Day #1... Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration
https://isaiah58ministries.blogspot.com/2025/03/extra-addition-tjohn-lockes-government.html
#2 Page 10 pdf Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration
#3 Page 10 pdf Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration
#4 Page 25 pdf Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration
# 5 Page 32b pdf Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration
https://isaiah58ministries.blogspot.com/2025/05/5-page-32b-pdf-extra-addition-john.html
A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke
Translated by William Popple [1689]
http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Philosophers/Locke/Letter Concerning Toleratin PDF.pdf
Resistance Chicks are proud to partner with Zang Enterprises as the new official gold and silver company of Resistance Chicks! Learn more:
 |
| DAY 56 |
PG here, I am a little late posting. We have had over a foot of rain since March 1st, and it kind of wears on your mind when you already have cabin fever. I've been stuck inside for way too long. Just got almost 2 inches in one day and another inch today! Yuck. Monday, May 5, 2025, Day 56, page 62b of 40, according to the PDF, "A Letter Concerning Toleration." John is talking about governments that are afraid of people publicly meeting in religious gatherings. They are afraid because the governments are oppressing the people, and the people are talking about it. He is saying, Stop being bad governments so they have nothing bad to talk about." 32b Let him turn the tables. Or those dissenters enjoy but the same privileges in civils as his otherm subjects, and he will quickly find that these religious meetings will be no longer dangerous. For if men enter into seditious conspiracies, it is not religion inspires them to it in their meetings, but their sufferings and oppressions that make them willing to ease themselves. Just and moderate governments are everywhere quiet, everywhere safe; but oppression raises ferments and makes men struggle to cast off an uneasy and tyrannical yoke. I know that seditions are very frequently raised upon pretence of religion, but it is as true that for religion subjects are frequently ill treated and live miserably. Believe me, the stirs that are made proceed not from any peculiar temper of this or that Church or religious society, but from the common disposition of all mankind, who when they groan under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks. Suppose this business of religion were let alone, and that there were some other distinction made between men and men upon account of their different complexions, shapes, and features, so that those who have black hair (for example) or grey eyes should not enjoy the same privileges as other citizens; that they should not be permitted either to buy or sell, or live by their callings; that parents should not have the government and education of their own children; that all should either be excluded from the benefit of the laws, or meet with partial judges; can it be doubted but these persons, thus distinguished from others by the colour of their hair and eyes, and united together by one common persecution, would be as dangerous to the magistrate as any others that had associated themselve merely upon the account of religion?
 |
| DAY 57 |
PG here, Tuesday, May 6, 2024, page 33a according to the PDD. Day 56. An extra addition to John Locke's daily reading. A reading on "A Letter Concerning Toleration." Why do men gather in groups in society? Why would a government make it illegal to meet as a church gathering? If ir is dangerous to the government, it is because the government is oppressing their rights. They are not being treated fairly. The government has no fear of church gatherings if the people are treated like all the other groups that get together. Last sentence: ***an equal condition with their fellow-subjects under a just and moderate government.*** Definition: Some get together in a club to have some wine: Claret: mid-15c., "light-colored wine," from Old French (vin) claret "clear (wine), light-colored red wine" (also "sweetened wine," a sense in English from late 14c.), from Latin clarus "clear" (see clear (adj.)). Narrowed English meaning "red wine of Bordeaux" (excluding burgundy) first attested 1700. 33a...{Some enter into company for trade and profit, others for want of business have their clubs for claret. Neighbourhood joins some and religion others. But there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression. You will say “What, will you have people to meet at divine service against the magistrate’s will?” I answer: Why, I pray, against his will? Is it not both lawful and necessary that they should meet? Against his will, do you say? That is what I complain of; that is the very root of all the mischief. Why are assemblies less sufferable in a church than in a theatre or market? Those that meet there are not either more vicious or more turbulent than those that meet elsewhere. The business in that is that they are ill used, and therefore they are not to be suffered. Take away the partiality that is used towards them in matters of common right; change the laws, take away the penalties unto which they are subjected, and all things will immediately become safe and peaceable; nay, those that are averse to the religion of the magistrate will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain the peace of the commonwealth as their condition is better in that place than elsewhere; and all the several separate congregations, like so many guardians of the public peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or changed in the form of the government, because they can hope for nothing better than what they already enjoy—that is, an equal condition with their fellow-subjects under a just and moderate government.}
