Schlagwort-Archive: discourses

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 86, Absatz 86,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 86, Absatz 86,

“1. That it is no absurdity at all that Princes should have no more power in ordering the things of God than God himself hath allowed them. And if God nowhere hath given them such an imposing power they must be content to go without it.”
(Quotation Bagshaw)

If they have no imposing power till God by a positive express commission somewhere hath given it them, they will be found to have as little in civil as religious indifferent things and no right of tying up our liberty in either. But that they have a power in both and how they came by it I have shown above.

“But in this case where will the Christian magistrate find his warrant?”
(Quotation Bagshaw)

In whatever text of Scripture the magistrate’s charter for jurisdiction in civil indifferent things is to be found, in the very same or next verse is his warrant for impositions in religious.

“The Scriptures being utterly silent that he is now to take such authority upon him which because the things concern not man but the worship of God had it been thought necessary and fit would certainly not have been omitted.”
(Quotation Bagshaw)

The Scripture speaks very little of polities anywhere (except only the government of the Jews constituted by God himself over which he had a particular care) and God doth nowhere by distinct and particular prescriptions set down rules of governments and bounds to the magistrate’s authority, since one form of government was not like to fit all people, and mankind was by the light of nature and their own conveniences sufficiently instructed in the necessity of laws and government and a magistrate with power over them, who is no more to expect a commission from Scripture which shall be the foundation and bounds of his authority in every particular and beyond which he shall have none at all, than a master is to examine by Scripture what power he hath over his servant, the light of reason and nature of government itself making evident that in all societies it is unavoidably necessary that the supreme power (wherever seated in one or more) must be still supreme, i.e. have a full and unlimited power over all indifferent things and actions within the bounds of that society.

Whatever our author saith there ‚tis certain there be many particular things necessary and fit now, that are yet omitted in Scripture and are left to be determined by more general rules. Had the questions of paedo­-baptism, church government, ordination, excommunication etc. been as hotly disputed in the days of the Apostles as in ours, ‚tis very probable we should have had as clear resolutions of those doubts and as positive rules as about eating thing strangled and blood.

But the Scripture is very silent in particular questions, the discourses of Christ and his Apostles seldom going beyond the general doctrines of the Messiah or the duties of the moral law, but where either the condition of the persons or their enquiry made it necessary to descend to particulars and possibly had there not some miscarriages sprung up in the Church of Corinth we had never received that command of decency and order, and ‚twas their enquiry that occasioned Paul’s resolution of those their private doubts, I.Cor.c.7.,c. 8.

It was not therefore requisite that we should look for the magistrate’s commission to be renewed in Scripture who was before even by the law of nature and the very condition of government sufficiently invested with a power over all indifferent actions. Nor can we rationally conclude he hath none because we cannot find it in the Bible.

“1. Dass es alles andere als eine Absurdität ist anzunehmen, Fürsten hätten kein Stück mehr Macht, über Gottes Angelegenheiten zu verfügen als Gott persönlich ihnen gestattet hat. Und weil Gott ihnen an keiner Stelle eine derartige Verfügungsbefugnis gewährt hat, müssen sie sich damit zufrieden geben, ohne auszukommen.“
(Zitat Bagshaw)

Sofern sie keinerlei Verfügungsbefugnis innehaben, als bis Gott ihnen eine solche expressis verbis zugestanden hat, wird man ihnen geradewegs eben so wenig bezüglich bürgerlicher wie religiöser unbestimmter und unbedeutender Gegebenheiten zubilligen und jedes Recht, unsere Freiheit in der einen wie der anderen Kategorie an die Leine zu legen, abstreiten. Allerdings habe ich ja bereits weiter oben bewiesen, dass sie betreffend beide Kategorien Macht haben und wie sie dazu gekommen sind.

“Doch wo will eine christliche Obrigkeit unter dieser Voraussetzung ihre Berechtigung finden?”
(Zitat Bagshaw)

An welcher Stelle der Heiligen Schrift auch immer jeweils auf die Verbriefung der Rechtsprechung der Obrigkeit in bürgerlichen Angelegenheiten verwiesen wird, ebenda oder in benachbarten Zeilen findet sich ihre Berechtigung zur Verfügung auch über religiöse Belange.

