur weil die Juden dadurch so sehr angekettet waren, sondern auch weil es höchstpersönlich durch Gott abgenommen und zerbrochen worden und seine Erneuerung nicht vorgesehen war. Doch dieser Fall kann anders gelagerte unbestimmte Angelegenheiten nicht betreffen.

Selbst wenn wir zugestehen, unbestimmte Dinge könnten mit dem Begriff Joch bezeichnet werden, dann muss schon aus der Metapher der Schluss zu ziehen sein, sie seien womöglich sehr schwer zu ertragen, nicht aber unrechtmäßig, vielleicht Quelle einer Menge Ärger, aber kein Verbrechen. Genauso verhält es sich mit Steuern und Abgaben, sowie allen Strafgesetzen, bezüglich derer, da Joche aller Art ja dem Nacken eines Christen nicht auferlegt werden dürfen, nach derselben Bewertung Enthaltung zu verlangen wäre.

Aber wem wäre entgangen, dass die störrischen Nacken der Bevölkerung sehr oft geradezu nach einem möglichst starken und schweren Joch schreien und, ohne welches es schier unmöglich wäre, sie zur Ordnung anzuhalten? Allerdings ist das zuletzt genannte Joch vollkommen anderer Natur, als jegliche Verfügung über unbestimmte und unwichtige Gegebenheiten. Die Frage war doch, unverkennbar, ob das Zeremonialrecht weiterhin in Kraft wäre, ob es auch die konvertierten Nichtjuden verpflichtete und ob die Beschneidung weiterhin zur Erlösung notwendig wäre.

Für diese Glaubenspflichten traten die Pharisäer ein. Petrus jedoch widersetzte sich und widerlegte dies, indem er nachwies, dass Gott keinen Unterschied zwischen Beschnittenen und Unbeschnittenen aufstellt, sondern, dass sie gleichermaßen glauben und den Heiligen Geist empfangen konnten. Aus diesem Grund entlässt die Synode sie aus der Unterordnung unter das zeremonielle Recht und verbat ihnen lediglich die Unzucht. (Welche seinerzeit in diesen Ländern als eine äußerst triviale und absolut nebensächliche Angelegenheit beurteilt wurde und von daher problemlos in eine Kategorie mit dem Verzehr erwürgter Lebewesen fiel, wobei man annahm, das eine trage genauso viel Schuld ein, wie das andere) Darüber hinaus regelten sie ein paar andere Gegebenheiten, die (nicht ihrer Natur nach) notwendig waren um die Gläubigen besser zusammenzuführen, Juden mit Nichtjuden, und um Skandale und Beleidigungen zwischen Starken und Schwachen zu verhüten.

Jegliche Schlussfolgerung die nun von daher gezogen werden kann, erschöpft sich darin, dass das Zeremonialrecht als schweres Joch empfunden wurde und nunmehr nicht weiter den Nacken der Christen auferlegt werden durfte. Das Erfordernis der Kirche und die Situation der Christenheit jedoch konnte die Verfügung über etliche, notwendige Gegebenheiten gestalten (die ihrer eigenen Natur nach ohne Bedeutung sind).

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

 

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 47, Absatz 47,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 47, Absatz 47,

„To those Scriptures which deny all imposition may be added all those texts which consequently do it, such as are ‚do to others as you would have others do to you‘. And who is there would have his conscience imposed upon?” (Quotation Bagshaw). If private men’s judgments were the moulds wherein laws were to be cast ‚tis a question whether we should have any at all.

If this be the rule that must measure the equity and obligation of all edicts I doubt whether any can challenge an universal obedience, when it is impossible that any law should be by human prudence so contrived which whilst it minds the good of the whole will not be inconvenient to several of the members, and wherein many will not think themselves hardly and unequally dealt with. The magistrate in his constitutions regards the public concernment and not private opinions which, biased by their own interest, or misled by their ignorance and indiscretion, are like to make them but ill judges of reasons of state or the equity of laws; and when we find the greatest part of men usually complaining, we may easily conclude, that they think that precept of ‚do as thou wouldst be done unto‘ but ill observed by their superiors. Were magistrates to gratify the desires of men in all things to which by a partial interpretation they would extend this rule, they would quickly stand in need of a power not to make laws but worlds, and provide enlargements not restraints for the liberty of their subjects. And hence rises one of those necessities of government that since men were not like (being favorable judges in their own cause131) to be well satisfied with the equity of others, and would be ready to judge that others made use of their liberty, to their prejudice with neglect of this rule of equity, it was requisite to settle a peace and society amongst men that they should mutually agree to give up the exercise of their native liberty to the disposure and prudence of some select person or number of men who should make laws for them which should be the rule of their actions one towards another and the measure of their enjoyments; but this by the by.

