Extreme Unction.   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Septemb. 29. 1687.  
Hic Liber cui Titulus [A Discourse of Extreme Unction, etc.]  
JO. BATTELY.   

A DISCOURSE Concerning the PRETENDED SACRAMENT OF Extreme Unction. With an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church.  
In Three Parts.  
With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.  
LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVII.   

To the Reverend Father the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition.  
Reverend Sir,  
THIS Discourse of Extreme Unction had gone into the World without any Preface to the Reader, had not your Vindication obliged me to direct one to you, who, it may be, will find yourself concerned to peruse the following Papers. I could not by any means suffer myself to be diverted from reading your Book that was published last Week, and that not merely for gratifying a more than usual Curiosity to see what you had to say; but rather for the informing of my Judgement; since I could not easily believe that in saying so much as you have done, you should yet say nothing to the purpose. And therefore you may be sure, I did not fall asleep, when I came to the Article of Extreme Unction, but gave you full attention there, because I had so lately dwelled upon that Argument, and was just then publishing my Thoughts about it. Shall I speak my Mind freely? It was to me indifferent whether I should find myself obliged to retract any thing that I had written, or to tell you, as I do, that you have given me no Reason at all to do so. I am as unwilling to anticipate the Defence of that Worthy Person against whom you are engaged, as to neglect all notice of your Vindication in a point wherein I am this moment particularly concerned: And therefore I shall tell you generally and briefly how the matter stands, because there seems to be a fitness in it, but without pretending to deserve any Thanks from him, or to expect any from you.  
As for what you say upon the Text of St. James, the main Question is, whether from those Indefinite Words, Is any sick among you, taken in Connexion with those that follow, there be more reason to believe that it was a standing part of the Presbyters Office to anoint any Christian whatsoever in his Sickness, for the Forgiveness of his Sins; or from those Words, The Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up? To conclude that the Apostle having directed all the Sick to send for the Elders of the Church, did immediately take notice of a Case that happened but sometimes, viz. that of a miraculous Cure upon the Prayer of Faith, in which case the Sick were to be anointed with Oil in the Name of the Lord.  
Now, Sir, I beg leave to tell you that though there are many Inducements to the latter Opinion offered in the First part of this Work, which you seem not to have been ware of, yet I cannot find any one Exception against that, or any Reason for the former Opinion in all your performance, which I have not prevented in mine. Which will be so evident to those who care to take the pains of comparing you and me together: that I need not fear to be suspected of Insincerity, 
Reply, p. 190.  in desiring you whose Zeal will not suffer you to mitigate the earnest desire you have for the Salvation of your Brethren; in desiring you, I say, to animadvert upon these Papers; and that for the Author's sake, who is, I dare say, no less concerned to be saved, than you are that he should be so. You know the Council of Trent has damned us (as far as Anathematising goes) for denying your Sacrament of Extreme Unction. If you do in good earnest believe there was Cause for it, let us see that you do so, by sparing a little of your Charity to save us, if it may be, from this damning Error.  
Certainly I could not desire to meet with a Man more fit for this Undertaking than you would seem to be. For you it seems can prove that Extreme Unction is a Practice that came down from the Apostles, 
Reply, p. 70, 71.  and was from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 Years: How, say you, did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction; and do Protestants, who pretend to reform according to the Primitive Purity, reject it? I perceive you are very sure of it; pray therefore will you try to make me so too, for if you do, I promise you to examine all those Reasons from the place over again, which led me to an Interpretation of St. James different from yours, and that with a double Severity; though you should not think it needful to pass the least Reflection upon them. For I assure you it is the practice of the Church for more than 800 Years, and especially the practice of the First six Ages, as I understand it, that induces me not a little to believe our Interpretation of St. James to be the true one; which you must not blame me for, 
Reply p. 65.  who say, that the best way of proving things from Scripture is to show Antiquity understood it so.  
But if you thought that your Word ought to be taken in so great a Point, you should by no means have lessened the Authority of it, by telling two (excuse me Reverend Father! for so it is) I say, two Tales, in the very same Breath wherein you delivered your Oracle about the Antiquity and Universality of Extreme Unction.  
One Tale is, and 'tis a notable one, that the Defender himself confessed this Extreme Unction to be so Ancient and Universal a Practice as you would have it thought to be. Surely if you do not make better Proof out of the Fathers than you have done by the Confession of the Defender, we must look out for a new Man to prove to us Extreme Unction by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church, as you speak. 
Def. p. 42, 45.  I find indeed the Defender confessing that that Interpretation of the Words of St. James which he followed, was for 8●0 Years esteemed the undoubted meaning of them, and that the ancient Liturgies of the Church, and the public practice of it, do for above 800 Years show that they esteemed this Unction, i. e. St. James 's Unction, to belong primarily to bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the Sickness of the Soul. Now that he should therefore confess Extreme Unction to have been of so ancient standing, is to make him say the quite contrary to what he does say. For the Unction of which he spoke, was not Extreme, but brought to show that Extreme Unction did not in all that time obtain in the Church. I pass by your Insinuation that he supposed the Unction mentioned by St. James was practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years. He said no such thing, nor supposed any such thing, but only that for 800 Years they esteemed St. James' Unction to belong primarily to Bodily Cures; which they might do, and yet in less time than 800 Years they might bring in an Unction different from that of St. James, though both of them were primarily designed for Bodily Cures. In the following Discourse I have shown that they not only might do so, but that they did do so. But I pass by this, till you give further occasion to display the Artifice of these Insinuations, which for the present I shall leave to your Reader's Diligence to gather, if he will take the pains to compare you with the Defender in this Article.  
The other Tale is, and 'tis Brother to the former, That Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say, as the Defender affirmed he did; who affirmed that Cardinal Cajetan freely confessed the Words of St. James could belong to no other than Bodily Cures. This, Sir, quite disheartened me, for I took the Cardinal's Confession to be so positive, that I translated it out of the Cardinal himself, and inserted it into a convenient Place of the following Book 
‖ Disc. p. 13. , where any one may find it, and so may judge betwixt you and us in this Matter. For I intent not to produce the Place here too, and to argue the Point precisely, because 'tis so clear that there is no need of words to make an honest Man understand it; and all the Words in the World will signify nothing if a Man be not so honest as he should be. The only Pretence you have that the Cardinal did not positively say, what the Defender affirmed him to have said, is, that the Defender did not give the Cardinal's own Words, but what he conceived to be his Sense. For he did not translate him as I have done. But, Reverend Father, it must be such another Man as you seem to be, who reads the Cardinal's Words, and will not allow him to be as positive for us, as the Defender said he was. But the worst of all is this, that you do upon this very occasion accuse the Defender of Falsification, that is, of Falsifying Cajetan, as you tell us in the Margin. I told him, said you, First, that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did. So that by your own Confession you told him so in your former Book, and therefore this seems to be a very deliberate Business, and you stand in it still. But, than you say, what if he had? Why truly then the Defender did not falsify Cajetan, as you it seems are resolved to say that he does. And thus, where you accuse the Defender of one Falsification, you are yourself guilty of two Falsifications in the compass of five Lines; one of which is so much the more inexcusable, because it consists in accusing another falsely of the same Crime. For these Reasons, Sir, we desire to be excused, as to believing that all Antiquity goes this way and that way, because you say so.  
But because I would not be thought unreasonable, I shall be content if instead of proving Antiquity to be for ye, you will answer the Arguments of the Second Part to the contrary. Only I desire you not to repeat any thing you have said here, which you will find satisfied there. For instance, that the ancient Prayers made mention of Remission of Sins, as well as of Bodily Cures; for you will find that 
* Disc. p. 99, 100, 106.  this has been considered to your Hand.  
And that your Work may still be less; I think it were good advice if you would spare the Defender's pains too a little; that is to say, whereas you have solemnly ranged by Pages and Articles, his Calumnies, Falsifications, false Translations, Unsincerities, uncharitable Accusations, wilful Mistakes of your Doctrine, affected Misapplications, etc. False Impositions, Authors misapplied, and plain Contradictions; you would do well to put out an Advertisement, signifying and confessing, that there is not one Tittle of all this true, nor any Colour for any part of this spiteful Charge, excepting in the Translation, of the 32 Can. of Sess. vi. of C. Tr. which you note p. 48 of your Reply: In which the Defender trusting to one to translate that Canon for him, who did not sufficiently remark the pointing of it, was led into that Mistake which you there observe, and which yourself in the same place in good measure acquit him of, by confessing that he understood that same Canon aright but in the very next Page: And had you only added that he made no use of that Mistake in the management of his Argument from that Canon, as in Justice you should have done, you would then have exposed only your own Disposition to Cavil, but have done as little prejudice by this, as you have by all the rest to the Defenders Honesty or Understanding. And 'tis so very small a matter which here you tax him for, and he, I assure you, has such an untoward business against you in this very place, that I cannot afford to abate any thing of the foresaid Advice; to confess once for all. I know not but he may be persuaded to tarry a Month or thereabouts, to see whether you will be thus ingenuous, and discreet.  
You may expect to have employment enough besides, in vindicating the Doctrine of your Articles, for I am told that, God willing, you will have another Defence in a little time; and we are apt to think that it will give you and Monsieur de Meaux another Years work, to put Words together.  
I have but one Word more. 
Reply, p. 188. p. 173.  The Bishop begs of Almighty God in the anguish of his Soul, etc. you conjure the Defender by all that is Sacred, etc. by the Eternal God, and his Son Christ Jesus, etc. Reverend Sir! Men that are not in earnest may use the most amazing Expressions to make the World believe they are: But be not deceived, God is not mocked; as you will find. And in the mean time those that are honest and wise will not so much consider who they are that break forth into the most vehement Exclamations, as who they are that bring the clearest Proofs. Sir, I am  
Your Friend and Servant, etc.   

THE CONTENTS.  

PART. I. That the Places of Scripture produced for it are against it.  
Sect. 1. WHAT the Doctrine of the Roman Church is concerning Extreme Unction. Pag. 1  
§. 2. That Extreme Unction can by no means be proved from St. James, chap. v. 14, 15. Pag. 6  
§. 3. The true Interpretation of St. James 's Words. Pag. 13  
§. 4. What was signified by Anointing with Oil in St. Mark. Pag. 16  
§. 5. What is meant by the Prayer of Faith, and by having committed Sins which shall be forgiven. Pag. 24  
§. 6. That our Interpretation of the Use of Anointing in St. James and not our Adversaries, is favoured by the following Passages to the End of his Epistle. Pag. 36  
§. 7. Objections against our Interpretation answered. Pag. 41  
§. 8. That St. James 's Text affords useful Admonitions, though it is far from establishing a Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Pag. 45   

PART. II. That 'tis a late Innovation, and has no ground in Antiquity.  
Sect. 1. What Anointings were used in the ancient Church. Pag. 49  
§. 2. That the Unction of the Sick in the Ancient Church confirms our Interpretation of St. Mark and St. James. Pag. 54  
§. 3. That Extreme Unction has not the Testimony of any Ancient Pope. Pag. 54  
§. 4. Nor of any Ancient Council. Pag. 73  
§. 5. Nor of any Ancient Father. Pag. 79  
§. 6. That the Silence of Antiquity, and the Circumstances with which it is to be taken, are a positive Proof, that Extreme Unction has not the Tradition of the Ancients, but is a notorious Innovation. Pag. 87  
§. 7. Of the Occasions and Beginnings of Extreme Unction; How vast a Change it made from the Primitive Unction, and by what Degrees it was made. Pag. 94  
§. 8. That this Innovation was not Universal, the Unction of the Greek Church at this day being not Extreme Unction, but that of the Ancients. Pag. 108   

PART. III. That the Appeal to Reason in behalf of this pretended Sacrament is altogether vain.  
Sect. 1. THat the pretence to prove any thing to be a Sacrament by mere Reason, is an absurd Presumption. Pag. 110  
§. 2. That the Reason brought to prove that Extreme Unction was fit to be instituted has not so much as any probability. Pag. 116  
§. 3. That more congruous Reasoning may be offered against it, than for it. Pag. 123  
§. 4. An Apology for this Controversy about Extreme Unction from the great moment of it. Pag. 125  
§. 5. The Church of England and other Protestant Churches, justified in not anointing the Sick at all. Pag. 130  
§. 6. An Address to the Laity of the Roman Communion. Pag. 134    

ERRATA.  
Pag. 96. line 10. for Sacred r. Second. Pag. 103. for §. ix. r. §. viij.   

