Schlagwort-Archive: prove

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 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 67, Absatz 67,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 67, Absatz 67,

“The opposers of liberty have very little else to urge for themselves besides inconveniencies.”

But the defenders of the magistrate’s power offer something more when they tell you that a man cannot part with his liberty and have it too, convey it by compact to the magistrate and retain it himself:

“The first inconvenience is the impossibility to fix a point where the imposer will stop. For do but once grant that the magistrate hath a power to impose, and then we lie at his mercy how far he will go.”

An inconvenience as strong against civil as ecclesiastical jurisdiction:

Do but once grant the magistrate a power to impose taxes and we then lie at his mercy whether he will leave us anything.

Grant him a power to confine anyone, and we cannot be long secure of any liberty: Who knows how soon he will make our houses our prisons.

Grant him a power to forbid assemblies and conventions, and who knows how long he will allow us the company of our friends, or permit us to enjoy the conversation of our relations.

A practice not unknown to the Presbytery of Scotland, who took on them at pleasure to forbid the civil and innocent meeting of friends in any place but the church or market, under pretence to prevent evil and scandal.

So far will religious and spiritual jurisdiction be extended even to the most indifferent of common actions when it falls into busy and unskillful hands.

Grant once that the magistrate hath a power to command the subject to work, and limit his wages too, and who can secure us that he will not prove rather an Egyptian taskmaster than a Christian ruler, and enforce us to make brick without straw to erect monuments of his rigor and our slavery.

“Die Gegner der Freiheit haben wenig mehr anzumahnen, als deren Unannehmbarkeiten.”

Allerdings bieten die Verteidiger der Macht der Obrigkeit einiges mehr, wenn sie Euch darauf hinweisen, dass ein Mensch unmöglich seine Freiheit abtreten und sie gleichzeitig in vollem Umfang behalten kann, sie also vertraglich der Obrigkeit zu übertragen und dennoch alles selbst zu bestimmen:

“Die erste Unannehmbarkeit besteht in der Unmöglichkeit, den Punkt festzulegen, an dem jegliches Verfügen zu stoppen hat. Denn gewähre der Obrigkeit nur ein einziges Mal eine Macht, Verfügungen zu erlassen und ab dann wird es ausschließlich in ihrem gnädigen Ermessen liegen, wie weit sie dabei geht.“

Das ist eine Unannehmbarkeit mit ebenso starker Wirkung gegen bürgerlich wie kirchliche Rechtsprechung:

Gewähre der Obrigkeit nur einmal die Macht, Steuern zu erheben und schon wird es ihrem Ermessen unterliegen, uns überhaupt irgendwas zu belassen.

Gewähre ihr die Macht, einen jeden zu bestrafen und wir können uns unserer Freiheit nicht mehr lange sicher sein. Wer weiß schon, wie lange es dauert, bis sie aus unseren Häusern unsere Gefängnisse macht?

Gewähre ihr die Macht, Versammlungen und Treffen zu verbieten, und wer weiß wie lange sie uns noch die Gesellschaft unserer Freunde erlauben wird oder uns gestattet, uns mit dem Gespräch über unsere gegenseitigen Beziehungen zu befassen?

Dieses Vorgehen ist den Presbytern in Schottland nicht unbekannt, wo es deren Führung aus Willkür unternahm, bürgerliche und friedliche Treffen von Freunden an allen Orten außer Kirche und Marktplatz unter dem Vorwand, Böses und Skandale zu verhindern, zu verbieten.

Ebenso weit wird religiöse und geistliche Rechtsprechung gehen, sogar bis zu den unbedeutendsten aller allgemeinen Handlungen, sofern sie in eifernde und untaugliche Hände fällt.

Gewährt der Obrigkeit nur einmal, sie habe die Macht den Untergeordneten zu arbeiten zu befehlen und auch deren Löhne zu begrenzen, und wer könnte uns dann versichern, sie würde nicht unter Beweis stellen, eher ein ägyptischer Oberaufseher als ein christlicher Regent zu sein und uns zwingen Ziegelsteine ohne Stroh zu produzieren, um Monumente für ihre Strenge und unser Sklaventum zu errichten.

