Father which made the world no one word which signifieth one person to be more proper then another Secondly in God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all mankind it is true this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Christ which must needs be acted in his humanity which was united to his Divinity to the second Person 〈◊〉 the Trinity hath a most proper termination in the Son so that I do yield it must be implyed that it was acted in the Son but it is not expressed and therefore although it was materially the same yet formally it was not and he said more then was in the Catechism and for the last it is not said in the Catechism that God in the Person of the Holy Ghost did Sanctify his Church but in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God which although God the Holy Ghost in the Catechism be the same with the third Person yet he is not called so there and we may mark that although these three Persons are put down in the Catechisme as fountains of those great Blessings comminicated to man yet no where is any called proper person of God more then the other nor is any of those blessings appropriated to any person exclusively shutting out the other so that although it is said God the Father who made me it is not said without the Son of which abundance of Scripture affirms he made the World and Mr. Hobs dealt unhandsomly with our Catechism when he forced such a sense upon it SECT III. Another Answer Censur'd BUt perhaps he hath a better Exposition afterwards for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. Hobs used that Language in divers places he answered That all of them might receive that Exposition but he a little further explains himself thus Vel si dixisset or saith he if he had said God in his proper person had constituted himself a Church by the Ministry of Moses in the person of his Son had redeemed the same in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified the same he had not erred Thus far he but it seems to me strange that both these should be without Errors for they are extreamly different in the first God in his proper person to Create the World and the second in his proper person by the Administration of Moses to constitute a Church but that phrase of in his proper person is unheard of amongst any who are not with it called Hereticks for if God the Father did any of those great works in his proper person then the Son did not operate in them which is against the whole sense of Scripture Joh. 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more which is to be seen in every Writer upon this Subject or else the same must be the very person of the Father which is horrid Divinity or else not a proper but an improper person of the Deity which is alike hateful Then consider his next proposition that God in the person of the Son did redeem the same what is that he calls the same surely that was the Church of the Israelites only for Moses constituted no other Church then Christ Redemed them only when before in the former opposition according to our Church Catechisme he Redeems Mankind which is much larger then the Church which Moses constituted and then last of all when he saith that God in the person of the Holy Ghost did sanctifie the same it is too narrow for his former proposition which was that in the Person of the Holy Ghost God did Sanctifie the Church which is much larger then the Synagogue which was constituted by Moses and when he said he had not Erred if he had phrased it after that manner I say it is evident he had erred and erred grievously in expressing himself either of these ways CAP. V. Joh. 1. 1. Explained I Pass now to Page 364. where at the top is objected that in his 43. Cap. he should say Joh. 1. 1. that the word there and so likewise in the 14. verse doth signifie a promise and that promise is the same with the thing promised that is Jesus Christ as it is Psalm 105. 19. and the 40. 13. and other places I will not dispute this further I have writ at large concerning this place and do answer to him both in this objection and to his Justification of it in his answer that avails him nothing towards his disgrace of the Divine Nature of this word if it should be allowed such a sense for that he was the person is evident out of his gloss and let that person be eternally with God and be God as the Text speaks that he should make all things and the like he must needs be that person which we conceive he â—s and referring the Reader to what I have formerly writ where the genuine sense of that word is exprest I pass to the next objection which immediately follows and crosses one conclusion of mine in this Treatise though I know not punctually where my papers being now with the Printer CAP. VI. Whether it be Lawful for a Faithful man to deny Christ Examined THe Conclusion by the Objector set down is drawn from an answer to a Question What If a faithful man should be commanded by his Prince to deny Christ what should he do he saith it is lawful to obey his Superiors by the Example of Naaman the Assyrian who was by the Prophet bid go in Peace which words saith the Objector seem to me not a permission but a form of Valediction Mr. Hobs justifies the conclusion and begins his answer fortasse perhaps it is so if he had answered any thing else either approving or disproving his Petition but in this place it can be understood of nothing but a Permission I will stop here for this present and examine it first what the offence was that he seems to parallel with the denying of Christ the Story is Recorded in the second Book of Kings Cap. 5. where in the 17. vers you may observe that Naaman professing thy Servant will from henceforth neither offer burnt Offerings or Sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. By burnt Offerings and Sacrifice we must understand all Religious worship which was due to God for so it was to him but then in the 18. verse he begins to make a scruple that his attendance upon his Master at his Idolatrical worship may seem to be a Divine worship because it might seem to have an affinity with it and in this doubt he prays a pardon thus In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship thâ—re and he leaâ—eth on my hand and I â—ow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon 〈…〉 this thing Mark you this it was a
