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
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
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. §
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
Ultimate but as something in general which relates to Christ's Institution or the Appointment or Practice of the Church or the like Sect. 6. 5. That a Virtual Intention is Necessary and Sufficient Sect. 7. Your Sense of the Terms must as was said before be mine And that I have truly represented your Sense your Authors already produced or referred to will amount to a full Certificate They will secure me upon the Supposition made that the Doctrine of your Councils is capable of being understood at least by the leading Members of your own Church If it be not you magnifie those your Councils without Reason which either could not speak intelligibly or for some odd Ends seemed to define Faith when they did Nothing 6. I deny that your Priesthood taken Indeterminately or in general doth in an Ordinary way or without Special Revelation admit the infallible Certainty of Divine Faith Or that taken determinately or in particular it admits either the aforesaid Certainty of Faith or an Experimental or yet a Moral Certainty properly so called § 1. By certainty I still mean an Intellectual certainty such as is consentaneous to its Object which is the Measure and Foundation of it These things being thus set in open view it will be easily apprehended That our Question is a Complex Question and is resolvable into two simple ones which as they are stated will stand thus § 2. 1. Whether the Roman Church which makes Priestly Orders necessarily depend upon the Ordaining Bishops at least Virtual Intention of the End of Ordination can be certain with an absolute or infallible Certainty of Faith that they have some true Priests in general § 3. 2. Whether that Church can be certain with the aforesaid Certainty of Faith or with a Moral Certainty That they have This or That true Priest in particular Now I deny to your Church the fore-named respective Certainties of their having a true Priesthood in either Sense and which is more have taken upon me to prove the Negative a task I cannot complain of though it be not very natural because I was for once content to take it upon my self Pray mark That I moreover deny a Theological Certainty of your Priesthood taken in either of the Senses of it above-mentioned That is I deny that it can be concluded either from two Revealed Propositions or from one Revealed and another Evident by the Light of Nature Bellarmine's Silence of it tempted me to omit it in the last Section THE SECOND PART BEING Argumentative SECT I. The general Order of proceeding The first part of Mr. G's Letter set down and examined HAVING finisht the Explications required of me in a far other and ampler manner than was required and whatever else I thought useful in a previous way for the clearer sight of the point in question I shall now declare in what general Order I purpose to proceed § 1. 1. I shall evince by managing the Medium already exhibited that the Roman Church is uncertain of their having any Priesthood as Priesthood is taken determinately or as I may say in the parcels This was the only thing I formerly stood upon when I had occasion in a very short Paper a single Folio page to expose the Evils incident to Roman Catholicks from their doctrine of the Intention Let me say by the way I mean that Paper to which one of your Priests told me in your hearing he had some years ago seen an Answer I add I wish I could see it too that I might for some reasons compare it with yours And this was the only thing I intended to do at the first starting of the Argument with you as knowing it would enable me when made good to load you sufficiently with unwelcome consequences and to set That in the light which it would be your interest to keep in darkness § 2. 2. I shall consider a little beyond my first purpose how far your Priesthood taken indeterminately and as I may say in the gross will follow the fate of the other This being said I come to produce your Letter purporting an Answer to my Argument and to examine its force If I find my self so bridled up by it that I cannot run my designed course I will acknowledge the power of your Curb but if not I surely go forward to your loss The former part of Mr. Goodall's Letter Sir It was alledged to you that the Orders of the English Church had been by Roman Catholicks judged invalid by reason of your altering the Form of Ordination and sufficient discovering your Intention not to do as the Church doth in that Sacrament And your way of defending your Ordination seemed to me very strange when you retorted in this manner I deny say you that the Roman Church is certain that she hath any Priesthood or Sacraments according to her own Principles and I oblige my self to deal with Mr. Goodall about this point Witness my hand Thomas Marsden I accepted and subscribed Edward Goodall For when you deny that we are certain that we have any Priesthood according to our own Principles it were but reasonable for you to expect of us that we should be uncertain at least that you have any since you so earnestly contend to derive your Succession and Orders from us See for this Mr. Mason Archbishop Laud Bishop