Next as an enforcement why there could be no malicious conspiracy of your Prelates you add this They could not say you propose any advantage to themselves by it but the clean contrary But you forget the Genius of Malice to which doing mischief is an agreeable thing without any allurements of Worldly profits or the like Remember the sad Instance of Satan's murdering our first Parents This I say not as believing any such conspiracy nor is the fancying such a thing at all needful to my business having shewed that what Malice may do in some the same may other Causes effect in others as to the spoiling of the Intention I say it only to shew that to be weakness which you bring to strengthen your Ground § 33. There will need no conspiracy of any sort to render you uncertain of the validity of your Ordainer's Intention if you remember what I said before after the dispatch of my first task viz. That all the defects of Intention in your Ordaining Bishops from the Apostles death hitherto are chargeable upon and utterly disable all that are reputed to derive power from them and that the longer the Line is spun out by time there will be more Nullities in the Intention both of Bishops and Priests § 34. To rivet this I ask What if the Catholick Church for many Ages after Christ did not require this Intention as necessAry to the Sacraments If so the grand Motive to vigilance and heedfulness of Intending was wanting and so it is more probable defects might then arise which might baffle and enervate the greatest care and circumspection of succeeding Bishops I cannot find that it was uninterruptedly so required but if you can I intreat you to shew it The Sum hereof is 1. You have attempted to arm your self only against one of the many Causes of defect of Intention letting in the rest like a Flood upon you 2. You have falsly supposed that the effectual valid Intention cannot have failed in your Church without an Universal Conspiracy of the Bishops of one Age Whereas the defect may have been let in by degrees and so may have overspread your Church for any thing you have said to the contrary on this Head. SECT X. Mr. G.'s Argument urged by way of Retort examined and enervated NOW you come to instance in and frame an Argument upon a desperate Subject which you take to be exactly parallel to mine and say That is vicious and therefore Mine must be so And to make the clearer way to your Syllogistick Forms you pretend to lay down two Principles of our Church as the Ground-work of them Of the First you express your self thus You take it for a Principle amongst you that there is a certain Number of those that are truly Elected to Salvation in your Communion You mean in the Church of England § 1. For Reply Holding you to be well seen in the Doctrine of our Church I would desire you to instruct me where I may find that Principle I had thought our Church had dealt with such Things only in a general way with a respect to the Universal Church and left particular Churches to try their Election by making sure their Calling Of our Articles the 17th only concerneth this point Which so far as I am concerned to produce it runs thus Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God whereby He hath constantly decreed by his Counsel secret to us to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind and to bring them by Christ to everlasting Salvation as Vessels made to honour And of the Promises relative unto this the same Article saith Furthermore we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture You see how indefinitely our Church speaks in this Matter Those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind And We must receive God's promises as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture 'T is our Principle you see That some in God's Church belong to the Election of Grace and that God will make good his Promises by Saving them But we descend no lower nor need we as thinking it sufficient for any particular Church to be able to say We have all necessary Doctrine both Dogmatical and Moral and may be Saved if we truly Believe and Sincerely obey it to both which God in his mercy call us We venture not to say God hath Elected and promised to Save those in Italy or these in England But we say Whosoever truly Repents and Believes the Gospel shall be Saved whether in Italy or England or any other place We have Divine Warranty for this But we have none to give a Local or Personal description of those that are Elected and shall through Grace be Saved § 2. Nevertheless we have as great ground of Hopes judging of the Tree by the Fruits that many of the Members of this Church are of the Number of the Elect and so will be saved as you can have that the Members of the Italian or Spanish or French Church are such But we do not cannot I say undertake Unerrably to determine the Estates of particular Men or Men of particular places When we bury Men of the most pious and exemplary conversations you may remember we express our strong Hopes onely but not perfect assurance of their Bliss Secret things belong to God. § 3. However this will not alter the Nature of our proceeding because you afterwards say The Argument may be thus applied to any Christian Church in the World or to