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
 |
| DAY 31 |
PG here, Extra Addition "A Letter if Concerning Toleration," Day 31,
Page 16b of pdf. 17a : to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven? fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Philosophers/Locke/Letter Concerning Toleratin PDF.pdf The individual's right to seek salvation, like medical help for an ailing body, is his free choice. Those things that Every man ought sincerely to inquire into himself and, by meditation, study, search, and his own endeavours, attain the knowledge of, cannot be looked upon as the peculiar possession of any sort of men.
 |
| SAME |
Princes, indeed, are born superior unto other men in power, but in nature equal. Neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things, and least of all of true religion. For if it were so, how could it come to pass that the lords of the earth should differ so vastly as they do in religious matters? But let us grant that it is probable the way to eternal life may be better known by a prince than by his subjects, or at least that in this incertitude of things the safest and most commodious way for private persons is to follow his dictates. You will say: “What then?” If he should bid you follow merchandise for your livelihood, would you decline that course for fear it should not succeed? I answer: I would turn merchant upon the prince’s command, because, in case I should have ill-success in trade, he is abundantly able to make up my loss some other way. If it be true, as he pretends, that he desires I should thrive and grow rich, he can set me up again when unsuccessful voyages have broken me. But this is not the case in the things that regard the life to come; if there I take a wrong course, if in that respect I am once undone, it is not in the magistrate’s power to repair my loss, to ease my suffering, nor to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven?
 |
| DAY 32 |
to restore me in any measure, much less entirely, to a good estate. What security can be given for the Kingdom of Heaven? Perhaps some will say that they do not suppose this infallible judgement, that all men are bound to follow in the affairs of religion, to be in the civil magistrate, but in the Church. What the Church has determined, that the civil magistrate orders to be observed; and he provides by his authority that nobody shall either act or believe in the business of religion otherwise than the Church teaches. So that the judgement of those things is in the Church; the magistrate himself yields obedience thereunto and requires the like obedience from others. I answer: Who sees not how frequently the name of the Church, which was venerable in time of the apostles, has been made use of to throw dust in the people’s eyes in the following ages? But, however, in the present case it helps us not. The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst so many kings of the Jews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction? Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the magistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of the Church. Of what Church, I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best. As if he that compels me by laws and penalties to enter into this or the other Church, did not interpose his own judgement in the matter.
 |
| DAY 33 |
PG here, Sunday, April 6, 2025. The topic is, should anyone submit their will to another person for salvation? Can the law or magistrate demand a certain religion over another? Socinians were members of a 16th and 17th-century Christian group, named after the Italian theologian Faustus Socinus, who rejected the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and other traditional Christian doctrines, emphasizing reason and moral living. `Church Papist' was a nickname, a term of abuse, for those English Catholics who outwardly conformed to the established Protestant Church and yet inwardly remained Roman Catholics.
Quote: 17b: What
difference is there whether he lead me himself, or deliver me over to be led
by others? I depend both ways upon his will, and it is he that determines
both ways of my eternal state. Would an Israelite that had worshipped
Baal upon the command of his king have been in any better condition
because somebody had told him that the king ordered nothing in religion
upon his own head, nor commanded anything to be done by his subjects in
divine worship but what was approved by the counsel of priests, and
declared to be of divine right by the doctors of their Church? If the religion
of any Church become, therefore, true and saving, because the head of that
sect, the prelates and priests, and those of that tribe, do all of them, with
all their might, extol and praise it, what religion can ever be accounted
erroneous, false, and destructive? I am doubtful concerning the doctrine of
the Socinians, I am suspicious of the way of worship practised by the
Papists, or Lutherans; will it be ever a jot safer for me to join either unto
the one or the other of those Churches, upon the magistrate’s command,
because he commands nothing in religion but by the authority and counsel
of the doctors of that Church?
But, to speak the truth, we must acknowledge that the Church (if a
convention of clergymen, making canons, must be called by that name) is
for the most part more apt to be influenced by the Court than the Court by the church.
.png) |
| DAY 34 |
PG here, April 7, 2025, Monday, Day 34 Martin Luther of the Reformation. Wrote the first Declaration of Independence from the Catholic Church with 95 wrongs the church was doing called The 95 Theses" in 1517. It is called Reformation Day. October 31. He testified before a court: "I can not recant; I will not recant (his writings and pamphlets). To do so is to go against my conscience, and that is a very dangerous thing." John Locke is expressing the same TRUTH of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who delivers us and sets us free from sin. The bottom sentence here, ***"No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed."***
The "vicissitude of orthodox and Arian emperors" refers to the fluctuating fortunes and political shifts experienced by emperors who supported either orthodox Nicene Christianity or the Arian heresy, particularly in the 4th century, with emperors like Constantine and Constantius playing pivotal roles.
vicissitude: a change of circumstances or fortune, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant.
