An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

SECT. II. The intention of the Minister re∣quired by the Church in Bap∣tism explained, makes ap∣pear the nullity of our Ad∣versaries Objection.

TO prove that Protestants may be sav'd more easily, and with greater security then Ro∣manists, our Adversary sayes, we teach that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation, and no Baptism a true and real one, if the Minister when be pronounces the Words, has not an Inten∣tion to Baptize, which no doubt happens frequent∣ly, s••••es he, since the Intention may be easily di∣verted to his other designs, and affairs.

Answer. First, if, as Protestants think, Baptism is absolutely necessary to none. Catholicks are not really less secure as to their Salvation, because they think it necessary.

Secondly, If I ask any Minister, after he ha•• Christened a Child, if he did not Intend to do what CHRIST ordain'd to be done in Baptism, and what is ordinarily done by his Church. Without doubt he'l tell me, he did. And this is all the In∣tention the Church requires in the Priest Baptize∣ing.

If you say, the Priest or Minister may be divert∣ed from this Intention by a thought of his other

affairs, so, say I, may he be diverted by the same from that Intention, which you require, to wit, of pronouncing the Words and applying the Water, and so you have as much to fear you are not Bap∣tiz'd as we. But that which hinders us both to fear, is this, that we do not require an Actual Intention or a Reflection of my understanding that my will Intends, which Actual Intention is indeed lost by a Distraction, or thought of another thing (and this seems to be the mistake of our Adversary, by his saying the Priest's Intention may be easily di∣verted to his other affairs) but only a Vertual In∣tention, which stands with an Actual thought of another thing, then that I am doing; as when a Man playes on the Virginals and speaks to another of something else, both at once. We say this mo∣tion of his Fingers is not of it self, but proceeds from a motion of the Will, and a direction of the understanding, tho' not sensible or preceptible, by Reason of the weakness of these two Acts com∣pared to the strength of an Actual Intention. This Intention is called Vertual, because it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were the Vertue or Vicar of the Actual Intention left by it to supply its place in order to do that which was first Actually Intended with a sensible and strong reflection of the understanding upon the Intention of the Will. Neither is it destroyed by the expli∣cite thought of another thing; so this other thing be not incompatible with the Action to which this Vertual Intention moves and directs.

For Example, my speaking of some other thing suffers at the same time my playing on the Organ, which playing is directed by the Vertual, while I have an Actual Intention to speak of another thing.

Now, to prove that in Baptizing this Vertual

Intention is sufficient, (not denying but that the Actual is most laudable) I desire, Men consider we have no other in all our Moral Actions which have a notable duration and succession of parts. Would you have a Man, who is going a Foot ten miles to a Market, talking earnestly with another of Buying or Selling, all the Way Actually intend and successively reflect, beside all his other Dis∣course, upon every individual step of his Journey? This were to make his Head fitter for the Hospi∣tal then for the Market, when he comes thither. Yet to every individual step his Foot is mov'd by the Will intending, and the understanding direct∣ing not Actually, then Vertually, as I have ex∣plain'd.

From all this, you see the R. Catholick is really as secure in matter of Baptism as the Protestant, and has as little Reason as he to fear its nulli∣ty.

But if by a Diabolical malice, which is a case more Metaphysical than Moral, the Priest or Mini∣ster had not a sufficient Intention, and the Inva∣lidity of the Baptism were wholly unknown to the Person Baptized, then suffices an efficacious desire of it, which, without thinking of it, is included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, for having offended God, or an Act of the Love of GOD; which every Christian being bound often to make is supposed to make, and so remains without trou∣ble upon that Head.

As I have said in Baptism, so in the Collation of Priest-hood suffices a Vertual Intention in the Bishop, which Morally cannot be wanting without the Malice of a Devil: But if it should sall out, which is most rare, if really 'twas ever heard of: ••irst, it may be Piously believ'd, least the Faith∣ful

be often deceiv'd in that Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, from which they expect so much; that either God gives by his Church the power of Priest-hood to those who are in all appearance or∣dain'd, as the Church gives Jurisdiction in favour of the Faithfull to the very Apostats of administring the Sacrament in a danger of Death; or that he will both manifest by his providence over his Church; that want of Intention in the Ordainer, that it may be supplied by a reordination, and move those in Authority, whom it concerns, to command it to be done.

So that if such a thing be divulged and come to the hearing of high superiors, and they take no notice of it after the case is sufficiently proposed to them, tis a sign the rumor is groundless.

And by this is partly answer'd what our adversary affirmes of a Bishop in France, who, as he saies, before his death confessed that he had ordained many, but alwayes without a due Intention.

Add, if it be true, that since the Church did not command such Priests ordain'd by him, to be re-ordain'd nor suspended them till then from the function, its to be thought that Bishop was look'd upon as a Person troubled with scruples at that time, and in the fear of Death to make his Conscience sure not distinguishing sufficiently actual Intention from virtual, accus'd himself not to have had a due Intention because he thought he had not an actual, or something of that nature not re∣gardable.

Another story our Adversary relates of a Person in pain for his Baptism being in danger of Death at Sea, of which, he saies, he was an Eye wit∣ness; I only desire him to call to mind, and, see if he was not rather an Ear witness of what

he heard related by another, than of what he saw himself (for which I have some Ground) and if it be so let him remember that the persons pain was not about the Intention of the Minister but absolutely whither or not he had been Baptiz'd re∣membering of the conjuncture of circumstances in which he was born, viz. a Bastard of a Catholick Father among the Presbyterians, who would not Baptize a Bastard unless the Father gave obedience to the Church or Synod.

However, I ask our Adversary, if he was an Eye witness, whither the doubt seem'd to him ratio∣nal, or not? If it seemed rational he being a fit Minister of the Sacrament he should have Baptiz'd him under condition; if not, he should have pa∣cified him, making him remember what we teach, to wit, that in case our Baptism had not been va∣lid, an efficacious desire of Baptism included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, or pure love of God, suffices.