all of them put together The Universal Church exists in all of them put together and since you make the Case of That and particular Churches all One as to this Matter I have the Liberty to make the Argument to respect all of them put together or the Universal Church You mention a Second Principle in this manner And you will allow this also as a Principle That these Elect must have true Saving Grace in their Hearts as a Condition necessary to their Salvation This Sir I acknowledge to be one of the Principles of our Church and of all other Christian Churches in the World. Then you proceed from hence to add this Which saving grace because you do not know to be in any particular man therefore you cannot be certain that He is one of those that is Elected to Salvation Which is unquestionably true Now I am to examine your Forms of Argumentation pretended to be parallel to those I urged against you Your first is thus That Church which makes Salvation depend upon a Condition which no Man living knows whether it be fulfill'd in order to Salvation must be Vncertain whether they have any who shall be saved in their Communion But the English Church doth so Ergo The English Church is Vncertain whether they have any which shall be saved in their Communion § 4. Now because you say The Argument may be
to them yet we have no Ordinary Observable Commerce with them 3. Nor have Rules to discern their true Declarations of Fact from Satanical Delusions I therefore made the Testimony of God and Men to be a sufficient Partition of Authority in the present case I shall now make good both Parts of the Antecedent and then the Consequent will stand firm § 2. 1. It is not knowable by any Revelation of God. For if we read Scripture from beginning to end we shall find neither Prophecy to foretel nor Promise to assure That all the Roman Bishops in general nor this or that in particular throughout the several Centuries from the Apostles days nor in any one of them shall in their Ordinations intend the end of their Institution or to do therein as the Church doth Nor doth the Scripture furnish with any Rule by which we may certainly judge when they so intend and when they do not Tradition is also silent here nor is it whatever other uses it may serve to pretended to prefent us with such Notices Wherefore I conclude We cannot attain the Knowledge of the Bishop's Intention by Revelation § 3. 2. We have for This no such Humane Testimony as may beget that certain Knowledge of it which is properly called Moral Certainty And what is below this excludes not rational fear and therefore is but abusively called certain Knowledge To make this good to full satisfaction 1. I shall reckon up the several things required to found the said Moral Certainty And withal shew what-like Assent they breed 2. I shall manifest that those requisites do not concur in our case of the Intention and that therefore we cannot know it with the foresaid Knowledge The House cannot be strong where the Foundation is weak § 4. To Moral Certainty it is required 1. That the Objects of it be Sensible Objects and such as are obvious to the Observers Things so notable or Remarkable that if some Men should chance to make false reports of them others may or might have contradicted them I note it here as a Thing ordained by the Divine Wisdom to preserve us from Impostures that Men are as it were naturally bent to detect the Errors of others and to expose such as they observe to advance a Fiction for true Fact. A secret pleasure attends this work and a Reputation follows it and sometimes an uncharitable Temper promotes it And consequently insensible notable Objects the misreports of some will be blasted by the contrary affirmation of others at least so far that they shall not gain the Authority of an Universal uncontrouled Testimony § 5. 2. That a competent number of Persons of known Sense and Probity openly and constantly declare that they have a Physical Certainty of such Objects that is that they saw such Sights with their own eyes or heard such Words or Sounds with their own ears Nothing less can be of Weight and Strength to perswade Men to entertain a prudent Belief of what the first Reporters say and to set on foot a Tradition of it to Posterity § 6. 3. That no Advantage can be well thought to accrue to the Reporters by imposing upon others Falsehood instead of Truth Every Eye sees what vast power Secular Ends have to deprave the Heart and Tongue of frail Man and therefore when it may be reasonably supposed that Persons may say this or that in a subserviency to such Ends discreet Men cannot entirely credit them § 7. 