§. 1.

TO shew the invalidity of such a Guide as Protestants have framed to themselves for preserving the true Faith, and suppressing Heresies, hath for several years been the Subject of divers Modern Pens: But, because Instances and Examples, seem to some, more weighty and convincing, it is thought fit (the more to awaken, and the better to satisfie him) here to let the Reader see what Apology a Socinian (who tho' denying the Trinity, and our Saviors Deity, yet, most zealously urges Scripture, and its plainness in all necessaries, as if it justified his own Errors; or that he Erred only in matters not necessary) upon the Protestant Principles may return for himself to a Protestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true Faith and the Nicene Creed; and using any of these five Motives thereto, viz. The Testimony of 1. Scripture. 2. Catholic-Church-Authority. 3. Councils, with the Danger and Guilt of 4. Heresie, and 5. Schism. Not intending hereby to equal all Protestant Opinions with the Socinian; but inferring that these Pleas as relating to these Motives will as rationally justifie the Socinian as the Protestant.

For, suppose a Protestant, first, concerning the Scriptures, question a Socinian in this manner.

Prot. Why do you, to the great danger of your soul, and salvation, not believe, God the Son to be of one, and the same essence, and substance with God the Father, it being so principal an Article of the Christian Faith, delivered in the Holy Scriptures?

Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter. I do believe, with other Christians, that the Scriptures are the Word of God; and, with other Protestants, that they are a perfect Rule of my faith.

§. 2.

Prot. But, this secures you not, unless you believe according to this Rule; which in this point, you do not.

Soc. However I believe in this point; truly, or falsly; I am secure that my Faith is entire, as to all necessary points of Faith.

Prot. How so?

Soc. Because, as M. Chillingworth saith[1]—He that believes all that is in the Bible, all that is in the Scriptures (as I do) believes all that is necessary there.

Prot. This must needs be true: but mean while, if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you; or the true sense of some part of that you know (for, the Scripture, as that Author notes[2], is not so much the words, as the sense) be mistaken by you, how can you say, you believe all the Scriptures? For, when you say, you believe all the Scripture, you mean only this: that you believe, that, whatsoever is the true sense thereof, that is God's Word; and most certainly true: which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing, or also your believing the contrary to the true sense thereof: and then you, not believing the true sense of some part of it at least, may also not believe the true sense of something necessary there; which is quite contrary to your conclusion here.

§. 3.

Soc. [3]——I believe, that that sense of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is, is certainly true; And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths, against which I err. Next: [4]——I do my best endeavour to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof. By my best endeavour I mean[5], such a measure of industry, as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion (my abilities, and opportunities, my distractions, and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence. Of using which endeavour also, I conceive, I may be sufficiently certain: [for otherwise, I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures; this due endeavor being the condition, which Protestants require, that I shall not be, as to all necessaries, deceived in the sense of Scripture.] Now, being conscious to my self of such a right endeavor used: [6]——For me, to believe, further, this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures; or to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary, either to my faith or salvation. For, if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed? [7]——For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture, after my best endeavour used; to say that God will damn me for such errors, who am a lover of him, and lover of truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness; is to make man desperate, and God a Tyrant.

§. 4.

Prot. But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of Faith revealed in Scripture: for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite Faith.

Soc. Of what points?

Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary.

Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals, and necessaries, wherein I am to have a right and an explicite Faith, the account I have given you already, I hope, is satisfactory.

§. 5.

But next: I am secure, that this point, which is the subject of our discourse, at least in the affirmative thereof, is no fundamental; for, according to the Protestant principles [8]——The Scripture is a Rule, as sufficiently perfect, so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary, to all that have understanding; whether learned, or unlearned. Neither is any thing necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed: for to say, that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true, and the other false, that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error, and humane frailty, is to make God a Tyrant, and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means. In fine, [9] where Scriptures are plain, as they are in necessaries, they need no infallible Interpreter, no further explanation [to me]; and where they are not plain, there if I, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it, and fall into Error, there is no danger in it.

Prot. True. Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned, using a due Industry, void of a contrary interest, &c.

