Next as an enforcement why there could be no malicious conspiracy of your Prelates you add this They could not say you propose any advantage to themselves by it but the clean contrary But you forget the Genius of Malice to which doing mischief is an agreeable thing without any allurements of Worldly profits or the like Remember the sad Instance of Satan's murdering our first Parents This I say not as believing any such conspiracy nor is the fancying such a thing at all needful to my business having shewed that what Malice may do in some the same may other Causes effect in others as to the spoiling of the Intention I say it only to shew that to be weakness which you bring to strengthen your Ground § 33. There will need no conspiracy of any sort to render you uncertain of the validity of your Ordainer's Intention if you remember what I said before after the dispatch of my first task viz. That all the defects of Intention in your Ordaining Bishops from the Apostles death hitherto are chargeable upon and utterly disable all that are reputed to derive power from them and that the longer the Line is spun out by time there will be more Nullities in the Intention both of Bishops and Priests § 34. To rivet this I ask What if the Catholick Church for many Ages after Christ did not require this Intention as necessAry to the Sacraments If so the grand Motive to vigilance and heedfulness of Intending was wanting and so it is more probable defects might then arise which might baffle and enervate the greatest care and circumspection of succeeding Bishops I cannot find that it was uninterruptedly so required but if you can I intreat you to shew it The Sum hereof is 1. You have attempted to arm your self only against one of the many Causes of defect of Intention letting in the rest like a Flood upon you 2. You have falsly supposed that the effectual valid Intention cannot have failed in your Church without an Universal Conspiracy of the Bishops of one Age Whereas the defect may have been let in by degrees and so may have overspread your Church for any thing you have said to the contrary on this Head. SECT X. Mr. G.'s Argument urged by way of Retort examined and enervated NOW you come to instance in and frame an Argument upon a desperate Subject which you take to be exactly parallel to mine and say That is vicious and therefore Mine must be so And to make the clearer way to your Syllogistick Forms you pretend to lay down two Principles of our Church as the Ground-work of them Of the First you express your self thus You take it for a Principle amongst you that there is a certain Number of those that are truly Elected to Salvation in your Communion You mean in the Church of England § 1. For Reply Holding you to be well seen in the Doctrine of our Church I would desire you to instruct me where I may find that Principle I had thought our Church had dealt with such Things only in a general way with a respect to the Universal Church and left particular Churches to try their Election by making sure their Calling Of our Articles the 17th only concerneth this point Which so far as I am concerned to produce it runs thus Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God whereby He hath constantly decreed by his Counsel secret to us to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind and to bring them by Christ to everlasting Salvation as Vessels made to honour And of the Promises relative unto this the same Article saith Furthermore we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture You see how indefinitely our Church speaks in this Matter Those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind And We must receive God's promises as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture 'T is our Principle you see That some in God's Church belong to the Election of Grace and that God will make good his Promises by Saving them But we descend no lower nor need we as thinking it sufficient for any particular Church to be able to say We have all necessary Doctrine both Dogmatical and Moral and may be Saved if we truly Believe and Sincerely obey it to both which God in his mercy call us We venture not to say God hath Elected and promised to Save those in Italy or these in England But we say Whosoever truly Repents and Believes the Gospel shall be Saved whether in Italy or England or any other place We have Divine Warranty for this But we have none to give a Local or Personal description of those that are Elected and shall through Grace be Saved § 2. Nevertheless we have as great ground of Hopes judging of the Tree by the Fruits that many of the Members of this Church are of the Number of the Elect and so will be saved as you can have that the Members of the Italian or Spanish or French Church are such But we do not cannot I say undertake Unerrably to determine the Estates of particular Men or Men of particular places When we bury Men of the most pious and exemplary conversations you may remember we express our strong Hopes onely but not perfect assurance of their Bliss Secret things belong to God. § 3. However this will not alter the Nature of our proceeding because you afterwards say The Argument may be thus applied to any Christian Church in the World or to all of them put together The Universal Church exists in all of them put together and since you make the Case of That and particular Churches all One as to this Matter I have the Liberty to make the Argument to respect all of them put together or the Universal Church You mention a Second Principle in this manner And you will allow this also as a Principle That these Elect must have true Saving Grace in their Hearts as a Condition necessary to their Salvation This Sir I acknowledge to be one of the Principles of our Church and of all other Christian Churches in the World. Then you proceed from hence to add this Which saving grace because you do not know to be in any particular man therefore you cannot be certain that He is one of those that is Elected to Salvation Which is unquestionably true Now I am to examine your Forms of Argumentation pretended to be parallel to those I urged against you Your first is thus That Church which makes Salvation depend upon a Condition which no Man living knows whether it be fulfill'd in order to Salvation must be Vncertain whether they have any who shall be saved in their Communion But the English Church doth so Ergo The English Church is Vncertain whether they have any which shall be saved in their Communion § 4. Now because you say The Argument may be