Bramhal Bishop Taylor Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond c. And there is an old rule you know Nil dat quod in se non habet But whatsoever you pretend of our being uncertain concerning the truth of our Priesthood yet for our comfort you are certain enough of it and therefore you never re-ordain those Priests who sometimes though rarely Apostatize from the Roman Catholick to joyn in your Communion The words you have used in Stating the point against the Roman Catholick Church are very extraordinary when you deny her to be certain that she hath any Priesthood or Sacraments according to her own principles Thus you The Examination of it follows Sir Although the Prefatory part of your Letter here recited does not at all affect my Argument by way of Answer and so without any prejudice might be passed by without regard yet on other accounts I find it my concern to dissect it and to expose its putrid parts § 3. You then undertake two things in it 1. To relate some matters of Fact which passed between you and me 2. To insinuate some disadvantages incurred on my part through at least an unwary manage of things Both these shall be inspected For the first Your Relation of Fact contains two things 1. Your charging the Church of England with the invalidity of her Orders both because we had altered the Form of Ordination and also discovered our Intention not to do as the Church doth in that Sacrament as you term it 2. My attempt to discharge her by denying the Roman Church to be certain that she hath a true Priesthood or Sacraments according to her own principles
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
it for a Principle amongst you That there is a certain number of those that are truly elected to Salvation in your Communion 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 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 yet you would say that the man were a very bad Logician and maliciously bent against you that should thus argue That Church which makes Salvation depend upon a Condition which no man living knows whether it be fulfil'd in order to Salvation must be uncertain whether they have any who shall be saved in their Communion But the English doth so Ergo The English Church is uncertain whether they have any which shall be saved in their Communion True Grace in the heart is a condition which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd or no in order to Salvation But the English Church requires true Grace in the heart in order to Salvation Ergo The English Church requires a Condition in order to Salvation which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd or no. For you will say that in the general way of knowledge beforementioned you know certainly that this Condition is fulfill'd though you know it not as to particulars The Argument may be thus applied to any Christian Church in the world or to all of them together but you see it is vicious upon the same reason that I have alledged against yours as is manifest Therefore so is yours too I desire you also to take notice here that I do not deny that the Intention of the Ordaining Prelate may be sufficiently known in both the ways of Knowledge abovementioned which will make the case different from the instance but now brought But it is enough for the present that I have fully answer'd your Argument SECT III. Mr. G's Answer summ'd up and some strictures made upon it SIR I Have done you justice in truly exhibiting your Answer and have presented it at once as it lies in your Paper to the Readers view lest if I had given it in parcels and interposed my Reflections by the way it might have been said I had robb'd it of somewhat of its beauty or strength by breaking its face or dependance The sum of it to my understanding comes to this § 1. The Ordaining Bishop's Intention is knowable either by the observation of his doing the Exterior Action and his Gesture in particular Ordinations or by considering of the nature and end of Ordination in general and also by deductions from other known Principles of your Church grounded on Revelation You deny not but it is knowable both of these ways but you seem to fix your confidence especially on the latter and so between hope and fear apply your distinction to several of my Propositions Supposing not granting say you it cannot be known that way yet it may this way and so if the first way fail our Church is not yet uncertain of her Priesthood Then you tell more particularly what you mean by Nature and End of Ordination 1. As to the Nature of the Thing that it 's Morally impossible all the Priests of your Church should maliciously conspire to omit in Ordination any thing which they believe to be essential to it and which the Church requires as such and thereby endeavour to damn the whole Church 2. That this is a Principle with you That the Roman Church I mean it in your latitude of sense is the Universal Church which Christ hath promised to maintain and propagate to the worlds end 3. That your Priesthood is a necessary mean to this end and therefore God's power will make good his promise by the continuation of your Priesthood Lastly you pretend to retort the like Argument I have urged against you and that it failing mine must do so To this purpose you § 2. In the way to the work I chiefly intend I shall acquaint you with a few of the incongruities of your Answer reserving the farther sifting of it to its proper place § 3. 