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.