true Bishop or Priest which is proved it follows that the Jesuits who lay so much weight upon the Papal Chair cannot know the Pope to be so much as a Priest nor consequently that he is an Infallible Judge of Faith. Those they account Successors of Saint Peter in the Universal Pastorship of the Church to whom they appropriate special Priviledges and particularly that of Infallibility are not to be Lay-men sure but such as have the Sacerdotal Character But since no man alive as is proved is sure according to your doctrin that any particular man is Priest no man is sure the Pope is such and consequently that he is an Infallible Judge of Controversies The Intention of him who Baptized and Ordained the Pope and the capacity of his Ordainer were and ever will be hidden things and hence springs the Uncertainty § 18. 2. Now a word to those called the Parisian Divines If you cannot know that any particular men are true Bishops or Priests you cannot know that any of your Roman Councils have defined Infallible Truth in as much as your selves hold that the promise of Divine Assistance by which alone they can be supposed to be preserved inerrable is not made to any Assemblies but such as consist of men in Holy Orders You are indeed content that Lay-men be present there and act in a certain inferior Sphere viz. That they assist in examining difficulties consult debate approve protect c. But to none of them do you allow the power of Determination or Decision Those Synods then as your selves hold are to be made up of Bishops or Priests or both Now because it cannot be known that these ever had Priestly Orders for want of Knowledge that they were truly Baptized and Ordained you must be Uncertain whether such were true Councils and consequently whether they decreed and defined Infallible Faith. Although you may have some true Priests in general yet in regard you are uncertain who they are How know you that the major part of such Councils ex gr that of Trent were true Priests and consequently capable of making Infallible determinations I will speak a less word How know you that the 4th part there were such You might have a true Clergy I say and yet it is possible that few or none of them might be in that Synod For the Clergy in a Council usually bears but a very small proportion for number to the rest Many of these may possibly have true Orders when most of the Members of such a Council want them Unless you know both the capacity and Intention of those who Baptized and Ordained such Members you are not as hath been proved assured they were Bishops or Priests and consequently that the Holy Ghost assisted them in their work If sending men to a Council will indeed by Post-fact justifie mens Baptism and Orders it were well worth the while whatever it cost to have as frequent Councils as possible and to send numerous flocks of the Clergy thither to stay one Session to be succeeded still by more till the Uncertainty of the Baptism and Orders of most of the Bishops and Priests be removed But I think my self the first that ever spoke of this Cure for this Disease and therefore think it will never be pleaded against me by my Adversaries However the distemper remains till some Remedy be found out you know not that the Members of your Council are true Priests and so interessed in the promise of Divine Assistance and so capable of making infalltble decisions § 19. 3. For those that hold Pope and Council when conjoyned to be Infallible I say but this to them Neither Pope nor Council will be more surely proved to have had Baptism and Orders when they are together than when they are a-sunder that is it cannot be proved at all if the Roman doctrin by me exhibited be true and then they can hardly be thought to be Infallible Determiners of Faith. § 20. 4. If no Roman Catholick can know that any particular man of theirs is a true Priest then the boasted Argument taken from the Un-interrupted Succession of Lawful Pastors in the Roman Church is of no force till they can be sure of the Intention of the respective Baptizers of every Pope and that every Pope from the Apostles days hitherto was Ordained by such as were capable of giving them Orders and Intended to do it in each respective Ordination which as I have evinced can never be known their Succession rests but upon bare presumption without proof and therefore amounts not to a cogent Argument Thus have I as I think accomplish't my Undertaking not leaving one Member of the Roman Communion certain that there is among them any one true Priest in particular nor any Sacraments in particular given or received in the Roman Church and all this from the Medium I laid down at first viz. your doctrin of the Intention § 21. Now I think fit to re-mind the Reader that to do This 1. I have explicated the Terms from Roman Catholick Authors 2. I have taken their doctrines for the grounds of my Inferences nor have I in Order to any part of my work needed to ruffle or quarrel any of their Notions otherwise than my mere deductions from their Principles will do it It is all one to me if they would make Seventy instead of Seven Sacraments provided I prove they are not certain of their Giving and Receiving them It is all one to me if they should make each Bishop of their Church as Infalllible as the Jesuits make the Pope and every Provincial Council as Infallible as they do those they call General provided I prove they cannot be sure that those Bishops or Members of Councils are in Holy Orders and thereby capable of that power of Decision or Determination which they would attribute to them None then ought to wonder that I speak their language without crossing several Principles of theirs which I have occasion to mention since it hath been my only design to render all their things loose and uncertain from their own Doctrine § 22. If it be said I have proved some things which Roman Catholicks deny not I answer 1. The worst that will follow hence is There is a little labour lost 2. It may be of some advantage to the Truth to publish That among the Vulgar which though the more learned Romanists cannot deny yet they would gladly bury in silence This Article of the Intention I believe to be one of that kind For want of representing This honestly and generally the Credulity of Persons of both Perswasions is apt to be abused § 23. 1. Not a few of the Romanists are liable to be filled with an ungrounded Confidence that Sacramental Grace ever attends the performance of the exterior Sacramental Actions One of that sort I can name who upon receiving an Absolution from his Confessor came forth of his House and leapt up for joy and told some judicious