OF Extreme Unction.  

PART I. That the places of Scripture produced for it, are against it.  

§. I. What the Doctrine of the Roman Church is, concerning Extreme Unction.  
HOW well soever they may agree in the practice of Extreme Unction in the Roman Church; yet as to the Doctrine of it, their most celebrated Writers have 
(a) Vid. Dalleum de Extr. Unct. c. 2.  fallen so foully one against another, that to know what it is from them, would cost more pains than the Thing is worth. And therefore we will be content, and surely our Adversaries will be so too, to take it as it is laid down by the Council of Trent. Which Council has given too much advantage, for us to desire any more from the Sentiments of private Authors, which, as they without cause complain, we so often combat, while we pretend all along to attaque the Established Doctrine of the Church. But if the Reasons upon which the Council proceeded in its Decrees, were not so convincing, as to satisfy all of that Communion, but very great Men amongst themselves have been of contrary Opinions concerning them; this we have no Obligation upon us to dissemble, how unwilling soever they may be to hear of it. I know well enough that an undue Advantage may be made of the Testimonies of Authors, and of the Concessions of Adversaries, which are sometimes used to underprop a Cause, that wants Truth at the bottom, and has therefore no Foundation of its own; But so long as the Arguments and the Answers which we produce in this Cause are good ones, I hope they will not be thought worse of, if some of them seemed good also to some Men of no mean Figure in the Church of Rome.  
And now let us see in the First place what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is concerning this pretended Sacrament. The Council of Trent 
(b) Sess. 14.  has delivered it in this manner.  
First of all concerning the Institution of this Sacrament the Holy Synod declares and teaches, that our most gracious Redeemer who would have his Servants at all times provided with Saving Remedies and Defences against all the Weapons of all their Enemies, as he has by other Sacraments supplied Christians with those mighty Aids, by which they may in the Course of their Life keep themselves unhurt by all the greater Mischiefs that can happen to their Souls; so by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction he has set a most sure Guard about them, to make good the end of their Life. For though our Adversary does all our Life long seek and catch at every occasion, by any means to devour our Souls; yet there is no time when he strains more vehemently to exert the utmost of his Craft to ruin us utterly, and if he can possibly, to bereave us of all Trust in the Mercy of God, then when he perceives the end of our Life to be at hand.  
But this Holy Unction of the Sick was Instituted by our Lord Christ, as a Sacrament of the New Testament truly and properly so called; Insinuated indeed by St. Mark, but recommended and published to the Faithful by St. James the Apostle, and Brother of our Lord. Says he, Is any one Sick, etc. In which Words, as the Church has learned by Apostolical Tradition delivered from hand to hand, he teaches the Matter, the Form, the proper Minister, and Effect of this Saving Sacrament. For the Church has understood the Matter thereof to be Oil Blessed by a Bishop. For this Unction does most fitly represent the Grace of the Holy Ghost, by which the Soul of the sick Person is invisibly anointed: And that the Form thereof is this; By this Holy Unction and by his most Holy Mercy, God forgive thee whatsoever Sin thou hast committed by seeing, by hearing, by tasting, by smelling, and by touching. Amen. Which Form is repeated severally in anointing the seat of each Sense; and according to the 
(c) Decret. Eugenii IU. in Conc. Florent. Catech. ad Paroc. de Extr. U. §. 21.  Florentine Fathers in anointing the Feet also for the Sins of walking, and the Reins for the Sensuality that reigned there.  
Moreover the thing signified, and the effect of this Sacrament is explained in these Words, And the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him. For the thing here signified, is the Grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing cleanseth from Transgressions, (if any yet remain to be expiated) and from the Relics of Sin; and easeth and strengtheneth the Soul of the sick Person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the Divine Mercy; whereby he is in that manner supported, that the Trouble and Pain which he sustains by his Sickness becomes more tolerable, and he resists more easily the Temptations of the Devil now closely lying in wait for him, and sometimes, when it is expedient for the Welfare of the Soul, obtains the recovery of his Bodily Health.  
But then as to the Persons who are designed, whether to receive or to administer this Sacrament, this also is delivered, and that not obscurely in the foregoing Words. For it is there shown, that the proper Ministers of this Sacrament, are the Presbyters of the Church, by which Word here we are not to understand the more Aged, or Honourable amongst the People, but either Bishops or Priests, etc. It is declared also that this Unction is to be ministered to the Sick, but to those especially, who are so dangerously ill, that they seem to be past Recovery; whence it is also called the 
† Sacramentum excuntium.  Sacrament of the Dying. If the sick Persons recover after having received this Unction, they may again be relieved by it, when the like danger of Death happens. Wherefore they are by no means to be harkened to, who against the manifest and clear Sense of the Apostle James, teach either that this Unction is a device of Men, or a Rite received from the Fathers that has neither a Divine Command, nor a Promise of Grace; and who assert that it is of no longer use, as having been applied in the Primitive Church to the Gift of Healing only; or who say that the Rite and Usage of the Holy Roman Church in the Administration of this Sacrament, is repugnant to the Sense of St. James, and therefore to be altered; Lastly, who affirm that this Extreme Unction may without Sin be contemned by the Faithful. For all these things are most evidently contrary to the perspicuous Words of so great an Apostle, etc.  
So that in the Church of Rome, Extreme Unction is a Sacrament administered to dying Persons, the proper Effect whereof is the cleansing of them from the Remains of Sin, by the Grace of the Holy Ghost; and as appears by the Form of Words used in the Administration, it is applied in order to the forgiveness of all Sins that have been committed by means of any of the Senses. That Authority which they pretend for this Sacrament is indeed the highest, for they say it was instituted by Christ. The proof which they produce for this Institution, is that it was insinuated by St. Mark, and published by St. James. That the Evangelist did insinuate it, and the other Apostle publish it, we have the Word and Authority of the Council of Trent. But I will be bold to say, that if Men are not content to rely upon the Authority of the Council, but will examine its proofs, they may easily be convinced, that neither did St. James publish, nor St. Mark insinuate any such Doctrine, or Practise as it has established. And therefore the wisest Passage in the Declaration of the Council concerning this matter, is, that they are by no means to be harkened unto who teach otherwise than it teaches. For if we can but persuade Men to give us the hearing or the reading, we are very confident to make it plain, that not our Objections against this pretended Sacrament, but their Pleas for it, are most evidently contrary to the perspicuous Words both of the Evangelist who is said to insinuate it, and of the Apostle who is said to publish it.   

