my opinion, on this score also; because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth, and to be explicitly believed by them; yet to me, as not having any sufficient proposal, or conviction thereof, but rather of the contrary, it is no _Fundamental_, and consequently, my tenent opposing it, if an _error_, yet no _Heresie_. §. 24. _Prot._ Do not deceive your self; for though according to different revelations, to those that were without Law, or those under the Law, or those under the Gospel; _Fundamentals_ generally spoken of, might be more to some than others; yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel, we say[63]; all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men, even the unlearned; and therefore the erring therein, to all such, cannot but be obstinate and Heretical. _Soc._ Unless you mean only this, That all Fundamentals, (_i.e._ so many as are required of any one) are clear to him in Scripture; but not all the same Fundamentals, there clear to every one; but to some more of them; to some fewer; I see not how this last said, accords with that said before by the same person. But if you mean thus, then _Consubstantiality_, (the point we talk of) may be a Fundamental to you, and clear in Scripture, but also not clear to me in Scripture, and so no Fundamental, and hence I think my self safe. For,----[64]_I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture, must needs believe all Fundamentals; and so I cannot incurr Heresie, which is opposite to some fundamental_----[65]_The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith, must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie: That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other._ §. 25.