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
|
to the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit in Moses chair But then Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors in whom he acknowledged kingly power by paying tribute and by submitting himself to be judged by them Their sitting then in Moses chair doeth not imply kingly power but their power in expounding the law of Moses And it is as weak an inference to say that Christ is not King of his Church Because he would not divide the inheritance between the two brethren or because he came to save the world not to judge it For dividing of inheritances belonging not to Christs spiritual kingdom neither was it the end of Christs comming to judge that is to condemn the world for the Greek word signifieth both but to save it for his name was Jesus a Saviour because he came to save his people from their sins And no less weak is this reason The time of Christs preaching is called regeneration therefore it is no kingdom Regeneration is not the time but the fruit and effect of Christs preaching and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christs Kingdom that our Saviour tells us in plain tearms except we be regenerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Iohn 3. In his two and fortty chapter he broacheth a strange wheemsie concerning the blessed Trinity in saying That God who hath been represented that is personated thrice to wit by Moses by Christ and by the Apostles may properly enough be said to be three Persons as represented by the Apostles the holy Spirit by which they spake is God as represented by Christ the Son is that God as represented by Moses and the high Priests the Father is that God Hence the names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the signification of the Godhead are never used in the old Testament for they are Persons that is they have their names from representing which could not be till divers men had represented Gods Person c. Here is strange stuffe For first The word Person in the Trinity was never taken by Divines for a Visard a personating or representation but for a peculiar way of subsisting therefore by the Greek Church the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used till wanton and idle wits began to â—aise differences about that word and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used answering to the Latine word Persona and is defined thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by Iustin Martyr and Damâ—sâ—en an eternal or unbeginning manner of an eternal existing so that in the same essence there is a threefold way of subsisting The Fathers existence is from himself the Sons from the Father the Spirits from both so in man there is the soul the intellect and will these three are but one essence yet differently subsisting the soul of it self the intellect from the soul and the wilâ— from both Secondly if personating or representing makes the persons in the Trinity it will follow that there have been and are more then three persons nay I may truly say innumerable for God hath been represented not onely by Moses but by Iosuah also and his successors by Aaron the high Priest and all his successors by all Judges also and Kings who are therefore called gods there must be then as many persons as there have been personatings or representations and in this respect the Trinity may be called a Legion or rather innumerable persons Thirdly Why should God be called the Holy Spiâ—â—â— as he was represented by the Apostles rather then by being personated by Moses or by Christ his reason is because the Apostles spoke by the Spirit I pray did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit St. Peter saith that the holy men of old spake as the Spirit moved them Or why is God by him called Father as he was represented by Moses rather then as he was represented by Christ Was there more Paternity in Moses then in any other man or in Christ who by Isaiah is called the everlasting Father Or why is he called Father as personated by the high Priests Fâ—uâ—thly It is untrue what he saith that the nâ—â—es of Father Son and Holy Ghost are never used in the old Testament For Psal. 89. which contains not only a prophesie of Solomâ—n but also of Christ it is thus written He shall cry unto me thou art my Father Psal. 89. 26. and Isa. 9. he is called the everlasting Father So Psal 2. Christ is called Son Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Isa. 9. For unto us a Son is given So the third Person or Spirit is mentioned The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters Gen. 1. Now that this was no winde as some have thought is plain because air was created afterwards and this Spirit is said to move or by moving to cherish the waters but the winde is an enemy to the waters both in regard of its siccity and impâ—tuosity neither is the winde ever called the Spirit of God as we have shewed already So Ioel. â— I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh And Zach â—â— I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication But he saith that these names are not used in the signification of the God-head but he is deceived for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah this cannot be in signification of his humanity for how can a little child be an everlasting Father but in respect of his God-head He saith Cap. 42. If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers This is not to be doubted but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth therefore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world why should not his Officers be obeyed 'T is true Christs Kingdom is not of this world will it therefore follow that it is not in this world For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his Scepter by the sword of his word if he leads captivity captive if he giveth gifts unto men if he prescribe laws and punisheth the offendors shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world if the Kings and Potentates of the earth have submitted their scepters to his Heraulds have received his yoak and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection is he not their Supreme King whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace his other Kingdom in the next world shal be the kingdom of glory which M. Hobs confounds with this of grace as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he
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