§. 2. That Extreme Unction can by no means be proved from St. James chap. v. 14, 15.  
THE clearest proof they have for this pretended Sacrament are doubtless those Words of St. James, ch. v. 14, 15. Is any sick among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord: And the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him.  
Now supposing that the Institution of a Sacrament were implied in these Words, and that the outward Sign thereof were anointing with Oil, yet this could not by any means be the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in the Church of Rome. For according to St. James the Sick Person was to be anointed in order to the raising of him up, or his Recovery from Sickness. But the Sick are anointed in that Church for purging away the remains of their Sins, when they seem to be passed hopes of Recovery. And though perhaps one or other may recover afterward, yet this is merely accidental, and besides the intention of administering their Sacrament; which they therefore call the Sacrament of the Dying. Nay the Sick Person in St. James was not to be anointed, only in order to his Recovery, but his Recovery was certainly to follow, for 'tis said the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. Which one Observation is sufficient to overthrow all the hope they have in this Text. For St. James does indeed advise anointing with Oil, but 'tis in such a Case when most assuredly the sick Person should not die: The Church of Rome also does require the same, but 'tis when nothing can be well expected but the Death of the Patient. Now which way they can gather a Sacrament of Extreme Unction, from an Authority that requires an Unction which is not Extreme, how they can prove a Sacrament which they pretend to be proper for dying Persons, from those Words of Scripture that mention a Rite never used upon dying Persons; a Man must have a great deal of Wit, or rather a good share of the contrary to be able to imagine.  
Which one thing seems to have been so well considered by 
† Bellar. de Extr. Unct. c. 3. Dico secundo, illa verba duo, etc.  Bellarmin, and others after him, that they found it necessary to interpret these Words: The Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, not so much of restoring Health to the Body, as of cleansing, forgiving, and quieting the Soul. And so they have made St. James to use Expressions in such a Sense, as never Man of Understanding did either before or after him, till the Cause of the Church of Rome made it necessary for these Men to interpret Words against all Rules of Speaking. For according to the perpetual use of Words, what is it to save the Sick, but to save him from his Sickness? What is it to raise up a sick Man, but to restore him to Health? And who would interpret these Expressions otherwise, but they whose Cause is desperate if they be not otherwise interpreted? But if it be asked what Grounds they pretend for this Liberty of Interpretation; you must know that the Word, saving, indifferently refers to the healing of the Body, or to the restoring of the Soul; and the Word, raising, though properly used of something that belongs to the Body, yet by a Metaphor frequently used in Scripture, signifies also to drive away sadness and dulness from the Mind. Which is true indeed, but nothing to the purpose. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For though these Words saving and raising may have different Significations according to the different matters spoken of; yet 'tis but one thing which they signify, when they are restrained by some peculiar matter. For instance, to raise is a Word that may be used to express either awakening one that sleeps; or bringing one that is careless to attention; or comforting the sorrowful; or recovering a Sick Man; or giving Life to one that is Dead. But will any Man in his Wits, unless he be carried away by the Service of a Cause, affirm that to raise him that sleeps, does indifferently signify all the other things, and not only awakening him out of his Sleep? By the same Reason to raise the Sick, can signify nothing but to raise him from his Sickness, and to restore him to Health. And though Bellarmin who was resolved to say something for every thing, was not ashamed to lay down so absurd an Exposition as the other is, upon Grounds so frivolous; yet 'tis a wonderful thing that 
(d) Comment. in Ep. p. 1144. Par.  Estius should come after him and trifle as the other does, and almost in his very Words. Which in such a Man as he was, who sometimes freely used the good Judgement which he had, is one of the greatest Instances that I ever met with of the Power of Prejudice, and the necessity they are under of going beneath themselves, that are forced to serve a Party.  
For Estius upon this place had but a little before acknowledged that the health of the Body is signified by this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall save, according to the Exposition of almost all Interpreters. And then he adds very judiciously, that since the Apostle spoke of Bodily Sickness, it is agreeable to the Rules of speaking, to understand the saving which follows, of Health of the same kind, that is of Bodily Health. But then by what Authority must we understand these Words saving and raising, of purifying and restoring the Soul too? Why, says he, we are not however to exclude the understanding of the Welfare and Health of the Soul under these Words. Would one believe that a Man of Judgement should talk so pitifully? For if the Health of the Body only, be expressed by the Words in Question, which is as plain as any thing needs to be made by Words, then although the Health of the Soul is not excluded thereby, yet the understanding of the Souls Health by these Words, is to be excluded; or we must for ever despair of knowing how much and no more is signified by plain Words. If I promise a Man Food, my Words indeed do not exclude giving of him Raiment too, but they exclude any other meaning but what the Words signify, which is that I will give him Food. As for the reason added by Estius, why the Health of the Soul is not to be excluded, viz. because bodily Health is referred here to the Safety of the Soul; 'tis a most lamentable reason for understanding this by that; since it will hold as well for understanding the Health of the Soul by the Sickness of the Body, which is every whit as much referred to the Health of the Soul, as the Health of the Body is.  
The plain truth of the Case is this; it is so evident that St. James by these Words means nothing else but the Recovery of Bodily Health, that these Men are forced to Shifts that were never heard of before, to make something else to be understood by them, because, otherwise their Sacrament is lost. That St. James does mean Bodily Health, is a Truth that stairs them so fully in the Face, that they are not able to dissemble it; not Bellarmin himself, 
(e) Bellar. de Extr. Unc. ● c. three §. Quod autem nec loquatur, etc. Ad secundum Argumentum, etc. c. viij. secundnomine.  though he will not allow the gift of Healing to be meant: And therefore to draw some faint resemblance between the use of their Extreme Unction, and that use of Unction which is mentioned in St. James; they are forced to pretend one effect of their Sacrament to be the cure of the Body, so far as it is expedient, as Pope 
(f) Eugen. Decret. in Conc. Flor.  Eugenius IV says, and when it is expedient for the welfare of the Soul, as says the Council of Trent.  
Nay Bellarmin tells us, That 
† Bell. de Ex. U. c. iii. Respondeo inungit Ecclesia, etc.  the Church anoints those who are in danger of Death; for then supernatural Remedies are to be sought to, when there is no hope left in those that are natural. And though sick Persons are anointed that they may be healed, if it be expedient to their Eternal Salvation, yet 'tis rightly called Extreme Unction, because 'tis the last in respect of those Unctions which we receive in other Sacraments, in Baptism, in Confirmation, and in Orders. One may wonder at this, till he knows the reason of it, which is, that he was now answering that grievous Objection against their arguing from St. James, that their Unction is indeed Extreme, because it is given to dying Persons, but St. James meant not an Extreme Unction because he would have it administered to those that were to be healed. How sadly the Cardinal was put to it, to get over this Difficulty, is evident from his Answer, where he gives such a Reason why their Unction is called Extreme, as neither stands with their practice in anointing, nor with the use of the Word Extreme, nor with the 
* Vid. Dalleum de Extr. Unct. c. two.  Judgement of the Divines of that Church, who generally affirm with the Council of Trent, that Unction is appointed for the Relief of those that are going out of the World, and conclude that it is therefore called Extreme Unction, because it is not to be given till the Sickness is desperate. But when a Man is not able to stand before an Objection that is against him, he must seem to say the same thing that the Objection says, as Bellarmin here does, who one would think by these Words, makes the Recovery of the Patiented the immediate end of their Unction, and will not allow the Unction to be called Extreme, as if it intimated the sick Man's hastening to the period of his Life.  
But does it at any time appear that their Unction restores a sick Man to Health? or that they so much as expect it? Is any such effect expressed in the Form of Administration, or any thing more than the forgiveness of Sins that are committed by means of the Senses? Nay do not they call this the Sacrament of Dying Persons; and to be given especially to those that seem to be departing out of this Life? Does not 
(g) Ibid. c.u.  Bellarmin himself argue for their Extreme Unction from the convenience of being provided with a Sacrament to strengthen us in our Departure out of this World? Nay does not the Council of Trent tell us that by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, God has set a most sure Guard about Christians, to make good the end of their Life? For what reason therefore does the same Council tell us that the sick Person having been anointed, does sometimes, when it is expedient for the welfare of the Soul, obtain the Recovery of his Bodily Health? Why I say, do they in the Doctrine of this their Sacrament, mention an accident so impertinent to the Nature and Design of it, as the Recovery of Bodily Health? I answer, because they are driven to it by an extreme necessity of feigning some resemblance between the use of their Unction, and of that in St. James. For 'tis so plain that St. James promises bodily Health upon what he prescribes to be done, that the Wit of Man is not able to disguise it. And therefore it was absolutely necessary to give some hint of the same thing in their Doctrine about Extreme Unction; though he must either have no Eyes, or wink hard, who sees not that 'tis thrust in most impertinently, and against the whole tenor of their Doctrine and Practice, which plainly show that 'tis not administered by them for the prolonging of Life, but for the Assistence of the Soul at the Hour of Death.  
Which these Men are so sensible of, that they dare not venture their Cause upon this weak Attempt of bending their Sacrament to the Text, by pretending some regard in their Unction to the Recovery of Bodily Health; but find themselves obliged also to bend the Text as unreasonably to their Sacrament, by pretending that St. James does not speak of restoring Health only, in those Words of saving the Sick, and raising him up, but of cleansing and strengthening the Soul too, as Bellarmin and Estius would make us believe. By which Artifice they have not done their Cause so much Service, as they have discovered good will to it, since we cannot but observe that themselves were conscious how impossible it is to make the Text and their Sacrament meet, without forcing both the one and the other by an unnatural Representation. And yet even thus much violence will never bring them together, so long as 'tis manifest that to the use of this Rite of Anointing in St. James as it is by him required, the Recovery of Bodily Health is absolutely promised; which they can with no Face pretend to be the constant or even frequent effect of their Extreme Unction, since their Doctrine and Practice proclaim it to be the Sacrament of the Dying.  
As for the forgiveness of Sins mentioned in the following Words of St. James, it was promised upon a supposition that the sick Person had committed Sins: And if he had committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him. Which plainly seems to be the supposition of a Case, that was not common to all that were healed upon receiving the Unction mentioned by the Apostle. And that even this Promise does not afford the least ground for the Unction of the Roman Church, will appear when I come to explain the several Expressions in the Text.  
In the mean time to show that the Power of Truth does sometimes prevail upon Men of the best note in the Church of Rome, I shall close this Point with the Confession of no meaner a Man than Cardinal Cajetan, who determines thus upon this place of St. James. It neither appears by the Words, nor by the Effect, that he speaks of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but rather of that Unction which our Lord appointed in the Gospel, to be used upon sick Persons by his Disciples. For the Text does not say, Is any Man sick unto Death? but absolutely, Is any Man sick? And it makes the effect to be the recovery of the Sick, and speaks but conditionally of the forgiveness of Sins: Whereas Extreme Unction is not given but when a Man is almost at the point of Death, and as the Form of Words then used sufficiently shows, it tends directly to the forgiveness of Sins.  
This was said like an honest Man; and if all Men of sense would say what they think, this Controversy with many more would soon be at an end.   

§. 3. The true Interpretation of St. James 's Words.  
THO what hath been said is enough to deprive the Roman Unction of all relief and support from this place of Scripture; yet for the benefit of those, who possibly have not well considered the Text of which we have been speaking, I shall first ofter the plain meaning of it, and show for what end and purpose anointing with Oil was prescribed by St. James; and then confirm the Interpretation by those Arguments that led me to it, and by such Answers as may be sufficient to remove our Adversaries Objections against it.  
We say then, that several extraordinary Gifts were by the Spirit dispersed amongst the first Believers, for the establishing of Christianity in the World; and that one kind of these were the 
(g) 1 Cor. xii. 9, 28, 30.  Gifts of Healing.  
That they who had this Power, were directed by the Impulse of the Spirit, when or upon what Persons to exert it. That being thus directed, they called upon the Name of the Lord with assurance of the Event, and the Sick were accordingly restored to their Health.  
That sometimes they did in this manner heal the Sick, upon whom Diseases had been inflicted, as a Punishment for some Sins they had been guilty of.  
That in this Direction of St. James, Is any Man sick, etc. he refers to these extraordinary Gifts of Healing; and that he prescribes Anointing the sick Person with Oil, in that case only, when the Elders knew by the Spirit, that the Gift of Healing was to be shown, and that the Lord would raise him up.  
So that in case of Sickness St. James directs the sick Person to send for the Elders of the Church, and adds a particular motive so to do from the Gift of Healing, which then flourished in the Church, viz. that if it seemed good to God, which the Elders would assuredly know by the Instruction of the Spirit, he should by their praying over him be restored to his Health. In which case to signify the Supernatural Gift of God in raising him up, they were accordsng to Custom to anoint him with Oil. Whereupon the Event would show that their Prayer was not the Prayer of vain Confidence, but of Faith, and that they had not in vain anointed the Sick with Oil in testimony of their assurance of his Recovery; for as he says the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. And to advise the sick Man more effectually to take this Religious Course, he adds another Motive, that if that Sickness were sent to punish him for some Sins that he had committed, even that should not hinder his Recovery, any more than if it had been inflicted only for the trial of his Faith and Patience; for his Sins should be forgiven him.  
In which Interpretation the main point of Controversy that remains between us and our Adversaries, is that, as wesay, the Unction mentioned by St. James, was a Rite or Ceremony of miraculous Healing. For if this proves true, all their pretence from this place to establish a Sacrament of Extrema Unction for the Sanctifying of the Soul, and the forgivenefs of their Sins who are ready to departed out of this Life, it is all I say irrecoverably overthrown. And therefore let us now inquire into the meaning of St. James his Unction, and see whether there be not sufficient Reason to conclude of it as we do, and no appearance of Reason for what they conclude from it.  
There are but three ways that I know of which the New Testament affords to find out the use and meaning of this Ceremony at the beginning of the Gospel. One is to compare this place with Mark vi. 13. Another to consider the Words of the place itself. And a third to see what light is given to it, by the following Passages in St. James that have a manifest Connexion with the Text that is under Debate.  
If our Interpretation will bear the trial of all these ways of Examination, and theirs will bear none of them; if according to ours, all things are plain, natural and consistent, and if theirs disturb every thing, and will not suffer those things to hang together which ought to do so: Then I should think the Authority of Scripture will plainly enough appear to be on our side.   

