A DISCOURSE CONCERNING UNCTION, AND Washing of Feet. PROVING That They be not Instituted Sacraments, or Ordinances in the Churches.  
By Isaac Chauncy, M. A.  
LONDON: Printed for Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arms in Leaden-Hall-Street, over against St. Mary Axe, 1697.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning Unction, and Washing of Feet.  

Sect. 1. IT hath been, and yet is a matter of Enquiry in the Churches, Whether the Triplicity of Primitive Rites, viz. Imposition of Hands, Unction and Washing of Feet, then in frequent Use, do yet remain Standing Ordinances by Divine Institution?  
Some think they be all so; but many judge only One so, viz. Imposition of Hands, concerning which we Discoursed elsewhere.  
Others take the other Two also to be such; and indeed I do not see how any of the Three can be fairly excluded if any one be admitted. Therefore having seen great Reason to Examine the grounds upon which such Apprehensions are built, lest a Yoke should be laid on the Churches which Christ never laid, and lest in casting off Antichristian Yokes we should reject the observation of any thing which our Lord Jesus Christ hath commanded; the two latter of the forementioned shall here be spoken to. And it's the first of the two, Anointing the sick with Oil, which we are most concerned in, there having been of late something Published in the Defence of this Assertion, That Anointing the Sick with Oil is a standing Ordinance to Confirm the Promise of Healing unto Church-Members.  
The Author whereof having deservedly a Renowned Memorial among the Churches of Christ, his Mistake in this Point (who so seldom mistake in Points of the highest Nature) might be of ill consequence. Whether he ever intended the Publishing of the said Paper, or ever practised according thereto, is much to be questioned; but it being now Published, it puts us upon a Necessity of speaking something to this Point, according to the light which is given us through God's Grace from his Word.   


§. 2. The Assertion is grounded on James 5.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Is any one among you weak, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him [here lieth the stress of the Command] anointing him with Oil [mentioning this Unction as a known Circumstance then in Use] in the Name of the Lord. Our Renowned Author here tells us, that the anointing here mentioned is not the anointing spoken of Mark 6.13. by which the Apostles healed through a Miraculous Gift. He should have said the kind of Healing was not the same; for the anointing was the same, and applied for the same general End, viz. Healing. And he should have told us where the Promise of Bodily-Healing is made peculiarly to Church-Members, and distinct from other good things promised, Spiritual and Temporal. He saith afterward, the Promise is here, And he shall be healed: But is this bestowed distinctly and apart from forgiveness? Doth Healing come by Unction, and Forgiveness by Prayer? How comes the Promise of Health to have a Seal annexed, any more than the Promises of Riches, or a supply with Food and Raiment to a poor Saint; or the Promise of Honour to such as suffer Reproach for Christ?  
His Arguments are as follows, and do tend to prove mostly, That the Unction of James was not extraordinary.   

Arg. 1. Anointing with Oil was joined [Jam. 5.14.] with the Elders Prayers, therefore it's a standing Ordinance.  
Ans. Non seq. For extraordinary actions in the Primitive Churches were joined with Prayer; As the choosing an Apostle Acts 1. Doth it follow therefore, that to choose Apostles is a Standing Ordinance? and so was laying Hands on the Seven Deacons, chap. 4. The actions of Elders or ordinary Christians are all as to this under a general Command, Phil. 4.6.   

Arg. 2. All Precepts in this Epistle concern the Church for ever; Therefore this.  
Ans. The Antecedent wants proof, for one may not though the rest may. 2. The Antecedent and Consequent may be granted, and yet the Question not concluded; for the Precept here (rightly understood) may concern the Church for ever.   


Arg. 3. From the Persons that were to be sent to, viz. The Elders of the Church. 1. He saith not, send for men who had the Healing Gifts, but for the Elders of the Church.  
Ans. There was no need of saying otherwise then, as in the next Age, because Elders had ordinarily healing Gifts, either extraordinarily, as the Apostles had, for they were indefinitely bestowed on the Church, 1 Cor. 12.9. and therefore as on Brethren, so on Elders most especially. Or Elders had ordinary healing Gifts, practised as Physicians, from the example of Christ and his Apostles, and therefore the Elders might rather than others be sent for, having Abilities to heal the one way or the other.  
The Elders during the Apostolic Times, and afterward, from the Examples of Christ and his Apostles, exercised themselves in healing the Sick, as well as in Preaching the Word, being qualified thereto by an extraordinary Gift, or by an ordinary acquired Gift and skill Medicinal; so Luke healed, and undoubtedly divers Elders.   

2. Who were standing Officers of a Church which was to continue?  
Ans. Though Elders and Churches were to continue, yet it follows not that what Gifts of Healing were in some, should successively continue to all that were to follow.   

