Schlagwort-Archive: rather

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 87, Absatz 87,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 87, Absatz 87,

His second answer is no more but an affirmation that things indifferent cannot be determined which is the question between us and no proofs of it.

“Lastly it is much more suited to the nature of the Gospel that Christian Princes should reform religion rather by the example of their life than the severity of their laws.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

1. I answer that it is not easy to be guessed what our author means here by “reformation of religion”. The outward moral acts of virtue and obedience to the second table he makes no part of religion, at least in the sense we dispute of, which is the worship of God. Or if he will grant them to be religion and within the compass of our question he will not, I believe, deny the magistrate a power of making laws concerning them, unless instead of pleading for render consciences he become a patron of hardened and deboshed offenders.

And as for the observance of outward ceremonies in the worship (they being in his opinion either unlawful or useless), he will readily exclude them from reformation, and how the magistrate’s example of life can any way reform except in one of these two is beyond my apprehension.

Since true religion, i.e. the internal acts of faith and dependence on God, love of him and sorrow for sin, etc. are (as our author says) “like the spirits of wine or subtle essences” I’m sure in this that they cannot be seen and therefore cannot be an example to others.

Seine zweite Antwort besteht lediglich darin, zu bekräftigen, dass unbestimmte Gegebenheiten nicht bestimmt werden dürfen. Genau darin besteht allerdings die Frage zwischen uns und ist deshalb kein Beweis.

“Schlussendlich passt es wesentlich besser zur Natur des Evangeliums, dass christliche Fürsten die Religion eher durch das Beispiel vorzüglicher Lebensführung reformieren, als durch die Strenge ihrer Gesetze.“ (Zitat Bagshaw)

1. Darauf antworte ich, dass es alles andere als einfach ist zu erraten, was unser Autor unter „Reformation der Religion“ versteht. Sämtliche äußerlichen moralgebundenen Akte von Tugend und Gehorsam der zweiten Kategorie lässt er nicht als Bestandteil der Religion gelten. Zumindest nicht in dem Sinne, dem unsere Auseinandersetzung folgt, nämlich zur Huldigung Gottes. Will er aber dennoch zugestehen, sie gehörten zur Religionsausübung, was er nun einmal im Rahmen unserer Fragestellung nicht tun wird, dann, so glaube ich, wandelt er sich, indem er der Obrigkeit die Macht verweigert, diese betreffende Gesetze zu erlassen, zu einem Schutzherrn hartgesottener und geschwätziger Sünder, anstatt sich für reine und offene Gewissen einzusetzen.

Soweit es die Einhaltung äußerlicher Zeremonien der Huldigung betrifft (die seiner Meinung nach sowieso entweder unrechtmäßig oder nutzlos sind) ist er bereit diese eilfertig aus der Reformation auszuschließen. Wie nun aber die Lebensführung der Obrigkeit eigentlich irgendwie ein Beispiel für religiöse Reformen liefern kann, abgesehen durch eben diese beiden Möglichkeiten, liegt außerhalb meiner Verständigkeit.

Seit wahre Religionsausübung, damit sind alle innerlichen Handlungen der Gläubigkeit und Hingabe an Gott gemeint, die Liebe zu ihm und die Reue über die eigenen Sünden, in, (wie unser Autor es beschreibt) „dem Geist des Weines und dem Aroma feiner Essenzen gleich“, besteht, bin ich mir dessen sicher, dass man sie nicht sehen kann und deshalb kann sie nicht als Beispiel für Andere dienen.

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 71, Absatz 71,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 71, Absatz 71,

But it is like to produce far different effects among a people that are ready to conclude God dishonored upon every small deviation from that way of his worship which either education or interest hath made sacred to them and that therefore they ought to vindicate the cause of God with swords in their hands, and rather to fight for this honor than their own; who are apt to judge every other exercise of religion as an affront to theirs, and branding all others with the odious names of idolatry, Superstition or will-worship, and so looking on both the persons and practices of others as condemned by God already, are forward to take commission from their own zeal to be their executioners, and so in the actions of the greatest cruelty applaud themselves as good Christians, and think with Paul they do God good service.