„Allen Sequenzen der Heiligen Schrift, die jegliche Form der Verfügung verneinen, seien alle Texte hinzugefügt, die sich konsequent so ausdrücken, wie beispielsweise: ‚Behandle andere so wie Du behandelt zu werden wünscht‘. Und wer möchte schon seinem Gewissen Vorschriften gemacht wissen?“ (Zitat Bagshaw). Wären die Beurteilungen einzelner Privatleute die Gussformen, in denen Gesetze zu gießen wären, sollten wir uns fragen ob wir überhaupt welche haben sollten.
Wäre das die Regel, nach der die Rechtmäßigkeit und Verbindlichkeit aller Erlasse zu bewerten wäre hätte ich Zweifel ob überhaupt irgendeiner zu erwartbarem Gehorsam führen würde, wo sie es doch verunmöglicht, dass irgendein Gesetz auf Basis menschlicher Klugheit so aufstellbar wäre, welches, während es das Wohl aller im Sinn hätte, dennoch für verschiedene Mitglieder kein bisschen unpassend wäre und durch welches viele sich selbst nicht zu hart und ungleich behandelt sehen. Die Obrigkeit berücksichtigt bei ihrer Rechtssetzung die öffentlichen Belange und keine privaten Meinungen, die, vereinnahmt durch das eigene Interesse oder durch Mangel an Bildung und Unreife, zu nicht mehr taugen, als die Menschen zu sehr schlechten Beurteilern der Vernunft, des Staates oder der Rechtmäßigkeit von Gesetzen machen. Wenn wir also den Großteil der Menschen so wahrnehmen, dass sie sich gewöhnlich nur beschweren, dann können wir dabei leicht erkennen, dass sie denken, der Vorsatz ‚Behandle andere so wie Du behandelt zu werden wünscht‘ würde durch ihre Übergeordneten ausschließlich schlecht beachtet.

Wären Vertreter der Obrigkeit dazu da, den Begehren der Menschen in allen Angelegenheiten zu genügen, die deren spezifischer Interpretation entsprechen, fänden sie sich umgehend der Notwendigkeit ausgesetzt eine Macht zu benötigen, um Welten statt Gesetze zu erschaffen und für Ausweitungen statt Beschränkungen der Freiheit ihrer Untergeordneten zu sorgen. Und daraus entsteht eine dieser Notwendigkeiten für eine Regierung, zumal Menschen leider nicht derart beschaffen sind (da sie am liebsten in eigener Sache urteilen131), in gutem Einvernehmen mit der Rechtmäßigkeit anderer zufrieden zu sein, sondern stets bereit zu urteilen, andere hätten Gebrauch von der eigentlich ihnen selbst zustehenden Freiheit gemacht. Daher bestand das Erfordernis, für Frieden und Gesellschaft zwischen den Menschen zu sorgen, damit sie auf Gegenseitigkeit Einvernehmen darüber erzielen, die Ausübung ihrer angeborenen Freiheit der Verfügung und Klugheit einiger ausgewählter Personen abzutreten oder einer Anzahl Menschen, die Gesetze für sie schaffen würden, welche wiederum das Regelwerk ihrer Handlungen bildeten, des einen gegenüber dem anderen, sowie den Maßstab ihrer Genussrechte. Davon aber nach und nach mehr.

131Locke mentions here a little vers

131Locke zitiert hier einen kleinen Vers

131http://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_1903_num_15_60_6751

“Never give sentence in thy proper cause,
In our own cause we all err easily,
Our interest our proper judgment draws,
And ever makes the balance hang awry.”

Niemals fälle in eigener Sache Dein Urteil,
In eigener Sache zu irren ist wohlfeil,
Unser Begehr das eigene Urteil meist lenkt,
Und schon ist Justitias Waage schief aufgehängt.“

Deutsch: Thomas Blechschmidt, 17.02.2017

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 30, Absatz 30,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 30, Absatz 30,

The author’s second reason is because: “This imposing things indifferent is directly contrary to Gospel precepts (Quotation Bagshaw). Indeed, were this proved the controversy were at an end and the question beyond doubt, but amongst those many places produced I find not one command directed to the magistrate to forbid his intermeddling in things indifferent, which were to be expected if his determinations were against God’s commands. ‚Tis strange that in imposing things indifferent he should sin against Gospel precepts, and yet in the whole Gospel not one precept be found that limits or directs his authority.