Roman Catholicks UNCERTAIN Whether there be any True PRIESTS OR SACRAMENTS IN THE Church of Rome Evinced by an Argument urg'd and maintain'd upon their own Principles against Mr EDWARD GOODALL of Prescot in Lancashire By THOMAS MARSDEN Vicar of Walton in the same County The Treatise divided into Two Parts The First being Explicative of Terms The Second Argumentative LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII THE EPISTLE TO THE PROTESTANT READER Courteous Reader IF thou art skilled in good Authors I freely make thee Judge of these Papers and covet thy Admonition if thou seest any thing Material amiss in them defiring nothing more than that Truth may take place I have nothing more to say to thee if thou art what I suppose thee to be But if thou art less seen in Books I crave leave to give thee some Advice Read over this small Treatise with a present Mind and such Light may chance to beam forth from it upon thy Vnderstanding as may shew thee the crazy Estate of the Roman Church notwithstanding the proclamations many make of its welfare If thou findest that not one Person of that Communion measuring his State by their own Doctrine can be certain whether he enjoys the Ordinary Means appointed by God for Man's Salvation which I pretend to prove I would oblige thee to these few Things 1. Heartily to pity them and pray that it may be better with them Pray I say that they may see and reject their Errors and retain neither more nor less for Faith than That once delivered to the Saints 2. To praise God thou art in Communion with the Establish'd Church of England whose Faith rests Vnmoveable upon the Holy Scripture and Ancient Creeds and whose Government for the Substance of it is truly Primitive and Apostolical 3. As thou hast sound so to hold fast That which is Best Let neither a fond Affection to Novelty nor a groundless Admiration of Mis-called-Antiquity turn thee aside from the truly Old Paths In Order to This strive to work thy Soul to an high Esteem of Truth and Peace the two Grand Legacies our dear Lord hath lest his Church For These cannot be in safe Keeping unless the Heart assist the Head in Order to their safeguard Cold Speculation secures not from the prevalency of Temptations Men may part with Truth not because they like it not at all but because they hope by Exchanging it for Error to get something to boot they like better All times and places have Experience of This. Now if thou expectest to be assisted with some previous Instructions for thy more Vseful Reading of what follows Know I need but give thee Little here having all-along in my passage enlarged some will say to a fault on several Heads that I might acquaint thee with the whole Nature of the Subject treated of The Fourth Part of what I have written might I suppose have sufficed to have let my Adversary know my Mind so far as he hath obliged me to impart it The Rest is employed in Vnfolding Things for thy sake And more I would have done for thee in this kind had not the Multiplicity of my Affairs which for many Years have divided my Endeavours into several Chanels allowed me onely much interrupted parcels of time for this Occasion Being jealous of being mis-understood I shall explain a few things here which otherwise might possibly chance to be a Stumbling-block in thy Way 1. I frequently call men Priests and Bishops whil'st I am questioning whether they be truly Such And I say They Baptize and Ordain whil'st I question the validity of those Acts. Which may seem to thee a sort of Contradiction But know all Authors speak in the like manner who speak of the like Matters I deal with The meaning is but this We call them Priests and Bishops because the Matter and Form of Ordination hath been Outwardly applied to them and they are therefore reputed such In like sort I. say They Baptize Consecrate c. When the Outward Sacramental Action is performed and They are therefore reputed to do so But since the Roman Church declares That an inward invisible Act of the Minister's Will called his Intention is necessary to the perfecting Ordination and Baptism c. I therefore question How her reputed Priests or Bishops can be known to be true Priests or Bishops Or their reputed Baptism true Baptisne according to their Doctrine To save a Circuit of Words Men generally speak as is aforesaid and the Meaning of the Words is easily known by the other Words they are connected with in the Discourse 2. Note when at any time I call the Church of Rome The Church it is where the Contexture of the Matter obligeth me to accommodate my Language to them and not otherwise for I am fully satisfied the Roman is out a Church not the Church viz. but a particular not the universal Church 3. If at any time I say to this Effect Ordination and your other Sacraments I do but occasionally suit my Words to theirs as not at all approving their Number of Sacraments God hath blest me with better eye sight I praise his Name for it than to agree with the Roman Church in any One point wherein She disagrees with the Church of England I add Thou art not in a Discourse of this Nature to expect a Stile dress'd with brisk Metaphors or pretty little Turns of Wit nor yet with much variety of Words To speak openly and with sure dependence is the Province of a Disputant and all that a Wise man looks for from him This is all I had a mind to tell thee and so I bid thee heartily Farewell The General CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART SECTION I. MAtter of Fact related 2 SECTION II. Mr. G. Vnseasonably calls for Explication of Terms His request is granted The Order of proceeding in it set forth 7 SECTION III. What Councils have dealt with the Intention The Roman Church requires it as necessary to a Sacrament 10 SECTION IV. The Intention of doing the Exterior Action is not required but presupposed 16 SECTION V. The Intention defined That of the End required 22 SECTION VI. The End particularly considered is not required but generally The Virtual Intention is required and held sufficient 32 SECTION VII R. Catholicks not certain of their Priesthood taken in general by any simple or absolute Certainty Nor certain of it taken in special by any simple or so much as a Moral Certainty 35 SECTION VIII The several Explications before given summ'd up And the Question resolved into its parts 41 The General CONTENTS of the SECOND PART SECTION I. THe General Order of proceeding The first part of Mr. G's Letter set down and examined 43 SECTION II. Mr. Goodall sets forth the Argument and his Answer to it as follows 50 SECTION III. A more general view of the mistakes of Mr. G's Answer 54 SECTION IV. The Intention of the Bishop in