And here, should not the magistrate’s authority interpose itself and put a stop to the secret contrivances of deceivers and the passionate zeal of the deceived, he would certainly neglect his duty of being the great conservator pacis, and let the very foundations of government and the end of it lie neglected, and leave the peace of that society is committed to his care open to be torn and rent in pieces by everyone that could but pretend to conscience and draw a sword.

Sie taugt jedoch eher dazu, deutlich verschiedene Wirkungen bei einer Bevölkerung auszulösen, die bereitwillig schlussfolgert, Gott missbillige jede kleine Abweichung von der Art und Weise seiner Huldigung, die entweder Ausbildung oder Interesse ihnen heilig hat werden lassen und dass sie deshalb die Sache Gottes mit dem Schwert in der Hand verteidigen und dabei vielmehr für diese Ehre als ihre eigene kämpfen sollten. Alle die fähig sind jede andere Religionsausübung als Beleidigung der Ihrigen zu beurteilen und alle anderen mit den hässlichen Begriffen Götzendienst, Aberglaube oder willkürliche Huldigung brandmarken, und dessentwegen andere Personen und Praktiken als ohnehin bereits durch Gott verurteilt betrachten, sind bereits prädisponiert aus ihrem eigenen Eifer den Auftrag abzuleiten Vollstrecker in eigener Sache zu sein. So kommt es, dass sie sich selbst bei der Begehung grausamster Taten als gute Christen beglückwünschen und mit den Worten des Paulus denken, sie leisteten Gott einen guten Dienst.

Sollte die Obrigkeit nicht genau dann mit ihrer Autorität den unerkannten Täuschungen und ebenso dem leidenschaftlichen Treiben der Getäuschten ein Ende setzen, würde sie mit Sicherheit ihre Pflicht als der wichtigste Conservator Pacis (Bewahrer des Friedens) vernachlässigen und ließe damit auch die Grundlagen aller Regentschaft überhaupt und deren Zwecke und Ziel ebenso im Stich. Sie würde zulassen, dass der Frieden dieser Gesellschaft, der ihrer Fürsorge anvertraut war, durch jeden der unter Berufung auf sein Gewissen ein Schwert zieht, in Stücke gerissen und verschenkt würde.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 68, Absatz 68,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 68, Absatz 68,

These are inconveniences whose speculation following from the constitution of polities may often fright but their practice seldom hurt the people. Nor will the largeness of the governor’s power appear dangerous or more than necessary if we consider that as occasion requires it is employed upon the multitude that are as impatient of restraint as the sea, and whose tempests and over­flows cannot be too well provided against. Would it be thought dangerous or inconvenient that anyone should be allowed to make banks and fences against the waves for fear he should too much encroach upon and straighten the ocean?

The magistrate’s concernments will always teach him to use no more rigor than the temper of the people and the necessity of the age shall call for, knowing that too great checks as well as too loose a rein may make this untamed beast to cast his rider.

Who would decline embarking himself because the pilot hath the sole guiding of the ship, out of fear lest he should be too busy and impertinently troublesome at the helm, and disturb the voyage with the ill management of his place, who would rather be content to steer the vessel with a gentle than a stiff hand would the winds and waves permit him; he increases his forces and violence only with the increase of the storm and tumult; the tossings and several turns of the ship are from without and not begotten in the steerage or at the helm?

Whence is most danger to be rationally feared, from ignorant or knowing heads? From an orderly council or a confused multitude? To whom are we most like to become a prey, to those whom the Scripture calls gods, or those whom knowing men have always found and therefore called beasts?131

Who knows but that since the multitude is always craving, never satisfied, that there can be nothing set over them which they will not always be reaching at and endeavoring to pull down, those constitutions in indifferent things may be erected as the outward fences to secure the more substantial parts of religion which experience tells us they will be sure to be tampering with when these are gone which are therefore fit to be set up, because they may be with least danger assaulted and shaken and that there may be always something in a readiness to be parted with to their importunity without injuring the indispensable and more sacred parts of religion when their fury and impatience shall make such an indulgence necessary.