Soc. And in such industry I may be assured, I have not been deficient, having bestowed much study on this matter, read the Controversie on both sides; compared Texts, &c. (as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion); and after all this, the sense of Scripture also, which I embrace, (a sense, you know, decried and persecuted by most Christians) is very contrary to all my secular relations, interest, and profit.

§. 6.

Now, after all this search I have used, I am so far satisfied, that this point, on the affirmative side, is not clear, and evident in Scripture (and therefore no Fundamental) that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures (if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its Expressions) that the contrary of it is so.

[See Crellius in the Preface to his Book De uno Deo Patre,——HÆc de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis, ac clarissimis sacrarum literarum testimoniis nititur——Evidens sententiÆ veritas, & rationum firmissimarum È sacris literis spontÈ subnascentium multitudo, ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat, &c.——Argumenta, quÆ ex sacris literis deprompsimus, per se plana sunt, ac facilia adeo quidem, ut eorum vim declinare ali ratione non possint adversarii, quam ut  verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant, tum nos abducere conentur. And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge (where, as to the expression, and other Texts being laid aside, that seems to be said, as it were totidem verbis, which the Socinians maintain), Joh. 14.28. 17.3. Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6.——Col. 1.15. & Rev. 3.14. I set not down this to countenance their Cause, but to shew their Confidence.]

§. 7.

Prot. O strange Presumption! And is not your judgment, then, liable to mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures, because you strongly persuade your self, they are most evident on your side?

Soc. 'Tis true, that I may mistake in the sense of some Scripture; but it follows not from hence, that I can be certain of the sense of no Scriptures. To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth[10]——Tho' I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous; yet this methinks should be no impediment, but that we may have certain means of not erring in, and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear, that they need no Interpreters; and in such this my Faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can he sure, that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again; Can you be sure you understand what I, or any man else saith; They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach, can they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do? If not, to what end did they hear them? If they could, why may not I be as well assured, that I understand sufficiently, what I conceive plain in their Writings? Again; I pray tell me, whether do you certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, for the evidence of which you separated from the Church that was before Luther, requiring conformity to the contrary Doctrines, as a condition of her Communion? If you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. For if all the Scripture be obscure, how can you know the sense of these places? If some places of it be plain, why should I stay here?——[11] If you ask, seeing I may possibly err, how can I be assured I do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it? [12] A Judge may possibly err in Judgment, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged rightly? a Traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his wits, that he is in his way to London?[13]—This I am certain of, that God will not require of me a certainly unerring belief, unless he had given me a certain means to avoid error, and if I use those which I have, will never require of me, that I use that which I have not[14].——This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid Plea, against the Papist's grand Objection, for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's Faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture.

Sect. 8.

Prot. But the Scriptures, which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God with God the Father, carry not the same evidence and clearness, as those Scriptures do, whereon Protestants build the certainty of their Faith against the Papists, or against the common Church-Doctrines that were before Luther.

Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures, which you of mine: I pray, what can be said more plain, or in what point, in your Opinion, more fundamental (wherein we contend Scripture is most clear, even to the unlearned), than this, in Joh. 17.3.—Ut cognoscant te [Pater] solum verum Deum; &, quem misisti, Jesum Christum—And, 1 Cor. 8.6. Unus Deus, Pater; & unus Dominus, Jesus. And, Eph. 4. ver. 5. Unus est Dominus, [i. e. Jesus;] and then, ver. 6. Unus est Deus, & Pater omnium—And, Joh. 14.1. Creditis in Deum, & in me credite——And v. 28. Pater meus major me est. I say, what more clear for proving the Father his being the true, most high God, and excluding the other Persons [the Son, or the Holy Ghost] from being the very same God?