Ordination cannot be made appear either by Reason or Authority 60 SECTION V. The Intention is not knowable by Authority whether Divine or Humane 71 SECTION VI. Roman Catholicks have but a bare Opinion to secure them of the point 78 SECTION VII The Ordaining Bishops not certain whether there be true Priests in the Roman Church 88 SECTION VIII Consequences drawn from the Vncertainty of the Roman Priesthood and the feeble condition of that Church issuing from thence shewn 97 SECTION IX The Banks Mr. G. hath cast up to secure the Roman Priesthood taken in general cast down 109 SECTION X. Mr. G's Argument urged by way of Retort examined and enervated 127 IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus Roman Catholicks uncertain whether there be any true Priests c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. a Sacr. Domest April 20. 1688. THE UNCERTAINTY Of any True Priests or Sacraments In the ROMAN CHURCH Proved against Mr. EDWARD GOODALL The First Part Being chiefly Explicative of Terms SIR WERE You and I called to represent all the accidental Discourse that passed between us when I was last at Your House I fear we should vary in our Reports for when you undertook within an hour after to tell part of it at the Inn you found your self to be contradicted by those that heard us And indeed we penetrated so little into the Merits of any Point we spoke of but how that hapned our Auditors can best say that it would not be worth the while either for us to tell or others to hear the unready fruitless story of it However to make way to our present business I think fit to entertain the Readers for as your Papers have already so mine may meet with more eyes than yours and mine with a little of what passed before the close of our Altercations Which being done I shall proceed to the work which you have since scored out for me And for better Order-sake and that you may with more ease let me know the Faults you find with me I shall divide my Paper into several Sections and and Paragraphs SECT I. Matter of Fact related § 1. WHEN you alledged that our Orders in the Church of England were invalid in the judgment of Roman Catholicks a thing I could not wonder at having cause to believe You had renounced them I straight justified them by those of the Church of Rome unto which our first Reformed Bishops were admitted You said They had indeed been good had our Bishops kept to the old Ordinal but that They forsook it and only gave power to dispense the Word and Sacraments which any Deacon might do and that afterwards perceiving the Nullity that hapned by it They again alter'd the Form and gave power to do the Office of a Priest Thus you § 2. TO this I returned That Words and Phrases might be changed and yet their matter remain the same and that so it was in this case You took the word dispense I told you in too narrow and crampt a sense making it denote only distribution with respect to the Eucharist whereas Our Church made it there signifie Consecration also I added Scripture-Language would secure us in this for S. Paul himself sets forth the entire Office of the Gospel-Ministry by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Dispensation of the Gospel and all Gospel-Ministers those of the highest rank not excepted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dispensers of the Mysteries of God. Which you could not gain say And hence I concluded that the Alteration spoken of was Verbal only and not Material § 3. This ended to occasion you to take a view of some Fetters which the Roman Church had put upon her own claims I denied that She could be certain according to her own principles that she hath any true Priesthood I thought Sir some of your Councils had put the stamp of Faith upon a Doctrin which would in its just consequences so far blot the Evidences of your Priesthood and of all other your things that depend upon it as to make them not certainly Legible and therefore I used those words according to your own principles And finding you not forward to prevent me by proving the Affirmative I gained your leave to make good the Negative which I attempted to do by the following Argument § 4. All Churches that make Priestly Ordination depend upon a Condition that no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd must be uncertain whether they have any true Priesthood But the Roman Church makes Priestly Ordination depend upon a Condition that no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd Ergo The Roman Church must be uncertain whether she hath any true Priesthood § 5. When I complained of your repeating my Syllogism imperfectly you alledged it was a long one and therefore desired me to write it down for the help of your memory To gratifie you I writ the whole as it stands saving that I only hinted the praedicate of the Minor as sufficient for your help After perusal of it you denied the Minor which I proved thus § 6. The Intention of the Bishop is a Condition which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd or no. But the Church of Rome requires the Intention of the Bishop to Ordination Ergo The Church of Rome requires a Condition to Ordination which no man living knows whether it be fulfilled or no. § 7. Now in compliance with the words of the former Syllogism not adverted to through hast when I form'd the Second I shall present the Matter of this latter thus The Intention of the Bishop is a Condition that no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd But the Roman Church makes Ordination depend upon the Intention of the Bishop Ergo The Roman Church makes Ordination depend upon a Condition that no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd I have not Sir made this digression for your sake who did not before by word nor since by writing find the least fault with my barely verbal Alteration I did it only out of a respect to Decorum But I must go on with it a little for the sake of the less discerning Reader The minor Propositions wherein the variation lies I will place together for the more easie comparison of them The Church of Rome requires the Intention of the Bishop to Ordination The Roman Church makes Ordination depend upon the Intention of the Bishop Upon the first view of them thus placed it appears that they are equivalent Propositions giving the very same sense and so are both alike true or both alike false For by the word requires I mean requires as necessary This I have added lest any should be apt to conclude They see another person because they see another dress But to return from this unnecessary Digression You denyed the Major of my second Syllogism alledging that it was not universally true forasmuch as the Ordaining Bishops knew whether they intended to Ordain or no. §