1. When you have distinguisht of Knowing a Condition to Ordination to be gained either by observing the Ordaining Prelates exterior Action Words and Gestures c. Or by considering the Nature and End of Ordination c. You say if I understand by knowing knowing in the former way only which you say I seem to you to do then the first Proposition of my first Syllogism is false Now that the Reader may see whether you dream not both of my sense of the word knowing and also of the falseness of the Proposition I will set it down before his eyes It is thus All Churches that make Priestly Ordination depend upon a Condition which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd must be uncertain whether they have any true Priesthood Let it be noted that these are the very first words put by way of Argument upon the Question and then let any man tell me what he sees in them that hath any appearance so grosly to shackle and confine my sense of the word knows Nay I must first be supposed to act the mad man before I could seem so to mean for to what purpose do I charge another with the ignorance of a thing and hope to annoy him with consequences drawn from that ignorance if all this while I suppose that though he cannot know it one way yet he may know it well another and so is not at all ignorant as I pronounce him to be Sure it must be thought I meant it could no way be known speaking relatively to the charge I give which appears in the state of my Question Now Sir I leave it to judgment what a sorry shift you have made to get a colour to accuse a Proposition of Falsehood I also leave it to judgment whether it is not most probable that the Un-Scholar like course you took of deferring to call for the State of the Question till your Answer was given was not chosen on purpose that when your Matters failed you might have this to say for ought I knew he might have understood the terms otherwise But it will not serve you for a Blind even to the meanest capacity that reads what I have said of this Part I. Sect. II. It remains then that your Supposition is false and my Proposition true for any thing you have said as yet § 4. 2. I note If your making and applying the said distinction to the former Syllogism be either a necessary or proper work then you were wanting to your cause at Prescot where you barely denied the Minor without any hint of distinction or limitation offered or saying one word to the Major § 5. 3. You put me in mind that I am to prove you Uncertain according to your own principles Which is a needless office
thing more known to a thing less known and therefore must remain uncertified of the Being of the Act unless you can invent some other mean of discovery The Will hath no such dependance upon nor connexion with any natural cause in its acting as that it must impress upon the Body any sensible marks of its motions in which we may surely read when and what it acts as alteration of Voice change of Countenance or any the like thing from which you pretend to make a judgment of it Aquinas will tell you this with the reason of it * In actu appetitus intellectivi non requiritur aliqua transmutatio corporalis quia bujusmodi appetitus non est virtus alicujus Organi prim secund q 22. Ar. 3. No change in the Body necessarily attends an Act of the Will because such an appetite is not the virtue of any bodily Organ I add if any motion should by accident result in the Body from the actual Will as signs of joy or sorrow or shame c.. yet this can lead only to the discerning some affections of the Will in general but not any particular Act of it Hence I conclude you can never secure your notion of knowing the Bishop's Intention by observing his Action c. till you make the Will to be a material power and immanent Actions to be transient which yet is impossible to be done Now because you assign no other way of knowing the Intention in particular than making the fore-mentioned observations I will take the freedom to deal a little more samiliarly with you about it I will suppose here that a Bishop doth with a laudable shew of Gravity pronounce the Words and do the exterior Action your Church requires to Ordination and that hardly any Bishop comes short of that who pretends to confer holy Orders but when I have done I remain ignorant how I may certainly conclude from such his performance whether he thereby intend to confer Spiritual power or to do as the Church doth and therefore would learn that skill from you Either inform me that there is an individual connexion between his doing the one and intending the other or tell me when and in what circumstances the connexion fails The exterior Action is too dim and indeed too uncertain a Glass to see this in § 8. May not a man do a thing materially good and directly commanded by God without intending the End God requires What think you of some mens relieving the poor from no higher a Motive than that of vain glory Matt. 6.1 What think you of some mens frequent saying their prayers for the same low end v. 5. Our blessed Saviour plainly intimates that others may mistake the Intention of such and earnestly applaud them for righteous persons and that God only who sees in secret can detect their carnal purposes and crooked wills Did not Judas declare it his desire to have the Bag saved for the sake of the poor when he meant it only for his own advantage John 12.6 He spoke good words and did a seemingly-kind action to our Lord he said Hail Master and kissed him when he intended not to express any true affection but to betray him Matth. 