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 64, Absatz 64,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 64, Absatz 64,

All that the author says in his third instance from Paul’s opposing the false brethren is no more than hath been urged and answered above in the same case of the Galatians130, only there it is brought as a precept, here as an example. From whence in the close he comes to lay down a very strange position, viz.:

“When any shall take upon them to make a thing indifferent necessary, then the thing so imposed presently loses not its liberty only, but likewise its lawfulness. And we may not without breach of the Apostle’s precept resist to it.”

A conclusion that by no means can be drawn from his instance, Gal.2, where those the Apostle disputes against were not any that pretended a power to make laws, or imposed those as their own injunctions, but urged them as necessary doctrines and the laws of God which obliged their consciences.

The Scripture, that almost everywhere commands Submission though contrary to the whole bent of our inclinations, could never be thought to teach us disobedience and that too contrary to our wills; this is an opinion so monstrous that it cannot without a very great injury be fathered upon the Apostles.

Who can believe that the magistrate’s authority should make anything unlawful by enjoining it; that if in those things we are cheerfully doing ourselves his command should come and encourage us we ought presently to stop, to turn about and resist him and at once oppose his and our own wills too, alone, as if a child going to church of his own accord being by the way commanded by his father to go on ought straight to return back again?

If this doctrine be true, I know not how any law can be established by the magistrate or obeyed by the subject, indifferent things of civil as well as religious concernment being of the same nature, and will always be so, till our author can show where God hath put a distinction between them, this I’m sure that according to his own rule the observation of a fast enjoined by the magistrate must needs be a sin, it being an imposition relating to the worship of God in indifferent things.

An anniversary Thanksgiving Day will be but an anniversary provocation, and those that assemble in obedience to such a command instead of returning a praise to God for a blessing, would call down on their heads a curse. This is truly to ensnare the consciences of men and put them under a necessary of sinning, a doctrine which strikes at the very root and foundation of allows and government and opens a gap so wide to disobedience and disorder as will quickly ruin the best founded societies.

Let the people (whose ears are always open to complaints against their governors, who greedily swallow all pleas for liberty) but once hear that the magistrate hath no authority to enjoin things indifferent in matters of religion, they will all of an instant be converts, conscience and religion shall presently mingle itself with all their actions and be spread over their whole lives to protect them from the reach of the magistrate, and they will quickly find the large extent of inordine ad spiritualia.

Let but the ruler’s power be excluded out of the sanctuary and it will prove an asylum for the greatest enormities, tithes will be as unlawful as sacrifice, and civil respect to a man as impious as if it were divine adoration, the stubborn servant will beard his master with a charter of freedom under Paul’s hand, “Be ye not the servants of men.” Nor will our author’s interpretation be able to prevent it.

Magistracy itself will at last be concluded anti-Christian, (as the author himself confesses many do, p. 1). Let the multitude be once persuaded that obedience to impositions in indifferent things is sin and it will not be long ere they find it their duty to pull down the imposer.

Do but once arm their consciences against the magistrate and their hands will not be long idle or innocent.

But of inconveniencies I shall have more occasion to speak in his next argument.

Alles was der Autor bei diesem dritten Beispiel für den Widerstand des Paulus gegen die falschen Glaubensbrüder vorbringt, ist kein Stück mehr als bereits zuvor aufgedrängt und zur Antwort gegeben wurde. Es ging dabei um die Angelegenheit der Galater130, nur wurde es dort als Gebot zitiert, hier als Beispiel. Da er schon mal dabei ist, bezieht er eine äußert merkwürdige Position:

„Sobald es jemandem einfällt, eine bislang unbestimmte Gegebenheit zur Notwendigkeit zu erklären, dann verliert diese Angelegenheit nicht nur ihre bisherige Unverbindlichkeit, sondern gleichermaßen ihre Rechtmäßigkeit. Weshalb wir keine Chance haben, dabei ohne Verletzung des Gebots der Apostel Widerstand leisten zu dürfen.“

Diese Schlussfolgerung kann er mit keinem Mittel oder Trick aus seinem Beispiel in Galater 2 ziehen, in welchem diejenigen, gegen deren Vorstellungen der Apostel argumentiert, weder irgendeine Macht zur Gesetzgebung für sich in Anspruch nahmen, noch solche Regeln als ihre eigenen Verfügungen aufstellten, sondern hartnäckig darauf beharrten, es seien notwendige Lehren und es sei das Gesetz Gottes, das ihr Gewissen verpflichtete.