“Da sämtliche Kapitel der Bibel sich vollkommen darüber ausschweigen, dass sie plötzlich eine derartige Autorität an sich ziehen könnte, wo es doch nicht um Angelegenheiten der Menschen sondern um die Huldigung Gottes geht, wäre dies wohl kaum übersehen worden, wenn es für notwendig und passend gehalten worden wäre.“
(Zitat Bagshaw)

Die Heilige Schrift spricht allenthalben sehr spärlich über politische Ordnungen (abgesehen von den Regierungsformen der Juden, die Gott persönlich verfasst hatte und um die er sich in besonderer Weise kümmerte). Dabei legt Gott nirgends mittels gezielter und besonderer Vorschriften für Regierungsformen und Beschränkungen der Autorität für Obrigkeiten fest, seit klar ist, dass lediglich eine Form der Regentschaft unmöglich genügt, um zu allen Völkerschaften zu passen. Die Menschheit lernte mittels Aufklärung der Naturgegebenheiten und Erkenntnis der eigenen Annehmbarkeiten so ausreichend viel über die Notwendigkeit von Recht und Gesetz, Regierung und Obrigkeit dazu, wobei letztere auch über Macht über sie verfügen sollte, dass sie fürderhin auf keinen Auftrag seitens der Bibel mehr zu warten brauchte, welcher als Grundlage und Begrenzung der Autorität des Magistrats für jede Kleinigkeit gelten und über den hinaus die Obrigkeit keinerlei weitere Autorität haben sollte, als beispielsweise ein Herr über seinen Sklaven aus der Heiligen Schrift ableiten könnte. Die Erleuchtung durch Vernunft und das Wesen des Regierens selbst verdeutlichen klar, dass in allen Gesellschaften unabwendbar die höchste Macht (ob sie nun bei einem oder mehreren liegt), in jeder Hinsicht die höchste Macht bleibt, womit gemeint ist, dass die Obrigkeit stets volle und unbeschränkte Macht über alle ansonsten unbestimmten Angelegenheiten, Gegebenheiten, Belange, Dinge und Handlungen hat, die innerhalb der betreffenden Gesellschaft auftreten.

Was auch immer unser Autor hier angesprochen haben mag, es existieren mittlerweile unzählige individuelle Gegebenheiten, die notwendig und passend wären, aber dennoch in der Bibel unbeachtet geblieben sind und daher der Bestimmung durch allgemeine Regeln überlassen sind. Wären Fragen wie Kindstaufe, kirchliche Herrschaft, Ordination, Weihe, Exkommunikation usw. zur Zeit der Apostel ebenso heiß diskutiert worden wie heute, dann hätten wir sehr wahrscheinlich ebenso eindeutige Antworten und festgesetze Regeln auf diese Zweifel erhalten, als sie einst für den Verzehr erwürgter Tiere und von Blut galten.

Die Heilige Schrift aber schweigt sich sehr laut bezüglicher dieser speziellen Fragen aus. Die Vorträge von Jesus Christus oder seinen Aposteln gehen selten über die generelle Lehre des Messias oder sich ergebende Pflichten aus dem Gesetz der Moral hinaus. Doch weil weder die akute Situation der Leute oder deren hartnäckiges Nachfragen es erforderlich machten, in die Details zu gehen, und wären womöglich nicht einige Fälle von missbräuchlichem Verhalten in der Kirche von Korinth aufgetreten, dann hätten wir wohl niemals diese Anordnung zu Schicklichkeit und Ordnung erhalten. Schließlich war das hartnäckige Insistieren jener der Anlass für Paulus Beschluss bezüglich ihres persönlichen Zweifels. I.Cor.c.7.,c.8.

Dessentwegen war es nicht erforderlich, uns wegen der Erneuerung der Beauftragung für die Obrigkeit in der Heiligen Schrift umzutun, wo sie doch bereits zuvor schon durch das Naturrecht gegeben war. Die tatsächlichen Bedingungen für Regentschaft waren bereits ausreichend mit einer Macht über alle unbestimmten Handlungen ausgestattet. Deshalb können wir vernünftigerweise keinesfalls schlussfolgern, die Obrigkeit hätte keine Macht, weil wir darüber nichts in der Bibel lesen können.

