there is a God, and to be worshipped in such and such manner, then atheism is not a sin of mere ignorance: as if either I or he did hold that nature dictates the manner of God’s worship, or any article of our creed, or whether to worship with or without a surplice. Secondly, he answers that a rebel is still a subject _de jure_, though not _de facto_: and it is granted. But though the king lose none of his right by the traitor’s act, yet the traitor loseth the privilege of being punished by a precedent law; and therefore may be punished at the king’s will, as Ravaillac was for murdering Henry IV of France. An open enemy and a perfidious traitor are both enemies. Had not his Lordship read in the Roman story, how Perseus and other just enemies of that state were wont to be punished? But what is this trifling question to my _excusing of atheism_? In the seventh paragraph of chapter XV. of my book _De Cive_, he found the words in Latin, which he here citeth. And to the same sense I have said in my _Leviathan_, that the right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, is to be derived not from his creating them, as if he required obedience, as of gratitude; but from his irresistible power. This he says is absurd and dishonourable. Whereas first all power is honourable, and the greatest power is most honourable. Is it not a more noble tenure for a king to hold his kingdom, and the right to punish those that transgress his laws, from his power, than from the gratitude or gift of the transgressor. There is nothing therefore here of dishonour to God Almighty. But see the subtilty of his disputing. He saw he could not catch _Leviathan_ in this place, he looks for him in my book _De Cive_, which is Latin, to try what he could fish out of that: and says I make our obedience to God, depend upon our weakness; as if these words signified the _dependence_, and not the _necessity_ of our submission, or that _incumbere_ and _dependere_ were all one. _J. D._ For T. H. his God is not the God of 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 itself dictateth. _It cannot be said honourably of 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 place, and all in another place at the same time, for none of these things ever have or can be incident 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 Schoolmen_. Thus he denieth the ubiquity of God. A _circumscriptive_, a definitive, and a repletive being in a place, is some heathen language to him.