Die Heilige Schrift, die nahezu in jeder Hinsicht Unterordnung anordnet, selbst wenn dies bis in die letzte Verästelung unserer persönlichen Vorlieben reicht, kann man sich unmöglich jemals als Lehrbuch vorstellen, welches uns Ungehorsam lehrt, und dann auch noch gegen unseren Willen. Eine solche Meinung ist derart abartig, dass sie jedenfalls keinesfalls ohne allergrößtes Unrecht zu begehen als Erzeugnis der Apostel verkauft werden kann.

Wer käme den auf die absurde Idee, eine Obrigkeit könne irgendetwas Unrechtmäßiges verkünden, nur weil sie es beschließt? Das wir etwa, wenn eine ihrer Anordnungen uns ereilte und uns augenblicklich sofortigen Einhalt geböte, während wir gerade fröhlich wie gewohnt unseren eigenen Angelegenheiten nachgehen, auf dem Absatz gegen sie kehrt machten, ihr umgehend Widerstand entgegensetzten und dadurch auch unseren eigenen Willen verwerfen würden? Geradeso als ginge ein Kind aus eigenem Antrieb zur Kirche und würde unterdessen von seinem Vater angewiesen das Vorhaben fortzuführen, indem es auf direktem Wege zurückzukehrt?

Entspräche diese Lehre der Wahrheit, wüsste ich nicht wie irgendein Gesetz durch eine Obrigkeit in Kraft gesetzt werden könnte oder verlässlich mit dem Gehorsam der Untergeordneten zu rechnen wäre. Wären die unbestimmten Gegebenheiten sowohl bürgerliche als auch religiöse Dinge betreffend gleicher Natur und wäre das stets so, als bis unser Autor beweisen kann, an welcher Stelle Gott eine Möglichkeit zur Unterscheidung zwischen ihnen geschaffen hat, dann wäre ich sicher, dass gemäß seiner eigenen Regel die Beachtung einer Fastenzeit, welche die Obrigkeit bestimmt hat, notwendigerweise eine Sünde darstellen würde, da es sich um eine Bestimmung in einem Bereich handelt, bei dem es um durch Gott unbestimmte Angelegenheiten zu dessen eigener Huldigung geht.

Alljährlich z. B. das Erntedankfest zu begehen wäre eine alljährliche Provokation und alle, die sich einfinden, um eine diesbezügliche Anordnung gesammelt auszuführen anstatt Gott für jede Segnung extra ein Gebet zu entrichten, würden sich dessen Fluch aufs Haupt laden. Hier handelt es sich in Wahrheit um einen Versuch, das Gewissen der Menschen zu umgarnen und einzuwickeln, indem man ihnen die Unvermeidbarkeit des Sündigens einredet. Eine Lehre, die Hand und Schlag an die tiefsten Wurzeln und Grundlagen aller Freiräume sowie der Regierung selbst legt und die eine so breite Bresche für Ungehorsam und Chaos öffnet, dass sie auf kürzestem Wege selbst die am besten organisierten Gesellschaften ruinieren wird.

Versetzt die Bevölkerung (deren Ohren stets für allerlei Beschwerden gegen ihre Regenten offen sind und die gierig jede Art Ruf nach Freiheit in sich aufsaugen) nur einmal in den Glauben, die Obrigkeit habe keinerlei Autorität in irgendwelchen religiösen Angelegenheiten irgendetwas betreffend die (seitens Gott) unbestimmten Gegebenheiten vorzuschreiben, dann werden sie alle augenblicklich zu Bekehrten, Gewissen und Religion werden sich unversehens von selbst bei allen ihren Aktivitäten vermengen und jeden Lebensbereich durchdringen, nur um sich dem Arm der Obrigkeit zu entziehen. Und sehr bald werden sie die gewaltigen Auswirkungen von inordine ad spiritualia (Unordnung bei spirituellen Fragen) kennen lernen.