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 4, Absatz 4

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 4, Absatz 4

I could heartily wish that all disputes of this nature would cease, that men would rather be content to enjoy the freedom they have, than by such questions increase at once their own suspicions and disquiets, and the magistrate’s trouble, such discourses, however cautiously proposed, with desire of search and satisfaction being understood usually rather to speak discontents than doubts and increase the one rather than remove the other. And however sincere the author may be, the interested and prejudiced reader not seldom greedily entertains them as the just reproaches of the State, and hence takes the boldness to censure the miscarriages of the magistrate and question the equity and obligation of all laws which have not the good luck to square with his private judgement.

Ich kann nur von Herzen wünschen, alle Dispute dieser Natur lösten sich in Wohlgefallen auf; Menschen wären eher damit zufrieden, sich der Freiheit, die sie haben, zu erfreuen, als ohne jeden Anlass ihren eigenen Argwohn, innere Unruhe sowie die Herausforderungen für die Staatsführung zu vergrößern. Derartige Diskurse, wie vorsichtig vorgetragen auch immer, bewirken normalerweise deutlicher, Unzufriedenheit zu formulieren als Zweifel und vergrößern eher das eine als das andere zu beseitigen. So ernsthaft der Verfasser auch vorgehen mag, der interessierte und voreingenommene Leser versteht das nicht selten mit größtem Eifer als rechtmäßige Vorwürfe des Staates und setzt daher auf Dreistigkeit um jegliches unerwünschte Verhalten der Obrigkeit anzugreifen sowie Rechtmäßigkeit und Verbindlichkeit von Gesetzen in Frage zu stellen, die nicht gerade zufällig das Glück haben mit seiner eigenen Beurteilung in Einklang zu stehen.

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 § 120

§ 120. For the main matter in question being concerning the duty of my obedience, and the obligation of conscience I am under to pay it to him that is of right my Lord and ruler, I must know the person that this right of paternal power resides in, and so empowers him to claim obedience from me: For let it be true what he says, p. 12 that civil power not only in general is by divine institution, but even the assignment of it specially to the eldest parents, Observations, 254 and that not only the power, or right of government, but the form of the power of governing, and the person having that power, are all the ordinance of God;

yet unless he show us in all cases, who is this person ordained by God, who is this eldest parent; all his abstract notions of monarchical power will signify just nothing, when they are to be reduced to practice, and men are conscientiously to pay their obedience: For paternal jurisdiction being not the thing to be obeyed, because it cannot command, but is only that which gives one man a right which another hath not, and if it come by inheritance, another man cannot have, to command and be obeyed; it is ridiculous to say, I pay obedience to the paternal power, when I obey him, to whom paternal power gives no right to my obedience:

For he can have no divine right to my obedience, who cannot shew his divine right to the power of ruling over me, as well as that by divine right there is such a power in the world.

§ 120. Da hauptsächlich die Pflicht zur Unterordnung und das Gebot des Gewissens denen ich unterliege mich anhalten, der Person Aufmerksamkeit zu zollen, der rechtmäßig mein Regent und Gesetzgeber ist, muss ich auch die Person kennen, der das Recht väterlicher Macht innewohnt und welche dadurch ermächtigt ist, meine Unterordnung zu fordern. Angenommen, es träfe zu, was er S. 12 verkündet: Staatliche Macht besteht nicht nur ganz allgemein durch göttliche Anordnung, sondern im Besonderen auch ihre Übertragung an die ältesten Eltern. Weiter O. 254 Nicht allein die Macht oder das Recht zur Regierung, sondern auch die Form der Regierungsausübung und die Person, welche diese Macht besitzt, sind sämtlich eine Anordnung Gottes.

