Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last animadversions in the case concerning liberty and universal necessity wherein all his exceptions about that controversie are fully satisfied.

CHAP. 1. (Book 1)

That the Hobbian Principles are destructive to Cristianity and all Religion.

THe Image of God is not alto∣gether * 1.1 defaced by the fall of man, but that there will re∣maine some practical notions of God and goodnesse; which, when the mind is free from vagrant desires, and violent passions, do shine as clearly in the heart; as other speculative notions do in the head. Hence it is, That there never was any Nation so barbarous or savage throughout the whole World, which had not their God. They who did never wear cloaths upon their backs, who did ne∣ver know Magistrate, but their father, yet have their God, and their religious rites and devotions to him. Hence it is, That the greatest Atheists in any sudain danger do unwittingly cast their eyes up to Heaven, as craving aide from thence, and in a thunder creep into some hole to hide themselves. And they who are conscious to themselves of any secret crimes, though they be secure enough

from the justice of men, do yet feel the blind blows of a guilty conscience, and fear divine vengeance. This is acknowledged by T. H. himself in his lucid intervalles. That we may know what worship of God natural reason doth * 1.2 assigne, let us begin with his attributes, where it is manifest in the first place; That existency is to be attributed to him. To which he addeth infinitenesse, incomprehensibility, unity, ubiquity. Thus for attributes, next for actions. Concern∣ing external actions, wherewith God is to be wor∣shipped, the most general precept of reason is, that they be signes of honour, under which are contained Prayers, Thanksgivings, Oblations, and Sacrifices. Yet to let us see how incon∣sistent * 1.3 and irreconciliable he is with himself; elsewhere reckoning up all the laws of na∣ture at large, even twenty in number, he hath not one word that concerneth religion, or that hath the least relation in the World to God. As if a man were like the Colt of a wilde Asse in the wildernesse, without any owner or obligation. Thus in describing the laws of nature, this great Clerk forgetteth the God of nature, and the main and prin∣cipal laws of nature, which contain a mans duty to his God, and the principal end of his creation. Perhaps he will say that he hand∣leth the laws of nature there, onely so far as may serve to the constitution or settlement of a Commonwealth. In good time, let it be so. He hath devised us a trimne Common-wealth,

which is neither founded upon religi∣on towards God, nor justice towards man' but meerly upon self interest, and self preser∣vation. Those raies of heavenly light, those natural seeds of religion, which God himself hath imprinted in the heart of man, are more efficacious towards the preservation of a Society; whether we regard the nature of the thing, or the blessing of God, then all his pacts, and surrenders, and translations of power. He who unteacheth men their duty to God, may make them eye-servants, so long as their interest doth oblige them to obey, but is no fit master to teach men conscience and fidelity.

Without religion, Societies are but like soapy bubbles, quickly dissolved. It was the judgement of as wise a man as T. H. himself, (though perhaps he will hardly be perswaded to it) that Rome ought more of its grandeur to religion, than either to strength or strata∣gems. We have not exceeded the Spaniards in * 1.4 number, nor the Galles in strength, nor the Car∣thaginians in craft, nor the Grecians in art, &c. but we have overcome all nations by our piety and religion.

Among his laws he inserteth gratitude to * 1.5 man as the third precept of the law of nature, but of the gratitude of mankind to their Crea∣tour, there is a deep silence. If men had sprung up from the earth in a night like mushromes or excrescences, without all sense

of honour, justice, conscience, or gratitude he could not have vilified the human natur more than he doth.

From this shameful omission or pretetition of the main duty of mankind, a man might easily take the height of T. H. his religion. But he himself putteth it past all conjectures. His principles are brim full of prodigious impiety. In these four things, opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and * 1.6 taking of things casuall, for prognosticks, con∣sisteth the natural seed of religion; the culture and improvement whereof, he refereth only to Policy. Humane and divine politicks, are but politicks. And again, Mankind hath this * 1.7 from the conscience of their own weaknesse, and the admiration of natural events, that the most part of men believe that there is an invisible God, the maker of all visible things. And a little after he telleth us, That superstition pro∣ceedeth from fear without right reason, and Atheisme from an opinion of reason without fear; making Atheism to be more reasonable than superstition. What is now become of that divine worship which natural reason did assigne unto God, the honour of existence, infinitenesse, incomprehensibility, unity, ubiquity? What is now become of that dictate or precept of reason, concerning prayers, thanksgivings, oblations, sacrifices, if uncertain opinions, ignorance, fear, mistakes, the conscience of our own weaknesse, and

the admiration of natural events be the onely seeds of religion?

He proceedeth further, That Atheisme it self, though it be an erroneous opinion, and there∣fore * 1.8 a sin, yet it ought to be numbred among the sins of imprudence or ignorance. He addeth, that an Atheist is punished not as a Subject is punished by his King, because he did not observe laws: but as an enemy by an enemy, because he would not accept laws. His reason is, because the Atheist never submitted his will to the will of God, whom * 1.9 he never thought to be. And he concludeth that mans obligation to obey God, proceedeth from his weaknesse. Manifestum est obligati∣onem ad prestandum ipsi (Deo) obedientiam, in∣cumbere hominibus propter imbecilitatem. First it is impossible that should be a sin of meer ignorance or imprudence, which is dirictly contrary to the light of natural reason. The laws of nature need no new promulgation, being imprinted naturally by God in the heart of man. The law of nature was written * 1.10 in our hearts by the finger of God, without our assent; or rather the law of nature is the assent it self. Then if nature dictate to us that there is a God, and that this God is to be worship∣ped in such and such manner, it is not possi∣ble that Atheisme should be a sin of meer ig∣norance.

Secondly, a rebellious Subject is still a Sub∣ject, de jure, though not, de facto, by right, though not by deed: And so the most cursed

Atheist that is, ought by right to be the Sub∣ject of God, and ought to be punished not as a just enemy, but as a disloyal traytour. Which is confessed by himself, This fourth sin (that is, of those who do not by word and deed con∣fesse one God the supreme King of Kings) in * 1.11 the natural kingdom of God is the crime of high treason, for it is a denial of divine power, or Atheisme. Then an Atheist is a traitour to God, and punishable as a disloial Subject, not as an enemy.

Lastly it is an absurd and dishonourable assertion, to make our obedience to God to depend upon our weaknesse, because we can∣not help it, and not upon our gratitude, be∣cause we owe our being and preservation to him. Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and * 1.12 eateth not of the milk of the flock? And again, Thou art worthy O Lord to receive glory, and ho∣nour, and power, for thou hast created all things, * 1.13 and for thy pleasure they are and were created. But it were much better, or at least not so ill, to be a downright Atheist, than to make God to be such a thing as he doth, and at last thrust him into the devils office, to be the cause of all sinne.