26.49 I forbear to multiply instances of this sort these now given being sufficient to evince that there is no necessary dependance between the exterior actions of men and their interior Intentions and consequently it is no sure arguing from those to these § 9. For the Ordainer's Gesture I think you bring it in to no great purpose Do you fancy Judas laught in our Saviour's face when he passed upon him that treacherous Ceremony Or that the Pharisees flear'd or made Mowes when they gave their Alms or said their Prayers in token of their acting for undue ends Are there not Sinons yet in the world May not a serious face frequently disguise a dissembling heart Were the outward appearance always the true Picture of the mind Hypocrisie would upon the matter be wholly divested of its Essence In an Irony there is indeed as it were a natural discovery of the contrariety of the Mind to the Words spoken but in formal Hypocrisie a studious concealment of the repugnance between the motions of the heart and the outward appearance Were your Bishops wont in an openly ludicrous or sportive manner to pronounce the Form and apply the Matter of Ordination your observation of their Gesture might tend to your discerning that sometimes they were not in earnest but still we want a mean to know when they intend aright We have proved a grave out-side will not assure us of this But I think no Bishop in the world will do so childish an act or expose himself to scorn or hatred or danger by an apparent mock-Ordination and so your observing of their Gesture will not so much as enable you to know when they intend not I will put the Case further may not a Bishop who actually intends to make a Priest chance to smile at some odd sight when he is pronouncing the words Accipe potestatem c. Or would any man in that case pronounce the Ordination a nullity I think not Pray tell us then in what manner you are guided to the knowledge of the Ordainer's Intention by your observation of his Gesture I am afraid when you explain your self we shall have a sad story of it Besides there is a manifest insufficiency in your Rule of judgment which is the Bishop's words actions and gesture in Ordination for after your way you can only pretend to know whether or no he actually intends in the Administration of Orders but supposing you could find that he doth not then so intend your observation is worth nothing For 1. Your Church requires it not as necessary that he should then actually intend if he do it virtually it will answer the End it is required for as is proved before * Part I. Sect. VII 2. Your observing his Action afterwards cannot surely lead you to an intrinsecally contingent Act of his Will which passed a minute or two before the Action done He may have intended for ought you know before which is called the virtual Intention in the time of the Action but whether he did or no you cannot be certified by the subsequent Action except you have a singular gift of discerning not known to the rest of Mankind If you have such a gift and can communicate your skill of knowing the secrets of man's heart by observing his Words Actions and Gestures it may be of extraordinary use to the world Many sorts of men might avoid great harms otherwise incident to them by virtue of your instructions Princes would be secured from employing servants that meant not Faith and Secrecy when they promise them Masters and Parents would at a notable rate inspect the minds of servants and children And Mental Reservations would hereby become unprofitable which would be a great loss somewhere If you can in the manner
saltum ut Sacerdotii Ordinem praetermittat eum non solum mancre suspensum verum etiam non maners conjecratum quia character Episcopalis si quis est essentialiter requirit charactarem Sacerdosalem Suarez Tom. 5. Disp 31. §. 53. should of a Deacon be made Bishop without first taking Priests Orders he doth not only remain suspended but Vn-consecrated because the Episcopal Character if there be any such Essenitally requires the Priestly Character D. Soto delivers the matter in short ‖ Episcopatus dependet à Sacerdotio nam conjecratio Episcopi antequam sit Sacerdos non valeret De just jure li. 10. qu 1. art 2. The Episcopate depends on the Priesthood for the making a man Bishop before he is made Priest would be of no avail The Reason hereof is No man can give that which he hath not himself the Pro-eminent power the Bishop hath was especially given him for Constituting Priests for the Service of the Church and therefore it is necessary that he have what he confers The power of the Keys is founded in the Priestly Character saith Gab. Biel * Potestas clavium fundatur in charactere Sacerdotali Li. 4. Dist 19. qu. 1. art 1. Though your lessor Orders may be jump'd over I am sure you will not say This can Which if he want he hath the Name of Bishop and no more This for the Dependence of the two Orders 2. As your Ordainers know not whether