The Rule of Faith, Postscript
Postscript.
SIR,
SInce the dispatch of the former Papers, I have met with another Treatise, wherein I find my self concerned, written by the Author of Fiat Lux, the Title whereof is Diaphanta: I am afraid the Title affrights you; for I assure you it is the most formidable thing in his whole Book. But the man is a very modest man, and hugely different from Mr. S's. humor; for he is so far from offering to demonstrate the grounds of faith; that all he pretends to in the title of his Book, is to excuse Catholick Religion against the opposition of several Adversaries. What fault I pray hath the Catholick Religion committed, that it must now come to be excused instead of being defended? But when I look into that part which concerns my self, I presently understand the meaning of it, which is not to excuse Catholick Religion, but themselves for not being able to defend it. For he very ingeniously tells us, that faith is firm and constant, p. 210.though all his talk for it be miserably weak: i. e. he is sure they have an excellent Religion, though he knows not what to say for it; and their faith is a very good faith, but it hath not yet had the good fortune to be understood by them. For he acknowledges, that as often as they dispute, they are beyond the business, p. 209.(so may any one believe, who reads their late Books,) which is in effect to say, there is no way left of disputing any longer with adversaries about their faith; only they must believe it stoutly themselves; but it is to no purpose to offer to defend it. Nay, it doth their faith a great deal of mischief; for, saith he, in reading controversies, we see not so much the nature of the faith, as the wit of him who opposes or defends it. From whence we may easily gather what unspeakable mischief they do their cause by writing for it. By which expressions, we may guess at what a low ebb the defence of their faith is among them: for the way now taken to defend it, is by disowning the defenders of it, and by saying that they only vent their own opinions; and though we confute them never so much, yet their faith holds good still. Was ever a good cause driven to such miserable shifts as these are, especially among those who pretend to wit and learning? One, he saith, T. C. vents a private opinion of his own, and it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall; another, he saith the same of I. S. a third of J.V.C. and yet for all this, their religion is very firm and sure, and they are all at perfect agreement about it. Is this the victory over me, Mr. S. mentions to be so easie a thing? I see that by the same figure M. S. calls his way of arguing demonstration, running out of the field shall be accounted conquering. For I never saw any person do it more openly than this Author does. For he plainly confesses, that his Catholick Gentleman went quite besides his business, that he built upon indefensible principles, that his theological ratiocination was indeed pretty, but too weak to hold. And are not we hugely too blame, if we do not cry up such mighty Conquerors as these are? Truly, Sir, I expect the very same answer should be returned to your Book; that Mr. S's argument is a pretty theological ratiocination; and that your answer is not unwitty: but though that way will not hold, another will. Thus, when they are beaten off Infallibility, they run to Tradition: and when they are again beaten off Tradition, then back again to Infallibility. So that the short of all their answers is, though such a one cannot defend our faith, yet I can; though I cannot, yet the faith is firm and constant still. I wonder what their Superiors think of this way of proceeding among them; we should imagine, if they be so weak as they say themselves, they had much better keep them from appearing abroad, and exposing their cause so ridiculously to contempt. But it may be, they think their faith is the better as well as their devotion, for their ignorance: and that it would be a mighty disparagement to their cause, for such silly people to be able to defend it. It is enough for them to admire it themselves, and to say as their common people use to do, though they cannot defend it, yet there are some that can. And although it may be no particulat person can do it, yet their cause is able to defend it self, But for all that I can see, by such kind of answers, the intention of them is, to intreat us not to triumph over the weakness of their present Writers, but to wait till the Cause it self thinks fit to write. And when it doth so, they may expect a further answer; but it were a great piece of cruelty for us to hasten their ruine, who fall so fast before us by each others Pens.
FINIS.