in the Sacraments You Sir ask me whether it be such as is conversant about the Act to be exercised or about the End. Now that the less learned Reader may understand the Nature of your Question and be thereby better enabled to judge how I proceed I shall explain it to him from the Pen of Gabriel Biel one of your own renowned Doctors § 1. His words are these * Intentio potest dupliciter serri in aliquid velut in Objectum vel ut in terminum aut finem Sic Intentio Baptizantis potest ferri in actum baptizandi sicut in Objectum sic nibil aliud est quam velle actum istum porficereâ— ' Potest etiam ferri in aliquid ut in finem scil in illud propter quod vâ—lt Baptizare ut velle fieri illud propter quod Baptismus est institutus l. 4. dist 6 q. 1. The Intention may two manner of ways be carried to some thing either as to its Object or to its Term or End. So the Intention of the Baptizer may be carried to the Act of Baptism is to its Object and so it is nothing else than to will the performance of that Act. It may be also carried to something as its End viz. to That for which he wills to Baptize as to will that to be done for which Baptism was instituted It is but making the case of Ordination parallel with the instance given of Baptism and all will be clear If a Bishop purpose will or intend barely to pronounce the words your Church uses in Ordaining Priests viz. Receive thou power to offer Sacrifice in the Church for the quick and dead in the name of the Father c. which you make the form of that Sacrament and to deliver to them the Paten with Bread and the Chalice with Wine which you make the matter of it without going any farther in this case the Intention is said to be conversant about the Act. But if he also will or intend the Effect or End to which the Sacramental Act is instituted as subservient he is said to intend the Effect or End. § 2. The First for distinction sake is by good Authors called the Exterior outward Intention the latter the interior inward or Mental Intention Which Terms I shall use in what follows for saving a Circuit of Words And for the same end I will call the Application of Matter and Form the Sacramental Act or Action Having said this in a previous way I come now to Answer your Question Whether your Councils require such an Intention as is conversant about the Act or End of the Sacraments § 3. And I boldly affirm 1. That it is not the First only if at all which they require 2. But that it is the latter And I hold my self concern'd to make ample and firm proof hereof in regard all the inferences I am to make against you in this dispute will especially lye upon these two grounds 1. For the First That it is not the Exterior Intention your Councils require by way of Decree or Definition I shall endeavour to prove by these Arguments § 4. 1. This point is not proper matter for Councils to deal with It is Matter of divine Faith Worship or Government that They acting within their sphear are to debate upon and Synodically to determine and not Matter of common natural Knowledge whereof the Heathen Philosophers were as competent Judges as they To an assent to Propositions of this latter kind our judgments are to be wrought by the power and force of Reason nor can our ignorance of them be conquered by any other weapons This knowledge is not to be beaten into mens heads by bare Ecclesiastick affirmations and Anathema's Nor did ever wise men take this course to do it Well The necessary presence of the Intention or Will to all external Actions that are humane and free is a point of mere natural Knowledge it being in plain speech nothing else but this That a man willingly doth acting humanely the external actions he doth Which Velle motion of the Will cannot be wanting to such Actions except in the case of Drunkenness or Frenzy or something else which in like manner robs the Will of her Guide Yea it is such a common Operation of the Will we now speak of as no more concerns those of the Sacraments than all other Actions in the World that are humane and voluntary whatever the Object or End of them be Thus when a man promiseth a thing which at that time he resolves never to perform he yet intends to make that promise When he threatens another only in terrorem without purposing ever to execute that threat he then intends to make that threat And the Intention is so altogether presupposed to outward Actions that in common use of Speech we omit say nothing of it in commanding or forbidding or reciting exterior Acts c. We say Read me a Chapter make ready my Dinner c. without adding any thing more For though these Actions now mentioned are imperate Acts of the Will that is though the Will commands the inferiour powers to do them as the hands to act and the Tongue to speak c. yet the Act of the Will viz. the Intention is not so much as named when we speak of such Actions and to do it would be superfluous inasmuch as it is necessarily supposed to attend them All men take it for granted that men intended to do what they see them do in good Order And this assurance is grounded on the mere Natural knowledge of the Nature of humane Acts which are therefore called Voluntary because of the Will 's Efficiency in them or because of their necessary dependence upon and connexion with the Elicite Acts of the Will. § 5. And in particular for this Reason Learned Men discoursing about our very Question make the Action of the Sacraments express this intention without otherwise naming it except upon some special occasion Dom. Soto speaks plainly with a respect to this Point in 4. Sent. Dist. 1. q. 5. art 8. Actus enim exterior volitio interior pro eodem reputantur i. e. The exterior Act and the interior Volition Act of the Will are reputed for the same His meaning can be no other than this The Outward Act is the Object of the Inward Act of the Will and together with it doth compound or constitute one humane Action and so may fitly denote the whole Which is a very obvious Truth to all whose thoughts have been any whit thinn'd and improv'd by Observation § 6. Thus have I made it appear That the Necessity of the Exterior Intention to all humane Acts of which number are the Sacramental falls under the Cognisance of Natural Reason And indeed it is such Doctrine as hath been taught passing well in the Heathen Schools Wherefore I conclude that your General Councils at Florence and Trent which you must say knew and were mindful of their