3. The Elders in every Church had not that Gift.  
Ans. That wants proof; it's most likely the Elders in every Church at that time had extraordinary or ordinary Gifts, and if all had not, the Apostle may understand those that had; or that the Elders should come to assist by Prayer, whenever the Healer came to heal, and they supervising it, it's spoken of, as though they did it.   

4. The Gifts of Healing and Prophecy were variously bestowed, as to those that were not Apostles and Evangelists, 1 Cor. 12.8,9.  
Ans. They might be ordinarily so, but it follows not that it was so always; there's nothing said to demonstrate that they who had the gift of Prophecy, had not the gift of Healing, for there's as much to prove that such as had the gift of Prophecy, had not the gift of Tongues and Interpretation.    


Arg. 4. Is taken from the Persons to be healed. 1. If it had been extraordinary healing, it would have extended further, to Blind, Leaf, Dumb, etc.  
Ans. How doth it appear that it extends not to these; the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may take in any Sickness, Weakness, or Infirmity of Body; and we know that many so affected, as Deaf and Dumb, have been cured by Medicinal Remedies?   

2. They were Members of the Church, not unbelievers.  
Ans. The Members of the Church were most immediately and knowingly obliged; but undoubtedly if an Extra-Ecclesian had sent for the Elders of the Church upon the same account, the Elders would have gone to him, prayed over him, and anointed him, as if he had been a Member, and the promise of Healing, and Forgiveness of Sins, is as much to such.   

Miraculous Healing did extend to all sorts, Believers and unbelievers.  
Ans. Yea, so doth all bodily healing of any kind.  
Yea, to them chief.  
Answ. But if Unbelievers be understood in the largest Sense, it's a great mistake, and contradicted by himself afterwards; for he saith, and its true, That all that were healed by the extraordinary Gift of Healing, were to have the Faith of Miracles. It's true, Tongues, and Prophesying, were for Conviction of the Truths of the Gospel, and said to be Signs, but the immediate effect of the Gift of Healing was to Heal; and its certain Christ and the Apostles did Heal both Believers and Unbelievers, and a secondary Effect and End was, for Conviction and Confirmation of Truth, Heb. 2.    

Arg. 5. Taken from the generality of the extent of this Ordinance, If any amongst you be Sick, which argues it not to be extraordinary; for when any were healed by an extraordinary Gift, it was by a Faith of Miracles concurring.  
Ans. Then they were not Unbelievers in the largest Sense; but when a Gift of Healing is in the Church, the call to resort to it is indefinite, and the call to wait upon God for any Good, is a call to exercise that Faith which is suitable to those Ways and Means God calls Men to the using of.   

Arg. 6. From the Means appointed, Oil, now the extraordinary Gift of Healing was not confined to Oil, etc.  
Ans. It's true, it was not, but being Oil was used in extraordinary Healing sometimes, why might it not here also in the same manner?   

Arg. 7. From the generality of the Command, [the same Argument with the First, but followed a little otherwise] that if extraordinary Gifts were meant, than none should have died.  
Ans. Why will this follow any more than in Christ's and the Apostles times? And yet it was free for all to resort to them, none was refused, as we read of, that came or sent.   

None of these Arguments conclude the Question, That its a standing Institution; for they all run upon this Supposition, That the Unction mentioned by the Apostle James, was either an extraordinary Gift, or it was a Standing Institution; but it was no extraordinary Gift, therefore a standing Instituted Ordinance, and the minor he proves by these Seven Arguments; how weak they are in that regard we have made appear; so that for all that hath been said, by that worthy Man, it might be an extraordinary Gift that is here intended. But we also deny the Disjunction, and say there may a third Reason be assigned, that's intended by the Apostle, as we shall show anon.    


§ 3. Our Learned Author proposeth divers Objections, and returns Answers, which we proceed to reply to.   

Obj. 1. This is to make more Sacraments than two. Which he Answers by way of Concession, only distinguishing betwixt Seals of the Covenant of Grace, and Seals of other Promises.  
Reply. There are no Promises made even of outward good Things to God's Children but in Christ Jesus, and contained in the Covenant of Grace, and there needs no other Seals but what are Seals to that. Circumcision Sealed the Promise of Christ to Abraham, and all the Promises of the Land of Canaan, and of External Blessings therein. He instanceth in the Rainbow, Gen. 9.11,12, etc. But that was God's confirming Seal of the Covenant of Grace to Noah, and of an External Good promised to the Church, and to the World, for the sake of the Church, and accordingly applied by the Prophet Isaiah to the Covenant of Grace, as a Confirming Sign to us.  
But what is this Instance to our purpose? Whatever the Rainbow was, it was not Instituted Church Ordinance, and cannot be called a Sacrament; for that is such a Sign and Seal as is Instituted by Christ for our Obedience thereto, wherein by some Acts of ours appointed by Christ, we show forth some Spiritual Thing that our Faith is exercised on thereby.   

