SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. 243
against Christianity, as was done by Celsus?" He doth direct!}'-, expressly, and at large, chap, iii., sect. 12, p. 158, etc. I confess, because it may be you know it not, you might have questioned the truth of my parallel on the side that concerned Celsus, which yet I am ready at any time, if you shall so do, to give you satisfaction in ; but that you would question it on your own part, when your whole discourse, and the most of the passages in it, make it so evident, I could not foresee. But your whole defence is nothing but a noise or an outcry, to deter men from coming nigh you to see hov/ the case stands with you. It will not serve your turn, sppif&ri xvCog- you must abide by what you have done, or fairly retract it. In the meantime, I am glad to find you ashamed of that which elsewhere you so much boast and glory in.
With the sixth and seventh principles mentioned by me you deal in like manner. You deny them to be yours; which is plainly to deny yourself to be the author of " Fiat Lux." And surely every man that hath once looked seriously into that discourse of yours will be amazed to hear you saying that j^ou never asserted " Our de- parture from Rome to be the cause of the evils among Protestants;" or that " There is no remedy for them but by a returnal thither again;" which are the things that now you deny to be spoken or in- tended by you. For my part, I am now so used unto this kind of confidence, that nothing you say or deny seems strange unto me. And whereas unto your denial you add not any thing that may give occasion unto any useful discourse, I shall pass it by, and proceed u.nto that which will afford us some better advantage unto that pur- pose.
CHAPTER VI.
Farther vindication of the second chapter of the " Animadversiors" — Scripture sufficient to settle men in the truth — Instance against it, examined, removed — Principles of Protestants and Romanists in reference unto moderation compared and discussed.
The eighth principle, which way soever it be determined, is of great importance as to the cause under debate. Here, then, we shall stay a while, and examine the difficulties which you labour to entangle that assertion withal ; which we acknowledge to be the great and fun- damental principle of our profession, and you oppose. The position I laid down as yours is, " That the Scripture, on sundry accounts, is insufficient to settle us in the truth of religion, or to bring us to an agreement amongst ourselves." Hereunto I subjoined the four heads
244 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
of reasons which, in your " Fiat/' you insisted on to make good your assertion. These you thought meet to pass by without reviving them again to your farther disadvantage. You are acquainted, it seems, with the old rule,
" Et quse
Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit." Hor. ad. Pis. 150.
The position itself you dare not directly deny; but you seek what you can to waive the owning of it, contrary to your express discourse, chap iii. sect. 15, pp. 199, 200, etc.; as also in sundry other places, interwoven with expressions exceedingly derogatoiy to the authority, excellency, efficacy, and fulness of the Scripture ; as hath been showed in the " Animadversions." But let us now consider what you plead for yourself Thus, then, you proceed: " You speak not one word to the purpose, or against me at all, if I had delivered any such prin- ciple. God's w^ord is both the sufficient and only necessary means of both our conversion and settlement, as well in truth as virtue. But the thing you heed not, and unto which I only speak, is this, that the Scripture be in two hands; for example, of the Protestant church in England, and of the Puritan, who with the Scripture rose up and rebelled against her. Can the Scripture alone of itself decide the business? How shall it do it? Has it ever done it? Or can that written word, now solitary and in private hands, so settle any in a way that neither himself, nor present adherents, nor future genera- tions, shall question it, or with as much probability dissent from it, either totally or in part, as himself first set it? This is the case unto which you do neither here nor in your whole book speak one w^ord ; and what you speak otherwise of the Scripture's excellency, I allow it for good."
]. Because you are not the only judge of what I have written, nor indeed any competent judge of it at all, I shall not concern myself in the censure which your interest compels you to pass on it. It is left unto the thoughts of those who are more impartial. 2. Setting aside your instance, pitched on " ad invidiam" only, with some equi- vocal expressions, as must needs be thought /xaXa hrsx^v^g, " very artificially," to be put into the state of a question, and that which you deny is this, " That where any persons or churches are at variance or difference about any thing concerning religion or the worship of God, the Scripture is not sufficient for the umpirage of that difference, so that they may be reconciled and centre in the profession of the same trath." I wish you would now tell me what discrepancy there is between the assertion which I ascribed unto you, and that Avhich yourself here avow. I suppose they are in substance the same, and as such will be owned by every one that understands any thing of the matters about which we treat. And this is so spoken unto in