to enquire of him what the doctrin of the Intention amounted to as establish'd by your Councils He affirmed to the Lady as I can shew under her well known hand these three things § 23. 1. That the Intention respected the Exterior Act only saying That it is impossible for a Priest that is in his right Wits to perform the exterior Action required without Intending to do as he then doth Now I have proved that there is required an Intention of the End which confounds his false account of the matter § 24. 2. He said The Roman Church never declared the Doctrin of the Intention to be matter of Faith. But I have proved it to be One if a Decree or Definition of such Councils as the Body of Roman Catholicks hold for General can Oblige to Faith. And if these cannot do that farewel Pope Pius's Creed § 25. 3. He only assigned this for the occasion of the Councils medling with this matter viz. That some held an Opinion that the Consecrating and Conferring the Sacraments by madmen who knew not what they were about was valid But I have shewed that it is granted aforehand That the Exterior Action should be Humane i. e. the issue of previous Knowledge which a mad-man as such cannot exert And I have also shewn that the Intention the Councils deal about reaches farther and is of another Nature And so his frantick Story is void of Patronage § 26. I confess School men treating of their Matters put every Objection that can possibly come into their too fine spun thoughts but if a man hatch from thence in his head swarms of Sectaries that are supposed seriously to embrace the matter of many of them he can make them exist no where but in his fancy § 27. And I doubt this is the case when any one reports there were a Sect of people who held stark and staring Mad men to be effectual Ministers of the Sacraments Authors do indeed speak of Mad-men with a respect to our Case and pronounce them unfit Ministers because they as such cannot exert Humane Acts but then their Argument amounts to this because Mad men cannot do the less viz. Intend the exterior Act much less can they do the more viz. Intend the End or Effect of an Institution which is required by the Roman Church § 28. I wish the Assertor would tell us in what Age there were such a Sect of men in what Region they lived who headed them who began the Error what Pens seriously defended it what Bishop excommunicated any man for holding it or what Pope suspended or deprived any Bishop for embracing it I would learn what Notoriety of Fact there was for these things that it should be worth a General Councils while to cast an eye this way and labour to stop the growing evil § 29. I have read several Catalogues of Heresies some Ancient and some Modern but I can find nothing like This amongst them all I wish my plain dealing with him to which I have had more than sufficient provocation may whet him to the innocent revenge of making good against me if he can his Affirmations above described Till this be done I shall conclude him either a most unlearned man or one of a poor Spirit who could find in his heart so to abuse and impose upon a worthy Lady's want of skill in Roman Doctors and Councils Sir I acknowledge I have stept out of our way a while to salute a friend but I do not desire you to take any notice of that unless you please However those that are more concern'd will do it and subscribe to the justice of my Visit SECT VI. The End particularly considered is not required but generally The Virtual Intention is required and held sufficient HAving already proved the Intention of the End to be required I come now to view your next Question whether that End be Proximate or Ultimate § 1. And I must say I see not what Reason you have to ask this Question here the matter of it having no necessary influence upon the subject of our debate For if it be the End however consider'd whether confusedly and in general or distinctly and in special it is alike out of the compass of the Inspection of others which is the formal Ground I argue from to your Uncertainty of having a true Priesthood or any Sacraments at all I say if it be the End more generally consider'd ex gr to do an Action as Sacred as Relative to an Institution as a Mean to this or that indefinite End all this comes to one with a respect to my design § 2. Nevertheless I shall chearfully go some paces though upon a needless Errand which way you shall please to drive me I affirm then Your Councils and Doctors require not the intending any End thus or so distinctly considered or specified but as something in general which Christ and the Church or Christ or the Church intends to do by the instituted Action § 3. This something is it seems sufficient to the Sacraments although very hardly as we may learn from the words of the Trent-Council which I shall here repeat There is required of the Ministers of the Sacraments an Intention of doing at least what the Church doth The saltem at least sounds to me a poor word where a dogmatical Article is defined however I must take it as it is and shall explain the matter briefly from your Authors § 4. After G. Biel had told us as is aforesaid That the Ministers are required to will that to be done for which the Sacrament was instituted he immediately adds Et haec Intentio est duplex scil specialis quâ intendit ut Baptizatus fiat filius Regni qui est finis remotus vel propinquus qui est remissio peccati Originalis Gratiae infusio aut quod fiat Chritianus membrum Ecclesiae militantis vel generalis ut fiat quod Ecclesiae intendit licet non cogitetur aut ignoretur vel etiam non credatur id conferri per baptismum quod Ecclesia intendit i. e. And this Intention is twofold viz. Special whereby he intends that the baptized person may attain Salvation which is the remote End or that he obtain the pardon of Original Sin and the infusion of Grace or that he be made a Christian or a Member of the Church Militant which is the proximate End of it Or it is general viz. that That may be done which the Church intends althogh it be not considered nor understood or not believed that That is conferred by Baptism which the Church intends We see here it is a very general and indistinct End that is set forth by these words what the Church intends or doth And our Author goes on to reach our point in his third Conclusion Ad veritatem Sacramenti non requiritur intentio Ministri respectu effectus Baptismatis in specie sed sufficit intendere quod Ecclesia intendit in