Solange er uns nicht für jeden Fall zeigt, wer diese von Gott eingesetzte Person, wer diese ältesten Eltern sind, verlieren alle seine abstrakten Begriffe von königlicher Macht jede Wirkung, sobald sie in die Wirklichkeit übertragen werden. Menschen sind gewissenhaft bei der Umsetzung ihrer Unterordnung. Väterliche Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung ist mitnichten ein Werkzeug für Unterordnung, da sie keine Befehlsgewalt mit sich bringt. Sie ist nichts anderes als das, was einem Menschen ein Recht gewährt, welches ein anderer nicht haben kann. Umgekehrt im Erbfall kommt, kann kein Anderer zu Befehlsgewalt und Gehorsam daraus erwarten.

Deshalb ist die Behauptung lächerlich, man erweise der väterlichen Macht Gehorsam, wenn man einem gehorcht, dem dessen väterliche Macht kein Recht auf meinen Gehorsam gibt. Niemand kann göttliches Recht auf meinen Gehorsam haben, der sein göttliches Recht über mich zu gebieten nicht beweisen kann und nicht zeigt, dass eine solche Macht durch göttliches Recht überhaupt existiert.

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 § 119

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 119. And now we see how our author has provided for the descending, and conveyance down of Adams monarchical power, or paternal dominion to posterity, by the inheritance of his heir, succeeding to all his father’s authority, and becoming upon his death as much Lord as his father was, not only over his own children, but over his brethren, and all descended from his father, and so ad infinitum.

But yet who this heir is, he does not once tell us; and all the light we have from him in this so fundamental a point, is only, that in his instance of Jacob, by using the word birth-right, as that which passed from Esau to Jacob, he haves us to guess, that by heir, he means the eldest son; though I do not remember he any where mentions expressly the title of the first-born, but all along keeps himself under the shelter of the indefinite term heir. But taking it to be his meaning, that the eldest son is heir, (for if the eldest be not, there will be no pretence why the sons should not be all heirs alike) and so by right of primogeniture has dominion over his brethren; this is but one step towards the settlement of succession, and the difficulties remain still as much as ever, till he can shew us who is meant by right heir, in all those cases which may happen where the present possessor hath no son.

This he silently passes over and perhaps wisely too: For what can be wiser, after one has affirmed, that the person having that power, as well as the power and form of government, is the ordinance of God, and by divine institution, vid. Observations 254 p.12 than to be careful, not to start any question concerning the person, the resolution whereof will certainly lead him into a confession, that God and nature hath determined nothing about him?

And if our author cannot show who by right of nature, or a clear positive law of God, has the next right to inherit the dominion of this natural monarch he has been at such pains about, when he died without a son, he might have spared his pains in all the rest, it being more necessary for the settling men’s consciences, and determining their subjection and allegiance, to show them who by original right, superior and antecedent to the will, or any act of men, hath a title to this paternal jurisdiction, than it is to show that by nature there was such a jurisdiction; it being to no purpose for me to know there is such a paternal power, which I ought, and am disposed to obey, unless, where there are many pretenders, I also know the person that is rightfully invested and endowed with it.

§ 119. Endlich sehen wir, wie unser Autor für die Vererbung und den Übergang von Adams königlicher Macht und väterlicher Herrschaft auf die Nachkommen durch Erbschaft seines Erben vorgesorgt hat. Dieser folgt in der gesamten Autorität seinem Vater und wird bei dessen Tod ebenso Herr, wie es sein Vater war.

Nicht nur über seine eigenen Kinder, auch über seine Brüder und alle, die von seinem Vater abstammten, und so fort ad Infinitum (in die Unendlichkeit). Wer dieser Erbe ist, sagt er uns leider kein einziges Mal. Alles Licht, das er in diesem grundlegenden Punkt ins Dunkel zu bringen weiß, besteht allein darin, in seinem Beispiel von Jakob durch Benutzung des Wortes Geburtsrecht als dessen, was von Esau auf Jakob überging, uns raten lässt, dass er unter Erben den ältestem Sohn versteht.

Ich erinnere mich leider nicht, er hätte irgendwo den Rechtsanspruch des Erstgeborenen ausdrücklich erwähnt, sondern er duckt sich überall unter den Schutz des unbestimmten Ausdrucks Erbe.

Angenommen, er meint, der älteste Sohn sei Erbe (Sollte es der älteste Sohn nicht sein, gäbe es keinen Grund, warum nicht alle Söhne gleichermaßen Erben sein sollten) und dieser besitze deshalb Herrschaft über seine Brüder durch Geburtsrecht, so ist das nur ein Schritt zur Reglung der Erbfolge.