How the Church was under the vicissitude of orthodox and
Arian emperors is very well known. Or if those things be too remote, our
modern English history affords us fresh examples in the reigns of Henry
VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, how easily and smoothly the clergy
changed their decrees, their articles of faith, their form of worship,
everything according to the inclination of those kings and queens. Yet were
those kings and queens of such different minds in point of religion, and
enjoined thereupon such different things, that no man in his wits (I had
almost said none but an atheist) will presume to say that any sincere and
upright worshipper of God could, with a safe conscience, obey their several
decrees. To conclude, it is the same thing whether a king that prescribes
laws to another man’s religion pretend to do it by his own judgement, or
by the ecclesiastical authority and advice of others. The decisions of
churchmen, whose differences and disputes are sufficiently known, cannot
be any sounder or safer than his; nor can all their suffrages joined together
add a new strength to the civil power. Though this also must be taken
notice of—that princes seldom have any regard to the suffrages of
ecclesiastics that are not favourers of their own faith and way of worship.
But, after all, the principal consideration, and which absolutely determines
this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate’s opinion in religion be
sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I be not
thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for
me in following it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the
dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the
blessed.
.png) |
| DAY 35 |
PG here, Day 35 Page 18b, according to the pdf of our Extra Addition. "A Letter Concerning Toleration." Considerations from John Locke. PG here, April 8, 2025. I have been sharing 1/2 a page a day. I loved the opening sentence here in 18b. And when you are really close to God and all the people you know are, people speak this way by the unction of the Holy Spirit. When all the laws and people are Christian, as America is. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed. If you know it is wrong, it would be great harm to you if you did what you knew to be wrong. The blessed are people who died and went to heaven. Jesus said he has built each person a mansion in heaven to live in for eternity. Jesus's earthly father was Joseph, a carpenter. Maybe you know a contractor or a person who builds homes, a construction worker.
.... No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the
dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the
blessed. I may grow rich by an art that I take not delight in; I may be cured
of some disease by remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved
by a religion that I distrust and by a worship that I abhor. It is in vain for
an unbeliever to take up the outward show of another man’s profession.
Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance
with God. The most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect
upon the patient, if his stomach reject it as soon as taken; and you will in
vain cram a medicine down a sick man’s throat, which his particular
constitution will be sure to turn into poison. In a word, whatsoever may be
doubtful in religion, yet this at least is certain, that no religion which I
believe not to be true can be either true or profitable unto me. In vain,
therefore, do princes compel their subjects to come into their Church
communion, under pretence of saving their souls. If they believe, they will
come of their own accord, if they believe not, their coming will nothing
avail them. How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and
charity, and concern for the salvation of men’s souls, men cannot be forced
to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they
must be left to their own consciences.
Having thus at length freed men from all dominion over one another in
matters of religion, let us now consider what they are to do. All men know
and acknowledge that God ought to be publicly worshipped;
%202nd%20time%2019.png) |
| DAY 36 |
1.) PG here, Day 36, Pages 19, 20 and 21 of 40 according to the PDF. I got behind because I was running a yard sale. Worshipping God with others. John Locke uses the words "Own it" in 1680s. Yes, own it; do not be ashamed that you worship God with other believers. In peace and Holiness. This worship is nothing like worship of God today. Page 19: excerpt....Men, therefore, constituted in this liberty are to enter into some religious society, that they meet together, not only for mutual edification, but to own to the world that they worship God and offer unto His Divine Majesty such service as they themselves are not ashamed of and such as they think not unworthy of Him, nor unacceptable to Him; and, finally, that by the purity of doctrine, holiness of life, and decent form of worship, they may draw others unto the love of the true religion, and perform such other things in religion as cannot be done by each private man apart. These religious societies I call Churches; .......
 |
| DAY 36 |
2.) PG here Page 20 of 40 according to the PDF. Extra Addition of John Locke's Letter of Consideration. Divine Worship can not be ordered by law. It must be done by a person conscience. The same with Baptism. Page 20 of 40 according to pdf: excerpt: Again, things in their own nature indifferent cannot, by any human authority, be made any part of the worship of God—for this very reason: because they are indifferent. For, since indifferent things are not capable, by any virtue of their own, to propitiate the Deity, no human power or authority can confer on them so much dignity and excellency as to enable them to do it. In the common affairs of life that use of indifferent things which God has not forbidden is free and lawful, and therefore in those things human authority has place. But it is not so in matters of religion. Things indifferent are not otherwise lawful in the worship of God than as
they are instituted by God Himself and as He, by some positive command, has ordained them to be made a part of that worship which He will vouchsafe to accept at the hands of poor sinful men. Nor, when an incensed Deity shall ask us, “Who has required these, or such-like things at your hands?” will it be enough to answer Him that the magistrate commanded them. If civil jurisdiction extend thus far, what might not lawfully be introduced into religion?
