Schlagwort-Archive: doctrine

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 84, Absatz 84,

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 84, Absatz 84,

Another reason why the magistrate possibly doth more severely tie up the liberty of those of his own profession, and exercise his power in indifferent things especially over them may be because they are most likely to disturb the public peace, the state religion being usually the state trouble, which is not seldom found to arm the subjects against the Prince but when he is of the same profession, either because men generally when their fears are removed and have a free exercise of their religion allowed, are apt to grow wanton and know not how to set bounds to their restless spirits if persecution hang not over their heads; they will be ready to advance them too high, and if the fear of losing divert not their thoughts, they will employ them in getting; where nothing checks them, they will be sure to mount still and not stop so long as anything is above them, and those perhaps who under the Turks would be well content to be subjects so they might be Christians will in England scarce digest that condition but be ready to think if the magistrate be their fellow Christian he is their brother too and will hence expect as our author pleads, p. 4, to be used rather as brethren than subjects, equals than inferiors.

Nor is the subtlety of malicious men wanting to make the magistrate’s religion troublesome to him, wherein they will be sure to search out those arguments and spin those consequences (which a different profession could never afford them) which shall lay hold on the actions and, as they will represent them, mal-administrations of the Prince.

They will offer proofs from Scripture that he is not true to his own profession, that he either superstitiously innovates the worship, or is supinely careless of reformation or tyrannically abridges them of that liberty, which the law of their God, and that doctrine which he cannot deny freely and equally bestows on them, and pretend him as disobedient to the law of God as they will hence take leave to be to his, and at last will arrive at this, if he will not reform what they think amiss, they themselves may, or at last conclude that he cannot be a Christian and a magistrate at once.

Thus are the public religions of countries apt by the badness of the professors to become troublesome to the magistrate and dangerous to the peace, if not carefully eyed and directed by a strong and steady hand, whilst underling and tolerated professions are quiet, and the professors content themselves to commend their doctrine by the strictness and sobriety of their lives and are careful not to rend their unity by needless disputes about circumstances and so lay themselves open to the reproach of their enemies; or if any difference creep in, mutual consent closes it, without appealing to force or endeavoring to carve out a reformation with the sword, an argument never made use of but when there are hands enough prepared to wield it.

Ein anderer Grund, warum eine Obrigkeit eventuell die Freiheit derer, die desselben Glaubens sind, strenger bindet und ihre Macht betreffend die unbestimmten Dinge speziell gegenüber jenen ausübt, mag darin bestehen, dass eben diese wesentlich leichtfertiger bereit sind, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören. Die Religion einer Nation ist meist die Quelle allen inneren Ärgers einer Nation. Dabei ist es nicht selten anzutreffen, dass die Untertanen gegen den Fürsten bewaffnet werden, selbst wenn er ihr Bekenntnis teilt. Entweder weil Menschen ganz grundsätzlich, sobald ihre Befürchtungen entfallen und absolut freie Ausübung der eigenen Religion gestattet ist, stets fähig sind, sich mit zunehmender Gier zu entwickeln und einfach nicht erkennen, wie, wo und wann ihrem unsteten Geist Grenzen zu setzen sind, solange keine Strafverfolgung droht. Sie sind jederzeit bereit, sich selbst zu weit zu erhöhen und falls keinerlei Furcht vor einer Niederlage ihre Gedanken umlenkt, werden sie diese nutzen, um alles raffgierig an sich zu reißen. Wo sie rein gar nichts aufhält, werden sie stets immer höher hinaus wollen und nicht einhalten, so lange noch irgendetwas Höheres über ihnen ist. Sogar solche, die unter Herrschaft der Türken als Untertanen sehr zufrieden wären, solange man sie Christen sein ließe, würden in England diese Bedingung kaum ertragen, sondern sofort denken, da ja die Obrigkeit aus Glaubensgenossen bestehe, seien deren Mitglieder zugleich auch ihre Brüder und deshalb würden sie selbstverständlich erwarten, wie unser Autor fordert, Seite 4, gleichgestellt statt untergeordnet zu sein.

Und zielt die Finesse böswilliger Menschen auch nicht begierig darauf ab, die Religion der Obrigkeit für diese zum Problem zu machen, dessentwegen sie mit Sicherheit jene Argumente heraussuchen und jene Teufel an die Wand malen, (was ihnen kein anderes Bekenntnis gestatten würde), mittels derer sie Hand an die umstrittenen Handlungen legen könnten, um sie wunschgemäß als schlechte Regentschaft des Fürsten darzustellen.

Sie werden Beweise aus der Heiligen Schrift anbieten, dass er seinem eigenen Bekenntnis untreu sei, dass er entweder in abergläubischer Form die Huldigung erneuern wolle, oder aber gleichgültig und unverantwortlich gegenüber der Reformation sei, oder gar wie ein Tyrann alle Freiheit beschneidet, die das Recht nach ihrer Interpretation Gottes, was er nicht verneinen kann, ihnen freizügig und gleichermaßen verlieh. Sie werden seinen Ungehorsam gegen Gottes Gesetz behaupten, geradeso wie sie daher unterlassen des Fürsten Gesetz zu gehorchen und zum Schluss wird alles dahin kommen, dass er, sollte er nicht dahingehend reformieren, worin sie Bedarf sehen, sie selbst das entsprechende vornehmen werden. Oder aber sie beschließen, er könne nicht Christ und Obrigkeit auf einmal sein.

