external profession and communion also; (whereof we are to speak in the next chapter;) according to the saying of St. Augustin: You are with us in baptism, and in the Creed; but in the spirit of unity and bond of peace, and, lastly, in the catholic church, you are not with us.'

6

THE

ANSWER TO THE FOURTH CHAPTER:

Wherein is shewed, that the Creed contains all necessary points of mere belief.

1. AD §. 1-6. Concerning the Creed's containing the fundamentals of Christianity, this is Dr. Potter's assertion, delivered in the 207th page of his book: "The Creed of the apostles (as it is explained in the latter creeds of the catholic church) is esteemed a sufficient summary or catalogue of fundamentals by the best learned Romanists, and by antiquity."

2. By "fundamentals” he understands, not the fundamental rules of good life and action, (though every one of these is to be believed to come from God, and therefore virtually includes an article of the faith,) but the fundamental doctrines of faith, such as, though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential doctrine of Christianity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. The assent of our understandings is required to them, but not obedience from our wills.

3. But these speculative doctrines again he distinguisheth out of Aquinas, Occham, and Canus, and

8 Aug. Ep. 48.

others, into two kinds; of the first are those which are the " objects of faith, in and for themselves," which, by their own nature and God's prime intention, are essential parts of the gospel; such as the teachers in the church cannot without mortal sin omit to teach the learners; such as are intrinsical to the covenant between God and man; and not only plainly revealed by God, and so certain truths, but also commanded to be preached to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. Of the second sort are "accidental, circumstantial, occasional" objects of faith; millions whereof there are in holy scripture; such as are to be believed, not for themselves, but because they are joined with others that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same authority which delivered these. Such as we are not bound to know to be Divine revelations; (for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof, nay, believe the contrary ;) such as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be Divine revelations; such as pastors are not bound to teach their flock, nor their flock bound to know and remember; no, nor the pastors themselves to know them or believe them, or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always; but then only, when they do see and know them to be delivered in scripture as Divine revelations.

4. I say when they do so, and not only when they may do. For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any verity, sufficient revelation on God's part is not sufficient: for then, seeing all the express verities of scripture are either to all men, or at least to all learned men, sufficiently revealed by God, it should be a damnable sin in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular historical verity contained in scripture, or to believe the contradiction

of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. For though he did not, yet he might have known it; it being plainly revealed by God, and this revelation being extant in such a book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with diligence he had perused it. To make, therefore, any points necessary to be believed, it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine revelations; and these though they be not articles of faith, nor necessary to be believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence they are so: the necessity of believing them being enforced upon us by a necessity of believing this essential and fundamental article of faith, "that all Divine revelations are true," which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any Christians not only impious, but impossible. Or else it is requisite that they be, first, actually revealed by God; secondly, commanded, under pain of damnation, to be particularly known, (I mean known to be Divine revelations,) and distinctly to be believed. And of this latter sort of speculative Divine verities Dr. Potter affirmed, "that the Apostles' Creed was a sufficient summary;" yet he affirmed it not as his own opinion, but as the doctrine of the "ancient fathers, and your own doctors." And besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable.

5. In brief, all that he says is this: it is " very probable, that according to the judgment of the Roman doctors and the ancient fathers, the Apostles' Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being merely credenda, and not agenda, all men are ordinarily, under pain of damnation, bound particularly to believe."

6. "Now this assertion," you say, "is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true." Your

reasons to prove it "impertinent," put into form and divested of impertinences, are these: 1." Because the question was not, What points were necessary to be explicitly believed, but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposal? And, therefore, to give a catalogue of points necessary to be explicitly believed, is impertinent.

7. "Secondly, Because errors may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamental; as, that Pontius Pilate was our Saviour's judge is not in itself a fundamental truth, yet to believe the contrary were a damnable error. And therefore to give a catalogue of truths, in themselves fundamental, is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand, what errors are damnable.

8. "Thirdly, Because if the church be not universally infallible, we cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed, which we must receive upon the credit of the church and if the church be universally infallible, it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the Creed.

9. "Fourthly, Because not to believe the articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say the Creed contains all fundamentals, without specifying in what sense the articles of it are fundamental.

10. "Fifthly, Because the Apostles' Creed (as Dr. Potter himself confesseth) was not a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council; nor then until it was declared in the second, &c. by occasion of emergent heresies: therefore now also, as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation; and so is not yet, nor ever will be, a complete catalogue of fundamentals."

11. Now to the first of these objections, I say, first,

that your distinction, between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtle than sound; a distinction without a difference; there being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved; nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances, necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. Yet that which (I believe) you would have said, I acknowledge true; that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition that they are known to be revealed by God; that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are known to be Divine revelations. But then I must needs say, you do very strangely in saying, that the question was, "What points might lawfully be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are Divine revelations ?" You affirm, that none may; and so doth Dr. Potter, and with him all protestants and all Christians. And how then is this the question? Who ever said or thought, that of Divine revelations, known to be so, some might safely and lawfully be rejected and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not fundamental? Which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable either to deny or so much as doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we either know or believe that God hath revealed it? What protestant ever taught, that it was not damnable either to give God the lie or to call his veracity into question? Yet, you say, " the demand of Charity Mistaken was, and it was most reasonable, that a list of fundamentals should be given, the denial whereof destroys salvation, whereas the denial of other points may stand with salvation, although both kinds be equally proposed as revealed by God."