Die Schwierigkeiten bleiben solange ebenso groß wie vorher, bis er uns zeigen kann, wer in allen denjenigen Fällen unter rechtmäßigem Erben zu verstehen ist, in welchen der gegenwärtige Besitzer keinen Sohn hat. Darüber geht er frei nach Boëthius26 stillschweigend, und vielleicht auch klugerweise, hinweg. Möglicherweise ist es ja klüger für einen, der behauptet hat, die Person, welcher Macht gewährt wird, ebenso wie Macht selbst und Form der Regierung seien eine Anordnung Gottes, bestünden also durch göttliche Institution, O. 254 & S. 12, sich vorsichtig zu hüten, diese Person betreffend eine Frage aufzuwerfen, deren Antwort ihn mit Sicherheit zu dem Geständnis führt, weder Gott noch Natur hätten etwas dazu bestimmt.

Solange unser Autor nicht zeigen kann, wer gemäß Naturgesetz oder ausdrücklichem Gesetz Gottes als nächster Anspruch hat, die Herrschaft dieses natürlichen Monarchen zu erben, den er sich mit so viel Mühe ausgedacht hat, gesetzt den Fall dieser stirbt ohne einen Sohn zu hinterlassen, hätte er sich jeden weiteren Aufwand sparen können.

Um die Wahrnehmung der Menschen zu beruhigen und ihre Unterordnung und Treue ans Ziel zu bringen, ist es wichtiger ihnen zu zeigen, wer durch ursprüngliches Recht, welches höher steht und älter ist als Willkür oder Tatendrang von Menschen, einen Rechtsanspruch auf diese väterliche Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung hat, als lediglich zu beweisen, es würde von Natur eine solche Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung geben. Wissen um eine solche väterliche Macht nützt mir nichts, da ich mich unterordnen muss und zur Unterordnung auch klug beraten bin, wenn mir unter vielen Anspruchstellern die Person unbekannt bleibt, die rechtmäßig damit bekleidet und ausgestattet ist.

26https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Si_tacuisses,_philosophus_mansisses

Intellexeram si tacuisses = ich hätte es kapiert, wenn Du geschwiegen hättest.

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 § 118

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 118. He that reads the story of Jacob and Esau, will find there was never any jurisdiction or authority, that either of them had over the other after their father’s death: They lived with the friendship and equality of brethren, neither Lord, neither slave to his brother; but independent each of other, were both heads of their distinct families, where they received no laws from one another, but lived separately, and were the roots out of which sprang two distinct people under two distinct governments.

This blessing then of Isaac, whereon our author would build the dominion of the elder brother, signifies no more, but what Rebecca had been told from God, Gen.XXV.23. Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger; and so Jacob blessed Judah, Gen.XLIX and gave him the scepter and dominion, from whence our author might have argued as well, that jurisdiction and dominion belongs to the third son over his brethren, as well as from this blessing of Isaac, that it belonged to Jacob:

Both these places contain only predictions of what should long after happen to their posterities, and not any declaration of the right of inheritance to dominion in either. And thus we have our author’s two great and only arguments to prove, that heirs are Lords over their brethren.

1. Because God tells Cain, Gen.IV., that however sin might set upon him, he ought or might be master of it: For the most learned interpreters understood the words of sin, and not of Abel, and give so strong reasons for it, that nothing can convincingly be inferred from so doubtful a text, to our author’s purpose.

2. Because in this of Gen.XXVII. Isaac foretells that the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob, should have dominion over the Edomites, the posterity of Esau; therefore says our author, heirs are lords of their brethren: I leave any one to judge of the conclusion.

§ 118. Wer die Erzählung von Jakob und Esau liest stellt fest, es hat nie eine Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung oder Autorität gegeben, die einer der beiden nach dem Tod des Vaters über den anderen gehabt haben könnte. Sie lebten in der Freundschaft und Gleichheit unter Brüdern, weder Herr noch Sklave des Bruders, sondern unabhängig voneinander. Beide Häupter ihrer unterschiedlichen Familien nahmen sie keine Gesetze voneinander an, sondern wohnten getrennt und wurden Wurzeln, aus denen zwei verschiedene Völker
mit zwei unterschiedlichen Regierungen hervorgingen.