Auf diese Weise eignet sich die offizielle Religion eines Landes bestens, durch die Böswilligkeit der Bekenner, für die Obrigkeit ein Herd ewiger Unruhe und für den Frieden gefährlich zu werden. Daher soll sie sorgsam beobachtet und durch eine starke und solide Hand geleitet werden, während untergeordnete und geduldete Bekenntnisse sich ruhig verhalten, während die Bekennenden sich damit zufrieden geben, ihren Lehren durch Geradlinigkeit und Schlichtheit ihrer Lebensführung Ehre und Lob zu erweisen und sie sorgfältig darauf achten, ihre Eintracht nicht durch nutzlose Auseinandersetzungen über religiöse Begleitumstände zu zerreißen und dadurch sich selbst Vorwürfen und Attacken ihrer Feinde offen auszusetzen. Wenn dann irgendeine Streitigkeit hereinbricht, soll gegenseitiges Einvernehmen sie schließen, ohne Anwendung von physischer Gewalt oder dem Versuch, eine Reformation mit dem Schwert herauszuschneiden. Das Argument, welches nie benutzt wird, außer es gibt genug bereitwillige Hände, das Schwert zu schwingen.

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 80, Absatz 80,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 80, Absatz 80,

“Thirdly this doctrine making no provision at all for such as are scrupulous and tender supposes the same pleasure of faith in all.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

This inconvenience was touched at above, page 4, and generally this plea of scandal and offence is made use of by all sorts of men as a sufficient reason against whatever suits not with their humor, who cannot but be well pleased to find themselves always furnished with this argument against whatever cannot gain their approbation, and to think anything unlawful and ought to be removed because they dislike it.

This is an inconvenience that Christ himself and his doctrine could not escape, this cornerstone which was a sure footing to some, was also a stumbling block whereat many stumbled and fell and were broken in Israel. Were offences arguments against anything, I know not who might not clap on a render conscience and therewith sufficiently arm himself against all the injunctions of the magistrate, and no law could lay hold on him without encroaching on this law of charity and his just freedom.

How far we ought to part with our own liberty to gratify another’s scruple is a question full of niceness and difficulty. But this I dare say, that of what value soever the inward and private peace of a Christian be, it ought not to be purchased at the settled and public peace of the commonwealth, especially where it will not remove the offence and only cast the scandal on the other side and disturb the peace of the contrary persuasion, since some men will be as much offended at the magistrate’s forbearance as others at his injunctions and be as much scandalized to see a hat on in the public worship as others a surplice.

“Drittens sorgt diese Lehre keineswegs dafür, dass gewissenhafte und hingebungsvolle Menschen gleichermaßen zur freudigen Ausübung ihres Glaubens kommen.“ (Zitat Bagshaw)

Diese Unannehmbarkeit wurde bereits weiter oben, Seite 4, angesprochen. Es handelt sich um einen generellen Vorwurf zum Zweck der Skandalisierung und Attacke, den alle möglichen Menschen als ausreichenden Anlass gegen alles anführen, was ihrem Gemüt zuwiderläuft. Jene, die dennoch nie zufrieden sein können, selbst wenn dieses Standardargument als Wundermittel gegen egal alles, was gerade nicht ihre Zustimmung findet, stets zur Hand ist, und denen es vollkommen ausreicht, egal was nicht zu mögen, um es
als unrechtmäßig zu diffamieren und dessen Abschaffung zu verlangen.

Dieser Unannehmbarkeit kann noch nicht mal Jesus Christus höchstpersönlich samt seiner Lehre entrinnen, denn dieser Eckstein, der einigen als sichere Basis gilt, geriet ebenso zum Stolperstein, über den viele im alten Israel zu Fall kamen, zu Boden gingen und daran zerbrachen. Wären Beleidigungen bereits hinreichende Argumente gegen was auch immer, dann könnte ich mir nichts mehr vorstellen oder wissen, dann kennte ich keinen, der nicht auf sein fest gefügtes Gewissen pochen und sich damit ausreichend gegen jegliche Verfügung der Obrigkeit wappnen würde. Dann könnte ihn keinerlei Gesetz je in Anspruch nehmen, ohne in jenes Gesetz der Barmherzigkeit und seines rechtmäßigen Freiraums einzugreifen.

Wie weit wir unsere eigene Freiheit einschränken sollten, um den Skrupeln eines Anderen Rechnung zu tragen, ist eine Frage größter Finesse und Schwierigkeit. Doch ich wage zu behaupten, egal was auch immer innerlicher und privater Seelenfriede einem Christen wert sein mag, darf er jedoch niemals auf Rechnung eines gefestigten, öffentlichen Friedens des Gemeinwesens eingekauft werden. Ganz besonders dann nicht, wenn die ehrenrührende Ursache damit nicht beseitigt, sondern nur boshafte Skandalbehaftung über der gegnerischen Seite ausgegossen und damit der Seelenfrieden einer entgegengesetzten Auffassung bedrängt wird. Dies gilt, seit einige Menschen sich durch die Toleranz der Obrigkeit genauso beleidigt fühlen wie andere durch dessen Verfügungen und seit sie jedes Mal einen öffentlichen Skandal daraus machen, wenn jemand bei einem öffentlichen Gottesdienst einen Hut trägt oder ein Anderer ein Chorhemd.

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 76, Absatz 76,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 76, Absatz 76,

“Whereas the doctrine of impositions places it in such things in the observance of which superstition will be sure to outdo devotion.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

This doctrine that the magistrate hath power to impose indifferent things places it in none, but leaves it to his arbitrary and uncertain determination, and should the magistrate prescribe such a form wherein superstition, (a word always sounding ill and not seldom applied to very innocent actions) would perhaps outdo devotion, yet this would be no better an argument against such injunction than if he should endeavor to prove that the magistrate should not command truth and justice because they are things wherein Turks will be sure to outdo Christians. That the superstitious should be more zealous than the devout or a Turk honester than a Christian might indeed well shame the professors but could not at all discredit the doctrine of either.