his dissenting may break his Covenant but why it should make them break their Covenant is not vissible to me SECT II. His expression of giving the Sovereignty to him that bears their person further censured HIS following discourse is not more reasonable than this And they have also every man given the Soveraignty to him that heareth their person And therefore if they despâ—se him they take from him that which is his own and so again it is Injustice That phrase Given him the Soveraignty who bears their person is not rational for according to his own Doctrine it is the same thing to be Soveraigh and bear their person if he had spoke logically according to his doctrine his phrase should be who is their person for so he makes the Soveraign to be the person of the Common-wealth not to bear it which is another thing But then mark you what a slight thing he makes Rebellion only a little Injustice for so that word Injustice may extend it self to any the least Injustice He takes that from him that was his a poor piece of business every little Theft doth so SECT III. The irrationality of Mr. Hobbs his arguing further discovered Covenants may be made immediately with God HE adds another reason very weakly Besides saith he If he that attempteth to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished by him for such attempts he is author of his own punishment as being by the Institution Author of all his Soveraign shall do And because it is Injustice for a man to do any thing for which he may be punished by his own Authority he is also upon that title unjust Certainly Reader you may wonder at the strange unreasonableness of this Arguing This proves by his supposed Institution no faultiness in this Treason for suppose a Soveraign shall punish a Subject for speaking truth he doth it according to his institution by the Authority given by that Subject and that Subject is Author according to his Doctrine of killing himself for Truth as well as for Treason because he is Author of all his Actions and there is as much injustice in the one as in the other especially considering another Inference which he makes and will be discoursed on hereafter That a Supream can do no Injustice But he adds not another argument but an answer to another Objection I will speak to that his words â—re And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Soveraign a new Covenant not made with men but God this is also unjust for there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body that representeth God's Person which none doth but God's Lieutenant who hath the Soveraignty under God But this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a lye even in the pretenders own Consciences that it is not only an act of an unjust but also of a vile and unmanly disposition Thus He. This I yield unto so far that it is sinful and wicked to engage in any Covenant with God against his Soveraign but his means of obtaining it I deny He scarce ever speaks or names God but with an Error in particular here what a false affirmation is this to say That there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body who representeth Gods person which none doth but Gods Lievtenant who hath the Soveraignty under God Certainly a man may make Covenant with God betwixt God and his own Soul in private in his Chamber before men in Company divers are recorded in Scripture and pious men often use it and practice it accordingly and when these Covenants are holy and devout God blesseth them and those persons are obliged to those duties But it is true in the case in which he instanceth all such Covenants are wicked in the making and most abominable in the performance for it is a Covenant with God in himself to destroy him in his deputy a Covenant with God in Heaven to oppose him on Earth the iniquity lyeth not in this That the Soveraign is the peoples Person for then the height of the sin lyes in this that the people are affronted but in this other way God iu his way it is but an injury to such as themselves but in this it is to our politique Father to whom under God we owe all our obedience and is the first command of the Second Table with promise in this World Of this Nature are those contracts betwixt man and woman concerning Marriage those promising Oathes which men make one with another which oblige the contractors in a strong tye for breach of which they shall answer at the last day And now I go on with him this which follows and much of that which immediately preceded is pag. 89 SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his Second Inference examined and censured The Soveraign obliged to protect the People from Injuries and Invasions His reasons to attest this Inferrence refuted HIS Second Inference is because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make