Obj. 2. If it be a Seal it's of Remission of Sins; for that is spoken of in the Text by the Apostle.  
Ans. Remission of Sins there, is not that general and eternal Forgiveness promised in the Covenant of Grace, but the taking away of a temporary Gild.  
Repl. But is there any saving Remission but what belongs to the Covenant of Grace? And must there be one Seal for Eternal Remission, and another for Temporary? If a Seal of Remission must be carried to the Sick, it makes much to justify a Popish Practice in carrying the Lord's Supper to them. It is true, there is a Forgiveness spoken of in Scripture, which is only not to punish with Temporal Punishments, and is not Saving, as to the Soul, as Psal. 78.38. And there's no Seal as I know of, belonging to such a Temporal and Negative Salvation properly considered, remaining as an Ordinance in the Church.   

Obj. 3. All Sacraments are Seals to absolute Promises; and when rightly used in Faith, have certainly their effect: But this hath not, for so none should die who in Faith should use it.  
Ans. True, all Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace are such,— but yet God may have appointed another Seal for the Confirmation of the Promises of outward Mercies:— Of this nature is the Ordinance of Imposition of Hands.  
Repl. We have no ground to believe that God hath appointed any other Seals than such as belong to the Covenant of Grace, which He hath annexed thereto by his Institution. He instanceth in Imposition of Hands, which he saith is a Sacrament for increase of Gifts. But, 1. Was it not used at first for bestowing Gifts? How comes it now to be changed from the first Intention? 2. Whatever Sacrament is for increase is to be often repeated, but so is not Imposition of Hands, according to the zealousest Assertors thereof. 3. Sacraments, as Signs, hold forth and signify, by way of Symbol, always some spiritual and inward Grace; we never find they terminate upon common Gifts, and corporeal Benefits, and we read of a Sacrament for increase of Grace, but none for increase of Gifts. 4. Why should not Unction be for increase of Health, as well as Imposition of Hands for increase of Gifts, and so to have a double use for Recovery of Health, and increase or continuance of it after recovery? 5. What is there in Imposition of Hands to increase Gifts? Is it naturally so, or by Institution? None can say the former; if the latter, there's a Promise annexed for increase of Gifts, and then the oftener used, the more Gifts will be increased; but we find no such Promise annexed, neither is it reasonable to say, that those Rites that were used in bestowing Gifts in the Primitive Times, should be continued to ours for increasing them. 6. We read of a Sacrament to signify the gift of Grace, and another for the increase of it, why not two Sacraments in respect of gifts also for those distinct ends.   

Obj. 4. This gives Countenance unto the Papists extreme Unction, and condemns our Reformed Churches for rejecting it.  

Ans. 1. The Church of Rome retains almost all Ordinances, only she hath perverted them,— as she hath perverted this from being an Ordinance of restoring Health, and forgiving temporary Gild of particular Sins, to become a Sacrament of Justification and Forgiveness of all Sins, and so a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and that not for the Sick, but for all dying Persons when past Recovery, in which case it should not be used.  
Repl. 1. Though the Church of Rome make an Image of every Ordinance of Christ, it cannot be said to retain all Christ's Ordinances, and its retaining some, argues not that all their Ordinances are Christ's.  
2. If the Church of Rome use Unction to a sick Person, though in articulo mortis, how doth she pervert it, for there's nothing in the Text that excludes any sick Person from the use of it? And if the said Person may be Prayed with, and for, why not Anointed too? For how many of such as are apprehended to be in a dying condition do recover notwithstanding? And how much the rather should Unction be used to such, if one end be for the removal of temporary Gild, that the Decumbent may not departed under it.  
3. How come Sacraments for Forgiveness of Sins to be of two kinds; some for Forgiveness of all Sins, and some for Forgiveness of some only? Where there is a Sacrament for Forgiveness of all, there needs none for Forgiveness of some; if Christ in his Wisdom had Ordained so, no doubt but He would have Ordained the Repetition of Baptism as Temporary Gild should be contracted.  
4. If the Forgiveness here spoken of be Soulsaving from Gild, it must belong to the Covenant of Grace, and the Papists must be right in making it a Sacrament of Justification, and must be of special use in articulo mortis, allowing it to be instituted for the abovesaid end and purpose.  
5. Who knows when a sick Person is past Recovery? If he be so, (1.) Is he not to be prayed for, and with, by the Elders? (2.) May not he be under Temporary Gild? And is there not need enough of Forgiveness to him in that respect? (3.) And why should not all means be used for Recovery, especially by an Ordinance, whilst there's Life there's hope. (4.) It's becoming extreme Unction, is praeter intentionem Agentis; some (as is here granted) do die, and so far the Unction Administered by Protestants must be extreme Unction.  
6. There will need in this case a Directory with a double Catalogue of Diseases, to tell in which Unction should be applied, and in what Cases not; as it may be Queried whether it's to be used in Acute Diseases only, or in Chronical also? especially such as are known to be incurable for the most part, as in Pthisis, Gout, Stone, Dropsy, etc. And whether if used, it may be repeated often, while the Patient is long under a linger, languishing condition? Whether so often as the Elders pray with the Patient they may anoint? Whether if the Physician pronounce the Disease Mortal, any Unction at all aught to be applied? What should be done in cases of Diliriums and Distractions? In case also of Lameness, Dumbness, Wounds, etc. there will a hundred Queries arise necessary to be resolved, when to Anoint, and when not, if it may not be used in all Cases of Sickness.   

