Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57655
|
Leviathan drawn out with a hook, or, Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan by Alex. Rosse.
|
Ross, Alexander, 1591-1654.
|
1653
(1653)
|
Wing R1960; ESTC R1490
|
70,857
|
139
|
speaks against I must needs confess there is not so much as some could take upon them yet to deny all coercive power is to deny the commission which this great King Luke 14. gave to his servants that they should compel those in the high-waies to come to his supper And albeit ministers are called fisher-men and not hunters yet fisher-men use some force in drawing their fish to the shore and indeed none can come to me saith Christ except the Father draw him as for his doctrine of dissimulation in matters of Religion both with God and man I dare not assent thereto for God who is the God of truth loveth truth in the inward parts he that is not with him is against him who gathereth not with him scattereth Linnin and Woolin in the same garment different seeds in the same ground an ox and an ass at the same plough are not pleasing to him Pulcra est concordia cordis oris If to think one think and speak another did argue Catalin to be an evil-man shall it not argue the like in a Christian Aliud in lingua promptum aliâ—d in pectore clausum habere When he â—ells us cap. 42. That Christs commission to his Disciples and Apostles was to proclaim his Kingdom not present but to come He is mistaken for the Apostles commission was to proclaim that the Kingdom of heaven was at handâ— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the perfect tense shews that it was already come or at hand Mat. 3. and 4. And he sheweth Luke 17. 21. That the Kingdom of God was within them And Luke 11. 20. That the kingdom of God was come upon them If then this kingdom of Christ was not to come till after the resurrection how could it be said to be then at hand Whereas already there are 1652 years past besides what are to come When he saith cap. 42. â— That the Apostles had no power to make laâ—s but to perswade that they did counsel and advise but not command that their precepts were invitations and callings not commands that they might be without sin dissobeyed And much more to this purpose he â—peaks absurdly for how can he make precepts to be counsels and not commands Is not praecipio and mando all one Are not the ten Commandments ten precepts Are they to be called counsels did not the Apostles make laws and enjoyn them to be observed Acts 15. St. Paul doth not counsel but command the Thessalonians to work with their own hands 1 Thes. 4. 11. He hopes they will do the things he commands them 2 Thes. 3. 4. Timothy is to command as well as to teach 1 Tim. 4. 11. He must command the rich men of this world 1 Tim. 6. 17. The Apostle puts a difference between counsel and command when he saithâ— that concerning virgins he had no command but gives his counsel in that case 1 Cor. 7. 25. Now that Christ and his Apostles may be disobeyed without sin is a sinful opinion for Christ tels us that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews they had not had sin but now they have no cloke for their sin John 15. 24. St John writes to his brethren that they might not sin 1 John 2. 1. to wit if they obey and observe what he writes otherwise they must needs sin Disobedience is not onely a sin but as Samuel saith it is as hainous as the sin of witchcraft or idolatry He makes a needless difference cap. 42. between a minister and a servant That servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them whereas ministers are obliged onely by their undertaking But indeed these words servant and minister are promiscuously used for if servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them then ministers are servants for this obligation lieth upon them And if ministers are obliged by their undertaking then servants are ministers for what they undertake they are obliged to perform Christ Mat. 20. 26 and 27. useth the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for the same thing And so he is called somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and this word Diaconus is given sometimes to the meanest servant sometimes to the Magistrate as Rom. 13. somtimes to Preachers somtimes to Church Officers called Deacons Ambassadors are called also by this name and they are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to serve or to be Deacons He will have Chap. 42. Princes to be called Shepherds or Pastors because they are to teach the people But indeed they are called Pastors from feeding not from teaching neither is it the office of a King to preach or administer the Sacramentsâ— No man taketh upon him saith the Apostle this honor but he that is called of God as Aaron was he should have said As Moses was if he had been called to perform the Prâ—ests Office Therefore Christian Soveraigns are not instituted to teach by vertue of their Baptisme as he saith for Baptisme is a Sacrament of our regeneration and of our admission to be members of Christs bodyâ— by it Princes and Subjects are washed from sin but not instituted to preach the Emperour hath no more power to perform the Priests officeâ— or to preach by vertue of his Baptisme then his meanest subject And if the Kings Baptisme doth not authorize him to â—ach at all much lesse to teach what doctrine he will and to exercise absolute Power over his subjects as Mr. Hobbs saith For absolute power is in God onely they are tyrants not lawfull Princes that will claim absâ—lute power over their subjectsâ— And if it be Baptism that investeth Princes with power over their subjectsâ— what power hath the Turk the Persian the Magor the King of Chinaâ— the great Cham over their Subjects who were never baptsed and to allow Princes power to teach what they will is to make them absolute lords not onely over our bodies and goods but over our souls also and to enâ—lave our understandings to their wills When he saith cap. 42. In that Urim and Thummim was given to the high Priest it was given to the civil Soveraign for such next under God was the high Priest in the Common-wealth of Israel He contradicts himself for this high Priest to whom Urim and Thummim was given first was Aaron whom not long before he subjected to Moyses cap. 40. where he saith That not Aaron buâ— Moyses alone had next under God the Soveraignity over the Israelites and that not onely in causes of civil policy but also of religion Here we see how he makes and unmakes the Soveraignity of Princes and not onely doeth he make Moyses for his time but also the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in his chair that is to â—ay expounded his law supreme civil Soveraigns whereas the legislative power and civil Soveraignity was in the Romans by right of conquest which