their Soveraign by Covenant only of one to another and not of him to any of them There can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraign and consequently none of his Subjects by any pretence of forfeiture is freed from his Subjection His conclusion iâ—again true in the material part but his inference is faulty for his conclusion I am perswaded that none of his Subjects can be freed from their Allegiance to him by any act of his unless dereliction of his Government and that may abide a Dispute too But to raise this conclusion out of that Ground because he made no Covenant with them is exceeding weak First There is the same reason by his Doctrine betwixt him and the Subject for the Subjects in the very Paragraph which was but now transcribed make their Covenant one to another and not to the Soveraign so that there must be the same reason out of the Nature of the Covenant that the Subject should not forfeit his Right to him as he to the Subject for the Covenant being only made one to another the breach of that Covenant is only one with another but I am bold to affirm it an impossible case as he imagines it that there must be mutual approbations betwixt both and all For certainly it cannot be imagined that such a generality of men as must convene to do such an Act should submit to such a total dereliction of themselves without some promise or Covenant on his part that he will protect them from injuries at home and Invasions from abroad but he being exalted above all other Earthly Powers is subject only to the King of Kings which is God who will Judge him but the Subjects are examinable responsible and condemnable by him But he labours to infringe this reason in his following discourse thus That he who is made Soveraign makes no Covenant with his Subjects before hand is manifest because either he must make
rational consent to one more then another to be his Guardian yet the Parent hath Dominion over that Child and like other Governours shall give an account one day of that Stewardship and of his behaviour towards him Let us go on and observe the Child grown up with a smattering of Reason Can any man think that the Parent should not govern that Child who hath not prudence enough to govern himself but much passion to make him unruly and therefore needs to have a Governour Well let us go further and bring the Child to one and twenty years of age when he is generally thought fit to govern his estate if he have any yet even then until his death he owes obedience to his Parents and they have Dominion over him whether he consent or not And whosoever denies this denies not only Scripture which is nothing with Mr. Hobbs but even Humanity which hath expressed her tenderness of this duty in all Ages as will appear â—â—ore fully hereafter SECT II. Mr. Hobbs his Chain of contradictions discovered BUt good Reader observe with me how many contradictions are crouded together in one page First an acquired Dominion is by force and that contradicted because that a Dominion is acquired by Generation which is not a forced but a most natural act and that is again contradicted because not Generation but consent gives the Dominion and this which he calls consent is not such a thing as belonged to an acquired Dominion for that consent is only a consent to that Government for fear of the Conquerour but this consent is for love of his own accommodation or out of that reverential awe which Children have to their Parents and this is in nothing like the other And surely if it participated of either it most resembled the consent which he imagines to be in an instituted Commonwealth and therefore not to be ranked under the Acquisite SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his constant abuse of Scripture noted The command of the Mother to be obeyed in subordination to the Father in whom the obedience of children is terminated His iterated quarrelling with Scripture Rules of Government to be proportionable to general emergencies BUt let us go on with him for saith he As to the Generation God hath ordained to man a helper and there be always two that are equally Parents The Dominion therefore over the Child should belong equally to them both and he be equally subject to both which is impossible for no man can obey two Masters To begin where he ends He doth abuse Scâ—ipture wheresoever it crosseth his way as it doth very often No man can serve two Masters but in every Family a man servâ—s a Master and a Mistress There cannot be two Supremes But in an Occonomical Dominion the Man is above the Woman and if the Woman command contrary to the Man the Mans command is to be obeyed and the Woman her self is to be obedient to the Man the Mother to the Father I but saith he they are equally principles of Generation therefore if the right of Dominion be an appendant to Generation it must equally belong to them both I will not dispute the nature of Generation which Philosophers and Physitians have abundantly done but suppose that in the case it exacts an obedience to them both yet with a subordination to the Father which must clearly appear in this because the Woman her self must be obedient to the Father as will appear in the two first principles of Generation Adam and Evah God gave them that Law Thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee Gen. 3. 