Ans. 2. The Reformed Churches seeing that such a Sacrament could not be, and this must needs be a perversion of it, did justly reject it as they used it; only in rejecting it they went too far (as in some other things) even denying it to have that use of restoring the Sick, as a Seal of the Promise, and an indefinite means to convey that Blessing, which God in Mercy hath appointed it to be.  
Repl. What is here acknowledged to be done by the Reformed Churches, in rejecting Unction as a Sacrament upon all accounts, is most Justifiable, neither have they gone too far herein, nor in laying aside Four more of the Popish pretended Sacraments; neither doth it appear by all that hath been said, that Unction hath now any Sacramental use in restoring of Health, or that any Promise here, or in the Scripture, is any more of Health, than of Food and Raiment, etc. or hath any Seal annexed to it any more than Promises of outward Good have their respective Seals: Neither is there any real Forgiveness of Sin, Temporal or Eternal, but what belongs to, and is bestowed by that Covenant of Grace; therefore there can be no Seals of it, but what are Seals of that Covenant; and if Anointing be a Seal of a Promise that belongs not to the Covenant of Grace, it must be a Seal of a Promise made in the Covenant of Works, or else quite out of Doors.     

§. 4. The Apostle James, in this Chapter, from ver. 7. Exhorting and directing Christians to a holy and exact Conversation in all sorts of external Conditions, Prosperity and Adversity; the things that he is particular in especially, are 1. Patience in Suffering. 2. A due Reverence of the Great Name of GOD in our ordinary Conversation, ver. 12. where he doth not forbid all kind of Swearing, but Swearing by any Creature, and Swearing in common Discourse, according to the Words and Sense of our Lord Jesus Christ, Mat. 5.34. 3. He shows what Duty is most suitable to an afflicted Condition, viz. Prayer; to a prosperous Condition, Singing of Psalms; and insists more largely upon the former of these two, viz. betaking ourselves to Prayer in Affliction of any sort or kind; [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth any among you suffer evil?] It's to be understood of afflictive Evils of any sort; and because we are so incident to Sicknesses and bodily Infirmities, which do most commonly of all others, unfit and indispose us to Pray, he exhorts Christians as follows, either to send for the Elders of the Church to Pray with the Sick, ver. 14. or Pray one for another, ver. 16. Whence the Apostle's direction is, 1. General, in case of any Affliction, to Pray. 2. Particular, in case of Affliction by Sickness, that a Person is indisposed, and unfit to Pray, to send for the Elders to pray with him, or to get other Christians to pray with him, (in case Elders be not to be had) for the fervent Prayer (saith he) of any holy Man, prevails much. And this he saith, lest we should think that he laid all the stress of obtaining the sick Man's Benefit upon the Eldership, he saith not, for a Holy Christians Prayer prevails much for his Brother or Neighbour, and in the same way and kind as the Elders, both in respect of Healing and Forgiveness, ver. 16.   


§. 5. Now from the Text it doth appear, That the Apostle James intends not an Institution of any Sacramental Ordinance in the Church, 1. From the manifest design of the Apostle, appearing from the Text and Context, which is to recommend to Christians the use of Prayer in the Day of Affliction, performed by ourselves, or others for us in Faith, ver. 15. in respect of outward or spiritual Wants, ver. 14. This Duty is first generally recommended as a great and special means by way of Duty, to betake ourselves unto, and most suitable to the Day of Affliction, as Singing forth God's Praises is most suitable to the Day of prosperous Enlargements.   