Setzt die Macht der Regenten nur ruhig vor die Türe der Heiligtümer und diese werden sich als Zuflucht für die allergrößten Ungeheuerlichkeiten erweisen. Der Zehnt wird als unrechtmäßige Opfergabe an den Staat deklariert, staatbürgerlicher Respekt vor Menschen als Mangel an Frömmigkeit, da er als göttliche Verehrung von Amtspersonen ausgegeben wird, ein jeder halsstarrige, störrische Sklave oder Knecht wird seinem Herrn eine von Paulus höchstpersönlich signierte Charta der Freiheit unter die Nase halten: „Macht Euch nicht zu Sklaven von Menschen.“ Und schon gar nicht wird die Interpretation unseres Autors in der Lage sein, davor zu schützen.

Selbst staatliche Verwaltung wird schließlich als antichristlich bezeichnet werden, (gerade da der Autor selbst auf Seite 1 zugibt, dass viele es bereits so halten). Überzeugt die Menge nur einmal davon, dass Gehorsam gegenüber staatlichen Verfügungen über (von Gott) unbestimmte Dinge Sünde sei, und es wird nicht lange brauchen, bis Ihr seht, dass jene Menge es als ihre Pflicht ansieht, die Verfügenden zu stürzen.

Rüstet ihr Gewissen nur ein einziges Mal weidlich gegen die Obrigkeit aus und ihre Hände werden nicht mehr lange untätig und unschuldig bleiben.

Über die Unannehmbarkeiten zu sprechen werde ich indes mehr Gelegenheit bei seinem nächsten Argument haben.

130https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians_(people)

130https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galater

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 § 211

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

CHAPTER XIX

Of the Dissolution of Government

§ 211. He that will with any clearness speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of nature, into one politic society, is the agreement which everyone has with the rest to incorporate, and act as one body, and so be one distinct commonwealth.

The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them: For in that case, (not being able to maintain and support themselves, as one entire and independent body) the union belonging to that body which consisted therein, must necessarily cease, and so everyone return to the state he was in before, with a liberty to shift for himself, and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society.

Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain. Thus conquerors swords often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of and dependence on that society, which ought to have preserved them from violence.

The world is too well instructed in and too forward to allow of, this way of dissolving of governments, to need any more to be said of it; and there wants not much argument to prove, that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain; that being as impossible, as for the frame of an house to subsist when the materials of it are scattered and dissipated by a whirlwind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake.

Kapitel 19

Auflösung der Regierung

§ 211. Wer einigermaßen klar über die Auflösung der Regierung sprechen will, hat an erster Stelle einen Unterschied zwischen der Auflösung der Gesellschaft und der Auflösung der Regierung klar zu machen.

Was das Gemeinwesen bildet, und Menschen aus dem losen Naturzustand in politische Gesellschaft bringt, ist die Übereinkunft, die jeder einzelne mit allen Übrigen getroffen hat, sich zu einem Körper zu vereinigen, wie ein Körper zu handeln und so ein eigenständiges Gemeinwesen zu bilden.

Der gewöhnliche und fast einzige Weg, wie diese Vereinigung aufgelöst wird, ist der Einmarsch einer fremden Macht, die sie unterwirft. In diesem Fall ist sie nicht im Stande, sich länger als vollständiger und unabhängiger Körper zu behaupten und zu erhalten. Daher endet die zu diesem Körper gehörende Vereinigung notwendigerweise und jeder kehrt in den Zustand zurück, in dem er vorher war: In die Freiheit, sich selbst zu helfen und nach eigenem Dafürhalten für seine Sicherheit in einer anderen Gesellschaft zu sorgen.