16. Now then if the man rules the woman then in the subordination of Government she cannot equally share in that Dominion with him who is Governour of her So that although the Child hath from his Generation two persons to obey yet this obedience is terminated in one the Father who is Supreme to whom the Mother also is subject He proceeds And whereas sâ—me have attributed the Dominion to the man only as being of the mâ—re excellent Sex they misreckon it for there is not always that difference of strength and prudence between the man and the woman as that the right can be determined without war Thus this Author hath a spight to Scripture and hopes with a flash of wicked wit to divert men from that due observance which they ought to have of those duties which are there required or at the least to diminish that rational obedience which men should give to it It may be some do attribute the obedience to the man only out of this regard that he is the Nobler Sex and why not He is so undoubtedly for although it may happen out in particulars that the Woman may be more prudent or strong then her Husband yet certainly the generality is not so and the rules of governing and obeying are not to be taken from a few particular instances but the common condition of the Sexes Servants may be wiser or stronger then their Masters Subjects then their Kings children then their Parents yet these sacred Laws of governing and obeying must not be varied for such few particular instances SECT IV. The brawling of Man and Wife improperly called war War only between Nations VVisdom not strength enable to Government VVives submit to their Husbands by the Law of God under the first and second Adam St. Pauls Argument from the Law of Nature explained WHat he saith that this cause must be determined by war is ill expressed For first the contention betwixt man and wife cannot properly be called war but brawling or fighting at the worst War is betwixt Nations in the genuine signification I remember Aelian tells a story of the Sacae that when a Man and a Maid married they were to fight at the first and he or she that conquered was afterwards served by the other for the term of their lives This was a pretty gambal whether true or false it is not much material I read it only in him but surely a most unreasonable practice Is the power of Government proper to strength or wisdom Can any man think that a Bull or a Horse is fitter to govern a man then he them because they are of more strength though he have more wisdom But surely for us that are Christians there is no need to fly to such poor little instances or customs or the accidental prudence or strength of the woman if she have more wit let her use it to the gaining and winning him to vertue if she have more strength let her use it to the assistance of her Husbands weakness by that means her excellencies will be imployed to their right uses she shall be a helper to him not a Ruler over him I need not here repeat what of late I delivered concerning this Doctrine out of Gen. 3. But that Gods Command is clear to this purpose not only in Adam but those that are descended from the second Adam consider
what S. Paul writes in the fifth to the Ephâ—sians v. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands as unto the Lord. But methinks Mr. Hobbs should answer to this that this is only a positive Law yet I can reply to that that it is universal or what is equivalent indefinite and comprehends all wives But then go further and read the Apostles Argument in the following verse For the Husband is the Head of the Wife even as Christ is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle argues from the Law of Nature First that by the Law of Nature the rest of the body submits to the Head so must Wives do to their own Husbands Then this is exemplified from Christianity in the manner of his Headship such a Head as Christ is over his Church which I hope no Christian will say but that it must submit to and be governed by him And I hope both Nature Gods Law and Christian duty may be sufficient to determine this controversie without war And I may add that since all Nations have consented to it sure we ought not now to demur upon the case because Mr. Hobbs interposeth his Authority with little or no reason SECT V. This Paragraph coutrary to Mr. Hobbs his principles and the supposed institution of a Commonwealth but yet most true not from Mr. Hobbs his reason but the Law of God Fathers of Families have the disposition of their Families The invalidity of Mr. Hobbs his reasons His example of the Amazons inconcludent HE proceeds In Commonwealths this controversie is decided by the Civil Law and for the most part but nâ—t always the sentence is in favour of the Father because for the mâ—st part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers not by the Mothers of Families Now I am come to page 03. but I would fain know how the Fathers rather then the Mothers should come to be Erectors of Commonwealths Certainly if Commonwealths were instituted as he feigns by the general suffrage of all who had interest in the Government then women as well as men Mothers as well as Fathers had the management of that business for they have their interest in the publick constitution as well as men But he hath let fall an excellent truth which is clear against the whole Body of his Politicks which is that the Fathers of Families not the Rabble were the Erectors of Commonwealths For if they did as I am confident with him here they did then his former discourse which is built upon the institution of a Commonwealth by the universal consent of all who have interest in it must fail for not the Fathers and Mothers only but even the meanest child or servant may challenge their shares in it And certainly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Commonwealths