“Wo auch immer die Lehre der Verfügungsbefugnis über jene Gegebenheiten insoweit verfügt, würde bei deren Beachtung der Aberglaube mit Sicherheit die Hingabe übertrumpfen.“ (Zitat Bagshaw)

Die Lehre, die Obrigkeit habe Macht über unbestimmte Dinge zu verfügen platziert gar nichts, sondern überlässt dies seiner willkürlichen und ungewissen Entscheidung. Sollte die Obrigkeit eine derartige Form vorschreiben, durch die der Aberglaube (ein stets übel klingendes Wort, nicht selten völlig harmlosen Handlungen angedichtet) möglicherweise die Hingabe übertrumpft, dann wäre das dennoch kein besseres Argument gegen derlei Eingriffe, als wenn der Autor versuchen würde zu beweisen, dass die Obrigkeit Aufrichtigkeit und Rechtmäßigkeit nicht anordnen könne, weil es sich um Gegebenheiten handelt, bezüglich derer die Türken sich sicher sein werden, darin sämtliche Christen zu übertreffen. Die Behauptung, dass Abergläubische eifernder seien als Hingebungsvolle oder ein Türke ehrlicher als ein Christ, vermag tatsächlich die Bekenntnisse zu beschämen, kann aber keinesfalls ihre Lehren entwerten.

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 75, Absatz 75,

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 75, Absatz 75,

“Our Savior says that God will now be worshipped not in show and ceremony but in spirit and in truth.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

Show and ceremony are not in the text, and might here have been spared without any injury to the discourse of Christ which doth not usually need such supplements.

The words of our Savior are, John.4.V.24, ‚The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth‘; the discourse is to a woman of Samaria, the people whereof contended with the Jews about the right place of worship, preferring their Mount Gerezime to Mount Sion, between whom the controversy had bred such dislike and aversion that it broke off all civil commerce as appears by the woman’s words; who being zealous for the religion of her country maintains it against that of the Jews; but Christ to put an end to the controversy and to prepare her for his doctrine, tells her first indeed that her religion was false, but that of the Jews too which was true, was then to cease and that therefore they should no longer contest which mountain stood nearest heaven nor in which place the worship of God was most acceptable, since God was now publishing a religion to the world not confined to any place, but wherever there were a heart inflamed with love to him and a spirit rightly disposed to his service there was a sacrifice acceptable to him.

All that can be drawn hence is that the great business of Christian religion lies in the heart, that wherever there is a well set spirit there God may be worshipped wherever it be, but this excludes not an outward form, nor can it be from hence concluded inconsistent with it.

God may be worshipped in spirit and in truth as well where the indifferent circumstances are limited as where they are free, a gracious heart may pray as fervently in the ancient form of the Church as the extemporary form of the minister, and an humble soul may receive instruction as well from the pulpit as the state; a surplice indeed will add but little heat to the body, but I know not why it should chill our devotions.

There is no necessity why David should be thought less zealous when he danced with all his might in a linen ephod134 than when he was clad in his shepherd’s coat. He that judges that where he finds ceremony and show there spirit and truth are necessarily wanting may as rationally conclude that where he observes an uniform structure with a stately outside there is no fire or inhabitants within, or that handsome bodies have no souls.

“Unser Erlöser sagt, dass Gott ab jetzt nicht länger durch Schau und Zeremonien, sondern im Geiste und Aufrichtigkeit zu huldigen sei.“

Schau und Zeremonien finden sich im Text nicht. Sie mögen hier ohne jede Beeinträchtigung der Rede Christi weggelassen worden sein, die normalerweise solcher Ergänzungen nicht bedurfte.

Die Worte unseres Heilands lauten, John.4.V.24, ‚Die Stunde nahte und ist nun da, da wahre Huldigende dem Vater im Geiste und in Aufrichtigkeit huldigen.‘ Die Rede richtet sich an eine Frau aus Samaria. Die Bevölkerung dort stritt sich mit den Juden über den richtigen Ort zur Verehrung, da sie ihren Berg Garizim dem Berg Sion vorzog. Diese Auseinandersetzung zwischen beiden Bevölkerungen hatte derart viel Abneigung und Widerwillen ausgebrütet, dass es zum Abbruch aller Handelsbeziehungen kam, wie aus den Worten der Frau zu entnehmen ist.

Wer dort für die Religion seines Landes eiferte, bewahrte diese gegen jene der Juden. Jesus Christus allerdings, der die Auseinandersetzung beenden und sie auf seine Lehre vorbereiten wollte, sagt ihr als erstes, dass ihre Religion in der Tat falsch sei, die der Juden allerdings auch. Was auch zutraf. Beide seien aufzugeben und sie sollten nicht länger darüber streiten, welcher Berg dem Himmel am nächsten stehe oder an welchem Ort die Huldigung Gottes am annehmbarsten zu geschehen habe. Seit Gott nunmehr eine Religion in der Welt verkünden ließ, die an keinen Ort gebunden war außer an jeden, an dem ein Herz in Liebe für ihn brenne und ein Geist aufrichtig seinem Dienst zugewandt sei, dort wäre seine Verehrung für ihn annehmbar.

Alles was man daher daraus ziehen kann, lautet, dass der Gegenstand der christlichen Religion im Herzen liegt. Wo immer der rechte Geist existiert, dort darf Gott gehuldigt werden, wo auch immer das sei. Doch dies schließt keine äußere Form aus, noch kann eine solche deshalb als unvereinbar betrachtet werden.

Gott kann gleichermaßen im Geiste und in Aufrichtigkeit gehuldigt werden, seien die unbestimmten Umstände nun beschränkt oder vollkommen frei. Ein dankbares Herz darf in der alten kirchlichen Form ebenso inbrünstig beten als in der aktuellen Form des Geistlichen. Eine demütige Seele darf Vorschriften der Kanzel und des Staates gleichermaßen empfangen. Ein Chorhemd wird tatsächlich dem Körper mehr als wenig Hitze bescheren, doch ich wüsste nicht, warum es unsere Hingabe abkühlen sollte.

Es gibt keine Notwendigkeit, David weniger Eifer zu unterstellen, wenn er mit allem Einsatz in einem leinenen Efod134 tanzte, als wenn er dabei in seinen Schäfermantel gekleidet war. Wer sich das Urteil anmaßt, dort wo er Zeremonien und Schau findet, würden Geist und Aufrichtigkeit notwendigerweise fehlen, der darf mit der gleichen Vernunft mutmaßen, dass überall, wo er eine einheitliche Struktur mit einem stattlichen Äußeren wahrnimmt, im Inneren weder Herdfeuer oder Bewohner vorhanden wären. Oder auch, dass in schönen Körpern keine Seelen wohnen.

134https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephod

134https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efod

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 70, Absatz 70,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 70, Absatz 70,

Indeed I have observed that almost all those tragical revolutions which have exercised Christendom these many years have turned upon this hinge, that there hath been no design so wicked which hath not worn the vizor of religion, nor rebellion which hath not been so kind to itself as to assume the specious name of reformation, proclaiming a design either to supply the defects or correct the errors of religion, that none ever went about to ruin the state but with pretence to build the temple, all those disturbers of public quiet being wise enough to lay hold on religion as a shield which if it could not defend their cause was best like to secure their credit, and gain as well pity to their ruin as partisans to their success, men finding no cause that can so rationally draw them to hazard this life, or compound for the dangers of a war as that which promises them a better, all other arguments, of liberty, country, relations, glory being to be enjoyed only in this life can give but small encouragements to a man to endanger that and to improve their present enjoyments a little, run themselves into the danger of an irreparable loss of all.

Hence have the cunning and malice of men taken occasion to pervert the doctrine of peace and charity into a perpetual foundation of war and contention, all those flames that have made such havoc and desolation in Europe, and have not been quenched but with the blood of so many millions, have been at first kindled with coals from the altar, and too much blown with the breath of those that attend the altar, who, forgetting their calling which is to promote peace and meekness, have proved the trumpeters of strife and sounded a charge with a ‚curse ye Meros’133.

I know not therefore how much it might conduce to the peace and security of mankind if religion were banished the camp and forbid to take arms, at least to use no other sword but that of the word and spirit, if ambition and revenge were disrobed of that so specious outside of reformation and the cause of God, were forced to appear in their own native ugliness and lie open to the eyes and contempt of all the world, if the believer and unbeliever could be content as Paul advises to live together, and use no other weapons to conquer each other’s opinions but pity and persuasion, if men would suffer one another to go to heaven everyone his one way, and not out of a fond conceit of themselves pretend to greater knowledge and care of another’s soul and eternal concernments than he himself, how much I say if such a temper and tenderness were wrought in the hearts of men our author’s doctrine of toleration might promote a quiet in the world, and at last bring those glorious days that men have a great while sought after the wrong way, I shall leave everyone to judge.

In der Realität dagegen habe ich beobachtet, dass im Grunde alle jene leidvollen Revolutionen, die das Christentum in diesen vielen Jahren durchexerzierte sich über jene Angeln durch die Türrahmen geschwungen haben, dass weder eine noch so bösartige Absicht in Erscheinung trat, die nicht religiöse Verblendung vor sich hergetragen hätte, noch eine Rebellion angezettelt wurde, die nicht so liebevoll zu sich selbst gewesen wäre, den höchst besonderen Titel der Reformation für sich in Anspruch zu nehmen.

Ob sie nun eine Absicht verkündeten, entweder Mängeln abzuhelfen oder religiöse Irrtümer zu korrigieren, natürlich musste keiner jemals den Staat zu einem anderen Zweck ruinieren, als Gottes wahren Tempel zu errichten. Alle jene Unruhestifter und Störer des öffentlichen Friedens waren wahrhaft weise genug um sich auf die Religion zu berufen, als einem Schild, der, wenn er schon ihre Sache nicht verteidigen konnte, wenigstens bestens geeignet war, ihre Glaubwürdigkeit sicherzustellen. Um nun gleichermaßen Mitgefühl im Falle ihrer Niederlage und weitere Parteigänger im Falle des Erfolgs zu gewinnen, können Menschen keine Begründung finden, die sie derart vernunftbehaftet dazu bringt, ihr diesseitiges Leben zu riskieren oder die Gefahren eines Krieges mit den Versprechungen eines besseren zu vergleichen. Sämtliche anderen Argumente wie Freiheit, Land, Nation, Beziehungen, Ruhm und Ehre, die nur für dieses Leben Bedeutung haben, können Menschen bestenfalls ein klein wenig Ermutigung liefern, sein hiesiges Leben aufs Spiel zu setzen und um aktuelle Lebensumstände ein wenig zu verbessern, rennen sie blind in das Risiko alles zu verlieren.

Daher haben Gerissenheit und Niederträchtigkeit einiger Menschen sogleich die Möglichkeit ergriffen, die Lehre von Frieden und Barmherzigkeit in einen immerwährenden Anlass zu Krieg und Streit zu pervertieren, haben alle jene Flammen entfacht, die in Europa derart viel Chaos und Verwüstung anrichteten und mit nichts weniger als dem Blut von Millionen gestillt werden konnten. All das wurde zu Beginn mit den glühenden Kohlen der Altäre entzündet, angefacht mit dem Atem derer, die sich zum Altar hinwandten, die dabei vergaßen, dass es ihre Berufung war, Frieden und Sanftmut zu predigen, sich statt dessen als Trompeter zur Attacke erwiesen und das Angriffssignal mit dem Fluch von Meros133 gaben.

Ich vermag daher nicht zu wissen, wie viel es zu Frieden und Sicherheit der Menschheit hätte beitragen können, wenn die Religion des Feldes verwiesen und es ihr verboten worden wäre, zu den Waffen zu greifen, mit dem Zweck, kein anderes Schwert als das von Wort und Geist zu benutzen.

Was, wenn Ehrgeiz und Rachelust all derer so deutlich außerhalb von Reformationsbedarf und Anliegen Gottes gelegenen Mittel beraubt worden wären? Sie wären gezwungen gewesen, in ihrer eigenen, angeborenen Widerwärtigkeit zu erscheinen, offen sichtbar für die Augen und die Verachtung aller Welt. Wenn Glaubende und Nichtglaubende zufrieden wären, so zusammen zu leben wie es Paulus ihnen geraten hatte und keine andere Waffe nutzten, um sich gegenseitig durch nichts anderes für sich einzunehmen, als durch Mitgefühl und Überzeugung? Wenn Menschen es gegenseitig dulden könnten, dass jeder seinem eigenen Weg zum Himmel folgt, statt aus tief verwurzelter Eitelkeit von sich selbst weiter reichende Kenntnis, wirksamere Fürsorge für die Seelen anderer und eine noch ewigere Bekümmerung als Gott höchstpersönlich zu behaupten? Was auch immer ich aufzähle: Wäre diese Art Gemütsverfassung und Zartheit in den Herzen der Menschen vorgezeichnet, dann könnte die Lehre der Toleranz unseres Autors die Ruhe auf der Welt fördern und schließlich jene ruhmreichenTage herbeiführen, nach denen die Menschen seit langem auf falschen Wegen gesucht haben. Das zu beurteilen überlasse ich jedem selbst.

133https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroz

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 66, Absatz 66,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 66, Absatz 66,

“In principles on which moral actions are grounded the inconveniencies do use to be weighed, and that doctrine for the most part seems most true, at least most plausible which is attended by fewest inconveniencies”.

Principles ought to be of unalterable verity and therefore are not to be established upon our uncertain and commonly partial judgment of their consequences, which are usually so many, so various and cross, that nothing then could stand firm, if every little inconvenience could shake it.

The question being or lawful or unlawful; we are to be judged by some law and not by supposed inconveniencies which nobody can miss of, that will seek to discredit and dissuade any constitution, and study as he says to render the contrary doctrine plausible.

If popular arguments were proofs I know no principles could stand secure, and the Gospel itself would not be free from question, in which the heathens found inconveniencies and arguments enough to render it less plausible than their own absurdities and irrational superstitions.

Who might not this way declaim government itself out of the world and quickly insinuate into the multitude that it is beneath the dignity of a man to enslave his understanding and subject his will to another’s pleasure, to think himself so ignorant or imprudent as to stand in need of a guardian, and not to be as God and nature made him, the free disposer of his own actions?

To fight to support greatness and a dominion over himself, and rob his own necessities to maintain the pomp and pleasure of one that regards him not, to hold his life as a tenant at will and to be ready to part with his head when it shall be demanded, these and many more such are the disadvantages of government, yet far less than are to be found in its absence as no peace, no security, no enjoyments, enmity with all men and safe possession of nothing, and those stinging swarms of miseries that attend anarchy and rebellion.

This I grant is a ready but not a fair way to decry any doctrine, to point out all the dangers that may follow from it and not at all to touch its advantages or obligation, and by showing only the black side of the cloud persuade the beholder that even the Israelites are in darkness and error whereas a better prospect would discover them guided by a brighter illumination.

‚Tis true everyone in those things that fall under his choice ought well to balance the conveniences and inconveniencies on both sides, and to be poised on that side on which the weightier consequences shall hang, and he sins at least against discretion that shall do otherwise.

And thus the magistrate is to consider the consequences of those things which God hath left free before he determine them by his public decrees, and the subject to consider the consequences of those things which the magistrate hath left free before he determine them by his private resolution; and would all men thus limit their motions within their own sphere they would not be so turbulent and troublesome.

“Bei allen Prinzipien, auf denen moralische Handlungen beruhen, werden die Unannehmbarkeiten für gewöhnlich abgewogen, wobei der Lehrsatz größtenteils zutrifft, oder wenigstens höchst plausibel ist, der die wenigsten Unannehmbarkeiten in sich trägt.“

Prinzipien sollten unveränderbare Wahrheit aufweisen und deshalb keinesfalls auf unseren ungesicherten und gewöhnlich auf Grund eigenen Interesses parteiischen Beurteilungen ihrer Folgewirkung beruhen, deren es normalerweise so viele gibt, so unterschiedliche und gegensätzliche, dass rein gar nichts soliden Bestand aufweist und jede kleine Unannehmbarkeit das Ganze erschüttern kann.

Was die Frage rechtmäßig oder unrechtmäßig angeht, haben wir anhand von Recht und Gesetz zu urteilen und nicht auf Grund unterstellter Unannehmbarkeit, die keiner zu nutzen auslässt, der ständig derlei Gegebenheiten sucht, um jede Art Verfassung zu diskreditieren und in Verruf zu bringen und der danach strebt, eine gegensätzliche Lehre zu beweisen.

Wären populistische Argumente Beweise, würde mir kein einziges Prinzip einfallen, welches sicher stehen könnte, ja selbst das Evangelium wäre nicht mehr frei von Infragestellung, da sämtliche Heiden darin ausreichend Unannehmbarkeiten und Argumente fänden um es als weniger plausibel nachzuweisen, als deren eigene Absurditäten und vernunftloser Aberglaube.

Wer wäre auf diese Art nicht in der Lage, das Prinzip des Regierens an sich aus der Welt zu schaffen und auf direktem Weg der Menge einzuflüstern, es wäre unter der Würde des Menschen den Gebrauch seiner Vernunft an eine Leine legen zu lassen und seinen Willen dem Belieben eines anderen unterzuordnen? Wer würde sich selbst als dermaßen unwissend und unklug betrachten, dass er einen Wächter nötig hätte, anstatt so wie Gott und Natur ihn geschaffen haben, der frei verfügende über seine eigenen Handlungen zu sein.

Einen Kampf zur Unterstützung von Großartigkeit, Herrlichkeit und Herrschaft über sich selbst zu fördern, sich der eigenen Bedürfnisse berauben, um Glanz und Vergnügen eines Einzelnen willen, der ihn nicht mal beachtet, das eigene Leben als Leihgabe dessen Beliebens zu betrachten und auf Verlangen den eigenen Kopf für jenen hinzuhalten, das alles und noch viel mehr dieser Art umfasst die Nachteile einer Regierung und ist dennoch weit mehr als was man vorfinden würde, falls eine solche fehlt, wenn deswegen kein Frieden, keine Sicherheit, keine Zufriedenheit, Feindschaft unter allen Menschen und der absolut sichere Besitz von gar nichts und all die stechenden Schwärme von Elend vorhanden wären, die Anarchie und Rebellion begleiten.

Ich versichere Euch: Es ist zwar ein verlockend gut vorbereiteter, aber keinesfalls ein fairer Weg eine jede Lehre zu verunglimpfen. Auf alle denkbaren vermuteten Gefahren hinzuweisen, die sie möglicherweise mit sich bringen könnte und dabei ausschließlich auf die dunkle Seite der Wolke zu deuten, um die Gebannten zu überzeugen, dass selbst die Israeliten sich in Dunkelheit und Verirrung befanden, wo doch eine bessere Verheißung ihnen mittels hellerer Erleuchtung enthüllt wurde.

In Wahrheit sollte jeder bei allen Angelegenheiten, die unter seine freie Wahl fallen, auf beiden Seiten die Annehmbarkeiten und Unannehmbarkeiten gut abwägen und sich auf die Seite stellen, auf der die gewichtigeren Folgen sich befinden, denn er würde sich letzten Endes versündigen, wenn er es anders hielte.

Davon ausgehend hat auch die Obrigkeit die Folgen aller Gegebenheiten zu erwägen, die Gott offen gelassen hat, bevor sie diese in Form öffentlicher Dekrete bestimmt. Ferner hat der Bürger die Konsequenzen betreffend die Angelegenheiten, die dann auch die Obrigkeit noch offen gelassen hat, zu erwägen, bevor er selbst diesbezüglich auf Grund privater Entschlusskraft entscheidet. Sollten also aus dieser Überlegung heraus alle Menschen ihre Ansprüche auf ihre eigene Sphäre beschränken, so wären sie nicht so aufgewühlt und unangenehm.

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 62, Absatz 62,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 62, Absatz 62,

2. I answer against what he here contends for that those things enjoined to the Churches by the synod excepting only fornication were not in themselves necessary as appears, (i) because no law then in force commanded them since; the positive moral law of God nowhere mentions them but only the same ceremonial law which was now abolished.

Indeed eating of blood was forbidden Noah which precept our author thinks is still obligatory to all his posterity, though contrary to the doctrine of St Paul, I.Cor.8, concerning things offered to idols, and Romans 14.14 where he clears the doubt concerning them all, ‚I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself but to him that esteems it‘, and v. 20, ‚all things‘ indeed ‚are pure ‚, i.e., defile not the eater but are indifferent in their use.

And St Paul, I.Timo.4, calls the commanding to abstain from meats the doctrine of devils, giving the reason, ‚for every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanks­ giving‘. The same is also clear from I.Cor.10.27.

“The Apostles‘ scope was to ease and free not tie up their brethren.” ‚Twas indeed here as in all other places where it came into question the Apostles‘ intention to enlarge converts from a subjection to the ceremonial law; but whatever was the reason ‚tis certain they did tie up their brethren by those injunctions in things that were in themselves most of them indifferent – if St Paul’s judgment be to be taken before our author’s.

2. Es beliebt mir auf das, was er hier vorträgt, zu antworten: Jene Gegebenheiten nämlich, die den Pfarrgemeinden aufgetragen wurden, abgesehen einzig vom Verbot der Unzucht durch die Synode, waren für sich gesehen keineswegs so notwendig wie es scheint. Zum einen, weil kein zu dieser Zeit verbindliches Gesetz danach verlangte. Die von Gott gesetzlich festgelegten Regeln der Moral erwähnen sie nicht, höchstens das besagte Zeremonialrecht, welches aber bereits aufgehoben war.

Tatsächlich war Noah der Verzehr von Blut verboten und unser Autor denkt, das diesbezügliche Gebot sei für alle dessen Nachkommen noch immer verpflichtend. Und das im Gegensatz zur Lehre des Paulus, I.Cor.8, betreffend alles, was Götzen geopfert wird, und in Römer 14.14, wo er den Zweifel ausräumt, der sie alle befallen hatte, ‚Ich weiß und bin vollkommen überzeugt durch Jesus Christus den Herrn: Es gibt nichts, was aus sich selbst heraus unrein wäre, abgesehen für den, der es warum auch immer dafür hält‘, und weiter in 20, ‚alle Dinge sind‘ in der Tat ‚rein‘. Damit ist gemeint: Sie verunreinigen den Essenden nicht, da ihr Gebrauch unbestimmt ist.

Paulus nennt in I.Timo.4 die Anordnung, auf bestimmte Speisen zu verzichten, eine Lehre des Teufels und nennt als Grund: ‚Jedes Geschöpf Gottes ist seine Gabe und nichts muss zurückgewiesen werden, solange es unter Danksagung empfangen wurde.‘ Das wird ebenfalls aus I.Cor.10.27 deutlich.

„Der Fokus der Apostel bestand darin, ihre Glaubensbrüder zu entlasten und zu befreien.“ Und tatsächlich hatten die Apostel hier und überall, wo diese Frage auftauchte, die grundsätzliche Absicht, die Konvertiten weitestgehend von der Unterordnung unter das zeremonielle Recht frei gestellt. Doch aus welchem Grund auch immer: Es ist dennoch gewiss, dass sie ihre Glaubensbrüder mittels derartiger Verfügungen in Angelegenheiten verpflichteten, die für sich gesehen unbestimmt und zumeist unbedeutend waren. Vorausgesetzt, wir ziehen das Urteil des Heiligen Paulus dem unseres Autors vor.

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 50, Absatz 50,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 50, Absatz 50,

“Decency and order when it is of constraint not of consent 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 ‚the servants of another‘.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

Which text cannot without force be applied to any other but a civil bondage. The Apostle in that chapter gives them a resolution of some doubts which it seems they had proposed to him concerning the several relations and conditions of men, as the married and unmarried, the servant and the free and in general tells them, that conversion to Christianity did not dissolve any of those obligations they were tied in before but that the gospel continued them in the same condition and under the same civil obligations it found them.

The married were not to leave their consorts, nor the servant freed from his master, but because they were such as Christ had purchased with his blood and free men of his kingdom he thinks them fitter to be free, and advises them if they could to gain their liberty and not debase themselves to slavery and that too for the same reasons he counsels virgins to continue single, that they might the more freely attend the business of religion and not be entangled in the avocations and concernments of the world.

Nor can those words ‚be ye not the servants of men‘ be possibly understood of obedience to the injunctions of the magistrate in matters of religion or be any answer to their question, Christianity being scarce then known to the heathen magistrate, who was more likely to persecute the profession than prescribe forms of worship in a religion new and opposite to his own.

Nor could servant in this sense relate (as our author would have it) “to the master extending his rule over the conscience”, who, “if a heathen”, might possibly forbid, but would never fashion the worship of a Christian, “if a Christian”, the argument at best would be but against the master not against the magistrate in prescribing rules of worship.

Though it is very improbable that the Corinthians132 should at the very first approaches of this religion be so inquisitive after the smallest things of discipline, whereof all sects in their beginnings are not very curious as we find the first Christians were not, or that Paul in answer to their demands should provide against an evil wherewith they were not threatened, for who can think that masters that could not but know their servants‘ privileges and freedom in the gospel to be equal with their own should take upon them presently so magisterially to chalk out a way of worship to their servants, when yet they were scarcely acquainted with the particulars of the doctrine itself, and it is known that masters and servants, all the converts did usually assemble with their fellow Christians and join in the same worship with the church they were of; I shall not therefore fear to affirm the “be you not the servants of men”, is but repeating the advice he gave, “if thou mayst be made free use it rather”.

“Schicklichkeit und Ordnung aus Zwang statt aus Einvernehmen bedeuten nichts anderes als Tyrannei seitens dessen, der aufdrängt und Knechtschaft für den, dem derlei aufs Auge gedrückt wird. Es verwandelt letzteren, soweit es die religiösen Angelegenheiten betrifft, in eben den, der uns verboten wurde zu sein, ‚Sklave eines anderen‘.“ (Zitat Bagshaw)

Dieser Text kann sich ohne Einsatz verbaler Gewalt auf nichts anderes beziehen als staatliche Knechtschaft für die Bürger. Der Apostel gibt ihnen in diesem Kapitel eine erlösende Antwort bezüglich nagender Zweifel, die sie ihm offenbar vorgelegt hatten. Diese betrafen die verschiedenen Beziehungen und Bedingungen für Menschen, soweit es dabei um Verheiratete und Ledige oder Sklaven und Freie geht und er teilt ihnen in Form allgemeiner Begriffe mit, dass die Annahme des christlichen Glaubens keine dieser Pflichten auflöst, an die sie zuvor gebunden wurden, sondern dass das Evangelium diese unverändert und unter gleichen Bedingungen und bürgerlichen Pflichten, die sie beinhalten, fortgesetzt sehen will.

Verheiratete dürfen ihre Partner nicht verlassen, Sklaven werden nicht von ihrem Herrn befreit. Sondern weil sie zu denen gehören, die Jesus Christus durch sein Blut freigekauft hat und sie deshalb freie Menschen seines Königreichs sind, hält Paulus sie für geeigneter zur Freiheit und weist sie an, ihre Freiheit zu erwerben, falls sie können, und sich selbst niemals zur Sklaverei erniedrigen. Aus eben denselben Gründen rät er Jungfrauen ledig zu bleiben, damit sie sich dadurch umso freier der Religion widmen können und nicht in weltliche Attraktionen und Bedenklichkeiten verstrickt werden.

Ebenso wenig können besagte Worte ‘macht Euch nicht zu Sklaven von Menschen’ irgendwie in Bezug auf die Verfügungen der Obrigkeit über Fragen, die religiöse Angelegenheiten berühren, verstanden werden oder gar eine Antwort auf ihre Frage geben, wo doch das Christentum den heidnischen Obrigkeiten seinerzeit kaum bekannt war, die ohnehin bevorzugten, das Bekenntnis zu verfolgen, als sich mit Vorschriften über die Formen der Huldigung einer neuen und ihrer eigenen entgegengesetzten Religion aufzuhalten.

Ferner kann sich der Begriff Sklave in diesem Sinne nicht auf (auch wenn unser Autor das gern so hätte) „des Herrn Zuständigkeit, dessen Gewissen zu bestimmen“ beziehen, der „falls es sich um einen Heiden handelt“ möglicherweise verbieten, aber niemals die Form der Huldigung eines Christen gestalten würde. „Aber, wäre er Christ“, würde das Argument bestenfalls gegen den Herrn und keinesfalls gegen eine Obrigkeit sprechen, die Regeln für die Huldigung vorschreibt.

Von daher ist die Vorstellung ziemlich unwahrscheinlich, die Korinther132 wären bei den ersten Anflügen dieser Religion so wissbegierig auf die allerkleinsten Details der inneren Disziplin gewesen. Ebenso wie alle Sekten in ihren Anfängen nicht vorwiegend neugierig diesbezüglich sind, nehmen wir das auch bei den ersten Christen nicht wahr. Oder gar, dass Paulus in seinen Antworten gegen ein Übel vorgesorgt haben sollte, von dem sie gar nicht bedroht wurden. Wer kommt denn auf die absurde Idee, Herren, die doch noch kaum Bekanntschaft mit den Einzelheiten der neuen Lehre selbst gemacht hatten und gerade mal wussten, dass die Privilegien und Freiheiten ihrer Sklaven im Evangelium ihren eigenen gleich waren, würden es augenblicklich auf sich nehmen, einem Oberlehrer gleich ihren Sklaven einen Weg zur Huldigung mit Kreide auf Tafeln vorzuzeichnen?

Es ist doch bekannt, dass sich Herren und Sklaven, alle Konvertiten gemeinsam, gewöhnlich mit ihren Glaubensgenossen zur gemeinsamen Huldigung in der Kirche zusammenfanden, zu der sie sich gesellt hatten. Deshalb muss ich mich davor nicht fürchten zu bestätigen, der Satz ‚Macht Euch nicht zu Sklaven von Menschen‘ bedeute etwas anderes als die Anweisung zu wiederholen, die Paulus bereits gegeben hatte: ‚Solltest Du befreit werden können, nutze das soweit möglich. ‘

132https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians

132https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1._Brief_des_Paulus_an_die_Korinther

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 43, Absatz 43,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 43, Absatz 43,

I confess they had their original from divine authority, but ‚tis as true that they had their end, too, from the same divine appointment, and it was as sinful to urge them as obliging after God had abolished them, as it was to neglect them whilst he enjoined their observation; they were a law till Christ, not after, types and promises of the Messiah’s coming and kingdom, but not to be rules of obedience under it; those shadows vanished upon the rising of our Sun of Righteousness, and therefore, though their use were indifferent afterwards and lawful and their practice allowed both by the permission of the Apostles and their example too when it would any way advantage the gospel, or be any means of gaining converts or securing the peace of the church, but to allow their imposition and to acknowledge that law still in force which was to be abrogated by the coming of the Messiah was to contradict their own doctrine, and deny that Christ was come which was their great design to establish, so that the things were left but the law that formerly made them necessary removed, and for a man to think himself under the obligation of the ceremonial law and at the same time entertain the doctrine of the Gospel, was as impossible as to be a Jew and a Christian at once which St. Paul, makes inconsistent. So that it is no wonder he should so vigorously oppose the doctrine of subjection to the ceremonial law, which would ruin and undermine the very foundations of that religion he was then building; and so smartly handle St. Peter his fellow Apostle when by his carriage he seemed to confirm it.

Ich will gern zugestehen, dass dies seinen Ursprung in göttlicher Autorität hatte, aber es trifft ebenso zu, dass es auch durch diese göttliche Festlegung beendet wurde. Daher ist es ebenso sündhaft, es als dringend verbindlich zu vertreten, nachdem Gott es beseitigt hatte, als es zu missachten, solange man an Beachtung gebunden war. Es war geltendes Recht bis zu Christus, nicht nach ihm. Es war Vorgabe und Versprechen zum Erscheinen unseres Messias und seines Königreiches, nicht aber Regelwerk des Gehorsams unter ihm. Diese Schatten wurden durch den Aufgang unserer Sonne der Aufrichtigkeit vertrieben und deshalb, da ihr Gebrauch anschließend unbestimmt und rechtmäßig war und ihre Ausübung sowohl durch die Gestattung der Apostel und auch deren Beispiel erlaubt, solange es in irgendeiner Weise das Evangelium förderte, oder ein Mittel zur Gewinnung von Konvertiten war, oder den Frieden der Kirche sicherte. Indessen aber deren Verfügung weiterhin zu gestatten und dieses Recht als nach wie vor in Kraft anzuerkennen, welches durch die Ankunft des Messias außer Kraft gesetzt wurde, bedeutete der eigenen Lehre zu widersprechen und abzuleugnen, Jesus Christus sei gekommen. Und zwar genau das, dessen Etablierung Absicht für sie war. Womit nun die betreffenden Angelegenheiten sich selbst überlassen blieben, während das Recht, welches sie formal gestaltet hatte, notwendigerweise hinfällig wurde. Diese Konstellation, sich selbst als durch das Zeremonialrecht verpflichtet zu sehen und gleichzeitig die Lehre des Evangeliums zu verbreiten, war derart unmöglich, als gleichzeitig Jude und Christ zu sein, was der heilige Paulus als unvereinbar bezeichnet hat. Auf Grund dessen ist es alles andere als ein Wunder, wenn Paulus diese Lehre der Unterordnung unter das zeremonielle Recht so energisch bestreitet, die sämtliche originären Fundamente der Religion, die er dabei war aufzubauen, ruinierte und untergrub und wenn er dabei so gewitzt mit dem heiligen Petrus umging, seinem Mit-Apostel, sobald dieser durch sein Verhalten diese Lehre zu bestätigen schien.

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