[Sidenote: That superstructions are not points of the faith necessary to a Christian.] 9. About these points fundamental, there is little controversy amongst Christians, though otherwise of different sects amongst themselves. And therefore the controversies of religion, are altogether about points unnecessary to salvation; whereof some are doctrines raised by human ratiocination, from the points _fundamental_. As for example; such doctrines as concern the manner of the real presence, wherein are mingled tenets of faith concerning the omnipotency and divinity of Christ, with the tenets of Aristotle and the Peripatetics concerning substance and accidents, species, hypostasis, and the subsistence and migration of accidents from place to place; words some of them without meaning, and nothing but the canting of Grecian sophisters. And these doctrines are condemned expressly, Col. ii. 8, where after St. Paul had exhorted them to _be rooted and builded in Christ_, he giveth them this further caveat: _Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy and vain deceits, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world_. And such are such doctrines, as are raised out of such places of the Scriptures, as concern not the foundation, by men’s natural reason; as about the concatenation of causes, and the manner of God’s predestination; which are also mingled with philosophy: as if it were possible for men that know not in what manner God seeth, heareth, or speaketh, to know nevertheless the manner how he intendeth, and predestinateth. A man therefore ought not to examine by reason any point, or draw any consequence out of Scripture by reason, concerning the nature of God Almighty, of which reason is not capable. And therefore St. Paul, (Rom. xii. 3) giveth a good rule, _That no man presume to understand above that which is meet to understand, but that he understand according to sobriety_: which they do not, who presume out of Scripture, by their own interpretation, to raise any doctrine to the understanding, concerning those things which are incomprehensible. And this whole controversy concerning the predestination of God, and the free-will of man, is not peculiar to Christian men. For we have huge volumes of this subject, under the name of _fate_ and _contingency_, disputed between the Epicureans and the Stoics, and consequently it is not matter of faith, but of philosophy: and so are also all the questions concerning any other point, but the foundation before named; and God receiveth a man, which part of the question soever he holdeth. It was a controversy in St. Paul’s time, whether a Christian Gentile might eat freely of any thing which the Christian Jews did not; and the Jew condemned the Gentile that he did eat, to whom St. Paul saith, (Rom. xiv. 3): _Let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him_. And verse 6, in