 |
| DAY 58 |
1.) PG here, Wednesday, May 7th, 2025, Day 58, 33b according to the PDF. An extra edition of John Locke's daily reading, "A Letter Concerning Toleration." Whether you know it or not, people in the past could not assemble and talk about God, or sing hymns, or worship God unless the government allowed it. You could meet in the marketplace, in the theater, or in the pub, but not in homes or churches when the reason was to fellowship with other believers. There were laws on the books telling people when, where, and how they could love and worship God. Some people were burned at the stake or thrown in dungeons and whipped and beaten for breaking these religious laws. This section spells out why everyone should be permitted to organize an assembly. 33b starts here. Take away the partiality that is used towards them in matters of common right; change the laws, take away the penalties unto which they are subjected, and all things will immediately become safe and peaceable; nay, those that are averse to the religion of the magistrate will think themselves so much the more bound to maintain the peace of the commonwealth as their condition is better in that place than elsewhere; and all the several separate congregations, like so many guardians of the public peace, will watch one another, that nothing may be innovated or changed in the form of the government, because they can hope for nothing better than what they already enjoy—that is, an equal condition with their fellow-subjects under a just and moderate government. Now if that Church which agrees in religion with the prince be esteemed the chief support of any civil government, and that for no other reason (as has already been shown) than because the prince is kind and the laws are favourable to it, how much greater will be the security of government where all good subjects, of whatsoever Church they be, without any distinction upon account of religion, enjoying the same favour of the prince and the same benefit of the laws, shall become the common support and guard of it, and where none will have any occasion to fear the severity of the laws but those that do injuries to their neighbours and offend against the civil peace? That we may draw towards a conclusion. The sum of all we drive at is that every man may enjoy the same rights that are granted to others. Is it permitted to worship God in the Roman manner? Let it be permitted to do it in the Geneva form also. Is it permitted to speak Latin in the marketplace? Let those that have a mind to it be permitted to do it also in the church. Is it lawful for any man in his own house to kneel, stand, sit, or use any other posture; and to clothe himself in white or black, in short or in long garments? Let it not be made unlawful to eat bread, drink wine, or wash with water in the church. In a word, whatsoever things are left free by law in the common occasions of life, let them remain free unto every Church in divine worship. Let no man’s life, or body, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts. Can you allow of the.......see 34a tomorrow Thursday May 8, 2025
 |
| DAY 59 |
PG here, Thursday, May 8, 2025, Day 58, extra edition, Page 34a according to PDF. Ecclesiastical: relating to the Christian Church or its clergy. Self-explanatory: 33a Let no man’s life, or body, or house, or estate suffer any manner of prejudice upon these accounts. Can you allow of the Presbyterian discipline? Why should not the Episcopal also have what they like? Ecclesiastical authority, whether it be administered by the hands of a single person or many, is everywhere the same; and neither has any jurisdiction in things civil, nor any manner of power of compulsion, nor anything at all to do with riches and revenues. Ecclesiastical assemblies and sermons are justified by daily experience and public allowance. These are allowed to people of some one persuasion; why not to all? If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, it is to be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for factious and flagitious fellows. Nor ought it to be less lawful for men to meet in churches than in halls; nor are one part of the subjects to be esteemed more blamable for their meeting together than others. Every one is to be accountable for his own actions, and no man is to be laid under a suspicion or odium for the fault of another. Those that are seditious, murderers, thieves, robbers, adulterers, slanderers, etc., of whatsoever Church, whether national or not, ought to be punished and suppressed. But those whose doctrine is peaceable and whose manners are pure and blameless ought to be upon equal terms with their fellow subjects. Thus, if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sort of professors, all these things ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty.