But I too forwardly intrude myself into the council chamber, and like an impertinent traveler, which am concerned only which way the hand of the dial points, lose time in searching after the spring and wheels that give it motion. It being our duty not curiously to examine the counsels but cheerfully to obey the commands of the magistrate in all things that God hath left us free.

Hier handelt es sich um Unannehmbarkeiten, über deren auf Grund der politischen Verfassung erfolgende Spekulationen die Bevölkerung wohl oft erschrickt, die sie aber selten in der Praxis beeinträchtigen. Entsprechend kann die Ausdehnung der Macht des Regenten genauswenig als gefährlich oder übertrieben groß erscheinen, wenn wir bedenken, dass er sie bei Bedarf ja auch gegen die Menge ausüben muss, die Beschränkungen gegenüber genauso unduldsam ist, wie das Meer, gegen dessen Stürme und Springfluten gar nicht gut genug vorgesorgt werden kann. Könnte es als gefährlich und unannehmbar beurteilt werden, irgendjemandem zu erlauben, Wellenbrecher und Deiche gegen dessen Wogen zu errichten, nur aus Angst, er würde dabei zu weit gehen, in es einzugreifen und den Ozean zu glätten?

Die Bedenken der Obrigkeit werden diese stets lehren, nicht mehr Strenge anzuwenden, als das Gemüt der Bevölkerung und der aktuelle Bedarf erfordern. In dem Wissen, dass zu große Hemmungen genau wie zu laxe Regierungsführung nur dazu führen, dass dieses unbezähmbare Biest seinen Reiter abwirft.

Wer würde es ablehnen, an Bord zu gehen, weil ein Steuermann das Schiff allein steuert, nur wegen der Befürchtung, jener könnte am Ruder allzu betriebsam und unerträglich für ständige Unruhe sorgen und durch schlechte Ausübung seiner Position die Reise unharmonisch verlaufen lassen, wenn er tatsächlich doch viel zufriedener wäre, das Schiff mit ruhiger Hand als mit übermäßigem Krafteinsatz steuern zu können, wenn Wind und Wellen ihn nur ließen. Er steigert seinen Einsatz an Kraft und Gewalt nur gemäß dem Anwachsen des Sturms und der Unruhe. Kommen Schlingern, Rollen und Stampfen des Schiffes nicht von außen und sind sie nicht etwa kein Ergebnis der Steuerkunst oder des Rudergangs?

Von wem ist die meiste Gefahr zu befürchten: Von den Unwissenden oder den Wissenden Köpfen? Von einer geordneten Ratsversammlung oder einer chaotischen Menge? Wessen Beute und Opfer werden wir wohl am ehesten? Deren, die die heilige Schrift als Götter bezeichnet oder deren, die die Menschen stets durchschaut und folglich als Bestien131 bezeichnet haben?

Wem wäre unbekannt, dass die Menge seit je her immer begierig fordert, niemals zufrieden ist, es nichts gibt, was ihnen übergeordnet sein könnte und was sie nicht angehen und versuchen würden, es niederzureißen? Die fraglichen Verfassungen betreffend die unbestimmten Dinge könnten als äußere Palisaden errichtet werden, um die substantielleren Bestandteile der Religion zu schützen. Während die Erfahrung uns lehrt, die Menge wird sie mit Sicherheit abändern, sobald alles vergangen ist, was geeignet wäre, solche Palisaden zu errichten. Denn dann könnten sie ohne viel Gefahr angegriffen und ins Wanken gebracht werden. Dadurch könnte stets ein Puffer bereit gehalten werden, den man der Aufdringlichkeit der Menge zum Fraß vorwerfen könnte, ohne die unverzichtbaren und wirklich heiligen Elemente der Religion zu beeinträchtigen, falls Furor und Unduldsamkeit der Meute ein solches Opfer notwendig machen.