Der Segen Isaaks, auf dem unser Autor zu gern die Herrschaft des älteren Bruders errichten würde, bestimmt nichts anderes als was Rebekka von Gott mitgeteilt worden war, Gen.XXV.28: Zwei Nationen sind in Deinem Leib und zweierlei Volksstämme werden hervorgehen aus Deinem Leib. Einer wird dem anderen überlegen sein und der Ältere wird dem Jüngeren dienen. So segnete Jakob Juda Gen.XLIX und gewährte ihm Zepter und Herrschaft. Woraus unser Autor ebenso gut hatte schließen können, Befugnis zur Rechtsprechung und Herrschaft über seine Geschwister gehörten dem dritten Sohn, wie er aus diesem Segen Isaaks schließt, sie gehörten Jakob. Beide Stellen enthalten lediglich Vorhersagen darüber, was sich lange nachher bei ihren Nachkommen ereignen würde. Keine von beiden enthielt die Festlegung eines Rechts, die Herrschaft zu erben. Die beiden bedeutenden und einzigen Argumente unseres Autors, einen Beweis für die Herrschaft von Erben über ihre Brüder zu liefern, sehen also so aus:

1. weil Gott in Gen.IV. von Kain verlangt, so sehr die Sünde ihn auch locke, er müsse sie meistern. Die Mehrheit der gelehrtesten Interpreten beziehen die Worte auf Sünde und nicht auf Abel. Sie liefern dafür so einleuchtende Gründe, dass für unseres Autors Zweck nichts Überzeugenderes aus einem so zweifelhaften Text geschlossen werden kann.

2. weil Isaak in Gen.XXVII voraussagt, die Israeliten als Nachkommen Jakobs würden über die Edomiter als Nachkommen Esaus herrschen. Deshalb, so schlussfolgert unser Autor, seien Erben Herren ihrer Brüder. Ich überlasse es jedem selbst über diesen Schluss zu urteilen.

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 § 117

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 117. 2. Because this place, Gen.XXVII.29., brought by our author, concerns not at all the dominion of one brother over the other, nor the subjection of Esau to Jacob: For it is plain in the history, that Esau was never subject to Jacob, but lived apart in mount Seir, where he founded a distinct people and government, and was himself prince over them, as much as Jacob was in his own family.

This text, if considered, can never be understood of Esau himself, or the personal dominion of Jacob over him: For the words brethren and sons of thy mother, could not be used literally by Isaac, who knew Jacob had only one brother; and these words are so far from being true in a literal sense, or establishing any dominion in Jacob over Esau, that in the story we find the quite contrary, for Gen. XXXII Jacob several times calls Esau Lord, and himself his servant; and Gen.XXXIII he bowed himself seven times to the ground to Esau.

Whether Esau then were a subject and vassal (nay, as our author tells us, all subjects are slaves) to Jacob, and Jacob his sovereign prince by birth-right, I leave the reader to judge; and to believe if he ran, that these words of Isaac, be Lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee, confirmed Jacob in a sovereignty over Esau, upon the account of the birth-right he had got from him.

§ 117. …Zweitens betrifft die durch unseren Autor zitierte Stelle in Gen. XXVII.29. weder die volle Herrschaft des einen Bruders über den anderen, noch die Unterordnung Esaus unter Jakob. Aus der Geschichte ergibt sich klar: Esau war nie Jakob untergeordnet, sondern lebte abseits im Land Seir, wo er ein eigenes Volk und eine eigene Regierung gründete und dort ebenso Fürst war, wie Jakob in seiner Familie.

Der Text kann bei näherer Betrachtung nie auf Esau selbst oder auf die persönliche Herrschaft Jakobs über ihn bezogen werden. Die Worte Brüder und Deiner Mutter Kinder konnten von Isaak kaum buchstäblich gebraucht worden sein, der wusste, dass Jakob nur einen Bruder hatte. Zudem sind diese Worte im buchstäblichen Sinn so weit entfernt davon wahr zu sein, geschweige denn Jakob die Herrschaft über Esau zu gewähren, dass wir in der Erzählung genau Gegenteil finden. In Gen. XXXII nennt Jakob den Esau verschiedene Male Herr und sich selbst seinen Knecht.

