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 where of 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 con

tained. 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 explictly 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."

12. Let the reader peruse Charity Mistaken, and he will find that this qualification, "although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God," is your addition, and no part of the demand. And if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that though we do not presently, without examination, fall down and worship all your church's proposals as Divine revelations, yet we make no such distinction of known Divine revelations, as if some only of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. So that to demand a particular minute catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient proposition, is indeed to demand a catalogue of all points that are or may be, inasmuch as none may be disbelieved after sufficient proposition that it is a Divine revelation. At least it is to desire us, first, to transcribe into this catalogue every text of the whole Bible. Secondly, to set down distinctly those innumerous millions of negative and positive consequences, which may be evidently deduced from it; for these, we say, God hath revealed. And, indeed, you are not ashamed in plain terms to require this of us. For having first told us, that the demand was, what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposition that they are Divine truth," you come to