Doch hier dringe ich zu vorwitzig in die Angelegenheiten der Ratsversammlung ein, und einem unverfrorenen Reisenden gleich, den eigentlich nur die Richtung der Spitze des Uhrzeigers zu bekümmern hat, vergeude ich Zeit bei der Suche nach Unruh und Zahnrädern, die deren Bewegung besorgen. Es sollte unsere Pflicht sein, statt neugierig die Amtsführung der Räte zu untersuchen, lieber mit positiver Einstellung die Anordnungen der Obrigkeit zu befolgen, soweit diese alle die Gegebenheiten betreffen, die Gott uns zur freien Verfügung überlassen hat.

Upon the law thy judgement always ground;
And not on man; for that’s affectionless;
But man in passions strangely doth abound;
Th’one all like God: t’other like to Beasts.
(Du Bartas, Quadrains of Pibrac)

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

Möge stets Dein Urteil gründen auf dem Recht;
Und nie auf aller Menschen Sinn, der nur Gefühle liest;
Der Mensch in Eifer nennt meist ungerecht;
Den einen Gott, den andren wildes Biest.
(Thomas Blechschmidt, 21.02.2017)

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 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 52, Absatz 52,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 51, Absatz 51,

“The first shall be that of our Savior Christ who was of a most sweet and complying disposition, yet when his Christian liberty came once to be invaded he laid aside gentleness, and proved a stiff and peremptory assertor of it. To omit many passage of which his story is full, I shall mention but one and that was his refusing to wash his hands before meat. What Christ did here I know not how it could be said to be in defense of his Christian liberty.

Indeed he came to promulgate the great law of liberty to believers, to redeem men from the slavery of sin and Satan and subjection to the ceremonial law, but he himself was made under the law, lived under it, and fulfilled it, and therefore it appears to me rather a vindication of his national Jewish liberty which was very much encroached on by the traditions of the Pharisees, who though they sat in Moses‘ chair yet were beyond the bounds he had set them.

God had delivered to the Jews an entire and complete platform of worship, prescribed and limited, too, all the circumstances and ceremonies of it, and so strictly tied them to that rule he had given that Moses himself was not permitted to deviate in the least from it, Look that thou make them after te pattern that was showed thee in the mount.

It could not then but be a horrid impiety and presumption for the Pharisees not only to step into Moses chair but also to ascend into Mount Sinai, and dare to mingle their wisdom with God’s and take upon them to correct or perfect that frame which the great architect of heaven and earth had erected for his sanctuary.

This usurpation might well draw sharp rebukes from the meekest and most complying temper. Christ bore with the infirmities of the weak but not with the open rebellion of the haughty and obstinate; these were those who truly bound burdens on men’s consciences by stamping a divine impression on their own counterfeit inventions and traditions and enjoined them under the penalties of God’s displeasure and the curses of the law.

But I think it will be no very good consequence that because Christ opposed the usurpation of the Pharisees, therefore a Christian may dispute the dominion of his magistrate that because the traditions of the Elders (which were such too as made the commandment of God of none effect), were unlawful in a religion tied to a certain and set form which was to receive neither alteration nor addition, you shall not add unto the word that I command you neither shall you diminish aught from it, wherein God had left nothing arbitrary or indifferent, therefore all impositions are unlawful in a religion wherein almost all the outward actions are left undetermined and free; that because it was a part of the Jewish liberty not to be fettered with pharisaical traditions, therefore it is part of the Christian liberty not to submit to legal injunctions, and therefore it is no wonder that Christ should not prefer [arguments from decency] before those from duty, not wash his hands when he could not do it without contracting guilt, nor pay obedience to that law which God had condemned and provided against by a repeated prohibition such traditions as they delivered to the people not as their own injunctions but as part of the law of God, being properly additions to it and so of forbidden traditions, did not thereby destroy either the indifference of the action or the magistrate’s power of enjoining it, and had Caesar commanded washing of hands at any time of the day I have no reason to think that Christ would have denied him this any more than tribute.