For T. H. his god is not the God of * 1.14 Christians, nor of any rational men. Our God is every where, and seeing he hath no parts, he must be wholly here, and wholly there, and wholly every where. So nature it

self dictateth. It cannot be said honourably of * 1.15 God that he is in a place, for nothing is in a place; but that which hath proper bounds of its greatness. But T. H. his God is not wholly every where. No man can conceive that any thing is all in this * 1.16 place, and all in another place at the same time, for none of these things ever have or can be inci∣dent to sense. So far well, if by conceiving he mean comprehending; But then follows, That these are absurd speeches taken upon credit, without any signification at all, from deceived Philosophers, and deceived or deceiving School-men. Thus he denyeth the ubiquity of God. A cir∣cumscriptive, a definitive, and a repletive be∣ing in a place, is some heathen language to him.

Our God is immutable without any sha∣dow * 1.17 of turning by change, to whom all things are present, nothing past, nothing to come. But T. H. his god is measured by time, losing something that is past, and acquiring something that doth come every minute. That is as much as to say, That our God is infinite, and his god is finite, for unto that which is actually infinite, nothing can be added, neither time nor parts. Hear himself, Nor do I understand what derogation it can be to the divine perfection, to attribute to it potenti∣ality, * 1.18 that is in English, power, (so little doth he understand what potentiality is) and successive duration. And he chargeth it upon us as a fault; that will not have eternity to be an end∣lesse * 1.19

succession of time. How, successive duration, and an endlesse succession of time in God? Then God is finite, then God is elder to day, than he was yesterday. Away with blasphemies. Before he destroyed the ubiquity of God, and now he destroyeth his eternity.

Our God is a perfect, pure, simple, indivisi∣ble, * 1.20 infinite essence; free from all composition of matter and form, of substance and acci∣dents. All matter is finite, and he who acteth by his infinite essence, needeth neither or∣gans, nor faculties, nor accidents, to render him more compleat. But T. H. his god is a divisible god, a compounded god, that hath matter, and qualities, or accidents. Hear himself. I argue thus, The divine substance is indivisible, but eternity is the divine substance. The Major is evident because God is Actus sim∣plicissimus; The minor is confessed by all men, that whatsoever is attributed to God, is God. Now listen to his answer, The Major is so far from being evident, that Actus simplicissi∣mus * 1.21 signifieth nothing. The Minor is said by some men, thought by no man, whatsoever is thought is understood. The Major was this, The divine substance is indivisible. Is this far from being evident? Either it is indivisible or divisible. If it be not indivisible, then it is divisible, then it is materiate, then it is corporeal, then it hath parts, then it is finite by his own con∣fession. Habere partes, aut esse totum aliquid, sunt uttributa finitorum. Upon this silly conceit, he * 1.22

chargeth me for saying, That God is not just, but justice it self, not eternal, but eternity it self, which he calleth unseemly words to be said * 1.23 of God. And he thinketh he doth me a great courtesie in not adding blasphemous and athe∣istical. But his bolts are so soon shot, and his reasons are such vain imaginations, and such drowsie phantasies, that no sad man doth much regard them. Thus he hath already destroyed the ubiquity, the eternity, and the simplicity of God. I wish he had consi∣dered better with himself, before he had desperately cast himself upon these rocks.

But paulo maiora canamus, my next charge is, That he destroyes the very being of God, * 1.24 and leaves nothing in his place but an empty name. For by taking away all incorporal substances, he taketh away God himself. The very name (saith he) of an incorporal sub∣stance, is a contradiction. And to say that an Angel or Spirit is an incorporeal substance, is to say in effect, that there is no Angel or Spirit at all. * 1.25 By the same reason to say, That God is an in∣corporal substance, is to say there is no God at all. Either God is incorporal, or he is finite, and consists of parts, and consequently is no God. This, That there is no incorporal spirit, is that main root of Atheisme, from which so many lesser branches are daily sprouting up.

When they have taken away all incorporal spirits, what do they leave God himself to be? He who is the fountain of all being,

from whom and in whom all creatures have their being, must needs have a real being of his own. And what real being can God have among bodies and accidents? for they have left nothing else in the universe. Then T. H. may move the same question of God, which he did of devils. I would gladly know in what classis of entities, the Bishop ranketh God? In∣finite * 1.26 being and participated being are not of the same nature. Yet to speak according to humane apprehension (apprehension and comprehension differ much, T. H. confesseth that natural reason doth dictate to us, that God is infinite, yet natural reason cannot comprehend the infinitenesse of God) I place him among incorporeal substances or spirits, because he hath been pleased to place himself in that rank, God is a spirit. Of * 1.27 which place T. H. giveth his opinion, that it is unintelligible, and all others of the same nature, and fall not under humane understanding. * 1.28

They who deny all incorporeal substances, can understand nothing by God, but either nature, (not naturam naturantem, that is, a real authour of nature, but naturam natura∣tam, that is the orderly concourse of natural causes, (as T. H. seemeth to intimate) or a fiction of the brain without real being, che∣rished for advantage and politick ends, as a profitable error, howsoever dignified with the glorious title of the eternal causes of all things.

We have seen what his principles are con∣cerning

the Deity, they are full as bad or * 1.29 worse concerning the Trinity. Hear him∣self. A person is he that is represented, as often as he is represented. And therefore God who has been represented, that is, personated thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons, though neither the word Person nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. And a little after, to concludethe doctrine of the Trinity as far as can be gathered directly from the Scripture, is in substance this, that the God who is alwayes one and the same, was he person re∣presented by Moses, the person represented by his Son incarnate, and the person represented by the Apostles. As represented by the Apostles, the holy spirit by which they spake is God. As repre∣sented by his son that was God and Man, the Son is that God. As represented by Moses, and the High Priests; the Father, that is to say, the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ is that God. From whence we may gather the reason why those names; 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 diverse men had represented Gods person, in ruling or in directing under him.

