Part 1

Transcriber's Note:

The text is divided into 5 "Conferences" and 41 sections.

Marginal notes indicating the start of individual sections have been converted into section headings. Other notes have been numbered and moved to the end of each Conference. They often refer to the following (rather than preceding) passage, and if so are positioned accordingly. The locations of the marker for Note 13, and of the start of Section 8, are unclear: they have been inserted in accordance with the sense of the text.

Other markers that do not correspond to marginal notes have been removed. The "*" that are retained in sections 11, 13 and 18 do not indicate marginal notes, but instead function as bullet points.

Variations in spelling have been retained with the exception of the following:

Conference 1 Summary: "byass'd" changed to "bypass'd".

Conference 2 Section 17: "be-belief" changed to "belief" and "absolure" to "absolute".

Conference 5 Section 36 "enent" changed to "tenent"; Section 37 "Athenasian" changed to "Athanasian".

Obscured text has been transcribed as follows:

Conference 1 Section 8: "?her" transcribed as "Luther".

Conference 3 Section 18: the sentence beginning "But if it be said" has been reconstructed from the work cited.

Conference 5 Section 30: the phrases "not-conforming to" and "As to Charity" have been reconstructed.

At the beginning of Conference 1 a brace, extending over several lines, has been replaced by a column of individual braces.

Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and Greek by +plus signs+. When a word in italics is followed by "'s" the latter may or may not be italicised. This inconsistency has been retained. Inconsistent hyphenation has also been retained.

The Text has been corrected in accordance with the Errata section. Mismatched brackets and parentheses have been removed and apparent punctuation errors corrected.

THE Protestants Plea FOR A SOCINIAN:

Justifying His Doctrine from being opposite to SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH-AUTHORITY;

And Him from being Guilty of HERESIE, or SCHISM.

In Five Conferences.

Publish'd with Allowance.

_LONDON_, Printed by _Henry Hills_, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel. 1686.

THE First Conference.

The _Socinian's_ Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the _Holy Scriptures_.

1. _That he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word; and therefore implicitly believes those truths, against which he errs._ §. 2.

2. _That also he useth his best endeavor to find the true sense of Scriptures: and, that more is not required of him from God for his Faith or Salvation, than doing his best endeavour for attaining it._ §. 3.

3. _That, as for an explicite Faith required of some points necessary, he is sufficiently assured, that this point concerning the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father, as to the affirmative, is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture, even to the unlearned; which this, in the affirmative, is not to him._ §. 4.

4. _That several express, and plain Scriptures do perswade him, that the negative (if either) is necessary to be believed; and that from the clearness of Scriptures, he hath as much certainty in this point, as Protestants can have from them in some other, held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church._ §. 6, 8.

5. _That, for the right understanding of Scriptures, either he may be certain of a just industry used; or else, that Protestants, in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious; and then, that none are certain, when they have used a just industry, thus must still remain also uncertain in their Faith; as not knowing, whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures._

6. _Lastly; That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture, than the_ Socinians, _as appears by their Writings, addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God, and not suffering themselves to be any way bypass'd by any other humane, either modern, or ancient Authority._ §. 9.

{Where, _The_ Protestant's, _and_ Socinian's _pretended_ {_Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them,_ Digress. {_and made the ground of their Faith against the sense of_ {_the same Scripture declared by the major part of the_ {_Church is examined_. §. 9.

§. 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 aliâ ratione non possint adversarii, quam ut â 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 be 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 substantiâ 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.