many things to be taught by the catholic church, which in the Creed we all profess to believe. Neither doth it follow, as you infer, that as well, nay better, they might have given no article but that, [of the church,] and sent us to the church for all the rest. For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all.' For by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? One might, quite contrary to your inference, say, If the Apostles' Creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article concerning the church? What need we the Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, &c.? Superfluous are your Catechisms, wherein, besides the articles of the Creed, you add divers other particulars. These would be poor consequences, and so is yours. But shall I tell you news? for so you are pleased to esteem it. We grant your inference thus far; that our Saviour Christ referred us to his church, by her to be taught, and by her alone. For she was before the Creed and Scripture; and she, to discharge this imposed office of instructing us, hath delivered us the Creed, but not it alone, as if nothing else were to be believed. We have, besides it, Holy Scripture; we have unwritten, Divine, apostolical, ecclesiastical traditions. It were a childish argument. The Creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed; ergo, it is not profitable: or, The church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means; ergo, she must teach us without all means, without creeds, without councils, without Scripture, &c. If the apostles had expressed no article but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular, by creeds, or other means, as in fact we have even the Apostles' Creed from the tradition of the church. If you will believe you have all in the Creed, when you have not all,' it is not the apostles or the church that makes you so believe, but it is your own error, whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all. For neither the apostles, nor the church, nor the Creed itself, tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there that one means of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? We are not to recite the Creed with anticipated persuasion, that it must contain what we imagine it ought, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and believe, that it contains what we find in it, of which one article is, to believe the catholic church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed; and in particular we may learn of her what points be contained in the Creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceived by believing we have all in the Creed, when we have not all; and you may in the same manner say, 'as well, nay better, the apostles might have given us no articles at all, as have left out articles tending to practice. For in setting down one sort of articles and not the other, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all.' 27" To our argument, t at baptism is not contained in the 6 Creed, Dr. Potter, besides his answer, That sacraments belong rather to practice that faith, (which I have already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himself, and serveth only to show that the apostles intended not to comprise all points in the Creed which we are bound to believe,) adds, that the Creed of Nice expressed baptism by name ['I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.'] Which answer is directly against himself, and manifestly proves that baptism is an article of faith, and yet is not contained in the Apostles' Creed, neither explicitly, nor by any necessary consequence from other articles expressed therein. If to make it an article of faith it be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene council, he will find that protestants maintain many errors against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of general councils; as, in particular, that the very council of Nice (which, saith Mr. Whitgift,* is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed, and embraced, next unto the Scriptures themselves') decreed, that 'to those who were chosen to the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterwards,' is affirmed by protestants. And your grand reformer Luther (Lib. ae Conciliis parte prima) saith, that he understands not the Holy Ghost in that council. For in one canon it saith, that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made priests; in another, it forbids them to have wives. Hath,' saith he, 'the Holy Ghost nothing to do in councils, but to bind and load his ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws?' I forbear to show that this very article, I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,' will be understood by protestants in a far different sense from catholics; yea, protestants among themselves do not agree how baptism forgives sins, nor what grace it confers. Only concerning the unity of baptism against rebaptization of such as were once baptized, (which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles' Creed,) I cannot omit an excellent place of St. Augustin, where, speaking of the Donatists, he hath these words: "They are so bold as† to rebaptize catholics, wherein they show themselves to be the greater heretics, since it hath pleased the universal catholic church not to make baptism void even in the very heretics themselves.' In which few words this holy father delivereth against the Donatists these points, which do also make against protestants; that to make a heresy or a heretic known for such, it is sufficient to oppose the definition of God's church; that a proposition may be heretical, though it be not repugnant to any texts of Scripture. For St. Augustin teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is heretical, and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture. And that neither the heresy of rebaptization of those who were baptized by heretics, nor the contrary catholic truth, being expressed in the Apostles' Creed, it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation. And so we must conclude, that to believe the Creed is not sufficient for unity :f faith and spirit in the same In his Defence 330. + Lib. de Hares, in 69. church, unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other points of faith, and in 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.”” * Aug. Ep. 48. THE ANSWER TO THE FOURTH CHAPTER: Wherein is showed, that the Creed contains all necessary points of mere belief. 1. AD. § 1-6. Concerning the Creeds containing the funda mentals 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 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; as 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 disbe lieve 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 t 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." besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable. And 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 eredenda, 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 funda |