 |
| DAY 60 |
PG here, an extra addition to John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government." "A Letter Concerning Toleration," page 34b according to the PDF, Day 60. 34b: Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing. The Church which “judgeth not those that are without” wants it not. And the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that are honest, peaceable, and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal and trade with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and worship God? If we allow the Jews to have private houses and dwellings amongst us, why should we not allow them to have synagogues? Is their doctrine more false, their worship more abominable, or is the civil peace more endangered by their meeting in public than in their private houses? But if these things may be granted to Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christians ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian commonwealth. You will say, perhaps: “Yes, it ought to be; because they are more inclinable to factions, tumults, and civil wars.” I answer: Is this the fault of the Christian religion? If it be so, truly the Christian religion is the worst of all religions and ought neither to be embraced by any particular person, nor tolerated by any commonwealth. For if this be the genius, this the nature of the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive to the civil peace, that Church itself which the magistrate indulges will not always be innocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that religion which carries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition, discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate desires, and is the most modest and peaceable religion that ever was. PG here, from Day 60, page 34b, May 10, Saturday: {For if this be the genius, this the nature of the Christian religion, to be turbulent and destructive to the civil peace, that Church itself which the magistrate indulges will not always be innocent. But far be it from us to say any such thing of that religion, which carries the greatest opposition to covetousness, ambition, discord, contention, and all manner of inordinate desires, and is the most modest and peaceable religion that ever was.} PDF: fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Philosophers/Locke/Letter%20Concerning%20Toleratin%20PDF.pdf
 |
| DAY 61 AND 62 |
PG here. I am a day behind, so I'm adding two posts in one post. The page 35, May 11 and 12, 2025 This is Monday evening. The separate services to God of the ecclesiastical church clergy and the ministry, public servants of the people's government under God. People like to charge religion as causing all kinds of problems in government. It is not true. John is asking the readers to go along with him to seek another reason for these problems. On page 35 of the PDF, John states the cause: {It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be avoided), but ***the refusal of toleration to those that are of different opinions*** (which might have been granted), that has produced all the bustles and wars that have been in the Christian world upon account of religion. ....... False teachings... {The heads and leaders of the Church, moved by avarice and insatiable desire of dominion,}.....{they mixed together and confounded two things that are in themselves most different, the Church and the commonwealth.} ....Men stripped of their possessions and God-given rights might take up arms against people robbing them.
 |
| DAY 63 |
PG here, Michelle mentioned turning "Studying Half a Page a Day of "A Letter Concerning Toleration"" by John Locke into a book, or "Second Treatise of Government." Reading a page a day. I am reposting with the error fixed. It is "36a" "CONCLUSION" according to the PDF. NOT "36."
Repost: PG here, 6 days left! "A Letter Concerning Toleration," page 36a, May 13, 2025. John Locke's daily reading of "Second Treatise of Government" still has almost 20 days left.
Sed pudet hoec opprobria.
A.I. results: AI Overview
The Latin phrase "Sed pudet haec opprobria" translates to "But I am ashamed of these disgraces." It conveys a sense of shame or embarrassment regarding the situation or actions being referred to.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
"Sed": This means "but" or "however."
"pudet": This is the impersonal verb "to shame" or "to make ashamed."
"haec": This means "these."
"opprobria": This is the plural of "opprobrium," meaning disgrace, shame, or reproach.
Reading: {For who does not see that these good men are, indeed, more ministers of the government than ministers of the Gospel and that, by flattering the ambition and favouring the dominion of princes and men in authority, they endeavour with all their might to promote that tyranny in the commonwealth which otherwise they should not be able to establish in the Church? This is the unhappy agreement that we see between the Church and State. Whereas if each of them would contain itself within its own bounds the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls—it is
impossible that any discord should ever have happened between them. Sed pudet hoec opprobria. etc. God Almighty grant, I beseech Him, that the gospel of peace may at length be preached, and that civil magistrates, growing more careful to conform their own consciences to the law of God and less solicitous about the binding of other men’s consciences by human laws, may, like fathers of their country, direct all their counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all their children, except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious to their brethren; and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles, walking peaceably and modestly in the Apostles’ steps, without intermeddling with State Affairs, may apply themselves wholly to promote the salvation of souls.
Farewell.
Perhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things concerning heresy and schism. A Turk is not, nor can be, either heretic or schismatic to a Christian; and if any man fall off from the Christian faith to Mahometism, he does not thereby become a heretic or schismatic, but an apostate and an infidel. This nobody doubts, and by this it appears that men of different religions cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another.}
To be cont.....PG here, 6 days left! "A Letter Concerning Toleration," page 36a, May 13, 2025. John Locke's daily reading of "Second Treatise of Government" still has almost 20 days left.A.I. results: AI Overview
The Latin phrase "Sed pudet haec opprobria" translates to "But I am ashamed of these disgraces." It conveys a sense of shame or embarrassment regarding the situation or actions being referred to.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
"Sed": This means "but" or "however."