Der zweite Beweggrund des Autors lautet: “Die Verfügung über unbestimmte Gegebenheiten widerspricht direkt der Offenbarung (Zitat Bagshaw).“ In der Tat, könnte das bewiesen werden, wäre die Kontroverse beendet und die Lösung der Frage stünde außer Zweifel. Doch unter all den zitierten Stellen finde ich nicht eine direkte Anordnung, die es einer Obrigkeit verbieten würde sich bei den unbestimmten Angelegenheiten einzumischen. Wo genau das doch zu erwarten wäre, falls ihre Bestimmungen Gottes Anordnungen widersprächen. Es mutet überaus merkwürdig an, sie sollte sich durch die Regelung unbestimmter Gegebenheiten gegen Vorschriften der Offenbarung versündigen, wo doch in der gesamten Offenbarung nicht eine einzige Vorschrift zu finden ist, die ihre Autorität beschränken oder ausrichten würde.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 8, Absatz 8

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 8, Absatz 8,

And he must confess himself a stranger to England that thinks that meats and habits, that places and times of worship etc., would not be as sufficient occasion of hatred and quarrels amongst us, as leeks and onions and other trifles described in that satire by Juvenal was amongst them, and be distinctions able to keep us always at a distance, and eagerly ready for like violence and cruelty as often as the teachers should alarm the consciences of their zealous votaries and direct them against the adverse party.

Wer denkt, dass Essensgewohnheiten, Sitten, Gebräuche, Termine und Ort für Gottesdienste und dergleichen bei uns keinen wenigstens genauso ausreichenden Anlass für Hasstiraden und Streitereien bieten, wie es für Lauch, Zwiebeln und andere Lappalien in Juvenals Satire unter den Römern beschrieben steht, und wer ferner denkt, solche Unterschiede wären in der Lage beständig von uns fern zu halten, solange wir ohne Unterlass bereit sind Gewalt und Grausamkeit zu akzeptieren, wann auch immer Demagogen das Bewusstsein ihrer eifernden Parteigänger aufstacheln und sie gegen die jeweils andere Partei ins Gefecht führen, der muss sich selbst als vollkommen Fremder in England bekennen.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG I § 111

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 111. How else is it possible, that laying so much stress, as he does, upon descent, and Adam’s heir, next heir, true heir, he should never tell us what heir means, nor the way to know who the next or true heir is? This, I do not remember, he does anywhere expressly handle; but, where it comes in his way, very warily and doubtfully touches; though it be so necessary, that without it all discourses of government and obedience upon his principles would be to no purpose, and fatherly power, never so well made out, will be of no use to anybody.

Hence he tells us, Observations, 244., that not only the constitution of power in general, but the limitation of it to one kind, (i. e.) monarchy, and the determination of it to the individual person and line of Adam, are all three ordinances of God; neither Eve nor her children could either limit Adam’s power, or join others with him; and what was given unto Adam was given in his person to his posterity. Here again our author informs us, that the divine ordinance hath limited the descent of Adam’s monarchical power.

To whom? To Adam’s line and posterity, says our author. A notable limitation, a limitation to all mankind: For if our author can find anyone amongst mankind that is not of the line and posterity of Adam, he may perhaps tell him, who this next heir of Adam is: But for us, I despair how this limitation of Adam’s empire to his line and posterity will help us to find out one heir.

This limitation indeed of our author will save those the labour, who would look for him amongst the race of brutes, if any such there were; but will very little contribute to the discovery of one next heir amongst men, though it make a short and easy determination of the question about the descent of Adam’s regal power, by telling us, that the line and posterity of Adam is to have it, that is, in plain English, anyone may have it, since there is no person living that hath not the title of being of the line and posterity of Adam; and while it keeps there, it keeps within our author’s limitation by God’s ordinance.

Indeed, p. 19. he tells us, that such heirs are not only Lords of their own children, but of their brethren; whereby, and by the words following, which we shall consider anon, he seems to insinuate, that the eldest son is heir; but he nowhere, that I know, says it in direct words, but by the instances of Cain and Jacob, that there follow, we may allow this to be so far his opinion concerning heirs, that where there are divers children, the eldest son has the right to be heir.

That primogeniture cannot give any title to paternal power, we have already showed. That a father may have a natural right to some kind of power over his children, is easily granted; but that an elder brother has so over his brethren, remains to be proved: God or nature has not anywhere, that I know, placed such jurisdiction in the first-born; nor can reason find any such natural superiority amongst brethren.

The law of Moses gave a double portion of the goods and possessions to the eldest; but we find not anywhere that naturally, or by God’s institution, superiority or dominion belonged to him, and the instances there brought by our author are but slender proofs of a right to civil power and dominion in the first-born, and do rather show the contrary.

§ 111. Wie wäre es ihm denn möglich, einerseits so viel Gewicht auf Erbfolge, Adams Erbe, nächster Erbe und wahrer Erbe legt, uns aber nie sagt, was genau Erbe bedeutet oder den Weg zeigt wie der nächste oder wahre Erbe feststellbar ist? Diesen Aspekt hat er in meiner Erinnerung nirgends explizit behandelt.