but only out of this regard that they were the chief in their Families and by that reason had right to dispose of himself and them And here let the Reader consider that Mr. Hobbs never remembers that great Authority given by God to Moses which regulated him and his Posterity many Generations nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Testament which are obligatory to us in all Ages He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor reason or rather shew of reason only that men were the Law-makers and they were partial to their own Sex No Master Hobbs God was the Law-maker who is no accepter of persons or Sexes but in an infinitely wise manner disposeth all things in the best and surest method that may be according to his most just Laws But because he said but not always that is that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths intimating that some Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families I should thank him or any man else who can shew me any such in the world It may be he will fly to that beggerly instance which he gives presently of the Amazons but let it suffice for them if there were any such that they were Widdows or single Women not united in Marriage and so not subject to Husbands and therefore were free to dispose of themselves as they pleased and might have made what just Laws they thought fit for their condition but if they were joyned in marriage to Husbands they must then submâ—t to that yoak and be governed in their domestick affairs according to his discipline The dispute is here betwixt Husband and Wife not betwixt man and woman Wives must submit to their own Husbands not every woman to every man SECT VI. Mr. Hobbs his contradiction again censured Antipodial Government introduced His conclusions not consistent one with another Contracts with Mr. Hobbs but words and advantaged by power may lawfully be broken Lawful Contracts sealed in Heaven HE goes on But the Question lieth now in the state of meer Nature where there are supposed no Laws of Matrimony no Laws for the education of children but the Law of Nature and the natural inclination of the Sexes one to another and to their children This is inconsistent with what he hath formerly taught and I have confuted viz. That naturally men are at war every man with evâ—â—y man Well then in this state before they are covenanted into a Commonwealth all things all rights are tryed by force and it may happen that the man who conquers this day may fall sick and grow weak and then the Woman may be Victor and so the case may be altered or both may grow old or sick and their children master them both and so bring in an Antipodial Government And then let any man think whether the wise constitution of Nature can agree with such abominable follies and how weak according to his Doctrine this conclusion is In this condition of meer nature saith he either the Parents between themselves dispose of the dominion over the child by contract or do not dispose thereof at all If they do dispose thereof the right passeth according to the contract This distinction cannot be denied either they must or they must not contract If they dispose saith he the right passeth according to the contract But let him remember the state and condition he speaks of is in mans nature before any imbodying themselves into a Commonwealth Then let him look back to what he hath writ Cap. 17. page 85. Covenants without the Sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all And again in the same page Therefâ—re notwithstanding the Law of Nature if there be no power erected or not great enough for our security every man will and may lawfully relye upon his own strength and art for caution against all other men â— Let us put these together the right passeth by contract saith he in this 20. Cap. Contracts are but words and have no force to bind saith he in his â—7 Cap. unless a Commonwealth be erected therefore no Covenant gives an active right to any
shall reserve to a future consideration as God shall please to spare me life and my Episcopal duties afford me leasure CAP. II. Of things omitted in this Discourse I Begin with his Chapter upon his Nicene Creed which he enters upon in his 328 page where I omit his observation upon that Phrase I believe in and that likewise which is in the bottom of the precedent and the subsequent Page about the exposition of that phrase which is not in the Creed that is Deuâ— est God is whcih is not in the Creed for the language of the Creed is I believe in one God the Father Almighty in which it is not said there is a God but supposed and he affirmed to be one and he the Father Almighty so that if we must be forc'd to make one or more propositions of it they must be these I believe there is one and only one God and that he is Father Almighty where is is a copula not a substantive as he makes it and upon which he makes his discourse but I let it pass as he might well have done being nothing conducing to his or my dispute 't is true à tertio adjacente ad secundum valet argumentum and therefore when I affirm there is one God it must be imply'd there is a God but this proposition there is one only God supposeth and implicitely affirms it not by any express propositions CAP. III. The Nature of Light examined I Come to page the 330. which opposeth something that I have delivered there you shall find in the letter a which signifieth the Opponent a question asked Quid est lumen and answering himself lumen ut mihi videtur phantasma est non res existens This proposition I have