 |
| DAY 36 |
3.) PG here. Worshipping God as a relationship to him can not be ordered by the law. That last sentence of 21 od 40....In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any...another excerpt: He that worships God does it with design to please Him and procure His favour. But that cannot be done by him who, upon the command of another, offers unto God that which he knows will be displeasing to Him, because not commanded by Himself. This is not to please God, or appease his wrath, but willingly and knowingly to provoke Him by a manifest contempt
PG here, Extra Addition "A Letter if Concerning Toleration," Day 37,
Page 22 of 40 of the PDF. If you are following along in the book "John Locke's "The Second Treatise of Government And A Letter Concerning Toleration," Dover Thrifty Edition, we are on page 135 in the middle of the second paragraph. I am using a PDF to copy and paste. This page deals with an issue Americans struggle with today. Religious Freedom. It has been twisted to allow gruesome murders, molestations, sex trafficking, and mutilations of children. All are abominations to true law, which is to protect each person's, even a woman's or child's, right to themselves, their minds, goods, preservation of their life, liberty, freedom, and body. No one has a right to molest or do harm to another being. Anywhere in the entire world. excerpt: In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any***You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man’s goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate***
 |
| DAY 37 |
Page 22 of 40 of the PDF. If you are following along in the book "John Locke's "The Second Treatise of Government And A Letter Concerning Toleration," Dover Thrifty Edition, we are on page 135 in the middle of the second paragraph. I am using a PDF to copy and paste. This page deals with an issue Americans struggle with today. Religious Freedom. It has been twisted to allow gruesome murders, molestations, sex trafficking, and mutilations of children. All are abominations to true law, which is to protect each person's, even a woman's or child's, right to themselves, their minds, goods, preservation of their life, liberty, freedom, and body. No one has a right to molest or do harm to another being. Anywhere in the entire world. excerpt: In the next place: As the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any***You will say, by this rule, if some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer: No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God or in any religious meeting. But, indeed, if any people congregated upon account of religion should be desirous to sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law. Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his calf at home, and burn any part of it that he thinks fit. For no injury is thereby done to any one, no prejudice to another man’s goods. And for the same reason he may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, and that there be no injury done to any man, either in life or estate***
 |
| DAY 38 |
And thus what may be spent on a feast may be spent on a sacrifice. But if peradventure such were the state of things that the interest of the commonwealth required all slaughter of beasts should be forborne for some while, in order to the increasing of the stock of cattle that had been destroyed by some extraordinary murrain, who sees not that the magistrate, in such a case, may forbid all his subjects to kill any calves for any use whatsoever? Only it is to be observed that, in this case, the law is not made about a religious, but a political matter; nor is the sacrifice, but the slaughter of calves, thereby prohibited. By this we see what difference there is between the Church and the Commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any of his subjects for their ordinary use, neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling in his own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his religious worship; though in the Church the use of bread and wine be very different and be there applied to the mysteries of faith and rites of Divine worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of a people in their ordinary use and are, therefore, forbidden by laws, those things ought not to be permitted to Churches in their sacred rites. Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of public good. It may be said: “What if a Church be idolatrous, is that also to be tolerated
%20Day%2038%20page%2023a%20of%2040.png) |
| DAY 39 |
PG here, Thursday, 17, 2025, Extra Addition "A Letter if Concerning Toleration," Day 38, Page 23a of the PDF. The question is about giving the government power to make laws and rules concerning religion. How disastrous that would be? Page 23a of 40 It may be said: “What if a Church be idolatrous, is that also to be tolerated by the magistrate?” I answer: What power can be given to the magistrate for the suppression of an idolatrous Church, which may not in time and place be made use of to the ruin of an orthodox one? For it must be remembered that the civil power is the same everywhere, and the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself. If, therefore, such a power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals as that at Geneva, for example, he may extirpate, by violence and blood, the religion which is
there reputed idolatrous, by the same rule another magistrate, in some neighbouring country, may oppress the reformed religion and, in India, the Christian. The civil power can either change everything in religion, according to the prince’s pleasure, or it can change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce anything into religion by the means of laws and penalties, there can be no bounds put to it, but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything, according to that rule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto himself. No man whatsoever ought, therefore, to be deprived of his terrestrial enjoyments upon account of his religion. Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian prince, are to be punished either in body or goods for not embracing our faith and worship. If they are persuaded that they please God in observing the rites of their own country and that they shall obtain happiness by that means, they are to be left unto God and themselves. Let us trace this matter to the bottom. Thus it is: An inconsiderable and weak number of Christians, destitute of everything, arrive in a Pagan country; these foreigners beseech the inhabitants, by the bowels of humanity, that they would succour them with the necessaries of life; those necessaries are given them, habitations are granted, and they all join together and grow up into one body of people.
 |
| DAY 40 |
 |
| DAY 41 |
PG here, an extra addition of 3 days, April 18, 19, and 20, for an Easter gift that correlates with this morning's readings of John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government and A Letter of Toleration." On Sunday, April 20, 2025. Both are pointing out the source of power of government. The government receives its power from the people to represent them, not corporations, nor special interests, nor receiving bribes, nor their own interests and their families, relatives, friends, etc. We can not individually go to the seat of government; there are too many people, so we elect people to go for all of us. They can not give that power to anyone else.
 |
| DAY 42 |
Please read each picture to get the message given here by John Locke. A government can embrace Christianity, Christian principles, and ways of government. But those who forsake public worship, observants of Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas, and good works can not be punished by governments.
.png)
%20%20Day%205b.png)
%20Day%2030%2016%20a.png)