2. That in Cases of greater Distress, especially in such of bodily Distempers, when we lie under Pains, and Languishments of Body and Spirits, from which also arise much darkness, and disquietments of Heart and Conscience, as also from many Temptations of the evil One, as to our Spiritual State, insomuch that the poor Decumbent saith (when those about him press the Duty here exhorted to in general, that he should betake himself to Prayer) I cannot Pray by reason of my great Pain, or by reason of Unbelief, etc. you must Pray with me, and for me [Pray one for another] v. 16. I confess I have been a sinful, unbelieving, hypocritical Wretch, if God mark Iniquity, all this, and much more is less than I deserve, and I have now many Fears and Doubts lie upon me, [If he have sinned] i. e. Supposing that he labours under distress of Conscience for Sin in general, or for any Sin in particular, then saith the Apostle, in this case, call in the best help you can, [its not said, as is suggested by our Author, if his Disease be incurable, and he be near Death, then it's too late] but let the Sickness be what it will, curable, or incurable, threatening approaching Death, or not; in this, and such like Distresses send for the Elders of the Church (as well as for the Physician, which you are ready to do) that they may counsel, comfort, and Pray with, and for the poor Patient, with this Caution, not to neglect the use of lawful and ordinary Medicinal Means [Anointing him] one Remedy is here specified by a Synecdoche, usual in Scripture, of a part for the whole; for you should not use Medicines as Asa did, trusting to the Physician more than to God, nor use them in a heathenish manner, without a Solemn Application to the God of Health and Sickness, the Father of Spirits, that casteth down, and raiseth up, that killeth and maketh alive, therefore use your Remedies in the Name of the Lord, according to Col. 3.17. In Obedience to, for the Honour of, and in the Fear of our Lord Jesus Christ, waiting patiently on his Will and Pleasure, in the use of all spiritual, and lawful outward Means, for a Blessing upon them. The Motives that the Apostle useth to press this Duty, (N. B.) are laid upon the account of Prayer, not upon the account of Anointing, as the express end of the Patient's sending for the Elders, is to Pray with him, Is any of you sick, what should he do, should he send for the Physician? Yes. Or use any Physic? Yes. But let him in the chief place go unto God, send for the Elders rather in the first place [not in the last, when the Case is past Remedy, and hopeless, as is usual] that they may pray with the Decumbent for a Blessing upon means; then use the Physician's Remedies, anoint him, if he have a Palsy, and weak Limbs, or if the Case be otherwise, give a Vomit, a Purge, a Cordial, etc. in the Name of the Lord: And this is to use Physic as Christians ought to do, and then he saith not, send to the Elders to anoint him, or to give him Physic (though it may be they did, and it's very probable) but to Pray with him, and so Anoint him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Anointing him, or applying suitable Remedies, in the Name of the Lord. So that the Application of Remedies (whether by themselves, or others) is spoken of but as subordinate Means to be used, but not to be depended upon, as any way effectual to answer the Decumbents ends, without the Blessing of God.    

§. 6. Now for the Motives, they are annexed to the use of Prayer all along, not to the use of Oil, I shall but briefly name them.  

1. The great prevalency of Prayer (ordinarily) made in Faith to recover a sick Person; he lays not the Efficacy upon Oil, or the Remedy, but saith the Lord being called upon, He shall raise him up.  
2. The prevalency of the Prayer of Faith to bring into the Soul the light of Pardon, and Forgiveness, and of Spiritual Peace and Comfort.  
3. Of all means it doth upon Experience prevail most, it is most Effectual when performed in Faith, with great Fervency and Affection, by, or for a poor , humble, and afflicted Believer, by the Elders, or Brethren, ver. 16.  
4. And lastly, He useth the instance of Elias, who was so eminently prevailing with God in Prayer, for great things of a Temporal Nature, on the behalf of others, who lay under a Judgement, for the reverse of the said Judgement and Salvation from it; which prevalency he doth not ascribe to Unction, nor seems so much to ascribe to his extraordinary Prophetic Spirit, as to the Prayer of Faith, therefore fetcheth an Argument therefrom, to provoke and incite them to Pray for one another, or send to the Elders to Pray with such as were in Affliction.    