Prot. And 1. what more clear, on the other side, than these Texts, Rom. 9.5. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever——And, Tit. 2.13. The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. And [15]—we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life, spoken by St. John, the great vindicator, against Ebion, Cerinthus, Carpocrates and other, in his time, opposers of our Lord's Divinity[16]——And Apoc. 1.8. compared with 1.17.——I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty? I say, what more clear than these Texts, for shewing the true Deity of Christ? 2. And then, how many other clear Texts are there, asserting the Eternity of our Lord; that he is nothing made or created, but pre-existent before the constitution of the World; equal with God; and that Heaven, and Earth, and all things were made by him, that were made; and that he descended from Heaven from his Father, when he took our nature upon him? See Joh. 1.1. &c.—3.13. Heb. 1.2, 3, 10 &c.—Joh. 17.5, 24.—Phil. 2.6.—Joh. 6.38.——16.28.——1. Tim. 3.16.—Heb. 2.14. And 3. then, his Deity and Eternity thus cleared, his Deity can be no other, than, in the total essence thereof, numerically the same with that of God the Father. For, those of your own Sect, together with the whole Christian world, do acknowledge, 1. That there is but one numerical most high God, an inseparable attribute of whom is his Creating of the world, and preexistence before it. And again; 2. That the substance or essence of this most high God, is not any way divisible, partible or multipliable; so that, Si Christus ex Dei substanti generatus fuit, tota ei Patris substantia, eadem numero, communicata fuit. See Volkel. de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned, your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism, or semi-Arianism, and to take in other respects a more desperate way, of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation: To return then to our business. All Scripture being equally true; you know, no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense, which others, as clear contradict. The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned, is the mother of all errors. The Texts therefore that you produce here so manifest on your side, that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you, are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation, Messias and Mediatorship, in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our Lord, by a special Redemption with his blood, in another manner, than He together with his Father, in the same essence, is the one true God.

Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered, and answered by our party.

Prot. And your Answers are new, forced, absurd, as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter. But to omit this dispute, as now beside my purpose. If your sense of the Scriptures, you have urged, be so manifest and clear, as you pretend; how comes so great a part of the Christian world (doubtless rational men), in the sense of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you? Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry, well comparing these Scriptures, and void of pride, passion, and other interest.

Soc. And I return the like question to you. If, on the clearness of the express sense of these Scriptures, I cannot infallibly ground my faith, against many other rational men contradicting; on what plainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it, that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sense given by the learned; by several Councils; by the whole Church of some ages, as they do; not promising to the Councils, even to the four first, an absolute, but conditional assent, viz. only so far, as their Decrees agree with these clear Scriptures? If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter, which Scriptures, you say, in fundamentals are to all perspicuous (and such do many deem this point); nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbiast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures, and also in the comparing them with others, in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect, I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture; and then, wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's Faith, for his not erring in Fundamentals at least? Bishop Lany tells me, [17]That when we have certain knowledge of a thing, we may safely learn from the Schools, viz. Ubi non est formido contrarii; that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple, doubt, and fear of the contrary, when the understanding is fixt, we are said to be certain—And that they who will say it, and do think so too, may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience.

Prot. [18]You have a judgment of discretion I grant, and may Interpret Scripture for your self: without the use of which Judgment you cannot serve God with a reasonable service, who are also to give account of your self, and are to be saved by your own Faith, and do perish upon your own score.——[19]None may usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned, but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul, and of all things that tend thereto——[20]In matters of Religion, when the question is, whether any man be a fit judge, and chooser for himself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity. And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie, and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat Judge for himself, because it concerns himself to Judge aright, as much as eternal happiness is worth: and if through his own default he Judge amiss, he alone shall suffer for it. To God's righteous Judgment therefore I must finally remit you. At your own peril be it. This, of the Socinian's Plea concerning the Scripture on his side.

§. 9.

Where the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures, not mistakable in Fundamentals, or necessaries, upon a due industry used (of which also rightly used, men may be sufficiently assured,) being made the ground, as you see, of the Protestants and Socinians Faith, before these two proceed to any further conference, give me leave, to interpose a word between them, concerning this certainty so much spoken of, and presumed on.

§. 10.