Wird die Gesellschaft aufgelöst, kann die Regierung dieser Gesellschaft kaum bestehen bleiben. So schlägt das Schwert des Eroberers häufig die Regierungen an der Wurzel ab und zerstückelt Gesellschaften, indem es die unterworfene und zerstreute Menge vom Schutz und der Abhängigkeit der Gesellschaft trennt, die sie
vor Gewalt schützen sollte. Die Welt ist mit dieser Art Regierungen aufzulösen zu gut vertraut und allzu bereit, sie zuzulassen, als dass mehr darüber gesagt werden müsste. Es bedarf weniger Argumente um zu beweisen, wo eine Gesellschaft aufgelöst ist, kann Regierung nicht weiter bestehen. Das wäre ebenso unmöglich, wie der Rohbau eines Hauses stehen bliebe, wenn die Materialien durch einen Wirbelwind zerstreut, oder durch ein Erdbeben in einen chaotischen Haufen zusammengeworfen werden.

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 § 177

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 177. But supposing victory favors the right side, let us consider a conqueror in a lawful war, and see what power he gets, and over whom.

First: It is plain he gets no power by his conquest over those that conquered with him. They that fought on his side cannot suffer by the conquest, but must at least be as much freemen as they were before. And most commonly they serve upon terms, and on condition to share with their leader, and enjoy a part of the spoil, and other advantages that attend the conquering sword; or at least have a part of the subdued country bestowed upon them. And the conquering people are not, I hope, to be slaves by conquest, and wear their laurels only to show they are sacrifices to their leader’s triumph. They, that found absolute monarchy upon the title of the sword, make their heroes, who are the founders of such monarchies, arrant Drawcansirs60 and forget they had any officers and soldiers that fought on their side in the battles they won, or assisted them in the subduing, or shared in possessing, the countries they mastered.

We are told by some, that the English monarchy is founded in the Norman conquest, and that our Princes have thereby a title to absolute dominion: Which if it were true, (as by the history it appears otherwise) and that William had a right to make war on this island: Yet his dominion by conquest could reach no farther than to the Saxons and Britons, that were then inhabitants of this country. The Normans that came with him, and helped to conquer, and all descended from them, are freemen, and no subjects by conquest; let that give what dominion it will. And if I, or anybody else, shall claim freedom, as derived from them, it will be very hard to prove the contrary:

And it is plain, the law, that has made no distinction between the one and the other, intends not there should be any difference in their freedom or privileges.

§ 177. Unterstellen wir, der Sieg begünstige die rechtmäßige Seite, dann wollen wir den Sieger eines rechtmäßigen Krieges betrachten und sehen, welche Macht er erlangt, und über wen:

Erstens ist es klar, erlangt er durch seinen Sieg keine Macht über die, die mit ihm siegten. Wer an seiner Seite kämpfte, kann unter dem Sieg nicht zu leiden haben und muss mindestens so sehr frei bleiben, wie er es vorher war. Meistens dient man unter Vertrag und unter der Bedingung, mit dem Anführer zu teilen, an der Beute und anderen Vorteilen, die der Eroberung durch das Schwert folgen, teilzuhaben oder wenigstens einen Teil des eroberten Landes geschenkt zu erhalten. Das erobernde Volk sollte durch Eroberung hoffentlich nicht zu Sklaven werden und seine Lorbeeren nur tragen, um zu zeigen, es sei ebenso Opfer des Triumphs seiner Führer.

Wer absolute Monarchie auf den Rechtsanspruch des Schwertes gründet, befördert deren Helden, Gründer solcher Monarchien, zu dreisten Drawcansirs60 und lässt Offiziere und Soldaten vergessen, die in den gewonnenen Schlachten an deren Seite kämpften, ihnen halfen, die Länder, welche sie überwältigten, zu unterjochen und die an der Besitzergreifung teilnahmen.

Man sagt uns, die englische Monarchie gründe sich auf die normannische Eroberung und unsere Fürsten hätten daher einen Rechtsanspruch auf absolute Herrschaft. Wäre das wahr, geschichtlich verhält es sich anders, William hatte, ein Recht gegen unsere Insel Krieg zu führen, so könnte doch seine Herrschaft durch Eroberung nie weiter reichen als bis über Sachsen und Briten, die damals die Einwohner unseres Landes waren. Die Normannen, die mit ihm kamen und bei der Eroberung halfen, sowie alle, die von ihnen abstammen, sind Freie und keine Untertanen durch Eroberung, egal welche Herrschaft sie gewährt. Sollte ich oder irgendein anderer, als deren Nachfahre, meine Freiheit beanspruchen, wird es sehr schwer sein, das Gegenteil zu beweisen.