§. 4. What was signified by anointing with Oil in St. Mark.  
I Begin with the forementioned place of St. Mark; which is the only Text in all the New Testament, besides that of St. James, where anointing with Oil is mentioned. There it is said of the Twelve who were sent forth by our Saviour to preach, and to confirm their Doctrine by Signs and Wonders; that they went out and preached that Men should repent; and they cast out many Devils; and anointed with Oil many that were sick, and healed them. In which Words it is evident that the anointing with Oil, which the Apostles used, was the Ceremony of a miraculous Cure of the Sick: For they give an account of what the Apostles did in the pursuance of that Commission, and in the use of that Power which they had received from Christ. But that they received Power from him to cure Diseases, is expressly affirmed by St. Luke 
(h) Luke ix. 1, 2. , Then he called his twelve Disciples together, and gave them Power and Authority over all Devils, and to cure Diseases; And he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the Sick. And therefore what can be more plain than that the healing mentioned by St. Mark, was by the use of that Power which they had received from their Master, i. e. that it was miraculous? And consequently that the anointing with Oil, which is joined with it, was nothing else but a Symbol or Sign of the miraculous Cure. Now that it was very frequent to use certain outward Actions in the performance of a Miracle, is evident also from the Scriptures, such Actions namely as could by no means be thought to have any natural force in procuring the Effect, but rather to raise the expectation of a Miracle, and to signify that what would follow was to be done by a Supernatural Power. Thus before the dividing of the Red Sea 
(i) Exod. xiv. 16, 21. , Moses lift up his Rod, and stretched out his Hand over the Sea, to divide it. Thus also with his Rod 
(k) xvii. 8.  he smote the Rock in Horeb, and Water came out of it. Thus our Saviour to cure the deaf Man that had an Impediment in his Speech, 
(l) Mar. seven. 33.  put his Fingers into his Ears, and touched his Tongue. And before he raised the young Man that was dead 
(m) Luke seven. 14. , he touched the Bier. The Examples of which kind are so many in both Testaments, that there is no need of mentioning any more. And one of them is this before us, of anointing the Sick with Oil, and healing them.  
Which Ceremony had been of ancient use, and was known to have a signification not much unlike that of Imposition of Hands. It was commonly used to denote the conferring either of Authority and Office, or Gifts and Graces enabling for the Administration thereof. Whence it might by an easy Turn be applied, (as Imposition of Hands undoubtedly was) to signify so extraordinary a Gift and Favour of God to a sick Man, as that of raising him up by a miraculous Power. Especially, if as Grotius has observed, it was an ancient Custom amongst the Hebrews as to join Imposition of Hands to those Prayers which were offered in any Man's behalf; 
Grot. in loc.  so when Prayers were made for the Sick to anoint them with Oil, in token of their Hope to obtain from God that ease and gladness in their behalf, which is signified by Oil. So that anointing with Oil having anciently betokened sometimes some singular Gift of God, at other times the hope of obtaining the Recovery of the sick Man, for whom Prayer was made, it might well be a very apt and significant Emblem of a miraculous cure of the Sick; which being both an extraordinary work, and withal the cause of Joy and Gladness, the use of anointing upon this occasion did in some degree join both its ancient significations together.  
But whatever the reason might be of the choice of this Ceremony when the Apostles healed many sick Persons: This however is very plain, that they healed them by a miraculous Power which their Master had given them. And by comparing what St. Mark says upon this occasion, with St. Matthew and St. Luke, it seems to me that anointing with Oil was not only a Rite used by them to signify the miraculous Cure, but that this meaning of it was generally understood. My Reason is this, because St. Matthew and St. Luke, who make no mention of the Ceremony, do expressly affirm the Power of healing to be a Gift which they had now received from Jesus: And St. Mark who mentions not the Gift, does only express the Ceremony which they used in healing. Therefore because in substance they all deliver the same thing, it should seem that St. Mark sufficiently expressed the miraculous Gift by which the Apostles healed the Sick, by saying that they Anointed many with Oil that were Sick, and healed them; and by consequence that the use of this Ceremony upon such an occasion was sufficiently understood to be an Indication of a miraculous Cure.  
What St. Luke reports, we have seen already; and St. Matthew is no less express, viz. that 
(n) Matth. 10.1, 8.  He gave his twelve Disciples Power against unclean Spirits, to cast them out; and TO HEAL ALL MANNER OF SICKNESS, AND ALL MANNER OF DISEASE, and that he said to them, Heal the Sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the Dead, cast out Devils: Freely ye have received, freely give; i.e. The Power by which ye are to do these things is Supernatural and cost you nothing, and you shall take nothing for the use of it. But now 
(o) Mark vi. 7.  St. Mark mentions no other Power in the Commission which Jesus gave them, but that over unclean Spirits: And yet describing what they did in pursuance of their Commission, he says, 
(p) Mar. vi. 13.  They cast out many Devils, and anointed with Oil many that were Sick, and healed them; which Words being compared with what the other Evangelists say, are to be interpreted in this manner. And as for the Sick which they healed, that was done no less by a Divine and Supernatural Power, than the casting out of Devils; for they used nothing but the known Ceremony betokening an extraordinary work of God in the Cures they wrought, that is, Anointing with Oil. And thus those Words of St. Mark do plainly enough suppose that Power of healing the Sick to have been in their Commission, though he did not at first express it as the other two Evangelists did.  
Finally, it doth not appear that our Saviour enjoined the use of this Ceremony, but it is rather probable that he did not, since the Apostles healed many Persons without it. And therefore if one should say that possibly they took it up of themselves, as a Rite very pertinent for them to use upon this occasion, and which would easily be understood by all, I do not see how he could be confuted. Perhaps it may not be unreasonably supposed that they received some general Direction from our Saviour, that in exerting the Gift which he had bestowed upon them, they might freely use this honourable Ceremony or some other of like signification, that was fit to raise the expectation of a miraculous Healing.  
Now this being the only place in the New Testament, where anointing with Oil is mentioned, besides that of St. James, and it being also plain that the Unction in St. Mark referred to the Gift of Healing, surely the Unction spoken of by St. James must have the same signification; or else 'tis a place of such obscurity, that it will be very hard to find a Sacrament in it, or to make any conclusion whatsoever from it: For in all appearance the very same case is spoken of in both places. The Action is the same, viz. Anointing with Oil; the Persons anointed are in the same Circumstances, for in both they are the Sick: And the Event the same, for in St. Mark they were Healed, and in St. James 'tis expressly said, The Lord shall raise him up. What therefore should hinder, but that if Anointing were the Ceremony of miraculous Healing in the one, it should have the same signification in the other? If there were any Difficulty in the Words of St. James, and it were doubtful to what purpose the Unction by him mentioned was applied, one would think the obscurity should wholly disappear before the Light that St. Mark offers to clear that Text. But that in all appearance the same Case should be expressed in both, and yet there should be so vast a difference as the Roman Doctrine supposes, is for them to believe, who make the Scriptures good for nothing, till the Church comes to find out a meaning for them.  
For this reason some of our Adversaries have thought fit to prove their pretended Sacrament out of St. Mark, well perceiving that without drawing him in for a Witness to their Doctrine, as well as they could, they must be forced to quit St. James too. Thus Maldonate without mincing the matter, asks If the Sacrament of Extreme Unction be not here [in St. Mark] where is it? A question put not without Reason I confess; from whence I infer, that here it is not, and therefore 'tis no no where to be found in the Scripture. As for his other Question which he presently adds, Why is it not here, if it be any where else? I answer, that if he could have made good proof that he had found it any where else, he would never have stretched his Confidence so far as to pretend that he found it here.  

‖ Maldon. Comm. in Evang. Marc. vi.  In this place, says the Jesuit, we are to deal not only with Heretics, who obstinately contend that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is not here spoken of, but also with certain Catholics, who seem to say almost the same thing, who are nevertheless excusable in great part, since these new Heretics had not yet sprung up in their time. And he was so well satisfied that their Sacrament was gone, if St. Mark's Text could not save it, that he plainly said; that to deny this place to be understood of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, was to make a step towards the taking of it away, either maliciously if he were an Heretic that did so, or imprudently if he were a Catholic.  
He well knew that the Divines of his Church had generally denied the Unction which the Apostles used in St. Mark, to be their Sacramental Unction, and that they had laid the stress of their Cause upon St. James; but he saw the Inconvenience of it too, that the same Unction being indeed spoken of in both places, by giving up one, they in effect yielded both, and so left their Sacrament without any Testimony of Scripture at all. Thus far therefore his Judgement is to be commended, that he chose rather to challenge both places, which might be done with the same Confidence and the same Pains that would serve to challenge one of them, than to be at the Charge of wresting St. James, and afterwards to be at a new expense of pains in making St. Mark and St. James to speak of two different Unctions, i. e. to show a Difference where in Truth there was none to be shown.  
But how does this bold Undertaker bring St. Mark's Text to his Purpose? Why, he proves that the Apostles did not use Oil as a Medicine, as if any either Protestant or Papist was so weak as to say they did: And then he concludes that they anointed the Sick, not to cure their Bodies, so much as their Minds by a Sacrament; as if that Unction must needs be a Sacrament, or a Medicine. He pretends that it could not be used as a Sign of a miraculous Cure, because it would have obscured the Miracle, and led the Spectators into a belief that the Cure was wrought by the natural force of the Oil. And some other such things he says which are so intolerably trifling, that I am very well pleased to be excused from giving them any answer, by the Confession of the most and best Divines of the Roman Church, that the Unction in St. Mark was not Sacramental, or for the healing of the Mind, but the Body. For this was not taught by Cajetan only, but by 
(q) Tom. iv. Disp. 8. qu. 1.  Gregory de Valentia, and by 
(r) De Extr. Unct. cap. two. Probo igitur, etc.  Bellarmin, who recites other great Authors of the same Opinion: And that we may be sure the Stream runs on this Side, I shall need to do no more than to produce that Famous Passage in the Council of Trent concerning this matter which Soave has given us an account of.  
We have already observed that part of the Doctrine of the Council concerning Extreme Unction, was this, that it was instituted by our Lord Christ as a Sacrament of the New Testament truly and properly so called; INSINVATED by St. Mark, and published to the Faithful by St. James. Now, says the Historian, if any marvel why it is said in the first Head of the Doctrine that this Sacrament is insinuated by Christ our Lord in St. Mark, and published in St. James, though the Reason of what goes before, and of that which follows, does require that it should not be said INSINVATED, but INSTITUTED, he may know that it was first written so: 
History of the Council of Trent. p. 351.  But a Divine having observed that the Apostles who anointed the Sick, of whom St. Mark speaketh, were not Priests, because the Church of Rome holdeth, that Priesthood was conferred upon them not till the last Supper, it seemed a Contradiction to affirm, that the Unction which they gave was a Sacrament, and that Priests only are Ministers of it. Whereunto some who held it to be a Sacrament, and at that time instituted by Christ, did answer, that Christ commanding them to minister the Unction, made them Priests concerning that action only— yet it was thought too dangerous to affirm it absolutely: Therefore instead of the Word Institutum, they put Insinuatum: Which Word what it may signify in such a matter, every one may judge who understandeth what Insinuare is, and doth apply it to that which the Apostles than did, and to that which was commanded by St. James, and to the Determination made by this Council.  
I am far from thinking that Divine's Reason against St. Mark's speaking of a Sacramental Unction, to be the very best that the Case affords. However we see that though the Council had a good mind to build their Doctrine upon St. Mark's Text, they yet destructed the Foundation, and could not hearty venture upon it, and therefore they durst not say their Sacrament was here Instituted: But on the other hand they were loath to lose the Countenance of a Text in a Cause wherein they needed it so very much, and therefore they were content to say modestly that it was Insinuated there. A hard Case indeed! that the Holy Synod should have so little Judgement, as to say Instituted at first, and so little honesty as to put Insinuated afterward instead of Instituted: For I think no other account can be given of this, but that themselves would fain insinuate what they durst not say; that the Words of St. Mark did after a sort contain an Institution of their Sacrament, though their shifting plainly showed that they were convinced of the contrary.  
But that place belonging quite to another matter, i. e. to the Gift of Healing; and all reason requiring that St. James' Words be interpreted to the same Sense with St. Mark's; this alone is enough to overthrow their Pretence of proving Extreme Unction from St. James.  
And here it may be observed that the Power of Truth has extorted from some or other of our Adversaries, the Confession of both the Premises which infer our Conclusion; That Unction which St. James prescribes is the very same with that which is mentioned by St. Mark. For this we have Maldonate, and some few others with him. But St. Mark does not speak of Extreme or of Sacramental Unction. For this we have Bellarmin and a great many more. The Conclusion is evident, Therefore neither does St. James prescribe any such thing. And thus much for the first way of finding out the use and meaning of this Ceremony whereof St. James speaks, viz. by comparing him with St. Mark.   