Who is so bold as blind Bayard? The emblime of a little boy attempting to lade all the water out of the sea with a Coccleshel, doth fit T. H. as exactly as if it had been shaped for him, who thinketh to measure the profound and inscrutable mysteries of religion,

by his own silly, shallow conceits. What is now become of the great adorable mysterie of the blessed undivided Trinity? it is shrunk into nothing. Upon his grounds there was a time when there was no Trinity. And we must blot these words out of our Creed, The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And these other words out of our Bibles, Let us make man after our image. Un∣lesse we mean that this was a consultation of God with Moses and the Apostles. What is now become of the eternal generation of the Son of God, if this Sonship did not begin until about four thousand years after the creation were expired. Upon these grounds every King hath as many persons as there be Justices of Peace, and petty Constables in his kingdom. Upon this account God Almighty hath as many persons as there have been Sove∣raign Princes in the World since Adam. According to this reckoning each one of us like so many Gerious, may have as many persons as we please to make procurations. Such bold presumption requireth another manner of confutation.

Concerning God the Son, forgetting what he had said elsewhere, where he calleth him God and man, and the Son of God incarnate, he doubteth not to say that the word, hypostatical, * 1.30 is canting. As if the same person could be both God and man without a personal, that is, an hypostatical, union of the two natures

of God and man. He alloweth every man who is commanded by his lawful Soveraign, to deny * 1.31 Christ with his tongue before men. He deposeth Christ from his true kingly office, making his kingdom not to commence or begin before the * 1.32 day of judgement. And the regiment wherewith Christ governeth his faithful in this life, is not properly a kingdom, but a pastoral office, or a right to teach. And a little after, Christ had not kingly authority committed to him by his Fa∣ther in this World, but onely consiliary and doctri∣nall.

He taketh away his Priestly or propitiato∣ry office; And although this act of our redemp∣tion * 1.33 be not alwayes in Scripture called a Sacrifice and oblation, but sometimes a price, yet by price we are not to understand any thing, by the value whereof he could claim right to a pardon for us from his offended father, but that price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand. And again, Not that the death of one man, though without sin, can satisfie for the offences of * 1.34 all men in the rigour of iustice, but in the mercy of God, that ordained such Sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in mercy to accept. He knoweth no difference between one who is meer man, and one who was both God and man; be∣tween a Levitical Sacrifice, and the all-suffici∣ent Sacrifice of the Crosse; between the blood of a Calf, and the precious blood of the Son of God.

And touching the Prophetical Office of Christ, I do much doubt whether he do be∣lieve in earnest, that there is any such thing as prophecy in the World. He maketh very little difference between a Prophet and a mad∣man, and a demoniack. And if there were no∣thing * 1.35 else (saith he) that bewrayed their mad∣nesse, yet that very arrogating such inspiration to themselves, is argument enough. He maketh the pretence of inspiration in any man to be, and alwayes to have been, an opinion pernicious to peace, and tending to the dissolution of all civil * 1.36 government. He subjecteth all Prophetical Revelations from God, to the sole pleasure and censure of the Soveraign Prince, either to authorize them, or to exauctorate them. So as two Prophets prophesying the same thing at the same time, in the dominions of two different Princes, the one shall be a true Prophet, the other a false. And Christ who had the approbation of no Soveraign Prince, upon his grounds, was to be reputed a false Prophet every where. Every man therefore ought to consider who is the Soveraign Prophet, * 1.37 that is to say, who it is that is Gods Vicegerent upon earth, and hath next under God the authority of governing Christian men, and to observe for a rule that doctrine which in the name of God he hath commanded to be taught, and thereby to ex∣amine and try out the truth of those doctrines which pretended Prophets, with miracle or with∣out, shall at any time advance, &c. And if he

disavow them, then no more to obey their voice; or if he approve them, than to obey them as men, to whom God hath given a part of the spirit of their Soveraign. Upon his principles the case holdeth as well among Jews and Turks and Heathens, as Christians. Then he that teacheth transubstantiation in France, is a true Prophet, he that teacheth it in England, a false Prophet. He that blasphemeth Christ in Constantinople, a true Prophet, he that doth the same in Italy, a false Prophet. Then * 1.38 Samuel was a false Prophet to contest with Saul a Soveraign Prophet: So was the man * 1.39 of God who submitted not to the more divine and prophetick spirit of Jeroboam. And * 1.40 Elijah for reproving Ahab. Then Micaiah had but his deserts, to be clapt up in prison, and fed with bread of affliction, and water of affliction, for daring to contradict Gods Vice∣gerent upon earth. And Jeremiah was justly * 1.41 thrown into a Dungeon, for prophesying against Zedekiah his Liege Lord. If his principles were true, it were strange indeed, that none of all these Princes, nor any other that ever was in the World, should under∣stand their own priviledges. And yet more strange, that God Almighty should take the part of such rebellious Prophets, and justifie their prophesies by the event, if it were true that none but the Soveraign in a Christian (the * 1.42 reason is the same for Jewish) Common-wealth can take notice what is or what is not the word of God.

Neither doth he use God the holy Ghost more favourably than God the Son. Where S. Peter saith Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Spirit; He saith By * 1.43 the Spirit, is meant the voice of God in a dream or vision supernatural, which dreams or visions, he maketh to be no more than imaginations, which they had in their sleep, or in an extasie, * 1.44 which in every true Prophet were supernatural, but in false Prophets were either natural or feined, and more likely to be false than true. To say God hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say, He dreamed that God spake to him, &c. To say he hath seen a vision, or heard a voice, is to say. That he hath dreamed between sleeping and * 1.45 waking. So S. Peters holy Ghost is come to be their own imaginations, which might be either feined, or mistaken, or true. As if the holy Ghost did enter onely at their eyes, and at their eares, not into their understandings, nor into their minds; Or as if the holy Ghost did not seale unto their hearts the truth and assurance of their Prophesies. Whether a new light be infused into their understand∣ings, or new graces be inspired into their heart, they are wrought, or caused, or crea∣ted immediately by the holy Ghost, And so are his imaginations, if they be superna∣tural.

But he must needs fall into these absurdi∣ties, who maketh but a jest of inspiration. They who pretend Divine inspiration to be a super∣natural

entering of the holy Ghost into a man, are (as he thinks) in a very dangerous dilemma; for * 1.46 if they worship not the men whom they conceive to be inspired, they fall into impiety; And if they worship them, they commit idolatry. So mista∣king the holy Ghost to be corporeal, some∣thing that is blown into a man, and the graces of the holy Ghost to be corporeal gra∣ces. And the words, impowered or infused vir∣tue, and, inblown or inspired virtue, are as absurd * 1.47 and insignificant, as a round qnadrangle. He reckons it as a common errour, That faith and sanctity are not attained by study and reason, but by supernatural inspiration or infusion. And laieth this for a firm ground: Faith and san∣ctity are indeed not very frequent, but yet they are * 1.48 not miracles, but brought to passe by education, discipline, correction, and other natural waeyes. I would see the greatest Pelagian of them all flie higher.