opposed in my first part Cap. 4. Sect. 2. where I have divers arguments for it and the Reader may observe my Answers to his Arguments no one of which is touched here but a strange new Argument which I now proceed to examine whether I may term it argument or illustration of his conclusion I care not which is thus framed Exempli gratia si inter oculum Candelam vitrum statuas cujus superficies ex multis planis constat certo modo dispositis multae tibi videbuntur câ—ndelae scimus tamen unicam ibi esse candelam veram proinde caeterâ—s omnes mera esse phantasmata idola hoc est ut dicit sanctus Paulus nihil For my part I cannot observe where the force of this Argument lies to prove that lumen or light is a meer Phantasm or nothing this light shews the Candle or if he will represents it now what represents another must be like it but nothing cannot be like a thing being clean contrary or rather privatively or negatively opposed to it therefore if light were nothing it could not represent the Candle but perhaps the force may be couched in these words Multae tibi videbuntuâ— Candelae there shall many candles appear to wit by the reflection of those many plains of glass but surely this no way enforceth his conclusion for every one of these plaines for all I know represents the true Candle and are so far from being nothing as they must therefore be something because they represent something but they may by a false reflection multiply the Candle and make it seem many what if it does Does the erroneous representing make the representor nothing certainly no for then every man who tells a lye should say nothing for that lye is a false representation we see that light makes us see the Candle from whence it comes and indeed any body else in the Rom where it is truly if it be not abused by some Hoâ—us Pocus tricks or such devices as those jugling glasses he mentions but the abuse lies in the plains in the glass which returns the representing light wrong ways not in the light it self which is retorted he might therefore from hence fitter call that nothing which abuseth the medium than the light which is abused he proceeds in the same place with a strangely unnecessary discourse to this purpose as it seems to me neque tamen saith he earum una est verior Candela quam reliquae quatenus apparent I need repeat no more if there be strength in any part of his discourse it is in this but here is none for although none of these Images of the Candle is the Candle yet they are things such things as did represent the Candle for the Candle could not be represented to the eye by that which is nothing the thing that represents another and that which is represented are two but both of them must be things or neither but now it may be replyed to me that this is not Mr. Hobs his opinion but the Objectors I answer with Mr. Hobs who is personated by b ita est so it is so that although a seemed to object this yet Mr. Hobs assents to it CAP. IV. The Nature of Hypostasis ANd in the 331. he proceeds thus Sed Patres Ecclesiae illis temporibus tum ante tum post concillium Nicenum in scriptis suis vocem Hypostasis videntur alio modo interpretare mysterium Trinitatis Christianis omnibus intelligibile reddere cupientes The meaning of this is that the Fathers both before and after the Council of Nice gave another sence of the word Hypostasis and saith he They thought best to do it by the similitude of fire light and heat the fire they refer'd to the Father the light to the Son the heat to the holy Spirit in which similitude saith he the congruity would perhaps be accurate but that fire splendor here he changes the term light heat neither are substances nor were thought so by the Fathers chiefly such as were Aristotelians of which kind he can produce very few Ancient unless saith he Ignis ponatur pro ignito fire be put for a fiery thing SECT II. That a Particular Fire is an Hypostasis I Will stop here and make this Note that I can guesse that never man before him said that a particular fire was not an Hypostasis for Hypostasis being nothing but an individual substance which then is the subject of accidents no man can deny that to fire yes saith he unless fire be put for a fiery thing certainly there is no man that sees or reads this word fire but it represents to him a fiery thing as when he reads these words Earth Water Aire they make him think of Earthy Watry Airy things there is the same reason for fire and what he puts down that Aristotelian Philosophers should be of his mind I am perswaded he can produce none that ever affirmed that a particular fire was not an Hypostasis but he has reason for what he speaks and therefore follows this discourse with enim homo enim ignem lumen â—alorem extinguit quoties libet The sum of this is that because a man can at his pleasure extinguish