they had Priestly Orders so they cannot know for that Reason whether they had Episcopal Orders The Uncertainty of the former necessarily destroys all certainty of the latter Thus much for the Major As for the Minor Proposition it is largely proved before-hand viz. That all Roman Bishops are Vncertain whether or no they be true Priests for want of knowing their Ordainer's Intention Now the Premisses being safe the Conclusion is set beyond all hazard viz. No Roman Bishops know that they are true Bishops And consequently they know not that their Intending is available to Ordination But supposing them to know that they were truly made Priests which yet as appears they neither do nor can know yet they cannot know that they are true Bishops for the same Reason that Priests cannot know that they are true Priests viz. Their Ignorance of their Consecrator's Intention Bishops are as far from inspecting the Hearts of their Consecrators as Priests are from inspecting the Hearts of the Bishops There is Parity of Reason on both sides I will advance one other Medium to prove your Bishops to be Uncertain of their Orders I take my Argument from their Not-knowing that they were indeed Baptized And I will take your Simple Priests along with them for Company In Form it runs thus No Bishops or Priests that are uncertain whether or on they were truly Baptized know whether or no they be respectively true Bishops or Priests But all Roman Bishops and Priests are Vncertain whether or no they were truly Baptized Ergo No Roman Bishops or Priests know whether they be true Bishops or Priests The Major Proposition must be granted if these two Things appear 1. That there is a Necessary Dependence of Holy Orders upon Baptism 2. That there is between them a Dependence of Knowledge as well as Being What shines not of it self I shall after my wont prove from your own Authority For the First Your Angelical Doctor hath long ago acquainted us * Qui characterem baptismalem non habet wullum aliud Sacramentum recipere poiesi Addit ad tertiam partem qu. 34. art 3. That he is not capable of receiving any other Sacrament who hath not the Baptismal Character And he doth not only say this in general which yet had been sufficient but he applies it to our particular ‖ Baptismia est janua Sacramentorum ergo cum Ordo sit quoddam Sacramentum praesupponit Baptismum Ibidem Baptism is the Gate of the Sacraments and therefore since Order is a certain Sacrament it presupposes Baptism He goes on to certifie us * Talis si promoveatur ad Sacerdotium non est Sacerdos nec conficere potest nec absolvere c. ibidem That if any Unbaptized person be promoted to the Priesthood he is no Priest nor can he either consecrate or absolve c. To be short Your Canon teacheth | In Decret li. 3. ti 43. cap. 1.3 de Presbyt non ' Baptizat That they who are promoted to Orders unbaptized shall be Baptized and Re-ordained This I have said is enough to evince the necessary dependence Orders have upon Baptism which is the Gate through which your other Sacraments enter and which being shut they are kept forth For the Second I need add nothing to enlighten it For the abovesaid dependence being acknowledged no man hath power to deny That he who is uncertain that he was Baptized must be so that he was Ordained This for the proof of the Major The Minor is this All Roman Bishops and Priests are Vncertain whether or no they were truly Baptized But this is proved before-hand by those Arguments that convinced that the Minister's Intention is not Knowable by any besides himself Now the Premisses being sted fast the conclusion stands most firm viz. No Roman Bishops or Priests know whether they be true Bishops or Priests I shall not be reckoned to have made superfluous proof of this Point if the Reader shall consider the Fruit it yields the several Mediums being so many Hammers to break to pieces the pretended Certainty of the Roman Priesthood If it be born in mind that the Intention is a Mental contingent Act which the Agent may or may not do at his pleasure and that none can discover whether he exert that Act or not it will be very obvious here to view the several Grounds of the Uncertainty of their Priesthood If the Bishop was not Baptized with due Intention he cannot Ordain If he was not so made Priest he cannot Ordain if he was not so consecrated he cannot Ordain And it plainly appears that himself cannot be certain of any of these and therefore cannot be certain he makes a Priest because all these go to qualifie him for that Work. And the Priest besides these insuperable uncertainties common to the Bishop with him is vexed with one more as bad as the rest He knows not that the Bishop if he should chance to be capable of doing it intended to communicate Spiritual Power to him So that there are three hazards to allay the Bishop's confidence of his making Priests and a fourth more to allay That of the Priest But this may be accounted a small thing in comparison of what follows The Consecrator of our present Bishop was liable to the same three Uncertainties and these are chargeable in their Effects upon our Bishop If his Ordainer and Consecrator were not truly Baptized made Priest and Bishop and God only knows that They had no Faculty to Ordain or Consecrate
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