this ground will bear I will proceed by some degrees But in the way hereunto I premise these things § 3. 1. Your Authors agree That those may be true Ministers of the Sacraments who have neither Faith nor Probity for which they give this reason Sacraments have their Efficacy from the Divine Institutor and therefore depend not for this upon the Qualifications of the Minister provided he perform what is required by the Institution And I find them accursed by your Trent Council who deny that a wicked Minister doth validly administer the Sacraments * Si quis dixerit Ministrum in peccato mortali existentem non consicere aut confcrre Sacramentum anathema sit Ses 7. Ca. 11. § 4. 2. I never found it in practice among you to judge the Dispensing your Sacraments more or less valid for the greater or less Temperance Continence Devotion c. of your Ministers § 5. 3. I then account it your great infelicity if as the cited words intimate you cannot be well satisfied that any Minister intends aright whom you know not to be a good and sincere Man. Among the vast Numbers of your Clergy as it also happens to those of other Churches there must be many irreligious and immoral men not so Christianly qualified as You and I could wish And then according to the Rule laid down How many Hosts consecrated by such may be adored with doubting Minds How many Absolutions given whose Virtue may be rationally questioned c § 6. But enough of this I will now try how firmly your security lies even upon the conceived Probity or Sincerity of your Ministers I take the Argument to be this Good men will not be wanting to their duty Good Ministers will be sure to Intend as the Church requires What I shall say to this Argument is as follows I confess a good Conscience or a Principle of Grace is a very Operative thing and excites to watchful diligence in duty where it really is But it is fit we should know 1. In whom it is before we conclude the Minister's Intention or any other good Effects from it in particular 2. Whether that Effect necessarily follow from that Cause § 7. First Let us inquire how it can be known where it surely is For satisfaction in which Point I shall lay this down as evident That we know not any other Man's frame of mind so well as himself knows it as whether he sigh for his sins in secret strive to mortifie the unruly Motions of his Heart values himself chiefly upon God's Mercy through Christ loves God above all things and purposes to obey him without Reserve c. Having said this I shall determine according to your own Doctrine for I am not concerned here to interpose my own judgment how far your Ministers of the Sacraments are certain that themselves are sincere Christians or in a state of Grace And then compare That with What others know of it § 8. 1. Themselves cannot infallibly know this without special Revelation as your Trent-Council defines * Nullus scire vales certitudine Fidei cui non potest subesse falsum se gratiam Dei esse consecutum Sess 6. Cap. 9. No man can know with the infallible Certainty of Faith that he hath obtained the Grace of God. § 9. 2. Roman Catholicks cannot agree to allow any Man such a Certainty of it as is equal to Moral Certainty which excludes all rational Fear of being deceived Aquinas saith ‖ Homo non potest per certitudinem dijudicarc utrum ipse ha eat Gratiam prim secund qu. 112. Art. 5. No man can judge certainly whether he have Grace And he proceeds to say Men know this only by way of conjecture Ibidem gained by some Signs or other Conjecturaliter per aliqua Signa Medina upon the place words it thus * Vir justus non potest habere certitudinem â—…ae gratiae sed tantummodo conjecturalem quae non tran cendis limites Opinionis humanâ— quae habet semper formidinem adjunctam A just man can have no more than a conjectural certainty of his Grace and such as transcends not the limits of Humane Opinion which always hath Fear adjoined to it § 10. 3. From the Knowledge you allow your Ministers to have of their own Sincerity and Grace it will be easie to collect in what measure others are able to know their state if the Rule of judgment I premised be remembred viz. That every thinking man knows the affections and state of his own Heart better than another man can do it § 11. If your Ministers then who have experience of their own internal Acts know not certainly whether they Fear and Love God above all things by which I now describe being in Grace much less can others who can view onely outward Signs and appearances but are strangers to the Root and Spring of them § 12. Supposing your Ministers had undeniably a certainty of their Grace equal to a Moral Certainty which admits no fear of the contrary yet all besides themselves for the Reason given must fall short of that Assurance and so take up with Vnstable Opinion § 13. But since you will not agree to allow them to be so certain of it others must still proportionably fall below them and be content with a lean and languid Assent which shakes and totters for want of Evidence From what hath been thus set forth I shall