Es wird deutlich: Das Gesetz, das keinen Unterschied zwischen den einen und den anderen vorgesehen hat, verweigert auch jeden Unterschied bezüglich ihrer Freiheit oder ihren Privilegien.

60https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawcansir
60https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramarbas

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 § 159

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

CHAPTER XIV

OF PREROGATIVE

§ 159. Where the legislative and executive power are in distinct hands, (as they are in all moderated monarchies, and well-framed governments) there the good of the society requires, that several things should be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power: For the legislators not being able to foresee, and provide by laws, for all that may be useful to the community, the executor of the laws, having the power in his hands, has by the common law of nature a right to make use of it for the good of the society, in many cases, where the municipal law has given no direction, till the legislative can conveniently be assembled to provide for it.

Many things there are which the law can by no means provide for; and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power in his hands, to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require: Nay, it is fit that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, or rather to this fundamental law of nature and government, viz. That as much as may be all the members of the society are to be preserved:

For since many accidents may happen, wherein a strict and rigid observation of the laws may do harm; (as not to pull down an innocent man’s house to stop the fire, when the next to it is burning) and a man may come sometimes within the reach of the law, which makes no distinction of persons, by an action that may deserve reward and pardon; ‚tis fit the ruler should have a power, in many cases, to mitigate the severity of the law, and pardon some offenders: For the end of government being the preservation of all, as much as may be, even the guilty are to be spared, where it can prove no prejudice to the innocent.

Kapitel 14

Die Prärogative

§ 159. Wo legislative und exekutive Macht in verschiedenen Händen liegen, wie das bei allen gemäßigten Monarchien und gut organisierten
Regierungen der Fall ist, erfordert das Wohl der Gesellschaft, verschiedene Dinge dem Ermessen dessen zu überlassen bleiben, der exekutive Macht hat. Da Gesetzgeber außer Stande sind, in die Zukunft zu blicken und durch Gesetze für alles vorzusorgen, was für eine Gemeinschaft nützlich sein könnte, ist der Vollstrecker der Gesetze, der durch das allgemeine Naturrecht die Macht in der Hand hat, so lange in der Lage, seine Macht für das Wohl der Gesellschaft in vielen der Fälle zu gebrauchen, in denen lokale Gesetze keine Richtung weisen, bis deren Legislative in üblicher Weise versammelt werden kann, um das Weitere zu bestimmen.

Es gibt viele Gegebenheiten, die für das Gesetz schlicht nicht vorhersehbar sind und diese müssen notwendigerweise dem Ermessen dessen
überlassen bleiben, der exekutive Gewalt zur Hand hat, um durch ihn geordnet zu werden, wie es öffentlicher Nutzen und Vorteil erfordern. Vielmehr passt es sogar in manchen Fällen, dass die Gesetze selbst exekutiver Macht oder besser dem Grundgesetz für Natur und Regierung Platz machen, da so weit als möglich alle Glieder der Gesellschaft erhalten werden müssen.

Schließlich können viele Notlagen eintreten, bei denen strikte und rigide Beachtung der Gesetze Schaden verursachen könnte: Beispielsweise das Haus eines unschuldigen Menschen nicht niederzureißen, um ein Feuer zu stoppen, wenn das Nachbarhaus brennt. Weil Menschen manchmal für eine Handlung, die Belohnung und Verzeihung verdienen, in einen Bereich des Gesetzes kommen, der kein Ansehen der Person kennt, ist es gut, wenn der Regent Macht hat, in vielen Fällen die Strenge des Gesetzes zu mildern und manche Übertreter zu begnadigen. Da das letztliche Ziel von Regierung der Erhalt möglichst aller ist, müssen selbst die Schuldigen geschont werden, wo es ohne Schaden für den Unschuldigen geschehen kann.