"pudet": This is the impersonal verb "to shame" or "to make ashamed."
"haec": This means "these."
"opprobria": This is the plural of "opprobrium," meaning disgrace, shame, or reproach.
Reading: {For who does not see that these good men are, indeed, more ministers of the government than ministers of the Gospel and that, by flattering the ambition and favouring the dominion of princes and men in authority, they endeavour with all their might to promote that tyranny in the commonwealth which otherwise they should not be able to establish in the Church? This is the unhappy agreement that we see between the Church and State. Whereas if each of them would contain itself within its own bounds the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls—it is
impossible that any discord should ever have happened between them. Sed pudet hoec opprobria. etc. God Almighty grant, I beseech Him, that the gospel of peace may at length be preached, and that civil magistrates, growing more careful to conform their own consciences to the law of God and less solicitous about the binding of other men’s consciences by human laws, may, like fathers of their country, direct all their counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all their children, except only of such as are arrogant, ungovernable, and injurious to their brethren; and that all ecclesiastical men, who boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles, walking peaceably and modestly in the Apostles’ steps, without intermeddling with State Affairs, may apply themselves wholly to promote the salvation of souls.
Farewell.
Perhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things concerning heresy and schism. A Turk is not, nor can be, either heretic or schismatic to a Christian; and if any man fall off from the Christian faith to Mahometism, he does not thereby become a heretic or schismatic, but an apostate and an infidel. This nobody doubts, and by this it appears that men of different religions cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another.}
To be cont.....
.jpeg) |
| DAY 64 |
PG here, extra addition Wednesday, May 14, 2025, pages 36b and 37a according to the PDF, day 64! "A Letter Concerning Toleration," which John finished or had his conclusion in yesterday's reading, but he added to it on a different subject. "Heresy and schism". ...."men of different religions cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another." We are to inquire, therefore, what men are of the same religion. Concerning which it is manifest that those who have one and the same rule of faith and worship are of the same religion; and those who have not the same rule of faith and worship are of different religions. For since all things that belong unto that religion are contained in that rule, it follows necessarily that those who agree in one rule are of one and the same religion, and vice versa. Thus Turks and Christians are of different religions, because these take the Holy Scriptures to be the rule of their religion, and those the Alcoran. And for the same reason there may be different religions also even amongst Christians. The Papists and Lutherans, though both of them profess faith in Christ and are therefore called Christians, yet are not both of the same religion, because these acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be the rule and foundation of their religion, those take in also traditions and the decrees of Popes and of these together make the rule of their religion; and thus the Christians of St. John (as they are called) and the Christians of Geneva are of different religions, because these also take only the Scriptures, and those I know not what traditions, for the rule of their religion. This being settled, it follows, first, that heresy is a separation made in ecclesiastical communion between men of the same religion for some opinions no way contained in the rule itself; and, secondly, that amongst those who acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be their rule of faith, heresy is a separation made in their Christian communion for opinions not contained in the express words of Scripture. Now this separation may be made in a twofold manner:
%2037a.png) |
| DAY 65 |
Repost May 15, Correction to picture and text: "37a" ..PG here, extra addition Thursday, May 15, 2025, pages 37a According to the PDF, day 65! "A Letter Concerning Toleration," which John finished or had his conclusion. He added to it on a different subject. "Heresy and schism". ...."men of different religions cannot be heretics or schismatics to one another." 37a 1. When the greater part, or by the magistrate’s patronage the stronger part, of the Church separates itself from others by excluding them out of her communion because they will not profess their belief of certain opinions which are not the express words of the Scripture. For it is not the paucity of those that are separated, nor the authority of the magistrate, that can make any man guilty of heresy, but he only is a heretic who divides the Church into parts, introduces names and marks of distinction, and voluntarily makes a separation because of such opinions. 2. When any one separates himself from the communion of a Church because that Church does not publicly profess some certain opinions which the Holy Scriptures do not expressly teach. Both these are heretics because they err in fundamentals, and they err obstinately against knowledge; for when they have determined the Holy Scriptures to be the only foundation of faith, they nevertheless lay down certain propositions as fundamental which are not in the Scripture, and because others will not acknowledge these additional opinions of theirs, nor build upon them as if they were necessary and fundamental, they therefore make a separation in the Church, either by withdrawing themselves from others, or expelling the others from them.... To be cont. See less
%20Fixed%20spacing..png) |
| DAY 66 |
PG here: ALL CAUGHT UP: FRIDAY'S: POST: PG here, May 16, 2025, Day 66 of reading about a half of a page a day of 37b of 40 according to the PDF, "A Letter Concerning Toleration."