§. 5. What is meant by the Prayer of Faith, and by having committed Sins which shall be forgiven.  
THE second way I propounded was to consider the meaning of that place, where St. James mentions Anointing the Sick with Oil.  
I have already shown that those Expressions of saving the Sick, and the Lord's raising him up, cannot without extravagant Liberty, be understood of any thing else but the Recovery of Bodily Health; [§. 2.] and I have laid down that Interpretation of the whole Text which this Supposition requires [§. 3.] and shown that the Unction there spoken of must therefore have been the Ceremony of a miraculous Cure. Now there are but two passages there, that seem to require any farther Illustration, which I shall now consider more particularly, and then leave the Reader to give his Judgement.  
The one is the Prayer of Faith; the other, If he has committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him. Now,  
1. By the Prayer of Faith, we must necessarily understand Prayer accompanied with a persuasion wrought by the Impulse of the Spirit, that God would raise up the Sick; not with that Faith only which is a persuasion of the general Promises of God made to the whole Church; since there is no such absolute Promise in the Gospel, that God will grant Health to the Sick upon our Prayer. But St. James affirms, that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. Which makes it plain that the Faith here mentioned was the persuasion of the Elders that it was God's pleasure that at that time the Gift of Healing should take place: For, as I said before, Prayer grounded upon the belief of the Promises of the New Covenant, or upon that Faith only which is common to all Christians, cannot warrant the obtaining of Health, or of any other Temporal Blessing in particular.  
Nor is this the only place where Faith is taken for a persuasion that God will do a Miracle. For thus we are to understand it in that Saying of St. Paul 
(s) 1 Cor. xiii. 2. , Though I have all Faith so that I could remove Mountains, and have no Charity, I am nothing. In which he seemed to refer to that Saying of our Saviour to his Disciples 
(t) Mat. xvii. 20. , If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustardseed, ye shall say unto this Mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. And it is very evident that our Saviour spoke of the Prayer of such Faith as this in that Promise to his Disciples 
(u) Joh. xiv. 13.12. , Whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my Name, I will do it. i e. Upon their Prayer God would glorify himself, and the Gospel of his Son by the Testimony of Miracles: For these Words are a Continuation of the Promise made in the foregoing Verse; He that believeth on me, the Works that I do shall he do also, and greater Works than these he shall do, because I go unto my Father. But this is a Notion so generally understood, that I need not insist upon it.  
Now if the Prayer of Faith was made for the Recovery of the Sick Man, it stands to Reason that his being Anointed with Oil should refer to the same matter. For the Apostle lays down this Motive to the use of Prayer and Unction, that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick; And thus these Passages go easily and consonantly together: Whereas if the Extreme Unction of the Church of Rome be supposed in this place, the whole must run after this manner; Is any Man sick, let him send for the Elders of the Church; and let them administer to him the Sacrament and Office of Extreme Unction, to prepare his Soul for its departure out of this Life; For if they know by the Spirit that the Gift of Healing is now to be exercised, and do thereupon pray for his Recovery, he shall not departed out of this Life, but the Lord will raise him up. And who does not see that at this rate the Passages of the Text are not only incoherent, but inconsistent with one another?  
And now it is easy from hence to answer one of Bellarmin's principal Objections against our Sense of this place. 
† Bellar. de Extr. Unct. c. iii. §. Quarto & Oran, etc.  This Promise, says he, The Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, etc. is absolute, and therefore its principal relation cannot be to the Health of the Body. For the Sick who were anointed as St. James prescribes, were either always healed, or not always: If always, then none had died in the Days of the Apostles, but some very few who neglected St. James his Rule: Moreover Bodily Health being not always profitable to the Soul, is not always obtained from God, though it be prayed for by one that has the Gift of Healing. They therefore that were anointed were not always healed; so that either that absolute Promise of St. James is false, which cannot be, or which is most true it is principally and absolutely to be referred to the Soul. We are agreed then that the Promise upon Unction and the Prayer of Faith is absolute; but the Cardinal will not have Bodily Health to be the thing promised; for than none had died but those few that neglected to procure Unction. Now one would think that this Objection were every whit as strong against making the promised effect of Unction to be the Health of the Soul. For thus it would be impossible for any to be Damned, but those few that neglected to be Anointed; which is very comfortable Doctrine indeed to some People, but so false withal, that I believe our Adversaries themselves would be ashamed to defend it openly.  
But there is no such Inconvenience belonging to our Interpretation of this place as the Cardinal pretends. I grant that all they were healed, who were anointed as St. James prescribes; but that very few must therefore have died in those Days, does by no means follow, unless that be supposed also, which can never be proved, viz. That the Presbyters without making any difference were to anoint all the Sick in those Days. But that they did not anoint all, seems very evident from this, that the Unction was to go along with the Prayer of Faith: But the Prayer of Faith was not offered for All, and therefore neither were All anointed: For I have already shown that by the Prayer of Faith in that place we are to understand ask a Miracle in the Name of Christ by the direction of the Spirit; and therefore such Prayer was not offered for All indifferently, but for those only whom it pleased God so to restore to their Health.  
The Cardinal says most truly, That Bodily Health being not always profitable to the Soul, was not always obtained from God. But it was rashly done to add, though it was prayed for by one that had the Gift of Healing. For those that had the Gift of Healing were under the Direction of the Divine Spirit, when to show the miraculous Gift of God, and when to forbear; they knew by that Supernatural Direction when it was for the Glory of God and the Good of the Church, or the Spiritual Advantage of the Sick Person, that he should recover; and then followed the Prayer accompanied with an assurance of the Event, here called the Prayer of Faith, together with Unction, the usual Rite of miraculous Healing. We have already remembered how our Lord promised to his Disciples, That whatever they should ask in his Name he would do it; and yet it is not to be thought that they should be able at their own pleasure to do Miracles, either for the gratifying of a wanton Curiosity, or when the Glory of God did not require it; but that they would still be under the impulse and guidance of the Spirit, when to undertake a miraculous Operation in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Thus before some notable Miracles, it is said of them that they were full of the Holy Ghost; i. e. they were raised by a strong suggestion of the Spirit to the assured Expectation of those great things that were presently done. There was not only a Divine Power that wrought those Things, but there was also a Divine Impulse upon the Minds of Christ's Servants, warranting them to undertake that they should be done. And therefore such wonderful Things were not done upon every occasion, when perhaps the Wisdom of Man would have called for them, but only when it seemed good to the unerring Wisdom of God.  
Miracles flourished in the Church in the Apostles Days, but yet even then they were under the Restraint of the Divine Pleasure. St. Peter was once delivered out of Prison by a Miracle; But St. Paul more than once used his Prudence to gain his Liberty, and to save himself. In particular the Gift of Healing flourished in the Church in those Days, and yet St. Paul advised Timothy to drink a 
(w) 1 Tim. v. 23.  little Wine for his Stomaches sake, and his often Infirmities; yet also he 
(x) 2 Tim. iv. 20.  left Trophimus sick at Miletum.  
I say then that the Prayer of Faith always prevailed; that when the Presbyters anointed the Sick with Oil, and asked his Health in the Name of Christ, they were assured of the Event; that the sick Person at that time was healed, and that the Lord raised him up; but that they asked not this in behalf of the Sick, without the guidance of the Divine Spirit by which they were acted. And therefore Bellarmin might have spared that Scruple; that very few Believers must have died in the Apostles Days, if the Unction and the Prayer of Faith is to be referred to the recovery of Bodily Health.  
2. That other Clause, If he has committed Sins, they shall be forgiven him, is a Promise made upon Supposition of a Case, which did not always happen in the use of Anointing the Sick. Now I am yet to understand why the Apostle should make a Supposition of such a special Case as that of the Anointed Person's having committed Sins, if Unction was prescribed as a Sacrament for the Remission of Sins? For the Supposition taken with the rest of the period, plainly enough implies, a Direction to anoint the sick Person for whom the Prayer of Faith was made, whether he had committed Sins or not; only if he had committed Sins, they should be forgiven him. Whatever St. James means here by having committed Sins, it is yet evident that this was not the Case of all that were anointed; and therefore whatever is meant also by the Forgiveness of Sins in this place, neither was this promised to all that were anointed; which seems to be a shrewd Argument that he did not prescribe Unction as a Sacrament for the Remission of Sins: Especially if it be considered that the Case of all that were anointed was this, that they were Sick, and that the Promise absolutely made to all that were anointed, was the Recovery of their Health; for this shows as clearly on the other side, that St. James' Unction was the Ceremony of a miraculous Cure of the Body. Surely if we are to gather the meaning of this Rite from the Words of the Text where it was prescribed, we are rather to refer it to that Effect which the Apostle tells us would certainly and always follow, viz. the Recovery of Health; than to that which would never follow, but in a special Case, viz. the Forgiveness of Sins. And 'tis certain that St. James makes the constant Effect of his Unction to be the Recovery of Bodily Health; and he assures us that sometimes the Forgiveness of Sins would follow. We therefore say that his Unction was properly a Rite of the Gift of Healing, and thus it always signified something. But our Adversaries will needs have it, that his Unction was a Sacrament, and that the proper end of it was Remission of Sins, and that the Recovery of Bodily Health was a Thing by the Buy, which fell out now and then, as it might be expedient: i. e. They will have the Apostle to promise Bodily Health, as a Thing by the Buy, in Words that express an absolute Promise of it; and they will have him promise Forgiveness of Sins to all upon the due use of Unction, in Words that manifestly suppose that he promises it but to some only; and consequently that he established an Unction which would always be a Sacrament, and yet sometimes would be no Sacrament at all.  
I think therefore that I may conclude, For any Man to make anointing the Sick to be a constant Means and Sign of that Grace which could not take place in many of those who were qualified for Unction, and were duly anointed according to the Direction of the Apostle, is to make the Apostle talk very vainly, that himself might not seem to do so: And not to make that to be the end and meaning of his Unction which took place in all that were anointed, is to make the Apostle mean what we list, and not what his Words mean.  
If indeed St. James had said, Is any sick among you? Let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, and his Sins shall be forgiven him; and if it be expedient for the good of his Soul, the Prayer of Faith shall also save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. Had it been thus, I say, I would know if our Adversaries would not have exclaimed against us as the most obstinate Persons in the World, if we had either denied forgiveness of Sins, or affirmed the recovery of Bodily Health, to be the true and proper end of that Unction whereof the Apostle speaks. But now his Words are quite otherwise, for on the other side, the promise of Bodily Health is absolute, and belongs to all that are anointed; and that of forgiveness of Sins is conditional, and belongs only to those who have committed Sins. Let our Adversaries therefore judge impartially for once; and if they do, than I am sure they will reason against their own Sense of this place from the Apostles Words as they now stand; as they would have argued against ours, if they had stood as fairly for them as they do for us.  
But to see how any thing will serve for an Argument in a desperate Case. Bellarmin would make us believe, that these very Words, And if he have committed Sins they shall be forgiven him, 
Bell. de Extr. Unct. c. iii. §. Quinto: Et si in peccatis, etc.  do so clearly bring the Text on their side, that there is no room for Evasion. For these Words, says he, expressly refer to the Soul, but the Gift of Healing belongs to the Body. A wonderful Reason surely! But must not the Apostle speak of a Spiritual Effect which in one Case is consequent upon Unction of the Sick, but it must always be the thing signified and intended by it, and this though he manifestly supposes that the Spiritual Effect is not, and plainly tells us what is the constant Signification and Effect of it? When Men of parts take invincible Arguments against their own Opinion, and pretend that they are unanswerable Proofs for it, what shall a Man say to it, but that they labour under invincible Prejudice, or something that is a great deal worse?  
It appears already from that passage concerning Forgiveness of sins, that the Anointing in St. James was properly a Rite that referred to the Gift of Healing: And this will farther appear by considering what must be the sense of those words, And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.  
It may seem strange, that the Apostle should make the anointed persons, having committed sins, the matter of a supposition, as if some that were to be anointed, had committed no sins at all. But now, because, without all Question, neither was the Apostles supposition vain and idle, nor is it true of any mere Man, that he never sinned; therefore by committing sins, the Apostle did not mean simply and absolutely having sinned; but with reference to that matter only whereof he was then speaking, viz. that bodily sickness which was to be removed by the Gift of Healing. So that the meaning must necessarily be this, And if he has committed such sins as it pleased God to punish by visiting him with sickness, they shall be forgiven him. Besides those places where committing and not committing sin, are to be understood with some qualification, such as that, 
y 1 Joh. three 8, 9  He that committeth sin is of the Devil. And whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God: There is one saying of our Saviour, that requires the same Interpretation with this passage in St. James. 
z Joh. ix. 2, 3.  When his Disciples asked him, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, i. e. It was for no sin, either of him or his Parents, that he was born blind, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. In like manner the supposition of the sick Man's having committed sins, is to be limited by reference to the Case now discoursed of, that is, of his Sickness. For whether it came in the ordinary and natural course of things, or whether God sent it for the trial of his patience and submission, the Prayer of Faith should save the sick; or if it were inflicted as a punishment, and for his Correction, God would release him of the punishment, and raise him up, and his sins should be forgiven.  
It is not perhaps unfit to remember in this place, that in the beginning of the Church, it pleased God to inflict bodily Diseases upon many Christians that had grievously offended in any kind, and this not only in pursuance of Church Censures, but sometimes without them: which was the Case of those in the Church of Corinth, who for their unworthy behaviour at their Assemblies for Celebrating the Holy Communion, were visited with God's hand. 
1 Cor. 11.30.  For saith St. Paul, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. i e. Many are dead of those Sicknesses which God sent to chastise you for that great fault that reigned amongst you, and many of you remain under those Sicknesses still, being not yet humbled under the mighty hand of God. 
V 31.  If we would judge ourselves we should not be judged, i.e. By care to do our duty, we should prevent God's Chastisements, but if upon neglecting ourselves we are chastened by the Lord, 
V 32.  it is, that we should not be condemned with the World. For God did not strike them with sudden Death, but with some sudden Sickness, and gave them time to repent, to confess their fault, and to satisfy the Church.  
Now although it was the congruity of this place to the passage in St. James, concerning the supposition of having committed sins, that led me to interpret the one by the other; yet upon farther inquiry, I found the notion not to be altogether destitute of Antiquity. For Venerable Bede, in his Notes upon this Clause, applies St. Paul's Text to it in this manner. 
* Bed. in loc. Tom. 5.  Many for sins done by the Soul, are punished with the sickness, or with the death also of the Body. Whence it is, that the Apostle saith to the Corinthians, who were wont to receive the Lords Body unworthily, For this cause many among you are sick and weak, and many sleep. If therefore the sick are under the guilt of sins, and shall confess them to the Presbyters of the Church, and shall make it their business, to forsake and amend them, with a perfect heart, they shall be forgiven them. And then he goes on showing, That sins of the greater sort had need to be confessed in order to this end. 
‖ De Eccles. Offic. lib. 1. c. 12. Tom. 10. B. P.  Amalarius also delivers the very same interpretation in the account he gives of the Unction of the sick in his days; as I shall have farther occasion to observe in a more proper place.  
So that besides the reason of the thing, we have some Authority too, to interpret this place as I have done; viz. That those words, And if he has committed sins, are to be referred to such Cases as that which St. Paul discourses of; where the Sickness was inflicted for the punishment of some notable and scandalous fault; not excluding those instances of such punishment for sins secretly committed: But for whatever sin the sickness was sent, it should be forgiven, and God would show, that he had received ●he sick person into favour again, by taking off his sickness: For in this case also, the Prayer of Faith should save the sick. Thus our Saviour demonstrated the Truth of that saying to the Man sick of the 
(a) Matt. ix. 2, 6, 7.  Palsy, Son be of good cheer thy sins be forgiven thee, by adding, Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thy house, and by that miraculous Cure that followed. Thus after he had healed the diseased Man at the Pool of Bethesda, he said unto him, 
(b) Joh. v. 14.  Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee; plainly intimating, that his infirmity was the punishment of some sin that he had been guilty of, which was now forgiven, because he was made whole, and should be dealt with hereafter, not according to what he had been, but as he should behave himself for the time to come. In like manner, and with like expression, St. James does promise, That upon the Prayer of Faith, the Gift of Healing should take place, even where the Disease was inflicted for the punishment of sins. Which construction of the place is so natural and agreeable, that I shall pursue the illustration of this passage no longer, but leave the Reader to judge of it by what has been said already.   