Why should he trouble himself about the holy Spirit, who acknowledgeth no spirit but either a subtile fluide invisible body, or a ghost, or other idol or phantasme of the ima∣gination; who knoweth no inward grace or intrinsecal holinesse. Holy is a word which in Gods kingdome answereth to that which men in * 1.49 their kingdoms use to call publick, or the kings. And again, wheresoever the word holy is taken properly, there is still something signified of pro∣priety gotten by consent. His holinesse is a re∣lation, not a quality; but for inward sanctifi∣cation,

or reall infused holinesse, in respect whereof the third person is called the holy Ghost, because he is not onely holy in him∣self, but also maketh us holy, he is so great a stranger to it, that he doth altogether deny it, and disclaim it.

We are taught in our Creed to believe the Catholick or Universal Church. But T. H. teacheth us the contrary, That if there be more Christian Churches than one, all of them to∣gether * 1.50 are not one Church personally. And more plainly, Now if the whole number of Christians be not contained in one Common-wealth, they are * 1.51 not one person, nor is there an Universal Church, that hath any authority over them. And again, The Universal Church is not one person, of which it can be said, that it hath done, or decreed, or or∣dained, or excommunicated, or absolved. This doth quite overthrow all the authority of ge∣neral * 1.52 Councils.

All other men distinguish between the Church and the Common-wealth: Onely T. H. maketh them to be one and the same thing. The Common-wealth of Christian men and the Church of the same, are altogether the same thing, called by two names, for two reasons. For the matter of the Church and of the Com∣mon-wealth is the same, namely the same Chri∣stian men; And the form is the same, which con∣sisteth in the lawful power of convocating them. * 1.53 And hence he concludeth, That every Chri∣stian Common-wealth is a Church endowed with

all spiritual authority. And yet more fully, The Church if it be one person, is the same thing with the Common-wealth of Christians, called a Common-wealth, because it consisteth of men united in one person their Soveraign; And a Church * 1.54 because it consisteth in Christian men united in one Christian Soveraign. Upon which account there was no Christian Church in these parts of the World, for some hundreds of years after Christ, because there was no Christian Soveraign.

Neither is he more orthodox concerning the Holy Scriptures, Hitherto, that is, for the books of Moses, the power of making the Scrip∣ture * 1.55 canonical, was in the civil Soveraign. The like he saith of the Old Testament, made canonical by Esdras. And of the New Te∣stament, That it was not the Apostles which made their own writings canonical, but every convert made them so to himself. Yet with this restriction, That until the Soveraign ruler had * 1.56 prescribed them, they were but counsel and advise, which whether good or bad, he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and be∣ing contrary to the Laws established, could not without injustice observe. He maketh the Pri∣mitive Christians to have been in a pretty condition. Certainly the Gospel was contrary to the Laws then established. But most plainly, The word of the Interpreter of the Scripture is the word of God. And the same is the Interpre∣ter of the Scripture, and the Soveraign Iudge

of all Doctrines, that is, the Soveraign Magi∣strate, to whose authority we must stand no lesse, * 1.57 than to Theirs, who at first did commend the Scripture to us for the canon of faith. Thus if Christian Soveraigns, of different communi∣ons, do clash one with another, in their inter∣pretations, or misinterpretation of Scripture, (as they do daily) then the word of God is contradictory to it self; or that is the word of God in one Common-wealth, which is the word of the the devil in another Common-wealth: and the same thing may be true, and not true, at the same time: which is the pe∣culiar priviledge of T. H. to make contradicto∣ries to be true together.

All the power, virtue, use, and efficacy, which he ascribeth to the holy Sacraments, is to be signes or commemorations. As for any * 1.58 sealing, or confirming, or conferring of grace, he acknowledgeth nothing. The same he saith particularly of Baptisme: upon which grounds a Cardinals red hat, or a Serjeant at arms his mace, may be called Sacraments as well as Baptisme, or the holy Eucharist, if they be only signes or commemorations of a benefit. If he except, that Baptisme and the Eucharist, are of divine institution: but a Cardinals red hat, or a Serjeant at arms his mace are not: he saith truely, but nothing to his advantage or purpose, seeing he deriveth all the authority of the Word and Sacra∣ments, in respect of Subjects, and all our ob∣ligation

to them, from the authority of the Soveraign Magistrate, without which these * 1.59 words repent and be baptized in the Name of Iesus, are but counsel, no command. And so a Serjeant at arms his mace, and baptisme, proceed both from the same authority. And this he saith upon this silly ground, That no∣thing is a command, the performance whereof tendeth to our own benefit. He might as well deny the Ten Commandements to be com∣mands, because they have an advantagious promise annexed to them, Do this and thou shalt live; And cursed is every one that conti∣nueth not in all the words of this Law to doe them.

Sometimes he is for holy orders, and giveth to the Pastors of the Church the right of or∣dination and absolution, and infallibility, too much for a particular Pastor, or the Pastours * 1.60 of one particular Church. It is manifest, that the consecration of the chiefest Doctours in every Church, and imposition of hands, doth pertein to the Doctours of the same Church. And it cannot be doubted of, but the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the future Pastours, after the same manner as to his present Apostles. And * 1.61 our Saviour hath promised this infallibility in those things which are necessary to salvation, to his Apostles, until the day of judgement, that is to say, to the Apostles and Pastours, to be consecra∣ted by the Apostles successively, by the imposition of hands.

But at other times he casteth all this meale down with his foot. Christian Soveraignes are the supreme Pastors, and the only persons whom * 1.62 Christians now hear speak from God, except such as God speaketh to in these daies supernaturally, What is now become of the promised infalli∣bility?

And it is from the civil Soveraign, that all other Pastours derive their right of teaching, * 1.63 preaching, and all other functions pertaining to that office, and they are but his Ministers in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns, or Iudges in Courts of Justice, and Commanders of Armies. What is now become of their Ordination? Magistrates, Judges, and Ge∣nerals, need no precedent qualifications. He maketh the Pastoral authority of Soveraigns to be jure divino, of all other Pastors jure civill. He addeth, neither is there any Iudge of Heresie among Subjects, but their own civil Soveraign.