4. That none qualified as I have supposed the first Reporters to be oppose their Experiences in Contradiction of them Were there such Opposers it would forbid all Certainty For the Eyes and Ears of one Man may be as good and ought to be regarded as much as the Eyes and Ears of another provided the Object be Evident and Obvious and the Witnesses alike credible on both sides § 8. Where these Requisites meet together I take their Testimony to be a Virtual Communication of their Sensations to Others We do upon the Matter see with their eyes and hear with their ears and cannot reasonably fear that the Matter should be otherwise than it is represented to us Though That was physically evident to the Spectators c. which is onely Morally so to me that is though they had the assurance of an Object by Eye-sight and I only by Hear say yet my Hear say may be so encircled with solid and convincing Circumstances that I can no more question the Truth of what I hear than I can of what I see Ex. gr When our Seamen or Merchants are failing first time for Amsterdam in Hol land they are no lefs sure before-hand that there is such a City than they are when they arrive there This certainty is express'd by Medina thus * Quod certum csi Moraliter absque aliqua baesitatione potest jur amcuto confirmari in prim secund qu. 112. art 5. That which is Morally certain a Man may swear to without Haesitation His notion I confess seems somewhat uncouth but it amounts to a full description of the Nature of properly-Moral Certainty as it is exclusive of all Fear lest Things should be otherwise in the Understanding than they are in themselves The Author means the same thing and no more by the Words now cited that he fets forth in these Words ‖ Certitudo moralis omncm excludit dubitationem convincit necessitat intelleclum Nemo enim sanae ment is potest regare quod Roma sit bidem Moral Certainty shuts out all doubt it convinces and necessitates the Vnderstanding to assent For no Man in his Wits can deny that there is such a place as Rome Melchior Canus speaking of Things so attested comes up to the same height * Haec non modo negare sed in his otiam addubitare stultissimum est Le Locis Theolog li. 11. c 4. It is a most foolish thing not only to deny these things but even to doubt of them It reaches so near to the Certainty of Sense that Suarez advanceth such an attestation to a kind of Evidence ‖ Humana quaedam evidentia De Trip. virt Theol. Disp 10. Sect 2. Having thus recounted the Pillars that bear up Moral Certainty and also shewn the weight of the Assent that rests upon them I shall now set forth by way of Comparison that the pretended Knowledge of the Intention hath no such Firmament to support it § 9. 1. It is not a Sensible Object but a Spiritual or immaterial Act shut up in a Faculty which as we have seen already * Part 11. Sect. 4. is inaccessible to the eyes of Men and Angles § 10. 2. And consequently as no creature can see it but the single Agent himself so none is capable of contradicting his Relation of it if it should be as it may be in it self false So then a grand Rule of Trial most conducible to Moral assurance is wanting on this score and then what a
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
doubtful we are rather to interpret them in the more favourable sense when there is an Obligation upon us to pass our judgment But this tye of making a charitable judgment is too weak a stay for Conscience in the great concerns of Religion such as the Minister's Intention on which you make your Baptism the Consecration of the Eucharist c. depend This will appear by considering these two things § 26. 1. The judgment of Charity alwaies supposes the Object Uncertain or to speak more properly the Understanding Uncertain For what needs Charity come into the Scale if Evidence hath weighed it down beforehand What needs the Will come into the work but that the Understanding is at a loss § 27. 2. The Soul is not a jot nearer Truth by this judgment of Charity The pious affection of the Will is indeed exercised but it makes not the Act of the Understanding more certain Truth is the Object of the Intellect alone and therefore certainty is not at all taken from the Will but from the Evidence of the Object or from the motive to Faith. § 28. I forbear to add That the Understanding may be easily and is often exposed to the danger of falsehood by the charitable inclination of the Will and that ignorance may contribute much to the false quiet of the mind The will hath nothing to do with the Understanding that I know of in order to Knowledge but barely to stir it up to act When that is done it must judge for it self and hath Rules of its own to examine things by but the bent or biass of the Will is none of them And he that makes himself as I may so say certain without or beyond Rational Motives is but blindly perswaded or pertinacious I have said enough if not too much to convince That the judgment of Charity concerning the Intention amounts not to an intellectual certainty of it Which is the only thing I was concerned to make out in this place § 29. Now since neither Reason nor Authority will ascertain the Intention and since the Judgment of Charity falls short of the mark I may I hope without presumption conclude that my Proposition is verified viz. That the Intention of the Ordaining Bishop is a Condition which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd or no in Ordination And then the premises being true the conclusion is so too viz. The Church of Rome requires a condition to Ordination which no man living knows whether it be fulfill'd or no. I confess I have extended my proof to a far greater Latitude as I have done some other things in these Papers than any thing you have offered exacted from me but I had rather be accused of being over than short Besides I had a mind to prevent the often