Zunächst sollte über unseren Heiland, der einen reinen und fügsamen Charakter besaß, gesagt sein, dass er dennoch seine Freundlichkeit zur Seite legte, sobald seine christliche Freiheit bedroht wurde und er sich als ihr harter und gebieterischer Streiter erwies. Um den vielen Passagen, von denen seine Legende strotzt, Ehre zu erweisen, sollte ich nur eine anführen: Als er sich weigerte seine Hände vor dem Essen zu waschen. Allerdings habe ich keine Ahnung, wie das, was er hier tat, als Verteidigung seiner christlichen Freiheit bezeichnet werden könnte.

Tatsächlich erschien er, um das große Gesetz der Freiheit für die Gläubigen zu verkünden, um Menschen aus der Sklaverei der Sünde zu retten, vor dem Teufel und vor der Unterjochung durch das Zeremonialrecht. Er selbst aber war unter diesem Recht geboren, lebte damit und erfüllte es. Eben deswegen kommt es mir eher wie eine Verteidigung seiner nationalen jüdischen Freiheit vor, die durch die Traditionen der Pharisäer ziemlich weitgehend vereinnahmt worden war, welche trotz, dass sie in Moses Stuhl saßen, dennoch außerhalb der Schranken waren, die es gesetzt hatte.

Gott hatte den Juden einen vollumfänglichen und kompletten Satz an kultischen Handlungen zu seiner Huldigung bereitgestellt, vorgeschrieben und auch begrenzt, inklusive aller dazugehörigen äußeren Umstände und Zeremonien, und sie derart fest an diese von ihm selbst erlassene Regel gebunden, dass es nicht einmal Moses erlaubt war, davon auch nur ein Jota abzuweichen: Sorge dafür dass Du sie nach dem Muster ausführst, das Dir auf dem Berg gegeben wurde!

Folglich konnte es nichts als eine schreckliche Pietätlosigkeit und Anmaßung durch die Pharisäer sein, nicht nur Moses Stelle einzunehmen, sondern auch auf den Berg Sinai zu steigen und es zu wagen, ihre Weisheit mit der Gottes zu verquicken und es zu unterfangen, den Ordnungsrahmen, den der große Architekt von Himmel und Erde für sein Heiligtum errichtet hatte, korrigieren oder perfektionieren zu wollen.

Diese Usurpation darf gut und gern scharfen Tadel selbst von den sanftmütigsten und fügsamsten Gemütern nach sich ziehen. Christus wurde mit den Nachteilen der Schwachen, nicht aber mit dem Geist offener Rebellion der Hochmütigen und Verbohrten geboren. Jene waren es, die dem Gewissen der Menschen in Wahrheit Bürden auferlegt haben, indem sie ihren eigenen gezinkten Erfindungen und getürkten Traditionen den Stempel der Göttlichkeit aufprägten und diese unter die Bestrafung durch Gottes Missfallen und die Vergeltung des Gesetzes mogelten.