§. 7. The Second Argument to prove that the Apostle had no intent to Ordain any Sacramental Rite, or Church Ordinance is this; If it had been so, he would not have changed the Elementary Ceremony from what Christ had first Ordained to be used after his Resurrection, Mark 16.18. where it was Laying on of hands: Which Ceremony we read of to be twice used in Recovery of the Sick, once in Curing Paul's Blindness by Ananias, and another time by Paul, in Curing the Father of Publius, of a Fever and Bloody Flux, Acts 28.8. Now seeing all the Apostles stood by the Elementary Part of Christ's Institution, which He Ordained both in Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, it is not in the least probable, that the Apostle James would make any such alteration in a Sacramental Institution, (nor was led by the Holy Ghost so to do) so as to change the Elementary Part from one kind to another, from Laying on of Hands, to Anointing with Oil.  
Obj. The Twelve Apostles used Anointing with Oil in miraculous Curing, therefore Instituted by Christ, Mark 6.13.  
Ans. We find not that that particular Ceremony is there, or any where else enjoined or recommended to them by Christ, neither is there ground enough to think, that of Laying on of Hands was so, Mark 16.18. The words there are a Promise of miraculous Gifts, some of which for instance are enumerated, as Casting out Devils, speaking with new Tongues, taking up Serpents, without hurt, and if they should drink Poison, it should not hurt, or if they did but lay their Hands on the Sick, they should recover. Our Author is right in this, that the working by extraordinary Gifts was not confined to the use of any one Rite or Ceremony, or to some indefinitely, for sometimes those miraculous Works were wrought without any, as in the Text of Mark 16. sometimes by only Speaking, sometimes by Napkins, etc. Acts 3.7,16. & 14.10. & 16.18. & 9.17,34,40. & 28.8. And accordingly, when they wrought by this Gift, they sometimes used some small Rite, such as touching with the Hand, or Anointing with Oil, (as Christ did the Eyes of the Blind with Clay and Spittle) which Judicious Persons could not think had any natural Virtue to produce the Effect, that so all that were Witnesses thereof could not but acknowledge, that what was wrought was immediately from God, and could not be done any other way.  
Hence the Twelve Apostles, on their first Mission, in healing the Sick, took a Rite that was in ordinary use among the Jews (as a weak and common Medicine among them, and in those Eastern Parts, known to have no great Efficacy in it to be admired, not so much as a Carduus Posset with us) and this is the Circumstance demonstrating their Miraculous Gift, Mark 6.13. that as they cast out Devils, whether by any Rite is not mentioned, so they Recovered the Sick, only Anointing them with Oil. And herein Christ's Miracles, and his Apostles differed from those seeming one's wrought by Charms, and by a Diabolick Confederacy; that the Devil strictly ties up his Operators to all the Circumstances of his Imposed Rites, but thus Christ did not.   

§. 8. The Anointing spoken of by James, doth not appear by any, or all the Reverend Author's Arguments, not to be a Rite attending an extraordinary Gift; For it is manifest, that during the Lives of the Apostles, such extraordinary Gifts were in the Churches, 1 Cor. 12.4,9,10. And it was during that time that the Apostle must write these things; and if many ordinary Brethren wrought, and spoke by them, then why not the Elders much more? And that some such were bestowed on Timothy in the use of the Rite of Laying on of Hands is not to be doubted, and if it was in use to lay Hands on all Elders of Churches (as many say it was, and this Author making it a Sacrament) why should not all Elders have this Gift, especially for the good of the Churches, a great part of their Office lying in Visiting the Sick? It seems to be strange, what was the Reason why the Apostles at their first Mission used Unction, and we read not of the use of it afterwards. I conceive it was because the Lord Jesus, before his Ascension, mentioned another, Mark 16.18. though not enjoining it; but his mentioning it seemed to intimate to them, that of the two, He rather approved of that of Laying on of Hands in Healing of the Sick, than of Unction.   

§. 9 Yet we are not of the Opinion, that James intends Healing by an extraordinary Gift: But therefore it follows not, that the Unction mentioned by him was a Divine Institution, an Ordinance, yea Sacrament, (as our Author would have it) to continue in the Churches, as we have abundantly evinced: But it was a third Thing, only an Instance of ordinary Means, with Direction to a due Christian Way and Manner of the Administration thereof.  
That Anointing with Oil was frequently used by the Jews to Exhilarate and Refresh, doth appear by Scripture, and the not using it was a sign of Mourning, 2 Sam. 14.2. Psal. 23.5. Mat. 6.17. And therefore they did use it to the Sick as a common Medicine, that did at least refresh and revive the weak and dispirited Patient.  
Dr. Lightfoot tells us from the Talmud, (which upon search proves to be so) That the Jews were wont to Anoint upon a threefold Account. 
1. For Ornament, which was forbidden on Days of Expiation, and was not used on Days of Mourning.  
2. That they Anointed with Oil for Healing of Diseases; hence (saith the Dr.) the Apostles Counsel as referring to this Medicinal Practice, is, That it be improved to the best advantage, and therefore adviseth to send for the Elders of the Church to do it, not that there was any more in their doing it than in another's, but that with the applying this Corporal Medicine, they might Pray with the Patient, and apply Spiritual Physic, etc. which is as much in our Nation as if a Patient taking Physic, should send for the Minister to Pray with him.  
3. It was used also by the ill Jews, with Charming and Muttering over the Patient, etc. whereupon the Doctor thinks it may be supposed also, That the Apostle observing this Abuse in some, of an ordinary and good Medicine, directs Christians to a quite contrary way, to send for the Elders of the Church, etc. See Harmon. p. 333.    