now destroy the Argument offered by the cited Author in favour of your being satisfied that your Ministers of the Sacraments duly intend in the Administration of them § 14. If Roman Catholicks cannot be so much as Morally Certain of the Probity and Christian mindedness to speak with the Author of their Ministers on which Qualifications they ground their confidence of their due Intending as I have proved they cannot then they cannot be Morally certain of their so Intending The building cannot be stronger than the foundation nor the conclusion more evident than the premisses § 15. Moreover Your case is yet worse than this For you are greater Strangers to the particular Mental Acts of your Ministers than you are to the Frame and Habit of their Minds For you may fairly guess at This by observing a full course of their Outward Actions but not near so well at these Acts. The Reason is a good Man may omit a good act or do an ill one without the destruction of his good habit which denominates him such To accommodate this to our case it is to be noted That the Minister's Intention may be obstructed not onely by malice or contempt of Religion or gross Negligence but also by Natural inadvertence or such accidental prevalent cares or fears or deep concerning Studies as in gross and as I may say swallow up the mind or hale it from a duty in hand elsewhither In these latter Instances there may chance to be a defect of the Intention without a wicked Habit in
and then our Bishop hath but an empty Name And the fourth comes in too he knows not what his Consecrator Intended So then our Bishop and his Consecrator with respect to their Knowledge whether they ordain Priests are necessarily liable to Six Contingencies any of which falling out will Un bishop him and therefore make void his Ordinations Think then how vastly these Contingences will multiply from the Apostles times to ours and that our present Bishop is so far chargeable with any one of the said Omissions of Intention that he hath lost his Power and Office if any such hath happen'd in a direct descent According to the Suggestions of common Reason your Mass-books and other Books contain Suppositions That there may be defect of due Intention And Priesthood comes down no other way but by a claim of Succession Intention is necessary to hold the links together and is concerned in the manifold particulars specified and if any of the links be broken all falls to pieces No Bishop or Priest afterwards in that particular Line to the worlds end Now I refer it to every inquisitive man whether the ground be not too slippery for Certainty to stand on amidst the manifold variety of those contingencies ' forementioned Though I allowed you for Argument sake the judgment of Charity for all your Bishops of this time yet supposing they mean never so honestly in their Acts it appears now That is not sufficient to decide the question for their Intention may be void and ineffectual though not through want of Will yet for want of Power Their Baptizers or Ordainers may have neglected them and These upon this score are made useless to others The fault may have been committed several Ages ago which yet the poor Gentlemen can neither know nor remedy What room then is there for certainty in this thick contexture of hazards We shall find that even the dark judgment of Charity will run very low if we follow the Ordainers up into some distant Ages wherein Ignorance and Vice strove as it were for mastery in the Roman Church What say you of the 9th and 10th Ages and the four next following wherein Learning was generally fallen asleep in the Western Europe and wickedness as much awake in it If Historians of those times may be credited as they must or farewel Authority great breaches might very probably be made in the Sucession of Bishops in many Sees for such as are blind and careless of their own Souls will hardly be sure to look out sharp and be regardful of the Salvation of others in their Administrations It ought to be observed With what ease and speed Nullities may be diffused and multiplied Let us put a fair case Suppose a Bishop within whose Diocese the greatest University of a Nation is should out of unbelief contempt of Religion supine carelesness or from any other cause omit to Intend as is required in his frequent Ordinations of the Collegians it would follow that the Bishops taken out of these Priests though never so good men and careful to Intend as they ought must yet act ineffectually and fill many places with empty names instead of power The more such so much the worse and the longer they live the bigger is the mischief And who can secure us against this Supposition Now considering that Nullities may have at any time thus spread I speak still with a Relation to your doctrine and that the farther they go they grow far more numerous what can a thoughtful man fin amidst all this for the certainty of the Roman Priesthood If it be said No man knows on the other hand that they fail to Intend I answer It is not enough to Certainty not to know that they fail we are to know that they fail not Knowledge stands not in Negatives it is Positives that stay the Understanding Give a positive Reason why they must hit the mark and I shall be sure they cannot miss it But none we have found can do this The result is Not one of the Roman Church except the Ordaining Bishops can know the Intention of the Ordainers They know it not either in it self or in its Cause or by any Effects They are not assured of it either by Divine Revelation or by sufficient Humane Authority And therefore they have no true certainty of their Priesthood which depends upon it They have not to use your own terms either a Metaphysical or Mathematical or yet a Moral