Dennoch denke ich, es hätte wohl keine sehr positiven Konsequenzen, aus dem Umstand des Widerstands gegen die Usurpation der Pharisäer durch Christus abzuleiten, dass deswegen ein Christ die Herrschaft seiner Obrigkeit bestreiten dürfe. Nur weil die Traditionen der Ahnen (die ebenfalls so beschaffen waren, dass sie die Wirkung der Anordnungen Gottes auf Null setzten) unrechtmäßig gegenüber einer Religion waren, die fest an bestimmte und stehende Formen gebunden war, die keinerlei Veränderung oder Aufblähung duldete: ‚Du darfst meinem Wort, welches ich Dir verfügt habe, nichts hinzufügen und ebenso wenig darfst Du irgendetwas davon verringern.‘ Weil Gott nichts Willkür oder Unbestimmtheit überlassen hat, deshalb seien alle Verfügungen im Falle einer Religion, die nahezu alle äußerlichen unbestimmt und frei verfügbar gelassen hat? Weil es Teil der jüdischen Freiheit war, nicht durch die pharisäischen Traditionen gefesselt zu werden, deshalb sei es Teil der christlichen Freiheit, keinen legalen Verfügungen untergeordnet zu werden?

Und eben deswegen ist es kein Wunder, dass Christus die Pflicht der Schicklichkeit vorzog und seine Hände nicht gewaschen hat, wenn er das nicht tun konnte, ohne sich Schuld einzuhandeln. Indem er dem Gesetz, das Gott längst verurteilt hatte, keinen Gehorsam erwies, sorgte er durch sein wiederholtes Verbot dafür, dass derartige Traditionen, soweit sie der Bevölkerung aufgedrängt wurden, ohne deren eigene Verfügungen zu sein, sondern statt dessen als Teil von Gottes Gesetz deklariert wurden, als tatsächliche Aufblähungen zu diesem und als verbotene Traditionen erkennbar wurden. Doch dadurch zerstörte er weder die Unbestimmtheit von Handlungen noch die Macht der Obrigkeit, deren Bestimmung an sich zu ziehen. Hätte Cäsar persönlich befohlen, die Hände zu irgendeiner Zeit des Tages zu waschen, habe ich keinen Grund zu der Annahme, Jesus Christus hätte ihm das weitergehend verweigert als Tribut zu zahlen.

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 50, Absatz 50,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 50, Absatz 50,

“Decency and order when it is of constraint not of consent is nothing else but in the imposer tyranny, in the person imposed upon bondage, and makes him to be what in things appertaining to religion we are forbidden to be ‚the servants of another‘.” (Quotation Bagshaw)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fragen, Wünsche, Informationen?

Nehmen Sie einfach Kontakt zu mir auf!

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

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

Auch spezifische, technische, politische.

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

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

https://www.paypal.me/ThomasBlechschmidt

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government, Tract I, Section 23, Absatz 23,

John Locke: Two Tracts on Government

John Locke, Two Tracts on Government,

Tract I, Section 23, Absatz 23,

For first: From the end and intention of penalties and force especially in matters of religion, which are designed only to work obedience, outward violence being never to be applied but when there is hopes it may bend the dissenter to a submission and compliance.

But the understanding and assent (whereof God hath reserved the disposure to himself, and not so much as entrusted man a liberty at pleasure to believe or reject) being not to be wrought upon, by force a magistrate would in vain assault that part of man which owes no homage to his authority, or endeavor to establish his religion by those ways which would only increase an aversion and make enemies rather than proselytes.

But in things of indifference it is far otherwise, which depending freely upon the choice of the doer will be entertained or neglected proportionally as the law shall annex rewards or punishments to them, and the magistrate may expect to find those laws obeyed which demand not any performance above the power of the subject, so that though it be true that severity loses its end which is to remove the offence not the man (and is therefore not to be made use of) when it is employed to plant religion, which cannot be wrought into the hearts of men by any other power but that of its first Author, nor any other way than what he hath prescribed, yet it is able to reach the external and indifferent actions of men, and may in them be applied with success enough.

And though the magistrate ought not to torture poor creatures whom he hath no hopes to amend, and so to discredit and abuse punishments, the great instruments of government and remedies of disorders, as to set them upon impossibilities where they are sure to be ineffectual, yet this doth no way tie up his hands from prosecuting those faults which may be thereby amended.

