saith he, ‘consisteth in obedience to Christ’s lieutenants, and giving God such honour, both in attributes and actions, as they in their several lieutenancies shall ordain’. That is to say, _be of the religion of every Christian country where you come_. To make the civil magistrate to be Christ’s lieutenant upon earth, for matters of religion, and to make him to be supreme judge in all controversies, whom all must obey, is a doctrine so strange, and such an uncouth phrase to Christian ears, that I should have missed his meaning, but that I consulted with his book, _De Cive_, c. XV. sect. 16, and c. XVII. sect. 28. What if the magistrate shall be no Christian himself? What if he shall command contrary to the law of God or nature? _Must we obey him rather than God?_ (Acts iv. 19.) Is the civil magistrate become now the only ground and pillar of truth? I demand then, why T. H. is of a different mind from his sovereign, and from the laws of the land, concerning the attributes of God and his decrees? This is a new paradox, and concerns not this question of liberty and necessity. Wherefore I forbear to prosecute it further, and so conclude my reply with the words of the Christian poet, Jussum est Cæsaris ore Galieni, Quod princeps colit ut colamus omnes. Æternum colo Principem, dierum Factorem, Dominumque Galieni.[A] ----- Footnote A: Prudentius. περι στεφανων. Hymn. vi. ----- ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANSWER TO THE POSTSCRIPT NO. XXXVIII.