§. 10. In a Word, If Unction of the Sick be used otherwise than the third of them , viz. Diabolick, it must be upon one of these following accounts.  

1. As a Rite annexed to a Gift of miraculous Healing: Thus it's not intended here, as our Learned Author would prove by many Arguments, but hath fallen short in his design, as hath been proved; though we judge also it was not such Unction, that the Apostle intends.  
2. Or as a Sacramental Rite, or Symbol, to continue in the Church.  
3. To produce a natural Effect, as other Medicaments.    

If it be said we are to use it in the first Sense, 1. There must be Faith of Miracles, both in the Anointer and Anointed. 2. If so, it will have certain effect on every one to whom it is duly Administered, for so we find it had in the primitive Times, Mark 6.13. 3. The miraculous Gift being ceased, and the Faith thereof, it's much folly to use the Rite at all.   

2. If it be pleaded for as our Author doth, as a Symbolic and Sacramnetal Rite Instituted for continuance in the Church, we have showed that it cannot be grounded upon this place, nor on any other, and many Absurdities will follow on such an Assertion. And it must necessarily follow, that the other Primitive Ceremonies, viz. Imposition of Hands, and washing of Feet, are also Sacraments to continue, whence we shall have Five Sacraments in the Churches, and come within Two of the Papists number of Sacraments.   

3. If Unction be used on the third account, as a natural Remedy, than it must be used in such a measure and way, as that it may have a Medicinal Effect; touching or crossing the Body with the Finger dipped in a little Oil will not do, it must be rubbed, and chafed in to the part affected, or some principal Part must be well suppled with it, and it's without doubt, that it's no Medicine in our Country, there are many found to be much better, inward and outward, than to Anoint the Body with Oil Olive, less or more.    

§. 11. Upon the like, if not greater ground, that Unction of the Sick, or Imposition of Hands are pleaded to be standing Sacraments in the Churches, may also Washing of Feet, it being professed to be such by the Papists, who also plead (from a wrong Sense of Scripture) that it was Instituted by Christ's Command, and Exemplary Practice, John 13.12,15. That it was a Symbol of inward Grace, etc. and that it was afterward practised in the Churches, 1 Tim. 5.10. Notwithstanding all which plausible Pleas, it cannot be acknowledged to be any Stated Church Ordinance Instituted by Christ. For washing of Feet was as frequently used in that Country, as Anointing with Oil, it being a part of that respective Entertainment which they usually gave to Friends coming to them which they had honour for; when the Person of Esteem, or Guest came in, they called the Servant to bring in Water to wash his Feet, and it being the Servants business, it was looked upon as Inferior and Servile, and doing thereof by any Person of Rank or Degree, was looked upon as a very great denial of himself, and Humility. Accordingly the Lord Jesus Christ taught his Disciples Humility thereby, so that it was used by Him as didactical, not by way of Institution of it for a Standing Ordinance in the Church. For Jesus Christ being in Bethany two Days before the Feast of the Passover, and Supping there, Mat. 26.6. Mark 14.3. where Judas was, and from whence he went out to betray Him: After Supper (John 13.4,5.) He took Water and a Towel, and washed his Disciples Feet, which they wondered at, that the Master should do that which the most inferior Servants were wont to do, and knew not the meaning of it, ver. 7. [which Christ would have told them, had He intended it for a Sacramental Action, as He did always in that case] Peter in particular, in honour to his Master, refuseth to let Him wash his Feet, ver. 6. Christ tells him, If He doth not wash him, [meaning in his Blood, as to Justification and Sanctification, according to that, Heb. 10.22.] he had no part in Him, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imports in me sometimes, or of me,] whereupon Peter desires to be washed all over by Christ at this washing; misunderstanding the meaning of Christ, thinking He had spoke of his present washing, for Christ had said, ver. 7. Thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know afterward, i. e. after He had done washing their Feet, ver. 14, 15, 16 And Peter seems to apprehend that Christ intended a Sacramental Washing, signifying the washing away of Sin, therefore saith he, wash my Hands, etc. No, saith Christ, He that is Sacramentally washed, its significant enough if it be but of a part, it holds forth the cleansing of the whole, and ye are as Individuals clean, but not every one; the reason of which Saying is given ver. 11. he meant Judas was not clean. Now after he had held Peter and the Disciples in an enigmatical Discourse concerning this Action of His, during the time thereof, ver. 12. He takes his Garments, sits down, and acquaints them with the direct Reason, as if He should say, You are apt to think this or that, but I will tell you the true and direct Reason is to teach you Humility by my Example; you ought to do all Acts of Service one for another, in all lowliness of Mind, as your Lord and Master hath done, in taking upon Himself the form of a Servant for your sakes, see ver. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. and concludes, saying, Now ye understand these things its well if ye do them, as it were foretelling how much a Spirit of Pride and Ambition, which He had oft rebuked, would be too apt to prevail in them, and in Ministers of future Ages, who would Lord it over the Churches, and one another, striving who should be greatest. See Christ's full meaning of this place, by comparing with it Mat. 18.1,2. Luke 22.24,25,27. Mat. 23.8,10,11. Mark 9.34,36. Such another Sacrament, the washing the Saints Feet, is numbered among the qualifications of a Deaconess, 1 Tim. 5.10. because it was an Argument of her Humility and readiness to serve the Saints in any inferior offices.   