re-hearing of the Cause to which several little new Suggestions might give occasion by a more particular sifting of it I had also a respect to some others who had never seen the Subject set in a full light But after all I am sensible I have done something more than needed § 30. I have indeed considered the Proposition only under the limitation before express'd excepting the Ordaining Bishops out of no man living knows Who may therefore pretend to know their own Intention and by consequence that there are true Priests among you But if an Interpretation I gave you of my Proposition at Pn. had not without Reason been displeasing to you what I have already done would have left your Bishops unsecured of your Priesthood as well as all the rest of your Communion However I shall with little ado cure that defect by offering the same thing in such words as will not I think be evaded SECT VII The Ordaining Bishops not certain whether there be true Priests in the Roman Church HAving already proved That all Roman Catholicks except the Ordaining Bishops are Uncertain whether the said Bishops Intend aright in their particular Ordinations and consequently as uncertain whether they make any true Priests I come now to prove That the Ordaining Bishops so called are uncertain whether or no they Intend with such an Intention as is available or effectual to Ordination In order hereunto I will let my first Syllogism stand as before * Part I. Sect. l. The minor Proposition of it which only could regularly be denied is this The Roman Church requires a condition to Ordination which no man living knows whether or no it be fulfill'd To wrap up the Bishops in the same uncertainty with the rest I prove it thus The Intention of a person who is a true Bishop is a Condition which no man living knows the Ordainers themselves not excepted whether it be fulfilled in Ordination But the Roman Church requires the Intention of a person who is a true Bishop to Ordination Ergo The Roman Church requires a condition to Ordination which no man living knows the Ordainers themselves not excepted whether it be fulfill'd in Ordination The minor is clear for it is not every man's using the Matter and Form of the Church and intending to do as the Church doth although you say This may suffice to Baptism that you hold to be sufficient to ordination You judge not only Lay-men but simple Priests uncapable of doing that work as the Curse of your Trent-Council makes appear * Si quis dixcrit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores vel non babete potestatem Confirmandi Ordinandi vel cam quam habent illis cum Presbyteris communem esse Auathema sit Sess 23. Can. 7. If any one shall say That Bishops are not Superior to Priests or have not the power of Confirming and Ordaining or that the power they have is common to them with Priests let him be Anathema The Ordainer then must of Necessity be a Bishop This for the Minor. If there be any difficulty in the matter it respects the Major But I am now to shew there is none at all This then I lay down as evident except the Ordainer know that he is in Truth what he is called viz. a Bishop he knows not that his Intention is such as operates in and is effectual to Ordination nor consequently that he makes a true Priest My Medium you know points directly at this and the connexion is unquestionable according to your selves Which being said it onely remains that I make out That none of your Bishops know that they are true Bishops I do it thus No Bishops that are Vncertain whether or no they are true Priests know that they are true Bishops But all the Roman Bishops are uncertain whether or no they are true Priests Ergo No Roman Bishops know that they are true Bishops To verifie the Major I need but say 1. Your Church holds That no man can be a Bishop who is not first a Priest A tast of Authority may satisfie for this If any one faith Suarez * Si quis ita consecrcetur Episcopus per
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
of his Commentators that I have met with excepted against This nor any others of your Church Your self a little beneath grants the point where you say with relation hereunto The means are necessary to the end Several of your men Bellarmine in particular * De Clericis cap. 3. contend that Protestant Churches are no true Churches because as they alledge they want a true Priesthood Besides enough is to be fetcht for this purpose out of your Trent Council | Sess 23 de Sacram. Ordinis but it is needless to do it § 11. From hence then I present you with this Scheme founded on your own Authority you are no surer you have a true Church than you are that you have a true Priesthood you are no surer that you have a true Priesthood even taken in general than you are that you have true Ordination you are not surer that you have true Ordination than you are that your Ordaining Bishops Intend as your Church requires Now in regard you agree not to claim for the Intention the Infallible Certainty of Faith which immediately depends upon divine Revelation I see not how you can reasonably agree to claim the Infallible Certainty of Faith for the truth of your Church Which I commend to the Reader 's observation § 12. You first tell us in general of some Known