SECT. VI That our Interpretation of the use of Anointing in St. James, and not our Adversaries, is favoured by the following passages to the end of his Epistle.  
THE third way of inquiry was, to see what light is given to the meaning of St. James' Unction, by those following passages that are in connexion with the place under debate.  
1. The very next words that follow, are these, Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed. But whether by praying one for another in this Verse, be meant the Prayer of Faith in the former Verse, which referred to the Gift of Healing, and was accompanied with a persuasion, that God would raise up the sick; or only praying, that God would raise him up, when they had no absolute persuasion that so it would be; is what I dare not positively say, having no clear reason to determine me one way or other. But in which sense soever the words be taken, as they must be in one of them, they seem to have a very reasonable connexion with what went before; and either way this Exhortation is to be referred to that special Case mentioned just before; And if he has committed sins they shall be forgiven him.  
If the Prayer of Faith is here meant (as I think it is) then St. James exhorts the sick person, whom God had visited for his sins, to humble himself and give glory to God, by confessing to the Elders those sins which lay upon his Conscience; and likewise intimates, that the gift of healing would not otherwise take place in his Case; and therefore he was first to confess, and then the Elders to pray over him. As for Anointing with Oil, it was enough that the Apostle mentioned that before; it being a Ceremony, which (or some other of like signification) was customarily used in the Church upon Healing by a miraculous Gift. The main matters are those which he urges here, Confession and Repentance on the part of the sick Man; and then the Prayer of the Elders on his behalf, which would certainly prevail for his recovery no less than in any other Case, if it was the Prayer of Faith mentioned before.  
But if the Prayer here spoken of were not the Prayer proceeding from a persuasion that the sick would be healed, but the ordinary Prayer of the Faithful one for another, imploring the recovery of the sick person, if it should seem good to God; then this Exhortation may well be conceived to run thus; But whether the Elders be instructed by the spirit, that the Gift of Healing is, in the Case last mentioned, to take place, or no; yet let the sick person confess his faults, and then let the Elders pray for him, that he may be healed, which God may be pleased to grant, though not in the way of demonstrating that extraordinary Gift of Healing, which is so frequently seen in the Church. And if this be the meaning, no wonder that there is no mention here of Anointing with Oil, which was a Ceremony proper to that Gift.  
But let the meaning be this or that, we have this advantage from the place, that the effect of Confession and Prayer here expressed, is no other than that the person might be healed, i. e. recover his bodily health; which is a farther Confirmation, that St. James had not before directed to the use of a Sacrament for the Soul; but to the use of that Gift then flourishing in the Church, which was for the saving of the Body; though that also was designed for the good of Souls, as indeed all other miraculous operations were, and all the gifts of God whatsoever. And this is so great an advantage in favour of our Conclusion, concerning the intent of St. James' Unction in the former Verse, that here also our Adversaries do find it necessary to pervert the meaning of those plain words, that ye may be healed, and to interpret them of the delivering of the Soul from sin; 
Est. in loc.  as Estius does in particular, and that upon no other ground, but because Health in the Scriptures is often referred to the Soul. But concerning the extravagance of this interpretation, I have spoken already, §. 2.  
2. It follows. The effectual fervent Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much, i. e. it availeth sometimes to the producing of strange and sudden effects, (as the example of Elias shows, which is immediately added): which is a good argument to back the foregoing Exhortation of confessing to one another, and praying one for another, supposing that those Prayers of good Men are to be understood, which are grounded upon the general promises of God only. But to me it seems more probable, that the Prayer of Faith is still meant, because of the instance of Elias his Prayer, by which the Apostle does presently illustrate his meaning. And to this notion the Greek word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which we translate Effectual fervent, is very favourable; because it aptly signifies that incitation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which operates the Prayer of Faith. But although this sense appears reasonable, I will not stand upon it, if equal reason can be given for another. It will be sufficient to my purpose to observe, That although the prevalency of a good man's Prayer is here affirmed in general terms; and though without all question such a Man's earnest Prayer is very forcible for the obtaining of spiritual benefits, which is the best force they have; yet the Case of which he spoke just before [that ye may be healed] limits his meaning of that power of Prayer which he speaks of here, to that of producing temporal effects. Which limitation is required no less by that which follows.  
3. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it reigned not on the earth by the space of three years and three months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Now that both in the one Case and in the other, the Prayer of Elias was the Prayer of Faith, in the sense so often already mentioned, cannot justly be questioned; for as we know from St. James, that he prayed that it might not rain, and again that it might rain; so we know by the History of the Old Testament, that he expressly and absolutely foretold to Ahab, both the 
* 1 Ki xviii. 1.  one and the 
‖ xvii. 41, etc.  other. And it is evident, that this is an instance of the power of Prayer to produce temporal effects of a surprising and wonderful nature; which makes the instance pertinent to what he had been speaking of before. Nor is it incongruous to observe, That as the withholding of rain for so long time upon Elias his Prayer, does in part answer the Case of a Sinners being smitten with sickness for his transgression; so the sending of rain upon the Prayer of Elias, does fully answer the Case of the sick Man's recovery, by means of the Prayer of Faith.  
And now I may appeal to the Judicious Reader, whether our Adversaries making St. James' Unction to be a Sacrament for the immediate benefit of the Soul, does not imply it to be brought in without any coherence or pertinence to those passages which lie about it; and whether there be not a clearly pertinent Connexion from one end to the other, supposing it to be mentioned as a Ceremony of the Gift of Healing.  
As for their referring all to the Soul, that is here said with reference to Anointing, it carries indeed a show of Piety; and but a show, unless it were a pious thing to found a Doctrine upon a place of Scripture that will not bear it. What they say to this purpose is very true, but 'tis not the meaning of the Text. Their fault is, that they introduce it in the wrong place: But if they would be content to bring it in, where St. James brings it in, they had both kept to the true interpretation of his words, and withal secured the observation of that most necessary Point, That how great temporal blessings soever we receive from God, they are not yet to be compared with our spiritual interests and our concerns in another Life.  
4. For St. James having finished his Discourse concerning the Healing of the Sick, does immediately close all with this instruction. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, Let him know, that he who converteth the Sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hid a multitude of sins. As if he had said, After all, when any Christian does by wicked practice departed from the truth which he professes, and one of his Brethren, by charitable admonitions, and by earnest Prayers to God for him, brings him into the way of his duty again; let him know, that this is an infinitely better work, than to recover the sick, though by the Gift of Healing, which of itself extendeth no farther than to a temporal benefit. For he that brings a Sinner to repentance, is a means to save that Man's Soul, and shall himself find mercy from God for this Charity to his Brother, more than if he had wrought never so many miraculous Cures upon the Bodies of the sick.  
And thus I have shown, That the parallel place in St. Mark, that the Text itself, and the Context, do all of them lead to one and the same interpretation of St. James' Unction, viz. That it was a Ceremony of the Gift of Healing; which is sufficient to overthrow all pretence for establishing a Sacrament of Extreme Unction upon the Authority of the Scripture.   

SECT. VII. Objections against our Interpretation answered.  
WE may now allow our Adversaries to please themselves with fancying, that they find 
* Hic habem●● omnia, etc. Bell. de Extr. Unct. cap. 11.  all that belongs to a Sacrament in the words of St. James; so long as it appears, that his Unction was a Rite of the Gift of Healing. Nor will any Man be in danger of believing, that here is an Institution of a Rite to be used in all Ages of the Church, because as Bellarmine argues, 'tis said, Is any sick among you? From whence he concludes, that 'tis to continue in the Church as long as sick persons are to be found in it; For still there must be another thing found in the Church too, viz. the supernatural Gift of Healing the sick, or else the reason of St. James' Unction does not continue. And yet if that Gift were still continued, the Rite of it would be no Sacrament neither; because Sacraments do properly, and in their own nature, refer to the Soul, and but by accident to the Body.  
Nothing therefore remains, for the clearing of our Interpretation, but to consider those Objections against it, which have not yet been answered.  
1. 
Bell. de Extr. Unct. cap. iii. §. Quod autem, etc.  'Tis said, that if miraculous Cures were here intended, St. James had consulted, not only for the sick, but for the blind also, the deaf, and the lame, who need Cure, though they are not in danger of death. To which I answer, that the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Infirmatur quis in vobis?  Greek word, and their own Vulgar Latin too, is of latitude enough to take in all sorts of Bodily Infirmities. But if there are probable reasons, and particularly the expression 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in St. Mark to restrain the word to sickness, I would gladly know, why St. James must necessarily advise the blind and the lame, because he advises the sick to be anointed with Oil in the name of the lord 
1 Cor. xii. 9, 10.  St. Paul distinguishes between the Gifts of Healing, and between the working of miracles; the latter seeming to signify the Curing of the blind and the lame, and the raising of the Dead, as the former signifies recovering the sick. And what necessity is there, that St. James when he speaks of one Case, must speak of the other too? Or that he must speak of both or neither? Why, the one needs Cure as well as the other. Well, but what if the Apostle does not speak of all that need Cure, but only of some, that is, of the sick? So that this objection comes to nothing, unless it were an unreasonable thing to give proper advice to those, who by reason of sickness are in some danger of Death, which also is a very ordinary Case; though such advice should not be altogether so proper for those few in comparison, who being lame, or blind, need Cure indeed, but are not in that danger.  
2. It is also objected, 
Bellar. c. iii. §. Secundo: Inducat, etc.  that if the miraculous Gift of Healing were here intended, St. James had required the sick to call for those that were endued with that Gift, rather than for the Elders, since others would serve for this purpose no less than they: To which it is sufficient to say, That if this Gift was no less amongst the Elders, than amongst Lay-Christians, it was reasonably advised to send for the Elders, who had the Gift which others had, and that Authority which others had not, and withal some degree of knowledge in spiritual things, which was not common to all.  
3. It is again objected, That if the miraculous. 
Ibid. §. Tertio: Orent, etc.  Gift were here to be understood, Oil had not been prescribed, because the power of miracles was exerted freely, and not tied to any such condition as that. Ans. We say also, that it was not tied to it, it being certain, that the Apostles healed some without it. But it was a sufficient ground for St. James to direct anointing in this place, that it was the usual Rite that went along with the Exercise of the Gift of Healing, as St. Mark's Text strongly intimates [§. 4.] And because the Gift was sometimes exerted without the Ceremony, we have reason to think, that St. James does not prescribe the Ceremony as a thing necessary, but rather mentions it as a thing customary; not as that upon which the Healing depended, but with which, when it was convenient, it was wont to be graced.  
4. 
Ibid. Sexto; Omnia alia, etc.  We are told, that since all other directions in this Epistle belong to us, no less than to the faithful in the Apostles days, therefore this must do so too; and therefore it is not to be understood of the Gift of Healing which is of long discontinuance, but of a Sacrament that is to continue always in the Church. Which is as much as to say, That because the main design of the Apostolical Epistles was to inculcate duties to which the Church is equally obliged in all Ages, therefore they never laid down any Rules peculiar to the State of the Church in their own times, when it flourished with supernatural Gifts. Which is so gross a falsehood, that because those of our Communion read the Scriptures, they cannot be imposed upon by it.  
I know no other Objections but what have been answered in some part of the foregoing Discourse: Unless this be one, That the Fathers of Trent have thought fit to fix an Anathema upon all that dissent from them in this Point. For how short soever they were in proving their Doctrine, yet they have been very careful and particular in Cursing those that gainsay it, as these Canons will witness for them.  
I. 
Sess. 14.  If any one shall say, that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by our Lord Christ, and published by the Blessed Apostle St. James, but only a Rite received from the Fathers, or an Human Invention, let him be Anathema.  
II. If any one shall say, that the Sacred Unction of the sick, does not confer Grace, nor remit Sins, nor comfort the sick, but has now ceased, as if heretofore it were only the Gift of Healing, let him be Anathema.  
III. If any one shall say, that the Rite and Usage of Extreme Unction, which the Holy Roman Church observes, is repugnant to the sense of St. James the Apostle, and is therefore to be changed, and may justly, and without sin, be contemned by Christians, let him be Anathema.  
But after all this Cursing, if their arguing for Extreme Unction may be contemned without sin, so may their anathemas too; and we may comfort ourselves with David's Prayer: Let them Curse, but Bless thou.   