Lastly, The Church excommunicateth no man but whom she excommunicateth by the authorty of the Prince. And the effect of ex∣communication hath nothing in it, neither of * 1.64 dammage in this World, nor terrour upon an Apo∣state, if the civil power did persecute or not assist the Church. And in the World to come, leaves them in no worse estate, than those who never be∣lieved. The damage rather redoundeth to the Church. Neither is the excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws of his * 1.65 own Soveraign, of any effect. Where is

now their power of binding and loosing?

It may be some of T. H. his disciples desire to know what hopes of heavenly joies they have upon their masters principles. They may hear them without any great contentment, There is no mention in Scripture, * 1.66 nor ground in reason, of the coelum empyreum, that is, the Heaven of the blessed, where the Saints shall live eternally with God. And again, I have not found any text that can proba∣bly be drawn to prove any ascension of the Saints * 1.67 into Heaven, that is to say, into any coelum em∣pyreum. But he concludeth positively, that salvation shall be upon earth, when God shall reign at the coming of Christ in Ierusalem. And again, In short, the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom, &c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of Glory. All the Hobbians can hope for, is, to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall. So saith T. H. himself, From whence may be inferred, * 1.68 that the Elect, after the resurrection, shall be re∣stored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned. As for the beatifical vision he defineth to be a word unintelligible.

But considering his other principles, I do not marvel much at his extravagance in this point. To what purpose should a coelum empy∣reum, or Heaven of the blessed, serve in his judgement, who maketh the blessed Angels that are the inhabitants of that happy man∣sion, to be either idols of the brain, that is in

plain English, nothing, or thin, subtile, fluid bodies, destroying the Angelical nature. The unvierse being the aggregate of all bodies, * 1.69 there is no real part thereof that is not also body. And elsewhere, Every part of the universe is * 1.70 body, and that which is not body, is no part of the universe. And because the universe is all, that which is no part of it, is nothing, and consequently no where. How? by this doctrine he maketh not onely the Angels, but God himself to be nothing. Neither doth he salve it at all, by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal spirits, and by attributing the name of incor∣poreal spirit to God, as being a name of more honour, in whom we consider not what attribute best expresseth his nature, which is incomprehen∣sible, but what best expresseth our desire to honour him. Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is, yet we are able to comprehend perfectly what God is not, that is, he is not imperfect, and therefore he is not finite, and consequently he is not corporeal. This were a trim way to honour God indeed, to honour him with a lie. If this that he say here be true, That every part of the universe is a body, and whatsoever is not a body, is nothing. Then by this doctrine, if God be not a body, God is nothing; not an incorporeal spirit, but one of the idols of the brain, a meer nothing, though they think they dance under a not, and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibi∣lity, between them and discovery.

To what purpose should a coelum empyreum serve in his judgement, who denieth the im∣mortality of the soul? The doctrin is now, and hath been a long time far otherwise; namely, that every man hath eternity of life by nature, in as much as his soul is immortal. Who supposeth * 1.71 that when a man dieth, there remaineth nothing of him but his carkase; Who maketh the word soul in holy Scripture to signifie alwayes either the life, or the living creature? And expoundeth the casting of body and soul into hell-fire, to be the casting of body and life into hell-fire. * 1.72 Who maketh this Orthodox truth, That the soules of men are substances distinct from their bodies, to be an errour contracted by the contagion of the demonology of the Greeks, and a window that gives entrance to the dark doctrine of eternal torments. Who expoundeth these words of Solomon, [Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return un∣to * 1.73 God that gave it.] Thus, God onely knows what becomes of a mans spirit, when he expireth. He * 1.74 will not acknowledge that there is a spirit, or any substance distinct from the body. I won∣der what they think doth keep their bodies from stinking.

But they that in one case are grieved, in an∣other must be relieved. If perchance T. H. hath given his disciples any discontent in his doctrine of Heaven, and the holy Angels, and the glorified souls of the Saints, he will make them amends in his doctrine of hell, and the

devils, and the damned spirits. First of the devils; He fancieth that all those devils which our Saviour did cast out, were phrensies, and all daemoniacks, (or persons possessed,) no o∣ther * 1.75 than mad-men. And to justifie our Sa∣viours speaking to a disease as to a person, pro∣duceth the example of inchanters. But he declareth himself most clearly upon this sub∣ject, in his Animadversions upon my reply to his defence of fatal destiny. There are in the Scripture two sorts of things which are in * 1.76 English translated devils. One is that which is called Satan, Diabolus, Abaddon, which signi∣fieth in English an enemy, an accuser, and a de∣stroyer of the Church of God, in which sense the devils are but wicked men. The other sort of de∣vils are called in the Scripture daemonia, which are the feigned gods of the heathen, and are neither bodies nor spiritual substances, but meer phansies and fictions of terrified hearts, feigned by the Greeks, and other heathen people, which St. Paul calleth nothings. So T. H. hath killed the great infernal devil, and all his black Angels, and lest no devils to be feared, but devils in∣carnate, that is wicked men.

And for hell he describeth the kingdom of Satan, or the kingdom of darknesse, to be a con∣federacy of deceivers. He telleth us that the places which set forth the torments of hell in * 1.77 holy Scripture, do designe metaphorically a grief and discontent of mind, from the sight of that eternal felicity in others, which they themselves, * 1.78

through their own incredulity and disobedience have lost. As if metaphorical descriptions did not bear sad truths in them, as well as literal, as if final desperations were no more than a little fit of grief or discontent; and a guilty conscience were no more than a transitory passion, as if it were a losse so easily to be borne, to be deprived for evermore of the beatifical vision: And lastly, as if the damned, besides that unspeakable losse, did not like∣wise suffer actual torments, proportionable in some measure to their own sins, and Gods justice.

Lastly for the damned spirits, he declareth himself every where, that their sufferings are not eternal, The fire shall be unquenchable, and the torments everlasting: but it cannot be thence inferred, that he who shall be cast into that fire, or be tormented with those torments, shall endure and * 1.79 resist them, so as to be eternally burnt and tor∣tured, and yet never be destroyed nor dye. And though there be many places that affirm everlast∣ing fire, into which men may be cast successively one after another for ever: yet I find none that affirm that there shall be an everlasting life therein, of any individual person. If he had said, and said only, that the pains of the damned may be lessened, as to the degree of them, or that they endure not for ever, but that after they are purged by long torments from their drosse and corruptions, as gold in the fire, both the damned spirits and the Devils them∣selves

should be restored to a better condition, he might have found some Ancients (who are therefore called the merciful Doctours) to have joyned with him, though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church.