certainty of it They have not to speak my own language either Divine or Theological or yet Moral certainty that any one of all the reputed Clergy of the Roman Church is a true Priest For the Ordaining Bishops They may indeed know whether themselves Intend but know not whether there be any force or virtue in their Intention for making Priests for want of knowing the Intention of the whole Succession of their Baptizers Ordainers and Consecrators So that not one Soul in the Church of Rome hath any true certainty of the matter You see I have laid the weight of what hath been said on these two grounds 1. That a Mental interior Intention is required to the very Being of your Sacraments which hath been shewn from your own Authors 2. That Holy Orders is a Sacrament and so as much depends upon the Intention as any other of them This I have indeed taken all along for granted but shall now prove it from the Council of Trent * Dubitare nemo potest Ordinem esse vere proprie unum ex septem Sanctae Ecclesiae Sacra mentis Sess 23. cap. 7. None ought to doubt that Order is truely and properly one of the seven Sacraments of the Holy Church These Two I say are your own Principles and from them I have concluded your Uncertainty of your Priesthood considered in particular and so have made good my word It now remains that in the next Section I draw from hence such Consequences or Consectaries as will set the feeble estate of the Roman Church in so full a Light that all that wink not must needs see it SECT VIII Consequences drawn from the Vncertainty of the Roman Priesthood and the feeble condition of that Church issuing from thence shewn § 1. IF no Roman Catholick can be certain that there is any one true Priest in particular in their Church This necessarily follows in the general That each of them must be uncertain whether he have the benefit of any one Sacrament which depends upon the Priestly character Now you teach that all your Sacraments do so depend except Baptism and Matrimony So then five of the seven are unavoidably uncertain to each of you by immediate inference from the Uncertainty of your Priesthood § 2. Moreover You are uncertain upon the same ground viz. your ignorance of the Minister's Intention of having the two other whether administred by Priests who are the ordinary Ministers of them or by others whom necessity makes such in the Priests
absence Christ surely instituted his Sacraments for great Spiritual Ends which are as surely attained by the worthy partakers of them How deplorable then is the estate of the Roman Church since not one of its Members knows that in his whole life time he receives any One Sacrament this in general § 3. I will now infer more particularly from the Virtue of the Premisses already laid down and proved 1. Not one Member of your Church can without special Revelation which is excepted in the State of our Question be ascertained he had the Blessing of Christian Baptism which you hold to be a Sacrament necessary to all and without which your Trent Council saith There is no Salvation * Siquis dixcrit Baptismum non esse necessarium ad salutem Anathema sit Sess 7. c. 5. § 4. I know the Canon is generally interpreted thus An adult is Savable by Contrition and the desire of Baptism if the Minister chance to have robbed him of it by Not intending But behold the miseries he is yet liable to notwithstanding that 1. You cannot plead that such a one is capable of any Office purely relating to the Service of God's Church 2. nor that he is capable of the Benefits of any other Sacrament Sacraments as I said were appointed by Christ for great Blessings to his people as being not only signs but also instrumental causes of the Grace they signifie and therefore the next to the misery of wanting them it is most lamentable to be Uncertain whether or no a man indeed has them which is apparently the Case of all Roman Catholicks § 5. But if an Infant dye defrauded of the Baptizer's Intention and none can be assured that any particular one is not according to the current of your doctrin he is eternally shut out of the Kingdom of Heaven in as much as he is not capable of making up the defect by Contrition and desire of Baptism If there be no assurance had of the Baptizer's Intention there can be none had of the Child's Salvation according to your doctrin Which must make the Funerals of poor Babes far more bitter to their Christian Parents and Friends than they would be had they just grounds of security for their Reigning with Christ in Glory § 6. 2. No Roman Catholick is sure that after a Confession of sins made to his Priest he gains from him a true Sacramental Absolution As Baptism is with you necessary to all without exception for taking away Sin and for the infusion of Grace so is Penance necessary to all them that after Baptism have fallen into mortal sin and the effects of it are no less say you than Pardon and Reconciliation This is the only Plank to swim safe to shoar on after a moral Shipwrack without which all such sink down into the Abyss of Perdition Well the more necessary you esteem This to be and the more valuable its Effects the more comfort would proportionably fall to your share if you were sure you had it But on the contrary it will be your misery not to know you are inriched with that treasure When you have come to the Priest Contrite and opened all your sins to him without Reserve and are disposed to satisfie for all injuries done by you it is a mournful thing after all this to come away Uncertain of your being indeed Absolved for want of Knowledge that the Priest could Effectually and did Actually Intend to Release you of your sins Which is the sad case of every Roman Catholick § 7. 