Principles of your Church from which the Knowledge of the Intention is deducible and afterwards reckon them to be these viz. That the Roman is the only Catholick Church That God will continue and preserve that Church to the Worlds end and all this say you appears from divine Revelation You conclude hence they must have a true Priesthood the Means being necessary to the End. Therefore say you whatsoever Intention of the Prelates is by them believed as Necessary for this End they do certainly believe according to their Principles that God's Providence will secure it his Omnipotence is able to make good his Fidelity § 13. For reply 1. I observe to the Reader That though you have presented us with a list of those Principles from which you pretend to deduce the Knowledge of the Ordainer's Intention yet you only say They appear from Divine Revelation without shewing either what this Revelation is or where it is to be found § 14. 2. As our discourse was at first Personal every one will conceive that if your thoughts had then enabled you to make the above-named distinction I must have asked What the Revelation was and where it appeared on which your said Principles are pretended to rest Nor could you have refused to satisfie my Question without bringing a Cloud upon the Cause you manage And you may easily believe that if I had known what you had been writing at London I should have wisht you would have set down What and Where the Revelation you speak of is that so I might have consented with you or refuted you according to the best judgment I could make of the Thing exhibited I assure you Sir to obtrude upon the World Doctrines under the Notion of Articles of Faith without due proof of their Divine Original is too great an Empire for Creatures to arrogate to themselves nor can one reasonably submit to another in such cases whether they respect God's honour or their own safety Therefore when you talk of Divine Revelation you should have shewed it § 15. You would surely enroll me in the Catalogue of Franticks if I should upon this Occasion spend Years in hunting through all Books for Texts of Scripture which your Popes or their Subjects have fancied to be useful for proving the Roman to be the Universal Church and in confuting their vain Glosses when I have sound them Your Person is not adverse to me but your Cause and therefore you leave the Field and cease to be my Adversary unless you shew me your places of defence and wherein their strength lies and then defy my Assaults But this is not done here Tell me is the Revelation you speak of recorded in the first Verse or Chapter of Genesis or the last Verse of the Revelation or in any Verse between those Have you not read that Pope Boniface the VIII proved the Pope of Rome to be the sole Head of the Christian Church with relation-to which Head you call yours the One and the Whole Church out of the first Verse of Genesis In the beginning God created c. He collected the Argument thus Dicitur in principio non in principiis c. It is said quoth that Pope in the Beginning not in the Beginnings c. And this is urged to prove that there must be One visible Head of the Church and this the Pope of Rome with whom all Christians must believe and to whom all must submit Have you not read how Pope Gregory the VII a great while before that fetcht a proof for the Point out of the 16th Verse of that Chapter God made two great lights the greater light to rule the day c. Illa dignitas quae praeest diebus id est Spiritualibus Major est That is That Dignity that rules the Days that is Spirituals is greater I shall omit the comparison between Popes and Kings which this Text is brought to settle and only apply it to the Point in hand That God made the Pope to Rule all Christians is all that I shall take Notice of as proved by it I have brought these two infallible Interpreters of Scripture upon the Stage and which of you should be such if your Popes be not only to shew it would be endless to seek out those many Texts supposed by Roman Catholicks to tend to make out that the Roman is the One Catholick Church of Christ upon Earth and to expose their extravagant Mis-expositions of them I might soon begin with Genesis but might be long before I had run through the Bible If these two Popes had spoken onely in general words as you do of Divine Revelation for their Headships on which your Matter vertually depends I am so dull I should never unless by chance have found out what Scriptures they referred to for it And so though I had discussed a hundred other Texts if those had been left out it might have been said I had left my work undone But wise Men will not judge I ought to undertake Unreasonable tasks or seek a Needle in a Bottle of Hay But I spend time For it had been enough to say I am only proving a Negative and need do no more than over-turn what you are pleased to erect for your Defence You have set me no more work here than I have considered and so I have no more to do here about your divine Revelation whether you refer to Scripture or any thing else § 16. Yet it cannot but be worth our Notice That your Method of maintaining your Church is most easie and expedite When you find your selves unable particularly to prove your performance of