But his shooting is not at rovers, but alto∣gether at randome, without either president or partner. All that eternal fire, all those tor∣ments which he acknowledgeth, is but this, That after the resurrection, the reprobate shall be in the estate that Adam and his posterity were in, after the sinne committed, saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam and not to them: adding, that they shall live as they did formerly, * 1.80 marry, and give in marriage; and consequently engender children perpetually after the resur∣rection, as they did before, which he calleth an immortality of the kind, but not of the persons of men. It is to be presumed, that in those their second lifes, knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of redemption for them from corporal death upon their well doing, nor fear of any torments after death for their ill doing, they will passe their times here as pleasantly as they can. This is all the damnation which T. H. fancieth.

In summe I leave it to the free judgement of the understanding Reader, by these few instances which follow, to judge what the Hobbain principles are in point of religion. Ex ungue leonem.

First, that no man needs to put himself to any hazard for his faith, but may safely com∣ply with the times. And for their faith it is internal and invisible. They have the licence that * 1.81 Naaman had, and need not put themselves into danger for it.

Secondly, he alloweth Subjects, being commanded by their Soveraign, to deny * 1.82 Christ. Profession with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other ge∣sture, whereby we signifie our obedience. And wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman, &c. Who * 1.83 by bowing before the idol Rimmon, denied the true God as much in effect, as if he had done it with his lips. Alas why did St. Peter weep so bitterly for denying his Master, out of fear of his life or members? It seemeth he was not acquainted with these Hobbian princi∣ples. And in the same place he layeth down this general conclusion. This we may say, that whatsoever a Subject is compelled to, in obedience to his Soveraign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his Country, that action is not his, but his Soveraigns; nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his Governour and the law of his Country. His instance in a mahumetan commanded by a Christian Prince to be present at divine service, is a weak mistake, springing from his grosse ignorance in case-divinity, not

knowing to distinguish between an erroneous conscience, as the Mahumetans is, and a con∣science rightly informed.

Thirdly, if this be not enough, he giveth license to a Christian to commit idolatry, * 1.84 or at least to do an idolatrous act, for fear of death or corporal danger. To pray unto a King voluntarily for fair weather, or for any * 1.85 thing which God onely can do for us, is divine worship, and idolatry. On the other side, if a King compel a man to it by the terrour of death, or other great corporal punishment, it is not idola∣try. His reason is, because it is not a sign that he doth inwardly honour him as a god, but that he is desirous to save himself from death, or from a miserable life. It seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine worship, but internal. And that it is lawful for a man to value his own life or his limbs more than his God. How much is he wiser than the three Children, or Daniel himself? who were thrown, the first into a fiery furnace, the last into the Lyons denne, because they refused to comply with the idolatrous decree of their Soveraign Prince.

A fourth aphorisme may be this, That which is said in the scripture, it is better to obey God, * 1.86 than men, hath place in the Kingdome of God by pact, and not by nature. Why? nature it self doth teach us that it is better to obey God, than men. Neither can he say that he inten∣ded this only of obedience, in the use of in∣different

actions and gestures, in the service of God, commanded by the commonwealth, for that is to obey both God and man. But if divine law and humane law clash one with another, without doubt it is evermore better to obey God than man.

His fifth conclusion may be that the shar∣pest and most successfull sword, in any war whatsoever, doth give soveraign power and authority to him that hath it, to approve or reject all sorts of Theologicall doctrines, con∣cerning the Kingdome of God, not according to their truth or falsehood, but according to that influence which they have upon political affaires. Hear him, But because this doctrine * 1.87 will appear to most men a novelty, I do but pro∣pound it, maintaining nothing in this or any other paradox of religion, but attending the end of that dispute of the sword, concerning the authority (not yet amongst my Countrymen decided) by which all sorts of doctrine are to be approved or rejected, &c. For the points of doctrine concerning the Kingdome of God, have so great influence upon the Kingdome of man, as not to be determined, but by them that under God have the soveraign power. Careat successibus opto, Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat. Let him evermore want successe who thinketh actions are to be judged by their events. This doctrine may be plausible to those who desire to fish in troubled waters, But it is justly hated by those which are in Authority, and all those who are lovers of

peace and tranquillity.

The last part of this conclusion smelleth ranckly of Jeroboam, Now shall the Kingdome return to the house of David, if this people go up to * 1.88 do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Ierusalem, whereupon the King took councell, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them. It is too much for you to go up to Ierusalem, behold thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. But by the just disposition of Almighty God, this policy turned to a sin, and was the utter destruction of Jeroboam and his family. It is not good jesting with edg-tooles, nor play∣ing with holy things: where men make their greatest fastnesse, many times they find most danger.

His sixth paradox is a rapper, The civill lawes are the rules of good and evill, just and un∣just, honest and dishonest, and therefore what the * 1.89 lawgiver commands that is to be accounted good, what he forbids bad. And a little after, before em∣pires were, just and unjust were not, as whose na∣ture is relative to a command, every action in its own nature is indifferent. That it is just or unjust proceedeth from the right of him that commandeth. Therefore lawfull Kings make those things which they command, just by commanding them, and those things which they forbid unjust by forbid∣ding them. To this adde his definition of a sin, that which one doth, or omitteth, saith or willeth contrary to the reason of the commonwealth, that is the [civil] lawes. Where by the lawes he * 1.90

doth not understand the written lawes, elect∣ed and aproved by the whole common-wealth, but the verball commands or man∣dates, of him that hath the soveraign power, as we find in many places of his writings. The civil lawes are nothing else but the commands of him that is endowed with soveraign power in the * 1.91 commonwealth, concerning the future actions of his subjects. And the civil lawes are fastned to the lips of that man who hath the soveraigne * 1.92 power.

Where are we? in Europe or in Asia? Where they ascribed a divinity to their Kings, and, to use his own phrase, made them mortall gods. O King live for ever. Flatterers are the common moaths of great pallaces, where Alexanders friends are more numerous than the Kings friends. But such grosse palpa∣ble pernicious flattery as this is, I did never meet with, so derogatory both to piety and policy. What deserved he who should do his uttermost endeavour to poison a common fountain, whereof all the commonwealth must drinke? He doth the same who poiso∣neth the mind of a soveraign prince.