3. No Roman Catholick is certain that he at any time receives the Sacrament of the Eucharist Though you make not This altogether so necessary as you do Baptism and Penance yet you hold it to be matter of great advantage to the Soul. The Substantial Body of Christ you say is received there and with and by it Spiritual Nourishment whereby the Graces of the Spirit are sustained and increased and the Soul consequently made more vigorous for performing all Christian duty Now the more excellent the Effects of this Sacrament are known to be the greater comfort it is apt to yield to all that are certain they receive it and do this as they hope Worthily But on the contrary how doleful is it to be uncertain how great soever their preparations have been for it whether they at any time truly have it for want of Knowing that the Priest could Effectually and did Actually Intend to Consecrate without which the Elements remain Unsanctified and cannot be Vehicles of those Blessings designed by Christ to be communicated that way to the Soul. And yet this is the sad case of Roman Catholicks § 8. It remains that I add you are not only unhappy in not knowing This with respect to the foresaid Blessings to be received by it But also with respect to two great Duties as you count them to be done which depend upon the Consecration One is the Adoration of the Host the other the Offering it as a Sacrifice both for the quick and dead If your Church do both these on Uncertain grounds it will look a very sad thing And that she doth so will be inferred from what hath been already proved Consecration it self which alone can be supposed to support them being found to be an Uncertain thing That nothing may remain obscure touching these matters I shall take room enough to explain them For the First viz. Adoration of the Host The Trent-Council delivers this Doctrine to warrant the practice of it There is no place left for doubt but all the faithful of Christ may exhibite Adoration which is due to the true God to this most Holy Sacrament in their Veneration of it * Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles latriae cultum qui vero Dco debetur buic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibcant Sess 13. cap. 5. And the Council there subjoins that the Custome was piously and religiously brought into the Church of Yearly setting a Day apart for carrying the Sacrament in Solemn Procession through frequented Ways and publick Places in order to its being Adored c. It is too well known to be insisted on that assoon as the Priest hath consecrated he pays to the Sacrament the Worship that belongeth to God alone and the People present upon the Usual Notice given them do the same And that in the most populous Towns of the Roman Communion when it is carried through the Streets to any Sick person under a Canopy all that meet it fall down and adore it § 9. I have said all this to evince that the Adoration spoken of hath not for its Object our Blessed Saviour considered as corporally present in Heaven but as present under the Species of Bread or Wine or both It is the Sacrament that is to be Adored your Council and practice tell us But now the Body is no Sacrament without the Species for there would be wanting in that case
Knowing without mentioning for some time any object of that Knowledge which you should have supplied thus I distinguish between Knowing of a Condition required to Ordination c. Then though you mention a Condition yet you do not keep to it but forthwith as it were forgetting it run from it to Priesthood it self that is you run away from the consideration of a Sacrament to the res Sacramenti Effect of it Your words are these Supposing the Roman Catholick Church makes Priestly Ordination to depend upon a Condition that no man living knows in the former way whether it be fulfill'd or no yet it doth not follow She must be Vncertain whether she hath any true Priesthood This is true if the Condition can be known to be fulfill'd any other way but it is impertinent in this place for it should have been thus said Yet it doth not follow she must be uncertain whether the said Condition be fulfill'd or no. Or if it may not be known that way yet it may be known another Here then is a manifest sliding from the Condition required to Ordination which I afterwards made to be the Ordainer's Intention to the Priesthood § 6. Now had I in my Reply grosly swallowed this Gulgeon and submitted my self to deal about the proof of the Roman Priesthood in an indefinite unlimited manner I must have lost my present Argument which precisely depends upon the incapacity of all men to know another man's Intention But know Sir your Answer is no Answer to me farther than you speak relatively to my Argument and though you seem willing to slink away from a Condition to Ordination to Priesthood the Effects of it which you would find some plausible way to maintain if you could shake off my Medium yet I will surely keep you to it It is an Argument ad hominem I grant but it will bite you sorely § 7. Here I shall take occasion to advertise the Reader that though an Argument ad hominem be in many cases less considerable yet in mine who argue against Roman Catholicks from their established doctrin it hath as much Virtue and Cogency against them as if I made my Inferences from the four Gospels or the Divine Epistles For they hold the voice of their Church in their Councils of Florence Trent c. to have the same Obligation upon Conscience that those Gospels and Epistles have If my deductions be good they must either grant the whole to their great loss or by denying the Principles I go upon loose and undo the whole frame of the Roman Church Other Churches that assume not Infallibility in such a case part only with a particular Tenet the