Nor does it signify anything for them to say that their confessions and symbols are agreeable to Scripture and to the analogy of faith; for if they be conceived in the express words of Scripture, there can be no question about them, because those things are acknowledged by all Christians to be of divine inspiration and therefore fundamental. But if they say that the articles
which they require to be professed are consequences deduced from the Scripture, it is undoubtedly well done of them who believe and profess such things as seem unto them so agreeable to the rule of faith. But it would be very ill done to obtrude those things upon others unto whom they do not seem to be the indubitable doctrines of the Scripture; and to make a separation for such things as these, which neither are nor can be fundamental, is to become heretics; for I do not think there is any man arrived to that degree of madness as that he dare give out his consequences and interpretations of Scripture as divine inspirations and compare the articles of faith that he has framed according to his own fancy with the authority of Scripture. I know there are some propositions so evidently agreeable to Scripture that nobody can deny them to be drawn from thence, but about those, therefore, there can be no difference. This only I say—that however clearly we may think this or the other doctrine to
be deduced from Scripture, we ought not therefore to impose it upon others as a necessary article of faith because we believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith, unless we would be content also that other doctrines.. to be continued. Tomorrow will be the last day for John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration."
 |
| Day 67 |
PG her, congratulations! The very last day for reading a page a day of John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration." After you read this, you will have read the whole thesis. Or Letter. Sunday,
[March 2, 2025 #1 Extra Addition John Locke's Government Treatise: A Letter Concerning Toleration Today Monday, May 19, 2025, Day 67. It has been more than 67 days, but we did not read each day. I think it was about 79-80 days.
Topic: Perhaps it may not be amiss to add a few things concerning heresy and. schism........................heresy relates to errors in faith, and schism to those in worship or discipline, we must consider them under that distinction.
Schism, then, for the same reasons that have already been alleged, is nothing else but a separation made in the communion of the Church upon account of something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline that is not any necessary part of it.
,,,See whole reading in the picture, PDF, or in the blog. should be imposed upon us in the same manner, and that we should be
compelled to receive and profess all the different and contradictory
opinions of Lutherans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, and other
sects which the contrivers of symbols, systems, and confessions are
accustomed to deliver to their followers as genuine and necessary
deductions from the Holy Scripture. I cannot but wonder at the
extravagant arrogance of those men who think that they themselves can
explain things necessary to salvation more clearly than the Holy Ghost, the
eternal and infinite wisdom of God.
Thus much concerning heresy, which word in common use is applied only
to the doctrinal part of religion. Let us now consider schism, which is a
crime near akin to it; for both these words seem unto me to signify an
ill-grounded separation in ecclesiastical communion made about things
not necessary. But since use, which is the supreme law in matter of
language, has determined that heresy relates to errors in faith, and schism
to those in worship or discipline, we must consider them under that
distinction.
Schism, then, for the same reasons that have already been alleged, is
nothing else but a separation made in the communion of the Church upon
account of something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline that is
not any necessary part of it. Now, nothing in worship or discipline can be
necessary to Christian communion but what Christ our legislator, or the
Apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in express
words.
In a word, he that denies not anything that the Holy Scriptures teach in
express words, nor makes a separation upon occasion of anything that is
not manifestly contained in the sacred texthowever he may be nicknamed
by any sect of Christians and declared by some or all of them to be utterly
void of true Christianity—yet in deed and in truth this man cannot be
either a heretic or schismatic.
These things might have been explained more largely and more
advantageously, but it is enough to have hinted at them thus briefly to a
person of your parts
1
Luke 22. 25.
2
II Tim. 2. 19.
3
Luke 22. 32.
4
Rom. I.
5
Gal. 5.
6
Matt. 18. 20, 7
Exod. 22, 20, 21.
8
Deut. 2.
9
I Cor. 5. 12, 13.
No comments:
Post a Comment