conjectural and of probabilities onely whereas faith makes its object certain end withal he makes these phrases the same To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases for credere Deo is to beleeve that God is true credere Deum is to beleeve there is a God which wicked men and evil Angels may do but credere in Deum is to love God and to relie on him and to put our trust in him which none do but good men therefore Mr: Hobbs is injurious to Christianity when he saith That to beleeve in God as it is in the Creed is meant noâ— trust in the person but confession of the doctrine If so then the Devil may as boldly and with as great comfort say the Creed as any Christian for he beleeves and trembles â—aith Saint Iames and we know these evil spirits confessed Christ to be the Son of God and he is no less injurious to God when he will have us beleeve in the Church saying Our belief faith and trust is in the Church whose words we take and acquiâ—sse therein but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherwaies namely That we beleeve the Catholick Church but we beleeve in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ and in the Hâ—ly Ghost He makes Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men to signifie in Scripture the same thing for thus he writes Whereas many of those Devils are said to confess Christ Is it not necessary to interpret those places otherwise then that those mad-men confessed him And shortly after I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief that Demoniacks were any other thing but mad-men Yes there be divers things that make it necessary for him to beleeve that these were distinct 1. The letter of the text from which we should not digress except we were urged by an inconvenience which is not here 2. The Authority of the Church in which he saith he doth beleeve Now the Church alwaies took these for distinct creatures to wit Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men 3. The honour of Christ for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen if these were ordinary Mad-men seeing madness is curable by physick and every common Physician It tended more to Christ's honour that the Devil whose Kingdom he came to destroy should confess he divinity then that mad-men should acknowledge it 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles but to cast out Devils and to cure Demoniacks was a greater miracle then to cure mad-men 5. The New Testament distinguisheth Demoniacks from mad-men for these are called Demoniacks not mad and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians and not a Demoniack so Devils are never called mad-men in Scripture nor madmen called Devils besides as all mad-men are not Demoniacks so all Demoniacks are not mad-men for the Devil entered into Iudas Iscariot he became a demoniack or possessed by the Devil and yet he was no mad-man but I doubt me Mr. Hobbs is mad himself in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself he thinks the School-men mad because their terms cannot be translated or are not intelligible in vulgar languages by this he may as well ascribe madness to Lawyers and Physitians as to Divines for their terms of 〈◊〉 â—t cannot be well translated nor can vulgar capacities easily understand them nor is it much material whether they do or not Church and State can subsist well enough though the vulgar sort understand not the terms of School divinity if these terms are not intelligible by dull heads and shallow brains the fault is in themselves not in the terms for quicquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur non ad modum recepti Blinde men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity because they cannot see him neither are the words of Suarez which he alledgeth for an example so obscure as he would make them for to an intelligent man the words are very plain to wit That the first cause hath no necessary influence upon the second by reason of subordination which is a help to their working Here be two things remarkable 1. That the second causes work by reason of subordination to the first cause â— That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the second but voluntarily If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his pallat he must blame his mouth which is out of tast and not the meat which is both wholesom and savory In his tenth chapter he uttereth strange Paradoxes 1. That to pitty is to dishonour 2. That good Fortune if lasting is a sign of Gods favour 3. That covetousness of great riches and ambition of great honours are honourable 4. That an unjust action so it be joyned with power is honorable for honour consisteth onely in the opinion of power therefore the heathen gods are honoured by the Poets for their thefts and adulteries and at first among men piracy and theft were counted no dishonour 1. Pitty is rather honour then dishonour for when a father pittieth his child a King his subject or a Master his servant do they dishonour them When we desire God to pitty us do we desire him to dishonour us him whom we dishonour we pitty not and whom we pitty we dishonour not pitty proceeds of love dishonour of hatred 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of Gods favour it seems then that the Turks are highly in Gods favour for their good fortune hath continued these many hundreth years Whether was poor and starved Lazarus or that rich glutton who fared dilitiously every day highest in Gods favour 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable and covetousness which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil Can sin be honorable which brought shame and dishonour upon mankinde in respect of sin man did not abide in honour but became like the beasts that perish If ambition of great honors be honorable then were the evil Angels and Adam most honorable when they affected to be like God himself which is the greatest and highest honour that can be then were Caligula Domitian Heliogabalus and others who affected divine honours most honorable Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched therefore in this he was most honorable but if it be honour to offend God to transgress his law to incur his displeasure and suffer eternal pains let them who list injoy this honour I will have none of it non equidem tali me digner honore 4. He makes unjust actions joyned with power honourable Then unjust actions without power deserve no honour it is even as Seneca complaineth in his time parva furta puniuntur magna in triumphis aguntur Petty theeves are hanged but great robberies are honoured He spoke it with grief when a cruel tyrant ruled or rather misruled the Empire But otherwaies where there is government unjust actions are punished not