Er streift diese Frage, wo sie ihm in die Quere kommt, überaus vorsichtig und zweifelhaft, obwohl eine Antwort notwendig wäre. Ohne diese Antwort wären alle seine Diskurse über Regierung und Gehorsam nach seinen Grundsätzen sinnlos und väterliche Macht, wäre sie noch so gut bewiesen, für niemand von Nutzen. Daher verkündet er uns, O. 244, nicht allein die Einsetzung von Macht ganz allgemein, sondern ihre Beschränkung auf einen Typ, also die Monarchie, ihre Verortung in der individuellen Person und Linie Adams, alle drei Elemente sind Anordnungen Gottes.

Weder Eva noch ihre Kinder konnten Adams Macht einschränken, noch andere mit ihm vereinigen. Was Adam gewährt worden war, war durch seine Person auch seinen Nachkommen gewährt. Hier informiert unser Autor uns, die göttliche Anordnung habe die Erbschaft von Adams königlicher Macht beschränkt.

Aha, auf wen denn? Seine Antwort: Auf Adams Linie und Nachkommen. Eine wahrhaft bemerkenswerte Beschränkung. Eine Beschränkung auf die ganze Menschheit! Falls unser Autor innerhalb der gesamten Menschheit jemanden finden kann, der kein Mitglied der Linie und Nachkommen Adams ist, wird er diesem vielleicht sagen können, wer dieser nächste Erbe Adams sein soll. Soweit es uns betrifft, habe ich vollständig Zweifel, dass diese Beschränkung von Adams Herrschaft auf seine Linie und Nachkommen uns dabei voranbringt, den ominösen einzigen Erben Adams ausfindig zu machen. Diese vortreffliche Beschränkung unseres Autors wird allerdings allen eine Menge Arbeit sparen, die unter dem Vieh nachsehen wollen, ob es dort einen gäbe.

Zur Entdeckung des einzigen nächsten Erben unter allen Menschen wird sie wenig beitragen, auch wenn es eine wunderbar kurze und bequeme Antwort darstellt, auf die Frage nach der Vererbung von Adams königlicher Macht zu antworten, Linie und Nachkommen Adams seien bestimmt sie zu besitzen. Auf gut Englisch: Jeder kann sie erben, da es keinen Menschen gibt, der nicht Anspruch hätte, zu Linie und Nachkommen Adams zu gehören. Solange sie dort bleibt, bleibt sie auch innerhalb der Beschränkung durch Gottes Anordnung.

Allerdings sagt er uns S. 19: Solche Erben sind nicht nur Herren über die eigenen Kinder, sondern auch über ihre Brüder. Durch diese und die folgenden Worte, die wir uns gleich vornehmen wollen, scheint er andeuten zu wollen, der älteste Sohn sei Erbe. Soviel ich weiß äußert er dies nirgends mit klaren Worten. Lediglich anhand der darauf folgenden Beispiele von Kain und Jakob lässt sich seine Ansicht über Erben beschreiben: Wo es verschiedene Kinder gibt, hat der älteste Sohn das Recht Erbe zu sein.

Wir haben aber bereits nachgewiesen: Es besteht kein Anspruch auf väterliche Macht durch die Eigenschaft Erstgeborener zu sein. Einem Vater gestehen wir gern zu, ein natürliches Recht auf eine bestimmte Art von Macht über seine Kinder haben zu können. Die Macht eines älterer Bruders auch über seine Brüder, muss aber erst noch bewiesen werden.

Soweit mir bekannt, haben Gott oder die Natur den Erstgeborenen nirgends eine solche Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung zugestanden und auch die Vernunft kann keinerlei natürliche Überordnung dieser Art unter Brüdern entdecken. Das mosaische Erbrecht billigte dem Ältesten einen doppelten Teil der Güter und Besitztümer zu. Wir finden aber keinerlei Hinweis, Natur oder durch Gottes Institution hätten ihm Überordnung oder Herrschaft beschert. Alle von unserem Autor gelieferten Beispiele sind nur schwache Beweise eines Rechts des Erstgeborenen auf staatliche Macht und Herrschaft. Sie beweisen in der Tat eher das Gegenteil.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

Meinen und Glauben sind meine Sache nicht. Ich will alles selbst nachprüfen können.

Ich erstelle Expertisen, berate, erstelle Konzepte für Kommunen, Unternehmen, Privatleute und beantworte Fragen.

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

Frei von jeder Verkaufsabsicht. Wer meine Arbeit gut findet, kann gern spenden und meine Arbeit unterstützen.

Ich arbeite soweit als möglich auf Basis von Fakten, logischen Deduktionen, evidenzbasierten Zusammenhängen.

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt