Schlagwort-Archive: doubt

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 65, Absatz 65,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 65, Absatz 65,

“My last argument against impositions shall be taken from inconveniencies that attend such a practice.”
lf inconveniencies make things unlawful as well as sometimes unpleasant I know nothing could be innocent, all our blessings would have their seasons of being curses, we cannot doubt there can be anything so good or innocent which the frail nature or improved corruption of man may not make use of to harm himself or his neighbor since the Apostle tells us we may abuse the grace of God into wantonness. Ever since man first threw himself into the pollution of sin, he sullies whatever he takes into his hand, and he that at first could make the best and perfectest nature degenerate cannot fail now to make other things so too.

“Mein letztes Argument gegen obrigkeitliche Verfügungen gewinne ich aus den Unannehmbarkeiten, die deren Praxis mit sich bringt.“ Soweit Unannehmbarkeiten Angelegenheiten manchmal ebenso unrechtmäßig werden lassen sollten wie unerwünscht, so bliebe mir nichts bekannt, was seine Unschuld bewahren könnte, wo doch alle unsere Segnungen sich zur Unzeit in Flüche wandeln können. Wir könnten keinen Zweifel daran haben, dass es irgendetwas so Gutes und Unschuldiges geben könnte, was die schwächliche Natur oder angewachsene Verdorbenheit der Menschen nicht doch nutzen könnte, um sich selbst oder seinem Nachbarn zu schaden, wo doch sogar der Apostel uns bescheinigt, wir wären fähig die Gnade Gottes in Schamlosigkeit zu verwandeln. Bereits seit der Mensch sich erstmals der Verschmutzung durch Sünde ausgesetzt hat, besudelt er alles, woran er Hand legt und gerade er, der es als aller erstes fertig gebracht hat, die beste und perfekteste Natur zu verderben, kann gar nicht dabei versagen, das bei anderen Angelegenheiten ebenfalls zu vollbringen.

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 47, Absatz 47,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 47, Absatz 47,

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

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

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

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

131Locke mentions here a little vers

131Locke zitiert hier einen kleinen Vers

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

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

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

Deutsch: Thomas Blechschmidt, 17.02.2017

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 33, Absatz 33,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 33, Absatz 33,

But an exemption from the power of the magistrate though an infidel neither the Gospel nor they ever pleaded for; and shall a Christian magistrate find his authority weakened by that doctrine which strengthens a heathen’s; must he first renounce his own kingdom before he enters into Christ’s, cannot he be a convert and a King at once, and must our author’s first supposition be still in doubt whether a Christian may be a magistrate?

Doch eine derartige Treulosigkeit wie den Ausschluss der Obrigkeit forderten weder das Evangelium noch die Christen selbst jemals. Sollte eine christliche Obrigkeit die Schwächung ihrer Autorität durch diese Lehre, die jene eines Heiden stärkt, hinnehmen? Müsste dieser etwa zunächst auf sein Königtum verzichten, bevor er in das von Jesus Christus eintreten kann? Kann denn ein Konvertit nicht gleichzeitig König bleiben? Und wäre dadurch nicht unseres Autors erste Annahme, ob ein Christ Mitglied der Obrigkeit sein kann, dann nicht Zweifeln ausgesetzt?

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

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

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 30, Absatz 30,

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

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

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG II § 200

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 200. If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a King will make it pass with him:

King James the First in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus: I will ever prefer the weal of the public and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions to any particular and private ends of mine; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful King doth directly differ from a Tyrant: For I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful King and an usurping Tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious Tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just thing doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property39 of his people. And again, in his speech to the parliament 1609 he hath these words:

The King binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a King, and so bound to protect as well the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly, by his oath at his coronation; so as every just King, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge.

Hereafter, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease while the earth remaineth. And therefore a King governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a King, and degenerates into a Tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws. And a little after:

Therefore all Kings that are not Tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests both against them and the commonwealth. Thus that learned King, who well understood the notion of things, makes the difference betwixt a King and a Tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public, the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite.

§ 200. Sollte jemand bezweifeln dies sei Wahrheit oder Vernunft, weil es von der obskuren Hand eines Angehörigen kommt, so wird er es, hoffe ich, durch Autorität eines Königs akzeptieren.

König James I. verkündet in seiner Rede an das Parlament im Jahre 1603: Ich werde durch gute Gesetze und Verfassungen das Wohl des Volks und des ganzen Gemeinwesens stets meinen besonderen und privaten Interessen voranstellen. Ich werde Wohlstand und Wohlergehen des Gemeinwesens stets für mein größtes Heil und irdisches Glück halten. Ein Punkt, in dem ein rechtmäßiger König sich deutlich von einem Tyrannen unterscheidet.

Ich akzeptiere: Der besondere und wichtigste Unterschied zwischen einem rechtmäßigen König und einem usurpierenden Tyrann besteht darin: Während der hochmütige und ehrgeizige Tyrann glaubt, sein Königreich und sein Volk seien nur zur Befriedigung seiner Wünsche und irrationalen Begierden bestimmt, bekennt der rechtschaffene und gerechte König das Gegenteil: Er ist erhoben, um Wohlstand und Eigentum39 der Bevölkerung zu fördern.

Später gebraucht er in seiner Rede an das Parlament im Jahr 1609 folgende Worte: Der König verpflichtet sich durch zweifachen Eid zur Beachtung der grundlegenden Gesetze seines Reichs: Stillschweigend, insofern er ein König und dadurch verpflichtet ist, Volk und Recht seines Reichs zu schützen. Ausdrücklich durch seinen Krönungseid. Jeder gerechte König in einem stabilen Reich hat die Pflicht, den mit seinem Volk nach seinen Gesetzen geschlossenen Vertrag zu halten, indem er seine Regierung in annehmbarer Weise gestaltet, nach Vorlage des Vertrags, den Gott nach der Sintflut mit Noah einging: Solange die Erde besteht, sollen Saat und Ernte, Frost und Hitze, Sommer und Winter, Tag und Nacht nicht aufhören. Deshalb hört ein König, der ein geordnetes Reich regiert auf, König zu sein und entartet zu einem Tyrannen, sobald er aufhört, nach seinen Gesetzen zu regieren.

Und etwas später: Deshalb werden alle Könige, die nicht Tyrannen oder meineidig sind, sich damit zufrieden geben, innerhalb der Grenzen ihrer Gesetze zu bleiben. Wer sie vom Gegenteil überzeugen will, ist eine Giftschlange und eine ansteckende Seuche für den Fürsten gleichermaßen wie für das Gemeinwesen.

Deshalb besteht laut diesem gebildeten König, der die Bedeutung der Dinge gut verstand, der Unterschied zwischen König und Tyrann allein darin, dass der eine die Gesetze zu den Grenzen seiner Macht und das Wohl des Volks zum Ziel seiner Regierung bestimmt, der andere alles für Willkür und Begierde hintenanstellt.

39Property in Lockes wider definition: liberty, life, estate,… what we need to discuss of…

39Eigentum nach Lockes Definition, im Sinne des Staatszwecks: Freiheit, Leben und Vermögen (liberty, life and estate): Property by John Lockes own definition…for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. II §123; §87; §127; §131; §134; §138; §139; §170; §171; §174; §199; §200; §201; §221; §222; §226; §227; §228; § 229; §231; §239;

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG II § 113

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 113. That all men being born under government, some or other, it is impossible any of them should ever be free, and at liberty to unite together, and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful government.

If this argument be good; I ask, how came so many lawful monarchies into the world? For if anybody, upon this supposition, can show me anyone man in any age of the world free to begin a lawful monarchy, I will be bound to show him ten other free men at liberty, at the
same time to unite and begin a new government under a regal, or any other form; it being demonstration, that if anyone, born under the dominion of another, may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new and distinct empire, everyone that is born under the dominion of another may be so free too, and may become a ruler, or subject, of a distinct separate government. And so by this their own principle either all men, however born, are free, or else there is but one lawful Prince, one lawful government in the world. And then they have nothing to do, but barely to show us which that is; which when they have done, I doubt not but all mankind will easily agree to pay obedience to him.