rest of their frame standing as it did before but Roman Catholicks who attribute un errableness to their Church on which pretended ground their present Fabrick stands utterly ruin their whole Building if they grant their Councils to have been mistaken in any one Article they have defined for Faith. § 8. Now I come to the Matter your Words present us with for ascertaining the required Intention of your Ordaining Bishops considered I suppose you mean in general As your Words seem to run at first sight you lay down two Grounds for this 1. The Nature and End of Ordination in general 2. Deductions from other known Principles of the Roman Catholick Church I shall consider both these § 9. For the first I know indeed that every Institution sets forth the Nature of what is to be observed and the Ends they are appointed for are notified by the Institutor but I never learned that Institutions carry power in them to cause themselves to be observed The Churches named in the Revelation which long since perished these and others once had all Christian Institutions but in process of time lost or left them what proof then is the Nature and End of Ordination of its true Existence or due performance in the Roman Church But if you intended the Two I mentioned to be but one Ground-work by their conjunction so that the Sense is this The Nature and End of Ordination in general in Union or together with Deductions from other known Principles of the Roman Catholick Church c. I am well content as not being inclined to make any man's words howsoever put to signifie what their speaker or writer meant not And I confess some of your own words perswade me they look this way I shall therefore consider them together under the next particular § 10. For the second You tell of the Bishop's Intention to be Knowable by way of Deduction from some known Principles of the Roman Church grounded upon divine Revelation The Reader may mark you do not say This Knowledge is immediately deducible from divine Revelation but from some Principles grounded on it For ought I see by this you are not agreed to claim an Infallible certainty of the Intention of your Ordaining Bishops even considered in general that is that there are any at all in the Roman Church that exert the required Intention And yet without this we have found there is no Ordination and so no Priest nor any of those 5. Sacraments that you consent to say depend on the Priestly character or lastly that your Church is a true Church which yet is less than an Infallible Church Deductions are but the work of Reason and Reason is but a fallible Principle say many of you The dependence of all the links of this Chain hath been made good before save the last which is this where there is no true Priesthood there is no true Church Where there is no Infallible Certainty of the Being of a Priesthood there is is no Infallible Certainty of the Being of a Church To confirm this I need but say little Thomas Aquinas lays down this distinction A thing may two manner of ways be called necessary in respect of an End 1. When the End cannot be had without it as Meat is necessary to sustain man's life And this is simply necessary to an End. 2. When the End cannot so conveniently be obtained without it as a Horse is necessary for a journey But this is not simply necessary to an End. This being premised for the clearer Resolution of the Case in hand he adds There are three Sacraments necessary by the first way of Necessity two to particular persons viz. Baptism simply and absolutely and Penance upon supposition of mortal sin committed after Baptism But the Sacrament of Order is viz. simply necessary to the Church But other Sacraments are necessary by the second manner of necessity c. * Primo igitur modo necessitatis sunt tria Sacramenta necessaria duo quidem personae singulari baptismus quidem simpliciter absolutè poenitentia autem suppoposito peccato mortali post baptismum Sacramentum autem Ordinis est necessarium Ecclesie Sed secundo modo necessaria sunt alia Sacramenta c. Sum. Theol. par 3. q. 65. art 4. Nor have any
several ages been promoted to the dignity of Bishops who have been men of very little Learning and much laziness and so may have faln short of Knowing either That your Church requires the said Intention at all or at least under the said Necessity and no wonder then if they may have omitted it But here is yet no malice nor devils in the case for I may suppose if such had known it they would have roused up themselves to the performance of their duty § 25. For Supine Negligence It is too frequently seen that many grosly slight and neglect those duties which yet they know are to be done for the good of others without harbouring any malicious design against them § 26. It is enough to hint to the Reader that the Intention may fail through occasional Cares or Fears or Crosses or deep Studies spoken of before which either put the Thoughts often to long stands or pauses or else hurry them away from duty else whiter Many men are enabled by sad experience to conceive this I have said to be very probable § 27. Besides Natural Inadvertence incident to all men There is in many a very dull unactive temper of Mind arising either from Natural Constitution or sometimes from contracted Bodily distempers whereby the thoughts are many times hindred from rising higher than to what is sensibly to be done And it cannot be denied that it is morally possible that such Impersections may be incident to your Bishops as well as other men and that their due Intending may be obstructed by them § 28. Now Sir I must put you in mind you have not made any tolerable Enumeration of the Causes of the defect of Intention and while you have only put a Bar against an Universal