SECT. VIII. That St. James 's Text affords useful admonitions, though it is far from establishing a Sacrament of Extreme Unction.  
ONE of Bellarmine's Objections was this, That according to our Interpretation of the Text in St. James, it belongs not to us, he meant, That it would be impertinent in us to anoint the sick with Oil, because the Gift of supernatural Healing is hardly to be found. But his expression was a little too large in saying, That these things therefore would not belong to us. For those things may be said to belong to us from whence we may reap very good Instruction, as certainly we may from these. This passage concerning so notable a Gift, as that of Healing was, is one of those that make up the Testimony which God gave to the Christian Religion in the early days of the Church, and it belongs to us to take notice of them all, for the strengthening of our Faith. And there are many good instructions besides which this place affords, that will be useful to the World's end. And therefore I shall close this part with representing what they are.  
1. Is any Man sick? he aught to take his sickness as coming from the hand of God, though perhaps not so immediately as sickness was sometimes inflicted upon Christians in the Primitive Church. He should consider with himself, that this is one of the ordinary trials of a Man's Faith and Patience, and that he is therefore exceedingly to blame if he does not bear it as a Christian ought to do. Or he is to reflect, whether it be not for some sin yet unrepented of, that God in his goodness hath thought fit to give him this warning; that he may make his sickness the beginning of his repentance.  
2. As a Member of the Church which is the Body of Christ, he is also to send for God's Minister in the Church, that he may receive the benefit of his instructions: To which end the best course he can take is, to confess his fault, and to lay open the grief of his mind, since the Minister will thereby be better enabled to make such applications to his Case, as may be effectual to procure his amendment for the future, and his comfort at present; and the sick person be in less danger of letting himself lose to self-flattery and presumption, or of being overwhelmed with too much Grief. It is not to be thought that the Elders were sent for in the Primitive Church merely for the Gift of Healing, for that did not always take place, but for the benefit also of spiritual instruction and consolation which always did.  
3. As a means for the recovery of his Health, the sick person is to desire the Prayers of the Minister. For though we cannot with any modesty pretend to the Prayer of Faith here mentioned, that is, of a certain persuasion, that the person for whom we pray shall be raised up; yet we ought to pray in this Faith, that it is pleasing to God when we express our dependence upon him 
* Phil. iv. 6.  by ask those things which we need; that every good thing comes from him, and therefore health and deliverance from Death; that though he does not always give that particular thing which we ask, yet 'tis sometimes denied because we do not ask; and that as he never gives the greatest blessings of all, which are those of a good mind, but in answer to Prayers; so sometimes he does not send bodily good things, because he is not prayed to for them: Finally, That there is no less reason for Prayer when God raiseth up the sick, by blessing ordinary means, than when it was done by a supernatural Gift.  
The discontinuance of the Gift of Healing has not so altered the Case, but that God as truly forgives the sins of the penitent sick Man, in restoring him to health now, as he did then when a Miracle was seen in the recovery; and the Prayers of the Elders of the Church are now to be desired for the one, no less than they were heretofore for the other; especially since even in those times they did not always pray one for another, with assurance to obtain the thing they asked, and the event was to declare, whether God saw it expedient to grant their requests. But,  
4. In this Case Men are not to do according to the common Custom, of not calling for the Priest till there is little or no hope of Life left, and when his Prayers for the recovery of the Patient are almost as insignificant, as it would be to anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord; when he is drawing on to the last gasp, and nothing indeed but a Miracle can raise him up. The Apostle does not say, Is any Man sick unto Death? but, is any man sick? which seems to imply an advice to call for the Elders of the Church before the Disease was grown desperate according to the natural course of things, and not to trust to be Cured by a Miracle at last, when it was apparent that nothing but a Miracle could do it. It is now much more requisite that the Priest should be called for when the danger first gins to appear, because Miracles are ceased. And as for them that try the Physician till he gives them over, and never till then seek the Prayers of the Church, they have but little reason to hope for help from God, to whom they have no recourse till they are driven by the last extremity. For they show, that if they could have had relief without him, they cared not to be beholden to him for it. In which Case it is just with God, to suffer the sickness to be mortal, which perhaps had not been so, if applications had been made to him with the first, by calling for the Elders, by confessing their sins, by promising repentance, and by Prayers for good things requisite, as well for the Body as the Soul.  
Such admonitions as these we may gather from this place of Scripture; though we do neither suppose it pertinent to anoint sick persons with Oil, as they did in the Apostolical times, unless we had the Gift of Healing, which flourished in those times; nor account it any part of our duty to anoint dying persons with Oil, as they now do in the Church of Rome, unless we believed what they say they believe, That it was a Sacrament instituted by Christ, insinuated by St. Mark, and published by St. James, to confer grace and take away sins.  
But it has been shown, that they give us no manner of good reason to believe any such thing, either out of St. Mark, or St. James; but that there is very good reason to believe the contrary from both those Authorities. And so much for their pretended Arguments out of Scripture.    

OF EXTREME UNCTION.  
PART II. That it is a late Innovation, and has no ground in Antiquity.  

SECT. I. What anointings were used in the Ancient Church.  
SInce there are no Sacraments properly so called, but those, the Institution whereof is delivered to us in the Holy Scriptures; we need not be solicitous concerning the Testimony of the Ancient Church, after the Age of the Apostles: Not so much, at least, for the sake of Truth, as for the Honour of the Ancient Christians, from whom our Adversaries pretend to have received this their Sacrament of Extreme Unction. But if any there be who conceive the Truth not to be so evident, but that it will bear an Addition of light and strength from Ancient Testimony, we are far from envying them this means of satisfaction.  
Whereas therefore 
(a) De Extr. Unct. cap. iv.  Bellarmin appeals to the Tradition of the Ancients; I make no question but it will appear, that this pretended Sacrament was unknown to the Church for above a thousand years; that his instances to the Contrary are far from being proofs, and that some of them, in which he places his greatest confidence, are against him.  
But for more clear proceeding; In the first place we make no difficulty to grant, That there were several Anointings used in the Ancient Church, and those too as so many Religious Rites: But withal we say, that the Unction of the sick, now in fashion amongst the pretended Catholics, was none of them.  
Anciently they anointed the 
(b) Constit. Apost. lib. iii. c. 16. lib. seven. c. 42, 44.  Catechumen that were ready for Baptism, and this with simple Oil; and 
(c) Tertull. de Bapt. c. x. Cypr. Ep. 70. Oxon. Syn. Arausic. l. Can. 2. Resp. ad Orthod. Qu. 137. Hieron. Tom. iv. Com. in Lam. c. 11. Dionys. Areop. de Eccl. Hier. c. seven. §. 8. Vide etiam Cotelerii notas in Patr. Apost. p. 214.  after Baptism they anointed them with Chrism, or a compounded Oil, which custom was very plentifully attested by Ecclesiastical Writers, as every one knows, that is in any degree conversant with them. Some plain Testimonies to this purpose, I have referred to in the Margin; and that because I shall erelong have occasion to remember, That this usage, though it was the matter of no Divine Precept, was frequently remembered by the Ancients.  
They also anointed 
(d) Resp. ad Orthod. Qu. 14. in Just. M.  those who had been baptised by Heretics, when they came over to the Communion of the Catholics; and this with holy Ointment.  
Such Unctions as these were all of them far enough from this Anointing Mystery of the Roman Church, because they were not so much as Unctions of the sick.  
And yet I grant, that in the Ancient Church they did sometimes anoint the sick and infirm also. But then the instances of that Unction are by no means favourable to the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; because, although they were sick persons who were anointed, yet it was not a Sacramental Unction to prepare the sick for their passage out of this World, but a Rite of the Gift of Healing; the Gift of Healing, I say, which it pleased God to continue in the Church for some Ages after the Apostles.  
Thus 
(e) Ad Scapulam cap. 4.  Tertullian tells us, that Proculus a Christian, the Procurator of one 
* Euodus.  Euhoida, was kindly entertained by Severus the Emperor, to the day of his Death, because he had once Cured him with Oil. 
(f) De Vitâ Hilarionis, Tom. 1. p. 9 Colon.  St. Hierom also reports, that many Husbandmen and Shepherds, stung with Serpents and venomous Beasts, ran to Hilarion, and were cured with holy Oil: And that the same Hilarion saved the Lives of Constantia's Son-in-Law, and her Daughter, by anointing them with Oil. The like is affirmed by 
(g) Vit. Mart. c. 15.  Sulpitius Severus, of Martin Bishop of Tours, that he Cured a Paralytic Maid by earnest Prayer and by Oil. And 
(h) De Civit. D. lib. 22. c. 8.  St. Austin speaks of a Maid of Hippo, that was dispossessed of a Devil, by the Prayers of a Presbyter, and by anointing herself with Oil, into which he had let fall his tears. Several instances of this kind are to be met with in 
(i) Vitae Patrum, p. 211, 343, 451, etc.  Rosweid, which I pass over to avoid tediousness. I shall only add, that the seventh Age was not without the Gift of Healing, and that the use of Unction which referred to it, was till then continued, as appears by what 
(k) Vitae Cuthb. c. 30.  Bede reports of Cuthbert Bishop of Fern-Isle, who died when Bede was about twenty years old. 
Vide Dallaeum de Ext. Unctione, p 85, 86, 87. & Baron. A C. 63. n. iv.  He tells us of a Holy Woman that was vexed with an intolerable pain in her Head, and in one of her Sides, whom Cuthbert, after the Physicians had given her over, anointed with holy Oil; that from that time she mended, and in a few days was perfectly well.  
Now it must be granted, that so long as the supernatural Gift of Healing lasted, there was as much reason to use the common Ceremony of such Healing as there was at first. And as we confess this practice of anointing the sick to have been frequent in the first Ages of the Church, so we grant it to have been an Apostolical Tradition. For we find it agreeing with the practice of the Apostles in St. Mark, and with the Custom of the Primitive Presbyters in St. James. But then although this was the Unction of the sick, yet it was not Extreme Unction, nor the Sacrament of the Dying. For the direct end for which it was administered, was, That those who were anointed might not die, but recover their health by the supernatural Gift of God. And, as I shall show presently, this practice proves Antiquity to be as much against the Roman Sacrament, as St. Mark and St. James show the Scripture to be so.  
In the mean time I must observe, That there was yet another Unction in the Ancient Church, which seems to me to have been no otherwise a Religious Rite, than that it becomes Christians especially, who believe the Resurrection of the Body, to inter their dead decently and honourably: For it seems they Anointed the Dead. So 
(l) Paedag. l. 11. c. 8. p. 176. Par.  Clemens Alexandrinus tells us. Nor was this to be wondered at in particular, since the Jews had used this Rite before, and the Christians were remarkable for this, That they spared no cost to adorn the Funerals of those who died in the Lord, as 
(m) Apolog. c. 42.  Tertullian told the Heathens. The Counterfeit 
(n) De Hier. Eccles. cap. seven.  Dionysius speaks of it as of a general practice; he tells us, how the Priest having received the dead Body from the nearest Relations, does all holy Rites that are Customary about those that die in the Lord; that at length he salutes him that is dead, and that after him the rest do so too; that then he pours Oil upon him, and after Prayers for All, that the Body is buried. But this I think makes nothing at all for the Roman Sacrament, though we should take in that signification or instruction by which the last named Writer made this Unction of the Dead a kind of a Mystery. 
(o) Ibid. §. 8.  Remember, says he, in the holy Regeneration by which one is Born of God, that before the Divine Baptism, the first participation of that Holy Rite, viz. the anointing with Oil, is given to him that is initiated, after he has quite put off his former garment. But now at the end of all, he that is departed this Life is anointed with Oil. Then indeed (before Baptism) the anointing with Oil called forth him that was initiated to a Holy Warfare; but now (that he is dead) the Oil that is poured upon him shows him that is departed out of this life to have fought in this warfare to the end.  
Now I grant this to be Extreme Unction; but then 'tis neither the Unction of the Dying, nor of the Sick, but of the Dead. And if the pretended Catholics will conform to the Custom of the Church in this Writers time, their Unction will not be so much as Extreme Unction, because this is to come after it; And Bellarmin's reason why their Unction is called Extreme, because 'tis the last of all Unctions, will be quite out of Doors, since the Unction of the Dead, and not of the Dying, must be last of all.  
'Tis true, that this Dionysius mentions one Unction before Death; but 'tis as wide from the business of the Roman Sacrament, as that after it; for the Roman Sacrament is administered only to Baptised Persons; but the Unction he speaks of which goes before death, goes before Baptism too, and is that which we have spoken of already.  
So much for the Ancient Unctions of the Church, what they were; and that they do not make for our Adversaries. Let us consider a little, whether some of them do not favour us.   