Are the civil lawes the rules of good and bad, just and unjust, honest and dishonest? And what I pray you are the rules of the civil law it self? even the law of God and nature. If the civil lawes swerve from these more authentick lawes, they are Lesbian rules. What the law-giver commands is to be accounted good, what he

forbids bad. This was just the garb of the A∣thenian Sophisters, as they are described by Plato. Whatsoever pleased the great beast [the multitude,] they called holy, and just, and good. And whatsoever the great beast disliked, they called evill, unjust, prophane. But he is not yet arrived at the height of his flattery. Lawfull Kings make those things which they command just by commanding them, And those things which they forbid unjust by for∣bidding them. At other times when he is in his right wits he talketh of suffering, and ex∣pecting their reward in heaven. And going to Christ by martyrdome. And if he had the forti∣tude to suffer death he should do better. B•…•…t I fear all this was but said in jest. How should they expect their reward in heaven, if his doctrine be true, that there is no reward in heaven? Or how should they be Martyrs, if his doctrine be true, that none can be Martyrs but those who conversed with Christ upon earth? He ad∣deth, Before Empires were, just and unjust were * 1.93 not. Nothing could be written more false in his sense, more dishonourable to God, more inglorious to the humane nature. That God should create man and leave him presently without any rules, to his own ordering of himself, as the Ostridg leaveth her egges in the sand. But in truth there have been em∣pires in the world ever since Adam. And A∣dam had a law written in his heart by the fin∣ger of God, before there was any civil law.

Thus they do endeavour to make goodnesse, and justice, and honesty, and conscience, and God himself, to be empty names without any reality, which signifie nothing, further than they conduce to a mans interest. Otherwise he would not, he could not say, That every action as it is invested with its circumstances, is indifferent in its own nature.

Something there is which he hath a con∣fused glimmering of, as the blind man sees men walking like trees, which he is not able to ap∣prehend and expresse clearly. We acknow∣ledge, that though the laws or commands of a Soveraign Prince be erroneous, or unjust, or injurius, such as a subject cannot approve for good in themselves; yet he is bound to ac∣quiesce, and may not oppose or resist, other∣wise than by prayers and tears, and at the most by flight. We acknowledge that the civil laws have power to bind the conscience of a Christian, in themselves, but not from themselves, but from him who hath said, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Either they bind Christian subjects to do their Sove∣raigns commands, or to suffer for the testi∣mony of a good conscience. We acknow∣ledge that in doubtful cases semper praesumitur pro Rege & lege, the Soveraign and the law are alwayes presumed to be in the right. But in plain evident cases which admit no doubt, it is alwayes better to obey God than man. Blunderers whilest they think to mend one

imaginary hole, make two or three reall ones. They who derive the authority of the Scrip∣tures or Gods Law from the civil laws of men, are like those who seek to underprop the heavens from falling with a bullrush. Nay, they derive not onely the authority of the Scripture, but even of the law of nature it self from the civil law. The laws of nature (which need no promulgation) in the condition of na∣ture are not properly laws, but qualities which * 1.94 dispose men to peace and to obedience. When a Common-wealth is once setled, then are they actu∣ally laws, and not before. God help us into what times are we fallen, when the immutable laws of God and nature are made to depend upon the mutable laws of mortal men, just as if one should go about to controle the Sun by the authority of the clock.

But it is not worthy of my labour, nor any part of my intention, to pursue every shadow of a question which he springeth. It shall suffice to gather a posie of flowers (or rather a bundle of weeds) out of his writings, and present them to the Reader, who will easily distinguish them from healthful plants by the ranknesse of their smell. Such are these which follow.

1. To be delighted in the imagination onely, of being possessed of another mans goods, servants, or * 1.95 wife, without any intention to take them from him by force or fraud, is no breach of the law which saith, Thou shalt not covet.

2. If a man by the terrour of present death be compelled to do a fact against the law, he is totally excused, because no law can oblige a man to aban∣don his own preservation. Nature compelleth him to the fact. The like doctrine he hath else∣where. * 1.96 When the Actor doth any thing against the law of nature by command of the Author, if * 1.97 he be obliged by former covenants to obey him, not he, but the Author breaketh the law of nature.

3. It is a doctrine repugnant to civil Society, that whatsoever a man does against his conscience * 1.98 is sin.

4. The kingdom of God is not shut, but to them that sin; that is to them who have not performed * 1.99 due obedience to the Laws of God; nor to them if they believe the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith.

5. We must know that the true acknowledging * 1.100 of sin is repentance it self.

6. An opinion publickly appointed to be taught cannot be heresie, nor the Soveraign Princes that * 1.101 authorise the same hereticks.

7. Temporal and spiritual government, are but two words to make men see double, and mistake * 1.102 their lawful Soveraign, &c. There is no other government in this life, neither of State nor Re∣ligion, but temporal.

8. It is manifest that they who permit (or tolerate) a contrary doctrine to that which them∣selves * 1.103 believe, and think necessary, do against their conscience and will, as much as in them lieth, the

eternal destruction of their subjects.

9. Subjects sin if they do not worship God ac∣cording to the laws of the Common-wealth. * 1.104

10. To believe in jesus [in Jesum] is the same as to believe that Iesus is Christ.

11. There can be no contradiction between the Laws of God, and the laws of a Christian Com∣mon-wealth. * 1.105 Yet we see Christian Common-wealths daily contradict one another.

12. No man giveth but with intention of good to himself, of all voluntary acts the object is to * 1.106 every man his own good. Moses, St. Paul, and the Decii were out of his mind.

13. There is no natural knowledge of mans * 1.107 estate after death, much lesse of the reward which is then to be given to breach of faith, but onely a belief grounded upon other mens saying, that they know it supernaturally, or that they know those, that knew them, that knew others, that knew it supernaturally.

14. Davids killing of Uriah, was no injury to * 1.108 Uriah, because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself.

15. To whom it belongeth to determine con∣troversies which may arise from the divers inter∣pretation * 1.109 of Scripture, he hath an imperial power over all men which acknowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God.

16. What is theft, what is murder, what is adultry, and universally what is an injury, is * 1.110 known by the civil law; that is, the commands of the Soveraign.

17. He admitteth the incestuous copulations of the Heathens according to their heathenish * 1.111 lawes, to have been lawful marriages. Though the Scripture teach us expressely, that for those abominations the land of Canaan spewed out her inhabitants, Exod. 18. 28.

18. I say that no other Article of faith besides this that Iesus is Christ, is necessary to a Chri∣stian * 1.112 man for salvation.

19. Because Christs kingdom is not of this world, therefore neither can his Ministers, unlesse * 1.113 they be Kings, require obedience in his name. They had no right of commanding, no power to make lawes.