Conspiracy from malice you give room for the defect from all other Causes which you have no way provided against and so you are stark lame in your defence If you are well acquainted with Roman Catholick writers I wonder you should take up so short since they assign the same Causes I have done Suarez doth in one place add to Malice other two Causes of this among other things viz. Culpable ignorance and Natural Inadvertence which excuseth from sin * Sive id fecerit ex malitia sive ex ignorantia culpabili sive ex naturali inadvertentia quae excusat peccatum Tom. 4. disp 32. And your Authors in their applying Remedies against this Evil seem to have their eyes chiefly fixed upon other Causes than Malice To shew this and the defectibleness of the Intention I shall produce only-one Testimony It is a passage in the famous Mass-book ad Vsum Sarum * Cautclie Missae If any Priest in the time of Consecration be distracted from Actual Intention and devotion Siquis tempore Consecrationis ab actuali intentions devotione distractus fuerit nihilominus consecrat dummodo intentio habitualis in eo remanscrit Si autem per summam distractionem habitualis intentio cum actuali tollcretur videtur quod deberet verba consecrationis cum actuali intentione resumere he nevertheless consecrates provided the Habitual Intention remain in him But if through very great distraction his Habitual Intention be taken away as well as the Actual it seems that he ought to resume the Words of Consecration say them over again with Actual Intention Here note that the words Habitual and Virtual have the very same signification as to our case and that Aquinas with the other elder Schoolmen described this Intention by the word Habitual till Scotus his time who substituted the word Virtual as more proper to express the said Notion and is followed ever since by the writers of the Roman Church § 29. Now I go on to say 1. This passage of the Mass-book is an express acknowledgment that Priests when they do the Exterior work of Consecration may fail to Intend both Actually and Virtually Which upon the same ground is equally applicable to Bishops with respect to Ordination 2. It prescribes this Remedy against the said defect that the Offending Priest go to the work again and do it better I wish the advice had power to necessitate those it is addressed to to follow it But that alas cannot be hoped for § 30. 3. This advice is not offered to such as withdraw their Intention through personal malice or contempt of Religion which is the thing I here directly aimed to shew but to such as fail by inadvertence or dispersion of thoughts And such are omitted in this address perhaps for this Reason That such cannot be well lookt upon as capable in any proximate degree of the Advice given whereas some at least of those other careless blundering yet charitable Priests may 4. I observe once again from the scope of the cited passage against a certain Person I mentioned before That the distraction or disturbance here mentioned as the Cause of the failure of the Intention cannot be meant of the distemper of Frenzy or Madness For 1. The Advice is offered to such as perceive their own defect which Mad men as such cannot do 2. Wise men and such I hope the Compilers of the Sarum-Missal will be held to be advise that Physick be given to Mad-men for the Recovery of their Reason rather than directions to act wisely by which supposeth them already in the state of it If a Mad-man who had gained a Habit of Baptizing before his distemper should rush into a House and wash an Infant newly born with the Invocation of the most Blessed Trinity no wise Man would desire him to do it again with due heed and Actual Intention his supposed condition forbidding him either to hit the Intention at first or to amend it in the repeated Action This advice then given must be concluded to be directed to persons capable of receiving it which therefore cannot be frantick Priests Hereby is confounded the affirmation of the Priest I point at viz. That none but madmen could fail to intend aright § 31. You fee Sir several purposes are served by this Citation besides that I directly brought it for but all of them tend to the illustration of the Subject treated of I shall only add this at parting with it That it is not to be lookt upon as a single Testimony only but instead of a thousand such as implying the judgment of all those Clergymen who used and approved that renowned Missal And what a considerable part of our Nation that Book obtained in before that of Pope Pius the V. was framed for the general Uniformity of your Worship I leave you to think of and consequently what a vast Company of your Clergy who sure were the best Judges in this case did implicitely and by true Interpretation acknowledge that there may be a defect of the Intention both Actual and Virtual which may proceed from other Causes than that of Malice which yet is the only thing alledged by you to that purpose § 32.