and obliging my self to deal with you on that Head. This is what you declare for Fact. Now I confess were the case exactly such as you represent it I made but a very weak defence of our Church how freely soever I might strike at yours To argue that my Coin is current because my Neighbour cannot prove his to be so would be very inconcluding But what would not a man give for Faith in a Historian § 4. Sir You have said both too little and too much concerning your self and me 1. Too little For when you affirmed our Orders to be invalid in the judgment of Roman Catholicks I justified them by those of the Roman Church unto which our first Reformers were admitted And when you said the Nullity of our Orders proceeded from our forsaking the old Ordinal and from our giving power to the Ordained only to dispense the Word and Sacraments which said you any Deacon might do I shewed how you mistook the thing by taking the word dispense in too narrow a sense whereas it comprehends the whole duty of Gospel-Ministers and therefore the alteration was only verbal and not real This Fact I have set forth more particularly Part I. Sect. 1. whither I refer the Reader This Sir was a direct Answer to your Objection and consequently a perfect desence of our Priesthood against your assault Now I am sorry you should conceal not only the forenamed Relation I made to your Orders but also the Instance you gave and my Answer to it on purpose as much as I can gather from your words to make people believe I had nothing at all to say in behalf of our Ministry but deserted it at first view of your wretched Objection and requited you with a bare Recrimination Nay which is yet more gross that I used that as a Medium and my only Medium for the Vindication of our Church Your own Conscience besides the Testimony of our Auditors who were no Children can assure you that such was the Matter of your Objection and such the Matter of my Answer as is set down before § 5. 2. You have said too much in reporting that to invalidate our Orders you urged our sufficient discovery of our Intention not to do as the Church doth This Sir I am obliged to call pure fiction no such words being named but by me upon the Question now in hand after our slight skirmishes concerning the other were ended I could make your own Authors ridicule you about the very matter of your charge but I forbear lest you should take some light occasion from it to desert your less grateful POST What I quarrel is only your report and truly I would hope that some cares or troubles had blended your thoughts when you writ these things being loth to think there was much of Will in these Errors However I would as a friend advise you to be cautious hereafter of treating even your enemies at such a rate § 6. For the Second viz. the disadvantages you suppose me to ly under by some unlucky or unadvised proceedings on my part I know not well how to word it § 7. The first reputed disadvantage is my strange way of defending our Church by taxing yours Answer This is washt off already by detecting to speak softly your partial Relation of Fact. The Second is If we make you Uncertain of your own Priesthood you must be supposed to be at least Uncertain of Ours who contend to derive our Orders and Succession from you § 8. Answer 1. Pray What mortal harm is this to us who rest not for any thing of moment upon the sole judgment of the Roman Church 2. For our deriving our Orders from you we mean only this by it that our first Reformers received their Orders from Christ by the Ministry of such English Bishops as were in Communion with the Roman Church and these considered onely as Christian Bishops Which surely might be done and yet you may have embraced a Doctrine which till you discard it will render you uncertain that you have and consequently convey true Orders And whether that of the Intention be not such is to be the matter of the approaching tug between us and therefore is to be referred to its proper place 3. Your Nihil dat quod in se non habet seems quite besides our business which is not to scan whether you have none but whether you are uncertain of your having any Priesthood You may have and give without being certain of either whilst you hold to the Doctrine of the Intention The third is Though we pretend you to be Uncertain yet for your Comfort We are certain enough of the truth of your Priesthood and therefore never reordain c. § 9. Answer You are it seems grown wonderful kind upon a sudden in granting us to be certain enough of the truth of your Priesthood To be certain is a great Word Certain enough a greater And your Priesthood is a great Matter to be certain of You puzzle me to think How this should be For your great Writers allow not us you call Hereticks to understand Scripture or Fathers or Councils but appropriate all this to the Sons of your Church And then what Way is there left for us to arrive at this Certainty But I will take your Word for it and desire you to remember against another time that Protestants whilst such may be certain of Matters of no small moment in Religion But I should not I think build too much upon this concession because I have sometimes found a trick in things of this kind viz. Our judgment is good when we declare any thing in your Favour But when we charge you to the best of our judgments with any Errours We are very Idiots § 10. This is surprizing also that you build Comfort upon our Certainty of your Priesthood I had thought Roman Catholicks were so top ful of Comfort from their own Grounds that there was no room left for our supplying them but you have undeceived me here We add it seems to your stock Comfort is a precious thing and you ought henceforth instead of counting us a mere Offence to you to acknowledge us for your Benefactors § 11. But heark you If we be certain of the Thing which you grant and you chance to be uncertain how redound this to our disadvantage unless our perfection be reckoned against us as a Crime Or what is the Reason of your mentioning our Certainty here Is it that if we be certain you must be so too Non sequitur If one Man so hoodwink himself that he cannot rightly distinguish Objects relating either to himself or others may not he yet do both who keeps the muffle off his face This is the case You are hoodwink'd with the Doctrine of Intention as will be found anon but we are not so And till you put that off you will not be able to see any one man in your Church to be a true