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 § 115

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 115. For there are no examples so frequent in history, both sacred and profane, as those of men withdrawing themselves, and their obedience from the jurisdiction they were born under, and the family or community they were bred up in, and setting up new governments in other places; from whence sprang all that number of petty commonwealths in the beginning of ages, and which always multiplied, as long as there was room enough, till the stronger, or more fortunate, swallowed the weaker; and those great ones again breaking to pieces, dissolved into lesser dominions.

All which are so many testimonies against paternal sovereignty, and plainly prove, that it was not the natural right of the father descending to his heirs, that made governments in the beginning, since it was impossible, upon that ground, there should have been so many little Kingdoms; all must have been but only one universal monarchy, if men had not been at liberty to separate themselves from their families, and the government, be it what it will, that was set up in it, and go and make distinct commonwealths and other governments as they thought fit.

§ 115. Keine Beispiele der Geschichte, ob heilig oder profan, treten so häufig auf wie die von Menschen, die sich dem Gehorsam der Gesetzgebung, unter der sie zur Welt kamen oder der Familie und der Gemeinschaft in der sie aufwuchsen, entzogen und neue Regierungen an anderen Stellen errichteten. Daraus entsprang seit Beginn der Zeiten die Unzahl kleiner Staatswesen, die sich ohne Unterlass vervielfältigte, solange genug Platz vorhanden war, bis die Stärkeren oder Glücklicheren die Schwächeren verschluckten. Die entstandenen Großen zerbrachen wieder und lösten sich in kleinere Herrschaftsbereiche auf.

Alles das bietet so viele Beweise gegen väterliche Souveränität und beweist eindeutig klar, es gab kein natürliches auf die Erben übergehendes Recht des Vaters, welches anfangs Regierungen schuf, da es auf dieser Basis unmöglich so viele Königreiche hätten existieren können.

Sofern Menschen keine Freiheit besessen hätten, sich von der Sippe und der Regierung, von welcher Art auch immer, zu trennen und andere ihnen zu Pass kommende Staatswesen, andere Regierungen zu erschaffen, hätten alle zusammen nur eine einzige universale Monarchie gebildet.

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 § 103

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 103. And I hope those who went away from Sparta with Palantus50, mentioned by Justin49, Lib.III.C.4., will be allowed to have been freemen independent one of another, and to have set up a government over themselves, by their own consent. Thus I have given several examples out of history, of people free and in the state of nature that being met together incorporated and began a commonwealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that government were not, nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for paternal empire were better to let it alone, than urge it against natural liberty: For if they can give so many instances, out of history, of governments begun upon paternal right, I think (though at best an argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But if I might advise them in the case, they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should find, at the foundation of most of them, something very little favorable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for.

§ 103. Ich hoffe, es wird denen die laut Justinus49 Bericht unter des Palantus50 Führung Sparta verließen, zugestanden, sie sind freie, voneinander unabhängige Männer gewesen und haben über sich eine Regierung mittels eigener Übereinkunft eingesetzt. Damit habe ich verschiedene Beispiele der Geschichte für freie, im Naturzustand befindliche Leute angeführt, die sich trafen, sich vereinten und ein Staatswesen begründeten. Wäre das Fehlen solcher Beispiele ein Argument für den Beweis, keine Regierung hätte auf diese Weise begonnen oder könnte je beginnen, dann scheint mir, wären die Verteidiger des väterlichen Imperiums klüger beraten, die Finger davon zu lassen als es gegen die natürliche Freiheit aufzustellen. Wenn sie genauso viele Beispiele der Geschichte für Regierungen vorzulegen hätten, die aus väterlichem Recht hervorgegangen sind, kann man ihnen ohne große Gefahr den Ball überlassen. (Selbst wenn der Rückschluss von Gewesenem auf das, was rechtmäßig sein sollte, bestenfalls keine große Wirkung entfaltet). Wenn ich ihnen also einen Rat geben darf: Sie täten gut daran, dem de facto Ursprung von Regierungen, nicht allzu sehr auf den Grund zu gehen, sonst entdecken sie bei der Begründung der meisten davon etwas, was der Stärkung ihres Modells und für die Art Macht, für die sie eintreten, ein wenig ungünstig wäre.