rational stress can be laid on such Testimony § 11. 3. Were the Object of it self liable to common observation yet one witness is not sufficient to challenge our Credence God himself was pleased in the Old Testament * Deut 19.5 to intimate that a single witness was less credible than many and not to be trusted in matters of moment and our Blessed Saviour hath repeated it in the New ‖ Matth. 18.16 That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be est ablished From whence we may estimate how slender a satisfaction the Bishop's word would give in that great concern if he should say I intended to do as the Church doth in my Ordaining such a person § 12. 4. As there can be no more but a single witness in the Case so he may reasonably be suspected to affirm on his own behalf or for his own Interests and if so which will appear shortly it will much lessen the value of his Testimony With a respect to This our Blessed Saviour said * John 5.31 If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true Gagneius's Gloss upon the Text may both illustrate and accommodate it to my Case ‖ loquitur ut purus homo hominis autem puri testimonium de se recipi non solct in 8. cap. Johannis Jesus speaks as a meer man and it is unusual to give credit to a meer man when he bears witness on his own behalf § 13. Now that any Bishop in the world may be a party concerned and therefore an incompetent witness in affirming he intended as the Church requires will be easily made appear If he be declared Anathema as he is by the Trent Council who denies the necessity of the Intention to the Sacraments sure no light punishment would be allotted to that Bishop who should discover that he defeated his Ordinations of their Efficacy by omitting to intend as the Church requires This crime is called Sacriledge by your Authors and it must be such in a high degree according to your Hypothesis it being beyond comparison more hainous to rob mens souls of Sacramental Grace than Churches of consecrated Cups or Patens Excommunication may be well supposed to be inflicted upon the Criminal Bishop which Censure is followed with suspension from Office and Benefit and with the loss of the priviledges of the Laws as your Authors teach ‖ See for this Card. Cajetan's Summuls verb. Excom At best shame and reproach will attend such a discovery on which account I find some of your Casuists shie of advising the Ministers of the Sacraments to reveal the matter when they have rendred them inessectual through their Not-intending or otherwise For example when a Priest hath given an invalid Absolution he must be cautious of making it known * Nè si poenitens admoneatur sequetur scandalum vel infamia Suarez tom 4. par 2. disp 32. Sect. 6. Left some scandal or infamy follow his revealing it to the Penitent But on the contrary he is obliged say they to make the defect known when it may be done without any great harm to himself and without scandal ‖ quando sine gravi nocumento ipseus confessoris sine seandalo seri potest ibid. But guilt is jealous of the harms sometimes subsequent to such discoveries and since the offender will be judge he will hardly think himself safe save in a deep concealment of such his faults and therefore will like those Authors best that furnish him with the best Evasions § 14. Thus have we found that the Bishop's confession of their Not-intending aright may expose them to loss or shame or both and sad experience tells us that many are more tender of their Riches and Reputation than of their Conscience and apt to sackisice Truth to their worldly welfare And therefore when a Bishop is askt how he intended in such an Ordination none knows but such respects may prevail with him to make an untrue Answer If he have wilfully offended in that point we may expect he will cloak his malice with a Lye if through gross carelesness he may studiously conceal it But suppose he hath done his duty his telling us so cannot prove it because it is but every way the same Answer they give who have transgress'd it § 15. The summ hereof is this There is hardly any thing alike between the two Things I have now compared There an object liable to the observation of many not so here There several Witnesses affirm here is only singularis testis There no personal interest makes the Testimony suspicious here the single witness deposeth for himself The Inference from hence is this There a strong Assent is founded here a weak one There is certainty here is none § 16. I add I am perswaded that Roman Catholicks seldom if ever actually have the slender security of the said single Testimony For I never heard in my Converse with them nor read in any of their Books that they use to ask their Ministers whether they Intend aright or no. They presume they do so and rest in that good natur'd belief without troubling them with such questions But we are to consider that a blind Perswasion and Intellectual certainty are far different things That is incident to all sorts of Hereticks This to the Orthodox only § 17. Now Sir if I am not a partial judge in my own Cause I have made it plain that the Ordaining Prelate's Intention cannot be known either by Reason or Authority than which I find no other grounds of certain Knowledge Which was the thing I undertook to prove SECT VI. Roman Catholicks have but a bare Opinion to secure them of the point § 1. IT now remains Sir that I only leave the Roman Catholicks that weak assent to the point usually termed Opination Had this been granted me at first viz. That you hold your Priesthood considered in particular by no other claim than that of bare Opinion as Opinion is opposed to moral certain Knowledge I had not taken the trouble of writing much but gone on immediately to infer from that Grant the crazy estate of your Church I shall briesly say upon What some of your great men found their Assent to the presence of the Ministers Intention and then evince that their Foundation will bear up no more than bare Opinion § 2. 1. It is the Probity of the Ministers of the Sacraments they rely on as a sufficient security that they intend aright Soto shall declare this for himself and others * Cum videmus homines probos uti forma Materia Ecclesiae credimus sanas etiam Christianâsque habere mentes dum Sacramenta ministrant in 4. Sent. dist 1. qu 5. art 8. When we see honest sincere vertuous men use the matter and form of the Church we also believe that they have sound and Christian minds while they administer the Sacraments 2. To shew what a small weight