one day judge us men according to our works then he trembles at the apprehension of it and that causeth him to seek out which way he may please him and stop the fury of his wrath from falling upon him and act accordingly Thus wisdom is begun but afterwards this same man out of these beginnings proceeds to search out Gods will and believe it to trust and rely upon his promises to be enamoured with God and delighted with his excellencies with following Acts far exceed in the worship of God and his Honour that first of fear only so that although the fear of God may introduce and begin Religion yet unless a man go further it is not Religion nor that it is can that Text prove but he hath another Text which I wonder what he can do with it to this purpose which is SECT IV. How that Text the Fool hath said in his Heart there is no God can be applied to his purpose THat the Fool hath said in his heart there is no God certainly if he said so in his heart he could not fear God but that because he thinks there is no God he could not fear him therefore should Religion consist in fear he that thinks there is no such thing cannot oppose be angry with or hate God doth Religion therefore consist in these and yet there is less consequence in it if a man will consider his proposition to be proved hence it is not that fear is the Religion paid to God but to invisible powers many a man who did not think there was a supream God governing all did think that there were invisible powers to which they paid their Religious Duties as most of them to Sâ—medei and Heroes and good Genâ—i and the like so that men may have Religion who say in their hearts there is no God that is such as he is generally conceived to be an infinitely able and wise Creator and Governor yea some that thought there was a God who had infinitam virtutem by which he governed the world yet would not allow him infinitam potentiam to make it out of nothing of which nature I conceive Aristotle to be so that although he and others may think there is no such God as we conceive yet they might have Religion to such as they conceived to have some peices of these Divine excellencies so that that seems to me an objection but weakly answered by him CAP. IV. ANd I pass to a fourth Objection made at the bottom of the same page which is out of the sixteenth Cap. of the same Leviathan when having treated of persons and what things may be personated he at the last affirms etiam Dei veri the true God may be personated as he was first by Moses who governed not his people but Gods saying thus saith the Lord I have discoursed at large upon this expression of his in the 30. Cap. of my first Notes upon his Leviathaâ— Sect. 11. and those which follow it would have become him to have given at the least some observations upon what I said but he hath not and I must refer an Impartial Reader to that but I must observe that this clause is left out in his Latine Edition and instead thereof put that the true Gods person is and hath been born for in his proper person he created the world this is put instead of Moses his bearing his Person Good Reader see how he hath amended the matter did God in Creating the World bear the Person of God It is a Phrase unheard of in any Divinity Writer he that bears the person of any man or thing must be another from that thing which he bears but in this he destroys his bearing the person of God when he affirms he did it in his own in propriâ personâ in his own proper person so that his alteration is to the worse but I return from whence I came to Moses again in which I referr'd the Reader to my former discourse so far that he affirms the Son to be as it seems the Second Person in the Trinity after Moses and that of the Holy Ghost all which I have spoke of at large and now let us review his answer to this Objection it may be the Candor of his Exposition will take away the scandal of his Assertion and that begins in the last line of that Page and so follows on in the next and is this SECT II. His Question of our Catechisme Examined VIdetur Author hoc loco the Author seems in this place to explain the doctrine of Trinity although he do not name the Trinity I stop here he hath outgone himself in his English Leviathan for I did not so far dive into his thoughts when I spoke of Moses representing God but one how that could be understood but now it seems abominable that Moses should be placed as a person in the Trinity well let us see his answer further in this place that saith he he Authour did labour to explain the Trinity was piaâ— voâ—untas but erronea explicatio it was a pious desire but in erroneous explication surely it is a pious desire â—n any man to endeavour to explain any Divine truth out certainly it cannot be imagined that a man of his parts and learning could be so overseen in so high â— Point of Divinity as to think that such a person ought to pass for the father but that he would steal â— discredit of that great and most universally received truth by interposing such a cloud before it for saith he Moses because he after some manner seems to bear the person of God as do all Christian Kings he seems to make him one person of the Trinity valde negligenter this was exceeding negligently done and pittiful repentance for such a crime to blaspheme God and call man God for so must each person in the Trinity be no it looks not like repentance but a vain excuse which near upon amounts to a justification but he proceeds If saith he he had said that God in his proper person had made the world in the person of his Son had redeemâ—d mankind in the person of the holy Ghoâ—t had sanctified his Church he had said no more then is in the Catechisme put out by the Church certainly he is much out in this â—aâ—ing for the Catechisme of the Church of England has no such saying as God in propriâ personâ God in his proper person did make the world this expression propriâ personâ is not there nor I think in any confession of any Christian Church to be used for the Father all three are proper Persons no one more then other neither doth the Catechism use that very phrase Person in that whole answer for it is thus I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world not that he made it in propriâ personâ for it was the work of the whole Trinity and the God who is the whole Trinity is the Almighty