In Gen. XXXIII neigte er sich vor ihm siebenmal zur Erde. Ob also Esau Untertan und Vasall Jakobs war, unser Autor behauptet ja alle Untertanen seien Sklaven, und Jakob ein souveräner Fürst durch das Geburtsrecht, überlasse ich dem Leser zu beurteilen.

Sofern er es kann soll er glauben, die Worte Isaaks: Sei Herr über Deine Brüder und Deiner Mutter Kinder sollen Dir zu Füssen fallen, hätte Jakob durch den Kauf des Geburtsrechts von Esau erlangt und ihn in der Souveränität über diesen bestätigt.

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 § 116

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 116. 1. Because it will be but an ill example to prove, that dominion by God’s ordination belonged to the eldest son, because Jacob the youngest here had it, let him come by it how he would: For if it prove anything, it can only prove, against our author, that the assignment of dominion to the eldest is not by divine institution, which would then be unalterable: For if by the law of God, or nature, absolute power and empire belongs to the eldest son and his heirs, so that they are supreme monarchs, and all the rest of their brethren slaves, our author gives us reason to doubt whether the eldest son has a power to part with it, to the prejudice of his posterity, since he tells us, Observations, 158., that in grants and gifts that have their original from God or nature, no inferior power of man can limit or make any law of prescription against them.

§ 116. …erstens liefert dies nur ein schlechtes Beispiel für den Beweis, durch Gottes Anordnung gehöre Die Herrschaft dem ältesten Sohn, eben weil sie hier Jakob, dem Jüngstem, zufiel, unabhängig davon wie er dazu gekommen war. Wenn das Beispiel überhaupt etwas beweist, dann nur das Gegenteil der Behauptung unseres Autors: Die Gewähr von Herrschaft an den ältesten Sohn geschieht eben nicht durch göttliche Institution, die dann auch unwiderruflich wäre. Wenn durch Gesetz Gottes oder der Natur absolute Macht und Herrschaft dem ältesten Sohn und dessen Erben zusteht, sie damit zu höchste Monarchen erhoben und ihre Brüder sämtlich zu Sklaven gemacht werden, so gibt unser Autor uns allen Grund anzuzweifeln, der älteste Sohn hätte dann auch die Macht, zum Nachteil seiner Nachkommen darauf zu verzichten. Schließlich behauptet er, O. 158: Verleihungen und Schenkungen, die ihren Ursprung bei Gott oder der Natur haben, kann keine untergeordnete menschliche Macht beschränken, noch kann es eine Verjährung gegen sie geben.

 

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 § 115

§ 115. Thus, as under the law, the privilege of birth-right was nothing but a double portion: So we see that before Moses, in the patriarchs time, from whence our author pretends to take his model, there was no knowledge, no thought, that birth-right gave rule or empire, paternal or kingly authority, to anyone over his brethren. If this be not plain enough in the story of Isaac and Ishmael, he that will look into I.Chron.V.12., may read these words;

Reuben was the first-born; but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birth-right, was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: And the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birth-right; for Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birth-right was Joseph’s. What this births-right was, Jacob blessing Joseph, Gen.XLVIII.22. telleth us in these words:

Moreover I have given thee one portion above thy brethren which I took out of the hand of the s with my sword and with my bow. Whereby it is not only plain, that the birthright was nothing but a double portion; but the text in Chronicles is express against our author’s doctrine, and shows that dominion was no part of the birth-right; for it tells us, that Joseph had the birth-right, but Judah the dominion. One would think our author were very fond of the very name of birth-right, when he brings this instance of Jacob and Esau, to prove that dominion belongs to the heir over his brethren.

§ 115. Das Privileg des Geburtsrechts bedeutete, wie das Gesetz es vorgab, nichts weiter als einen doppelten Anteil am Erbe. Vor Moses, in der Zeit der Patriarchen, von der unser Autor sein Modell zu nehmen vorgibt, wusste und dachte man nicht, Geburtsrecht könne irgendwem Regierungsmacht, Herrschaft, väterliche oder königliche Autorität über seine Brüder verleihen.