‚Twould be tyranny in a father to whip a child, because his apprehensions were less quick, or his sight not so clear, or the lineaments of his face perhaps not so like his own as the rest of his brethren, who yet with equity enough might chastise the disobedience of his actions, and take this way to reclaim his willful disorders. To conclude, rigor which cannot work an internal persuasion may notwithstanding an outward conformity, all that is here required, and may be as necessary in the one as useless in the other.

Zum Ersten: Aus Sinn und Absicht von Bestrafung und physischer Gewalt in religiösen Angelegenheiten, die einzig beabsichtigen, Gehorsam zu erwirken, darf physische Gewalt von Außen niemals angewandt werden, es sei denn es bestehe Hoffnung, sie würde den Dissidenten an die Leine von Unterordnung und Fügsamkeit legen.

Da aber Verstehen und Zustimmung (Dinge, deren Verfügung sich Gott vorbehalten hat, statt auch nur ein wenig davon den Menschen zum frei verfügbaren Wohlgefallen des Glaubens oder Ablehnens zu überlassen) nicht vorgeschrieben werden können, würde eine Obrigkeit mittels physischer Gewalt vergeblich diesen Bereich des Menschen attackieren, der schließlich seiner Autorität keinerlei Ehrfurcht schuldet.

Oder sie würde durch den Versuch, ihre bevorzugte Religion auf derlei Wegen durchzusetzen lediglich die Abneigung vergrößern und Feinde erschaffen statt Bekehrter. Bei den unbedeutenden Angelegenheiten dagegen ist es weitgehend anders. Da sie von der freizügigen Wahl des Akteurs abhängen, werden sie in gewisser Verhältnismäßigkeit entweder unternommen oder vermieden, je nachdem ob das Gesetz sie mit Belohnung oder Strafen bedenkt.

Die Obrigkeit darf erwarten, alle Gesetze beachtet zu finden, die keine über die Möglichkeiten der Untergeordneten hinausgehende Anstrengung verlangen. Dergestalt würde ansonsten wahr, dass Strenge ihren Zweck verfehlt, der darin besteht die Verfehlung zu beseitigen und nicht den Delinquenten (weswegen sie gar nicht erst zur Anwendung kommen soll), sobald sie dafür verwendet wird, ein Glaubensbekenntnis zu implantieren, welches ohnehin durch keine andere Macht in die Herzen der Menschen geschrieben werden kann, als der seines ersten Verfassers oder auf anderem Weg, als er ihn vorgeschrieben hat.

Trotz allem ist Strenge in der Lage die äußeren wie nebensächlichen Handlungen der Menschen zu beeinflussen und mag deshalb dort mit hinreichend Erfolg angewandt werden. Deswegen hat die Obrigkeit aber gefälligst keine armen Geschöpfe zu quälen, denen sie keine Hoffnung auf Verbesserung ihrer Lage machen kann. Sie würde auf diese Weise nur ihre Mittel der Bestrafung missbrauchen und entwerten, die wesentlichen Instrumente für Regierungen und Heilmittel gegen Chaos, statt auf Unmöglichkeiten gerade da zu setzen, wo diese mit Sicherheit unwirksam sind.

Nichtsdestotrotz hindert diese Erkenntnis der Obrigkeit Hände keineswegs, um eben die Verfehlungen zu verfolgen, die durch ihre Tätigkeit verbessert werden können.
Ein Vater, der sein Kind auspeitschte, weil es langsamer begreift, weil es schlechter sieht oder weil seine Gesichtszüge ihm womöglich weniger gleichen als die seiner Brüder, wäre ein Tyrann. Trotzdem wäre es angemessen genug, wenn er den Ungehorsam seiner Handlungen züchtigt und diesen Weg wählen würde, um es von mutwilliger Unbotmäßigkeit abzubringen.

Um das abzuschließen: Strenge, die niemals eine innere Überzeugung umarbeiten kann, vermag nichtsdestotrotz eine äußerliche Konformität zu bewirken und ist anzunehmender Weise im einen Fall so notwendig wie im anderen unnütz.

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