And here first, from this way, lately taken by many Protestants, there seems to be something necessarily consequent, which I suppose they will by no means allow, viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men, (the Church Governors,) as infallible in necessaries, here is set up by them every Christian, if he will, both infallible in all necessaries; and certain that he is so. For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry, and of this due industry they also affirm, men may be certain, that they have used it; being not all, possible, endeavour, but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion, &c. adviseth to. (See Mr. Chillingworth, p. 19.) And next, from this affirmed, that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals, it must be maintained also, that their spiritual Guides, in a conjunction of them, nay more, every single Prelate, or Presbyter, if they are not, yet may be, an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary. And therefore M. Chillingworth freely speaks to this purpose[21]——That these also may be both in Fundamentals, and also in some points unfundamental, both certain of the infallibility of their Rule, and that they do manifestly proceed according to it: and then, in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken, they may (saith he[22]) lawfully decide the controversies about them, and without rashness propose their decrees, as certain, divine Revelations: and excommunicate or anathematize any man persisting in the contrary error. And there seems reason in such Anathema; because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means, as these Governors do. Now then; what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have, I hope may also those of the Church Catholick: and then, obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors, this will restore all things to their right course. All this follows upon certainty, 1. That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals; And 2. That due industry is used to understand them. But, if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used; then again, is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished.

But now, to pass from this consequence, (to which I know not what can be said), and to enquire a little after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing, which is here so much pretended.

1. It cannot be denyed, that he that doth err in one thing, may be certain, that he doth not err in some other; because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing, which he hath not in another. Nor again denied, that he, who possibly may err, yet in the same thing may be certain, that he doth not err, if not neglecting some means, which he knows will certainly keep him from error.

§. 11.

2. But notwithstanding these: This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side (and is so by learned Protestants,) That in what kind of knowledge soever it be (whether of our Sense or Reason, in whatever Art or Science) one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge, that he is certain of any thing for a truth, which all, or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties, in all the same external means, or grounds of the knowledge thereof, do pronounce an error. Not, as if truth were not so, though all the World oppose it; nor had certain grounds to be proved so, though all the World should deny them; but because the true knowledge of it, and them, cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect, and, omnibus paribus, not to others. Now for any disparity, as to defect, whether in the instrument, or in the means of knowledge, there, where all or most differ from me, it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self, rather than them; especially, * whenas, all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them; and * whenas, for my own mistakes, I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions. I say, be this in what knowledge we please; in that of sense, seeing, hearing, numbring, or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned, §. 7. So, I can never rationally assure my self of what I see, when men, as well or better sighted, and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same, see no such matter. And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Fanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit. See Arch-Bishop Laud (§. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1.)——and Hooker (Preface §. 6.) their designing of a clear evidence, or demonstrative argument, viz. Such as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it; and therefore, surely, proposed to many men, the mind of the most cannot dissent from it.

§. 12.

Consequently, in the Scripture; abstracting from the inward operations of God's Holy Spirit, and any external infallible Guide, (which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men delivering a contrary sense thereof:) I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons, for so many Texts or places thereof, concerning the sense of which, the most, or the most learned, or their Superiors, to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented, do differ from them. From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words, such certainty cannot arise; unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished, or taken in a diverse or unliteral sense; but, if it cannot be so taken, then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sense. For Example, For the Literal and Grammatical sense, what Text Plainer than [Hoc est corpus meum]? and yet Protestants understand it otherwise. Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingworth's to F. Knot[23], urging, That the first Reformers ought to have doubted, whether their opinions were certain,—Which is to say (answers he), that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture; which in formal and express terms, contains many of their opinions [whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such matter.] Besides, as there is no term almost in any sentence, but is capable of several acceptions; so, since no falshood, no discord is in the Scriptures, there is no sentence in it, however sounding for the expression, but must be reconciled in its sense to all the rest; and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary, to attain the true meaning of many places, that seem at the first sight most clear in what they say, but that there are also other places as clear that seem to say the contrary: And some such places they were, (and that in very necessary points too) of which St. Peter saith; That some wrested them to their own damnation[24]: wrested them, because they wanted (not industry, but) learning; which the unlearned (saith he) wrest——And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe, because they know fewest reasons against it; whilst, by much study and comparing several Revelations one with another, those come at last to doubt, or deny that sense of some of them, which at the first they took for most certainly and evidently true. Pardon this long Parenthesis.