20. I passe by his errours about oathes, a∣bout vows, about the resurrections, about the kingdom of Christ, about the power of the keyes, binding, loosing, excommunication, &c. His ignorant mistakes of meritum congrui, and condigni, active and passive obedience, and many more, for fear of being tedious to the Reader. His whole works are an heape of mishapen errours, and absurd paradoxes, ven∣ted with the confidence of a Jugler, the brags of a Mountebanck, and the authority of some Pythagoras, or third Cato, lately dropped down from heaven.

Thus we have seen how the Hobbian principles do destroy the existence, the sim∣plicity, the ubiquity, the eternity, and infinite∣nesse of God, the doctrine of the blessed Tri∣nity, the Hypostatical union, the Kingly

Sacerdotal and Prophetical Offices of Christ; the being and operation of the Holy Ghost, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Devils, the immor∣tality of the Soul, the Catholick, and all Na∣tional Churches; the holy Scriptures, holy Orders, the holy Sacraments, the whole frame of Religion, and the Worship of God; the laws of Nature, the reality of Goodnesse, Justice, Piety, Honesty, Conscience, and all that is Sacred. If his Disciples have such an implicite faith, that they can digest all these things, they may feed with Oestriches.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Nature di∣ctates the existence and wor∣ship of God.
• * 1.2

  C. c. 15. s. 14.
• * 1.3

  T. H. no friend to religion.
• * 1.4

  Cic. Har. Respons. Orat. in P. Clod.
• * 1.5

  C. c. 3. s. 8.
• * 1.6

  Le. p. 54.
• * 1.7

  Ci. c. 16. s. 1.
• * 1.8

  Excuseth Atheisme. Ci. c. 14. s. 19.
• * 1.9

  Ci. c. 15. s. 7.
• * 1.10

  Qu. p. 137.
• * 1.11

  Ci. c. 15. s. 19.
• * 1.12

  1 Cor. 9: 7.
• * 1.13

  Rev. 4. 11.
• * 1.14

  Destroyes Gods ubi∣quity.
• * 1.15

  Ci. c. 15. s. 14.
• * 1.16

  Le. p. 11.
• * 1.17

  His eterni∣ty.
• * 1.18

  Qu. p. 266.
• * 1.19

  Le. p. 374.
• * 1.20

  His sim∣pl•…•…city.
• * 1.21

  Qu. p. 267.
• * 1.22

  Ci. c. 15. s. 14.
• * 1.23

  Qu. p. 266.
• * 1.24

  His exist∣ence.
• * 1.25

  Le. p. 214.
• * 1.26

  Qu. p. 160
• * 1.27

  Joh. 4. 24.
• * 1.28

  Le. p. 208.
• * 1.29

  The Tri∣nity. Le. p. 268.
• * 1.30

  Le. p. 21.
• * 1.31

  Le. p. 271.
• * 1.32

  Ci. c. 17. s. 5. 6.
• * 1.33

  Le. p. 248.
• * 1.34

  Le. p. 261.
• * 1.35

  Le. p. 36.
• * 1.36

  Le. p. 169.
• * 1.37

  Le. p. 232.
• * 1.38

  1 Sam. 15.
• * 1.39

  1 King. 13.
• * 1.40

  1 King. 18. 2 Chr. 18.
• * 1.41

  Jer. 38.
• * 1.42

  Le. p. 250.
• * 1.43

  Lev. p. 214.
• * 1.44

  Lev. p. 227.
• * 1.45

  Lev. p. 196.
• * 1.46

  Lev. p. 361.
• * 1.47

  Lev. p. 17.
• * 1.48

  Lev. p. 169.
• * 1.49

  Lev. p. 220.
• * 1.50

  De Cive, c. 17. s. 22.
• * 1.51

  Le. p. 206.
• * 1.52

  Ci. c. 17.] 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• * 1.53

  Ci. c. 17. s. 21. Ci. c. 18. s. 1.
• * 1.54

  Le. p. 205.
• * 1.55

  Le. p. 283.
• * 1.56

  Le. p. 284.
• * 1.57

  Ci. c. 17. s. 18.
• * 1.58

  Le. p. 22•…•…. Ci. c. 17. s. 7.
• * 1.59

  Le. p. 133.
• * 1.60

  Ci. c. 17. s. 24.
• * 1.61

  Ibid. l. 28.
• * 1.62

  Le p. 323.
• * 1.63

  Le. p. 296.
• * 1.64

  Ci. c. 17. s. 26. Le. p. 277.
• * 1.65

  Le. p. 288
• * 1.66

  Le. p. 240.
• * 1.67

  Le. p. 241.
• * 1.68

  Le. p. 345. p. 30.
• * 1.69

  Le. p. 207.
• * 1.70

  Le. p. 371.
• * 1.71

  Le. p. 339.
• * 1.72

  Le. p. 340.
• * 1.73

  Eccl. 12. 7.
• * 1.74

  Le. p. 344.
• * 1.75

  Le. p. 38. 39.
• * 1.76

  Qu. p. 160.
• * 1.77

  Le. p. 333.
• * 1.78

  Le p. 244.
• * 1.79

  Le. p. 245
• * 1.80

  Le. p. 345. 346.
• * 1.81

  Le. p. 231.
• * 1.82

  2.
• * 1.83

  Le. p. 271.
• * 1.84

  3.
• * 1.85

  Le. p. 360.
• * 1.86

  4. Lev. p. 193.
• * 1.87

  Le. p. 241.
• * 1.88

  1. King. 12. 26.
• * 1.89

  Ci. c. 12. s. 1.
• * 1.90

  Ci. c. 14. s. 17.
• * 1.91

  Ci. c. 6. s. 9.
• * 1.92

  Le. p. 109.
• * 1.93

  Le. p. 272.
• * 1.94

  Le. p. 138.
• * 1.95

  Le. p. 151.
• * 1.96

  Le p. 157.
• * 1.97

  Le. p. 81.
• * 1.98

  Le. p. 168
• * 1.99

  Ci. c. 18. s. 2.
• * 1.100

  Ci. c. 17. s. 25.
• * 1.101

  Le. p. 318.
• * 1.102

  Le. p. 248.
• * 1.103

  Ci. c. 13. s. 5
• * 1.104

  Ci. c. 15. s. 19. Ci. c. 18. s. 10.
• * 1.105

  Le. p. 330.
• * 1.106

  Le. p. 75.
• * 1.107

  Le. p. 74.
• * 1.108

  Le. p. 109.
• * 1.109

  Ci. c. 18. s. 14.
• * 1.110

  Ci. c. 6. s. 16.
• * 1.111

  Ci. c. 14. s. 10.
• * 1.112

  Ci. c. 18. s. 6.
• * 1.113

  Le. p. 269. 270.