§ 113. (§100.2) Es ist rechtlich unhaltbar, Menschen könnten dies tun, da alle Menschen unter einer Regierung geboren worden, sich dieser zu unterordnen zu haben und deshalb keine Freiheit besitzen einfach eine neue Regierung zu begründen.

Wenn das als Beweis gelten soll, muss ich fragen: Wie kamen dann so viele rechtmäßige Monarchien in die Welt? Wenn jemand auf Basis dieser Annahme mir irgendeinen einzelnen Menschen in irgendeinem Zeitalter der Welt zeigen kann, der frei war, eine rechtmäßige Monarchie als Einzelner für sich als Herrscher zu errichten, verpflichte ich mich, ihm zehn andere , unabhängige Männer zu zeigen, die zur gleichen Zeit frei waren, sich zu vereinigen und eine neue Regierung unter einer königlichen oder einer anderen Form zu beginnen. Es wäre eine Vorführung:

Denn wenn einer, der unter der Herrschaft eines anderen geboren ist, so frei sein kann ein Recht zu haben, andere in ein neues und verschiedenes Herrschaftsgebiet abzuordnen, dann kann offenbar jeder, der unter der Herrschaft eines anderen geboren ist, ebenso frei sein und Herrscher oder Untergeordneter einer unterschiedlichen, unabhängigen Regentschaft werden. Ausgerechnet nach meiner Gegner eigenen Prinzip sind entweder alle Menschen, wie sie auch geboren sein mögen, frei oder es gibt nur einen einzigen rechtmäßigen Fürsten, eine einzige, rechtmäßige Regierung in der Welt. Dann haben sie nichts weiter zu tun, als uns lediglich zu zeigen, wer dieser einzige ist. Ich zweifle nicht, sobald dies geschieht, wird die gesamte Menschheit leicht einwilligen ihm Gehorsam zu leisten.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG II § 104

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 104. But to conclude, reason being plain on our side, that men are naturally free, and the examples of history showing, that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people; there can be little room for doubt, either where the right is, or what has been the opinion, or practice of mankind, about the first erecting of governments.

§ 104. Schlussendlich ist die Vernunft klar auf unserer Menschen sind von Natur frei und die Beispiele der Geschichte zeigen: Regierungen der Welt, die im Frieden begannen, hatte ihren Anfang auf jener Grundlage und wurden durch Einvernehmen der Bevölkerung gebildet. Jedem Zweifel kann nur wenig Raum bleiben. Sei es dafür wem das Recht zusteht oder wie weit Meinung bzw. Brauch der Menschen bei den ersten Bestellungen von Regierungen Ursache gewesen ist.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG II § 51

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labor could at first begin a title to property in the common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it, so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and convenience went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labor upon, so he had no temptation to labor for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

§ 51. Deshalb bin ich sicher es ist leicht verständlich wie erst Arbeit einen Anspruch auf Privatbesitz am naturgegebenen Gemeinbesitz zu Grunde legen konnte. Und wie dessen Verwendung zu unserem Nutzen den Besitz band, wodurch damals weder Streit über den Anspruch noch irgendein Zweifel über die Reichweite des Besitzes auftreten konnte.

Recht und Zweckmäßigkeit trafen zusammen:

Wie der Mensch ein Recht auf alles hatte, worin er seine Arbeit investieren konnte, so entfiel jede Versuchung, mehr zu produzieren als er nutzen konnte. Es verblieb weder Raum für Streitigkeiten über Ansprüche noch für einen Übergriffe in die Rechte anderer. Welche Portion man sich herausschnitt war leicht zu erkennen, während es unnütz und unredlich war, sich zu viel abzutrennen oder mehr zu nehmen als man brauchte.

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