49Justinus: Ex Trogi Pompeii historiis, libri XXXIX,
49https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_(historian)
49https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Iunianus_Iustinus
50A second instance is the company that left Sparta under the conduct of Palantus, whom by a free and equal vote they chose for their leader.

Einen zweiten Umstand bietet die Kompanie, die Sparta unter Führung des Palantus verließ, den sie durch eine Freie und gleiche Wahl zum Anführer bestimmt hatte.

Source: THE SCHOLAR ARMED AGAINST THE ERRORS OF THE TIME; OR, A COLLECTION OF TRACTS ON THE PRINCIPLES AND EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH AND THE AUTHORITY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, LONDON: MDCCC

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

TToG I § 135

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

§ 135. But all this scarce proves Abraham to have been a King as heir to Adam. If by inheritance he had been King, Lot, who was of the same family, must needs have been his subject, by that title, before the servants in his family; but we see they lived as friends and equals, and when their herdsmen could not agree, there was no pretence of jurisdiction or superiority between them, but they parted by consent, Gen. XIII, hence he is called both by Abraham, and by the text, Abrahams brother, the name of friendship and equality, and not of jurisdiction and authority, though he were really but his nephew.

And if our author knows that Abraham was Adams heir, and a King, it was more, it seems, than Abraham himself knew, or his servant whom he sent a wooing for his son; for when he sets out the advantages of the match, Gen.XXIV.35, thereby to prevail with the young woman and her friends, he says, I am Abraham’s servant, and the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses: And Sarah, my master’s wife, bare a son to my master when she was old, and unto him hath he given all he hath.

Can one think that a discreet servant that was thus particular to set out his master’s greatness would have omitted the crown Isaac was to have, if he had known of any such? Can it be imagined he should have neglected to have told them on such an occasion as this, that Abraham was a King, a name well known at that time, for he had nine of them his neighbors, if he or his master had thought any such thing, the likeliest matter of all the rest, to make his errand successful?

§ 135. Alles das beweist aber kaum den Königstitel Abrahams als Erbe Adams. Wäre er durch Erbschaft König gewesen wäre, so hätte auf Grund dieses Titels Lot, welcher derselben Familie angehörte, sein Untertan sein müssen. Noch vor den Knechten in seinem Clan.

Sie lebten aber als Freunde und Gleichberechtigte. Als ihre Hirten sich nicht vertragen konnten, erhoben sie gegenseitig keine Ansprüche auf Rechtsprechung oder Überordnung, sondern trennten sich in Freundschaft, Gen. XIII.

Deshalb wird Lot sowohl von Abraham als auch im Text sein Bruder genannt, obwohl Lot in Wirklichkeit nur sein Neffe war. Im Namen der Freundschaft und Gleichheit statt von Rechtsprechung und Autorität. Wüsste unser Autor, dass Abraham Adams Erbe und ein König war, so wüsste er, wie es scheint, mehr als Abraham selbst oder sein Knecht, den er auf Brautwerbung für seinen Sohn aussandte gewusst haben.

Denn als dieser die Vorteile der Heirat aufzählt, Gen.XXIV.35, um die junge Frau und die Freunde gewogen zu machen, verkündet er: Ich bin Abrahams Knecht. Gott hat meinen Herrn reichlich gesegnet und er ist groß geworden. Er hat ihm Schafe und Ochsen, Silber und Gold, Knechte und Mägde, Kamele und Esel gegeben. Dazu hat Sarah, meines Herrn Frau, meinem Herrn in seinem Alter noch einen Sohn geboren. Dem hat er alles übergeben was er hat.

Kann jemand annehmen, ein kluger Knecht der seines Herrn Vermögen so ausführlich beschrieben hat, die Krone, die Isaak empfangen sollte, würde vergessen haben, wenn er von dieser Krone wusste? Kann man sich vorstellen, er habe übersehen, Abraham bei einem Anlass wie diesem als König zu betiteln? Der Titel war wohlbekannt zu jener Zeit, denn Abraham hatte neun Könige zu Nachbarn. Er oder sein Herr hätten an gerade das gedacht, was wahrscheinlich mehr als alles Übrige den Erfolg der Werbung gesichert hätte?

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