a Visible Sign which is the Genus of a Sacrament This Point being fixt I come to ask What if there happen to be no true Consecration when the Exterior Sacramental Action is done which is a thing you all grant may happen § 10. Why the same Adoration is paid still upon a presumption of true Consecration If I ask again What is adored in that case It must be answered a Creature viz. the Bread is adored instead of God. And then this is in one sense or another Idolatry It follows also upon the same ground That when men are Uncertain whether there be true Consecration they are also uncertain whether they commit not Idolatry in such their Adorations Now I conclude that Roman Catholicks are at no time certain that they commit not Idolatry in Worshipping the Host I add God is very jealous of his Honour and Men should be tender of it too and therefore I would think they should have either simple Evidence or Revelation for the Divinity of the Object before they pay to it that greatest Tribute of Adoration But Roman Catholicks light far short of that Certainty of the matter and yet venture to adore hit or miss § 11. For the Second The Eucharist according to you is a proper Sacrifice That is the Body and Blood of Christ are by the Priest truly and properly offered to God in the Mass under the visible Species of Bread and Wine And this is a Propitiatory Sacrifice God being pleased with this Oblation grants to those for whom it is Offered Grace Repentance Remission of many and grievous Sins and Supplies for their several Necessities Nor doth this profit Men alive onely but after Death Thus your Church teaches I cannot but acknowledge that this Doctrine is believed among you for I find that most Men of Estates in your Communion do at their Death leave good round Sums of Mony to certain Priests who in consideration of it are to shorten their Benefactors stay in the acute pains of Purgatory by saying of Masses or Offering this Sacrifice in their behalf And if this Doctrine be true the Service done them is worth their Mony which cannot be better employed otherwise § 12. But if there be no Consecration made by those respective Priests who promise to help them by that Means there will be a great disappointment somewhere But I shall say no more of that However this I may say having laid down a Warrant for it that neither Priests nor People are certain that there will be a return of Masses for the Mony as not knowing whether they be true Priests and so intend how they will capable of turning the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which are the supposed Matter of that Sacrifice In this condition are all Roman Catholicks Thus Sir supposing for Argument-sake your Doctrin of Transubstantiation to be true though I profess it was never in my power to believe it the sundry things I have here alledged do nevertheless hold good against you § 13. 4. No Roman Catholick is sure that he ever partakes of your other Sacraments not yet particularly mentioned by me as Confirmation and extreme Unction as not knowing whether the Ministers of them could effectually and did actually Intend in the Administration of them Without which as I have often shewed there is no Sacrament Being almost weary of enlarging on particulars I have put these together Number and describe all the great Effects you can attribute to them and in any thing of this kind I will grant your Supposition for argument-sake as I have all along in these Papers and after you have done this you will find that no Roman Catholick is fure he shares in any one of them for the Reasons often alledged before Bishops Priests and all other Members of your Communion are wrapt up in an inextricable Uncertainty § 14. All I can honestly to the best of my Knowledge grant you according to your Principles laid down is this That the Ministers of Baptism know that those they have Baptized are partakers of that Sacrament I mean it only of Infants who could not put in a bar against the Efficacy of it But yet neither the said Ministers nor any other of your Body knows that himself was Baptized as not Knowing how he intended who Baptized him So that what I inferred stands firm viz. that not one of you knows that he doth or hath received any one of your Sacraments § 15. I advertise This is it which makes the difference in this respect between the Ministers of Baptism and those of your other Sacraments treated of before Those need no special character to qualifie them for that work Any man or woman whether Jew Heathen or Turk may Baptize with Effect provided they Intend to do what the Church doth according to your doctrin Whereas the Ministers of the other Sacraments Matrimony excepted must have special power and authority from Christ to Administer or else they Act in vain And though Matrimony depend not to speak your language on the Priestly character the parties Marrying being the proper Ministers of that Sacrament yet I cannot grant them the same Certitude with the Ministers of Baptism because Two must there Intend alike or nothing is done and neither of them can be sure judges save of their own respective Intention That they make a civil Contract to lead an individual life plainly appears when he saith I take thee for my Wife and she I take thee for my Husband But whether both parties also Intend to make those Words signifie the sacred Conjunction of Christ with his Church in a general or special Sense in a more distinct or confused and thereby to obtain Grace cannot appear to either party The man can be sure but for himself nor can the woman but for her self § 16. Here is to be noted when I make the Contracting parties Ministers of Matrimony I follow only the greater part of your Authors Where you vary I cannot represent you as agreed But for those that make a Priest the Minister of it they are not a whit the nearer Certainty because they know not his Intention Before I move forward I shall re-mind the Reader that the Inferences hitherto drawn speak forth misery to Roman Catholicks on these two grounds put together 1. There is no Sacramental Grace conveyed where there are no true Sacraments The Terms are essentially Relative 2. There is an equal Uncertainty of the Sacraments and of the fruits of them Now I say each Roman Catholick for ought he can know wants the Sacraments and by consequence their Effects and if he have them he yet wants the comfort of Knowing it Which makes the Roman Church in a sad condition Sir When you have considered what hath been already said I would commend a few Inferences more to the exercise of your thoughts § 17. 1. If none of you can know that any particular man in your Church is a