Wer das an Hand der Geschichte von Isaak und Jakob noch immer nicht verstanden hat, der möge I.Chr.V.12 zur Hand nehmen. Dort kann er folgendes lesen: Ruben war der erste Sohn, da er aber das Bett seines Vaters Bett entweihte, wurde sein Geburtsrecht den Kindern Josephs, des Sohnes Israels übertragen und er war nicht mehr durch Geburtsrecht privilegiert, da ein Stammbaum nicht nach Geburtsrecht geregelt werden muss. Juda, mächtigste seiner Brüder, erhielt die Herrschaft und Joseph fiel das Geburtsrecht zu.

Woraus dieses Geburtsrecht bestand, sagt uns der Segen Jakobs über Joseph Gen.XLVIII.22 in folgenden Worten: Ich habe Dir unter Ausschluss Deiner Brüder ein Stück Land gegeben, das ich mit meinem Schwert und Bogen den Amoritern aus der Hand genommen habe“. Daraus ergeben sich zwei Umstände: Das Geburtsrecht besteht im doppelten Anteil und der Text der Chroniken drückt gerade das Gegenteil von der
Lehre unseres Autors aus was beweist: Herrschaft bildet keinen Teil des Geburtsrechts.

Denn er berichtet uns, dass Joseph das Geburtsrecht, Juda aber die Herrschaft hatte. Man möchte meinen, unser Autor sei schon allein in den Begriff Geburtsrecht vernarrt gewesen, wenn er dieses Beispiel von Jakob und Esau anführt und damit beweisen will, Herrschaft über seine Brüder falle dem Erben zu, denn…

 

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 § 114

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 114. And that in those days of the patriarchs, dominion was not understood to be the right of the heir, but only a greater portion of goods, is plain from Gen.XXI.10. for Sarah, taking Isaac to be heir, says, cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son: Whereby could be meant nothing, but that he should not have a pretence to an equal share of his father’s estate after his death, but should have his portion presently, and be gone. Accordingly we read, Gen. XXV. 5, 6., hat Abraham gave all he had unto Isaac, but unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived. That is, Abraham having given portions to all his other sons, and sent them away, that which he had reserved, being the greatest part of his substance, Isaac as heir possessed after his death: But by being heir, he had no right to be Lord over his brethren; for if he had, why should Sarah endeavour to rob him of one of his subjects, or lessen the number of his slaves, by desiring to have Ishmael sent away?

§ 114. Zur Zeit der Patriarchen verstand man als Recht des Erben nicht die Herrschaft, sondern nur einen größeren Teil der fahrenden Habe, wie sich aus Gen.XXI.10 ergibt: Sarah, die Isaaks Erbschaft sichern wollte, verlangte mit den Worten: Treibe diese Magd mit ihrem Sohn aus dem Haus. Der Sohn dieser Magd soll nicht erben mit meinem Sohn Isaak. Darunter konnte nur gemeint sein, er sollte nach dem Tod seines Vaters keinen Anspruch auf einen gleichen Teil von dessen Besitz haben, sondern seinen Teil sofort erhalten und vertrieben werden. Entsprechend lesen wir in Gen.XXV.5 & 6: Abraham gab all seine Habe Isaak.

Den Kindern, die er mit den Nebenfrauen hatte, gab er Geschenke und ließ sie von seinem Sohn Isaak weggehen, noch während er lebte. Das heißt: Nachdem Abraham allen seinen anderen Söhnen ihren Teil gegeben und sie in die Ferne geschickt hatte, blieb nach seinem Tod der größte Teil seines Besitzes, den er behalten hatte, für Isaak als Erbe. Diese Eigenschaft als Erbe gab ihm kein Recht, Herr seiner Brüder zu sein.

Hätte er es erhalten, warum hätte Sarah sich die Mühe machen sollen, durch ihre Forderung Ismael zu vertreiben? Abraham dadurch eines Untertanen zu berauben und die Zahl seiner Sklaven zu vermindern?

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