§. 12. Finally, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is Lord over his own House, as a Son, hath not left his Churches at a loss about so great a concernment as his Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant; what of all the Rites used, He hath Instituted as such, and what not; for if He hath so left them, we labour under this Difficulty, Whether Christ hath Instituted Two Sacraments, or more? Whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper be only Sacraments Instituted by Him, or whether Imposition of Hands, Anointing the Sick, and Washing of Feet, (significant Ceremonies also, used by Christ and his Apostles) be also Sacraments now continued in the Churches? But Christ hath been so far from leaving us unresolved in these great Points, That of all the Symbolic Ceremonies, or any that seem so, which were in use in the Primitive Times upon any account, He hath given certain Notes or Characteristic Signs by which we know which of them He hath Ordained to continue in the Churches to the end of the World, and those are Three especially: 1. That the thing signified doth still remain, together with the necessary end and use of it to the Churches, and all the Members thereof; and so it is in Baptism, and the Lord's Supper; but 'tis not so in the other (too thereof especially) Conferring of Gifts, and Miraculous Healing being ceased. 2. That in those which He hath appointed to be Standing Symbols in the Church, He hath Ordained Solemn Words to be used respectively, in the Administration and Application of the said Rites and Elements, adapted to the distinct Significancy of each one; this is found in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and in none of the rest. 3. That which is a distinguishing Mark beyond dispute, is this, That the Lord Jesus Christ hath expressly continued them to the end of the World, Mat. 28.19,20. 1 Cor. 11.26. viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which cannot be said of any of the other Three forenamed Rites, and therefore we call them only Primitive Rites, used only for some special Reasons appropriate to those Times, and not continued as Instituted Ordinances, or Symbols and Seals of the Covenant. The Things then signified by them being ceased, no stated and fixed Words of Administration standing upon Record, and no express continuance of them to the coming of Christ, or end of the World: Therefore we conclude as there remains but Two Sacraments, so there are no more Symbolic Rites Instituted for Standing Ordinances in the Churches, all the rest of Primitive Date and Use, being now Obsolete.   
FINIS.   

Books Printed for Nath. Hiller, at the Prince's Arms in Leaden-hall-street, over against St. Mary Axe.  

THE Righteousness of God through Faith, upon all, without difference, who Believe, in Two Sermons on Rom. 3.22. By the Late Reverend Mr. Nathanael Mather, Minister of the Gospel.  
Batteries upon the Kingdom of Satan. By Mr. Cotton Mather, Author of the late Memorable Providences of Witchcraft, and of Earthquakes Exemplified.  
The Throne of Grace Discoursed of, from Heb. 4.16. By Robert Trayle, M. A. Minister of the Gospel.  
A Learned and Accurate Discourse, concerning the Gild of Sin, Pardon of that Gild, and Prayer for that Pardon. By the Reverend Mr. Tho. Gilbert, lately deceased, at Oxford.  
Scripture Proof for singing Scripture Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. By E. H.  
The Conquests and Triumphs of Grace, being a Narrative of the Success of the Gospel among the Indians in New-England. By Mat. Mahew.  
A Letter to Dr. Bates, in Vindication of the Dr. and myself, necessitated by Mr. William's Answer to Mr. Humphreys. By Steph. Lob.  
Pietas in Patriam: The Life of his Excellency Sir William Phipps, Knt. Late Captain General and Governor of New-England. Containing the Memorable Changes undergone, and Actions performed by him.