those things which your Councils require to the making your Institutions valid yet your work is done by saying We are the Catholick Church which God hath promised to preserve to the World's end and therefore all we require will be certainly performed though we cannot otherwise make it out You may also prove all your more speculative Doctrines had you a thousand more than you have by the same easie Method We are the onely Church you may say to which God hath promised his Spirit to lead us into all Truth and therefore our Articles cannot be false tho' we cannot otherwise prove them to be true § 17. If this be sufficient how imprudent have many of your Men been to spend their pains and health and time about evincing your particular Points to be founded on Revelation when a few general Words would have done it to rational Satisfaction Besides as Cart loads of Books on this supposition are unnecessarily written so the Readers of them are at unnecessary expence of Moneys in buying them and of labour in perusing them What an easie World should we have had if this your Method had all-along generally obtained To shorten the way to knowledge is a praise-worthy enterprize and to teach how to defend truth without care and trouble is a mighty thing Well You have shewed us an expedite Art of Controversie and such as may be taught even illiterate Plow-men in half an hours time And I leave it to the Reader to determine whether a Plowman of your Perswasion could have said less in this Matter than you have done We are the Onely Church c. § 18. However consider Sir This you use is but an accidental Argument and can bestead you no longer if any other Body of Christians shall please to call themselves the Catholick Church without offering the least proof of it Which is most apparently your case here The Donatists of old who appropriated to themselves the name of the Catholick Church might have easily quelled all Arguments brought against them at your rate of answering For the said name being arrogated and the premisses belonging to it all the rest will follow readily § 19. If you think to relieve your self by saying I am bound to accept any deductions you shall make from any of your Principles I reply no surely I was indeed to prove a Point from some of them and have I hope done it The more you speak of That I fear you expose your self the more to derision § 20. From the view of your Answer it will appear that though you called to me out of due time for the Explication of more than a few Terms yet you have not had the heart to explain one of them in your Answer neither what you mean by Intention nor what by Certainty nor any of the rest Instead of saying what is the particular nature of the Intention required by your Church you describe it no otherwise than thus Whatsoever Intention of the Prelates is by them believed as necessary Instead of telling us the particular nature of your knowledge of the Intention you only say I deny not that it may sufficiently be known You have no mind it seems to swim out of your depth it being a silly thing to court danger nor are you so hardy a Champion as to step a few paces out of your hold to meet an enemy being mindful enough of the old Proverb It is good sleeping in a whole skin Your frank opening your self this way might have led me if I had mistook any thing of yours to the true mark but could not have caused my digression from it and therefore though you were not bound in rigour further than to make your Answer apposite and useful to have done this yet it would have lookt brave and generous to have done it Whether others shall interpret your carriage in this kind to be due caution or no I shall not concern my self Nevertheless I must say this you knew the point must be beaten out at last and it had been manly to have contributed something towards it whereas he that knew not the particular Nature of the Subject before knows it but very little better by any help you give him in your Answer I hope the Reader will excuse me for staying a little too long here in recompence of the labour I have been at in the first part of this Tractate to make the state of the question plain to him § 20. Whatsoever shall become of any higher Certainty which you cannot challenge me to yield upon Principles you have hitherto barely beg'd without offering the least colour of proof for them you seem to have a mind to secure to your self a moral Certainty of the Intention of your Bishops in general Your words are these It is morally impossible that all the Prelates in the Roman Catholick Church should be so malicious as wilfully to have omitted any thing in Ordination which they believed to be Essential to it and which the Church requires as so supposing it possible for them to do it and not be discovered It is impossible for us to believe according to our Principles that they should all turn devils and conspire to damn the whole Church when withal they could propose no advantage at all to themselves by this but the clean contrary Thus you I Reply The Pillar you have placed here for supporting your moral certainty of the Intention is too weak to bear it up Which will appear by considering the following particulars § 21. 1. You say not It is impossible that any one or several or many of your Bishops should out of Malice withdraw the required Intention You only say It is morally impossible that all should turn devils and conspire to damn the whole Church § 22. 2. I say if Some may withhold their Intention through Malice which you deny not Others may upon other accounts omit it viz. for Unbelief culpable Ignorance gross Negligence natural Inadvertence c. I shall speak a little of some of these § 23. For Vnbelief It is Morally possible that some of your Bishops have internally or mentally embraced Paganism or Judaism notwithstanding their profession of the Christian Religion It is notorious that the Inquisitors of Heretical pravity in Roman Catholick kingdoms have often met with such men after they had many years lain hid under the disguise of the Christian profession and is it any way repugnant that the same Cloak which frequently covers Merchants and Gentlemen and others should cover Priests and Bishops also Now these disbelieving the virtue of all Christian Institutions and that of Ordination in particular nay judging them to be the devices of certain Politick men or the Off-spring of deluded Fancies may omit Intending in their Ordinations without designing to damn or otherwise hurt the Ordained party § 24. For Culpable Ignorance which the Schools call Antecedent It is morally possible that more than a few in your Church have in