SECT. II. That the Unction of the sick in the Ancient Church, confirms our Interpretation of St. Mark and St. James.  
THE first which I shall resume, is the Ancient practice of anointing the sick in the Ages next after the Apostles, which seems to be a Good Evidence of the Truth of that Interpretation of St. James, which makes his Unction of the Sick, a Rite of miraculous Healing. For this practice does of itself show, That in all probability the ancient Christians thus understood it; because they applied Unction to the sick in order to the recovery of their health by supernatural means. For the forsaid Cures are all of them related as miraculous Cures.  
And therefore Chemnitius had reason to say, That the progress of this Unction clearly shows it to be no Sacrament. For, first, says he, the Apostles anointed the sick with common Oil to heal them; then others began to add Benediction, and to Consecrate the Oil; but yet they used it to the same end, for which the Apostles used it before, viz. To Cure the sick miraculously, as it appears by the Miracles said to be done with holy Oil, by St. Martin and many others, etc. But when at length Miracles were quite ceased, the Ceremony of anointing still went on. In short, he makes the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to have grown from the continuance of the Rite, after the reason of it was at an end, and miraculous Cures were no longer done. For which conclusion we shall see a great deal of reason hereafter. But in the mean time we will consider Bellarmin's notable conjecture on the other side, concerning the miraculous Cures that were done with Oil. 
(p) De Extr. Unct. cap. 6. §. Quod vero, etc.  But, says he, That the Ceremony of anointing the sick, in the way of a Sacrament, arose out of that Unction which operated in the way of a Miracle, Chemnitius proves not otherwise than that himself so thinks. But we on the contrary do conjecture, that this progress of Oil came about another way; that is to say, because in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, it often happened, that people were healed; some holy men began upon that occasion to use Oil out of the Sacrament; not that Oil which was blessed by the Bishop, in order to a Sacrament; but Oil sanctified by themselves simply with the sign of the Cross, to heal Diseases. Thus the Cardinal argues.  
Now if his conjecture be a good one, then by his own Confession, those frequent Relations which we meet with in the Ancients, of miraculous Cures by Oil, do acquaint us with an Unction very different from Bellarmin's Sacramental Unction; as of necessity it must be if the Sacramental Unction was the Mother of that. And by consequence, unless they can produce other testimonies from Antiquity for their Sacrament, they must not think to find it in the instances of those that were miraculously healed by Oil, since these are not instances of Extreme Unction; nor will any Man say they are, unless he be furnished with as bold a Face as 
* Not. in Iren. lib. 1. c. 18.  Fevardentius had, who without any scruple, makes Hilarion's Unctions to be Extreme, and the Miracles reported to follow thereupon, to be the effects of Extreme Unction; and like an honest Man tells us, That St. Hierom says so.  
But for Bellarmin's conjecture itself, which he opposes to that of Chemnitius, 'tis no better than excess of confidence opposed to plain reason. For this was Chemnitius' ground, that all the Unction of the sick, which we meet with in the Ancients, was for bodily Cures; and that Extreme Unction was never heard of till of late; which, if it be true, makes it highly reasonable to conclude, That Extreme Unction grew out of the miraculous one, and very absurd to say, that this grew from that, unless we could fancy the Daughter to be born before the Mother.  
As for the like Case which Bellarmin produces in favour of his Conjecture, I can hardly grant him what he seems to allow to Chemnitius, that he thought himself to be in the right. After this manner; says he, we see it was done in Water; 
Ibid.  Because in Baptism men were sometimes healed of their Bodily Infirmities, as Augustin testifies, and gives some Examples of the same: From thence many began to use water, blessed out of Baptism for the Cure of Diseases.  
Now indeed if there had been as frequent and as early mention of this Extreme Unction in the Writings of the Ancient Church, as there is of Baptism; and if the instances of Cures by Unction had been as rare as those of healing by Baptismal Water, the instance had been very laudable, and one Case would have given light to the other: But since neither the one nor the other is true, nothing could have been less to the purpose. Of Baptism there is no dispute, whether the Church, from the first, held it a Sacrament. Holy Water out of Baptism came in long after; and it is therefore very reasonable to judge, That it might grow out of the Sacrament of Baptism, although the Bodily Cures, wrought by Baptismal Water, were but rarely heard of. But now of Cures wrought by Unction, there is plain testimony in the Scriptures themselves, and 
‖ Spond. A. C. 63. N. iv.  frequent mention in Ecclesiastical Writers for several Ages; And we say, that of this pretended Sacramental Unction there was no mention, no not so much as any intimation, for several Ages; whilst Bodily Cures by Oil went on abundantly. And therefore there is as much reason to derive the pretended Sacrament of Unction from the miraculous Unction, as to derive the use of Holy Water from the Water of Baptism; because as Baptism was before the one, so the miraculous Unction was, and that too for a much longer time, before the other.  
So that the Cardinal's illustration does him no manner of service, but is as fit for our purpose as any that could be readily thought of. For there is no more dispute between the Church of Rome and us, whether the Ancients frequently mention that Unction that was applied for Bodily Cures, than whether they took notice of the Sacrament of Baptism one Age after another, and this from the very first. But that they expressed any the least regard to such an Unction as the Roman Sacrament is, we utterly deny. And therefore for the same reason, that Water blessed for Bodily Cures, sprang from the Water of Baptism, which is a Sacrament; for the same reason, I say, we may conclude, That Extreme Unction, which is pretended to be a Sacrament, but is none, sprang from the Unction which was for Bodily Cures, and which was not pretended to be a Sacrament.  
But the main point to be observed in this place, is, That if in the Ancient Church they still anointed the sick in order to a miraculous Cure, and never applied Unction as a Sacrament to prepare the Soul for its conflict with Death, and to purge away the Relics of sin; this is little less than a demonstration, that they did not understand St. James, as speaking of Sacramental, or Extreme Unction, but of that Unction which was to restore health to the Body.  
I shall therefore proceed to show, that Antiquity was wholly a stranger to the Roman mystery of anointing the sick; and the first thing I shall attempt to this purpose, is to answer those few testimonies which our Adversaries pretend to have on their side.   

SECT. III. That Extreme Unction has not the Testimony of any Ancient Pope.  
THE Cardinal undertakes to prove the Sacrament in Question, by the Testimonies of Popes, Councils, Fathers, and other Authors. His Popes are Innocent I. and Innocent III. and no more. Certainly he does not begin as if he would do wonders out of Antiquity, when in the compass of twelve hundred years he could produce but two Popes for one of his Sacraments. For Innocent III. lived in the beginning of the thirteenth Century. And therefore how clearly soever he may attest this new Roman Sacrament, it was not so learnedly done to bring his Testimony under that head of 
(q) Ubi supra c. iv.  the Tradition of the Ancients; nor so wisely neither, because though he were so late a Pope, yet his Testimony is but a scurvy one, and fit to be mentioned in general, as the Cardinal mentions it, than to be produced as I shall do in its place. But perhaps Innocent I. will make amends for all; so Bellarmine indeed was pleased to say of his testimony, That it ought to suffice if there were none besides it: since he was an Ancient Author, and began to take the Chair in the Year 402. And he was a man learned, and holy, and wonderfully commended by Austin, Hierom and Chrysostom. The Epistle cited is certainly his: He says expressly and clearly, That this Unction is a Sacrament explained by St. James, and is therefore not to be given to those who are not capable of other Sacraments, etc. Nor did ever any of the Ancients reprove him for teaching, that the Unction of the sick is a Sacrament. Here now is an Authority brought out with no little circumstance, as if it were able to do the business alone; and to make it look more considerably, we are told, that All Catholics produce it; and that Chemnitius durst not so much as name it. But I rather guests, that if Chemnitius had it before him, he did not think it worth his while to answer it.  
For my own part, if this place of Innocent I. were as clear and full for Extreme Unction, as it seems all Catholics take it to be, I should not be afraid to reject his Authority as insufficient, since in the same Epistle he affirms most notorious and silly falsehoods; 
* Innoc. Ep. 1. in Praefat.  for instance, that in all Italy, France, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the interjacent Islands, no Churches were founded but by Priests that were ordained by St. Peter, or his Successors, and that no Apostle preached in these Provinces but he; and this, he says, is manifest. 
‖ Ibid. n. 4.  He also makes it an Ecclesiastical Tradition, and demonstrable by most evident reason, That Christians were to fast upon Saturdays; and he makes those to be mad that did otherwise: whereas it was notorious, that the Eastern and African Churches did not fast upon those days, no nor all Italy neither; for St. Ambrose and his Church of Milan did it not. Now what a Man says, whilst he is in the humour of venting such things as these, had need, either of good reason, or some better Authority than his own to make it pass. For these reasons some learned Men, in pure respect to the memory of Innocentius, conclude this first Epistle to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, to be none of his; which is all the Answer that 
(s) Panstr. De Sacr. N. T. lib. iv. c. 21.  Chamier gives to that Testimony for Extreme Unction, which Bellarmine produces out of it. But 
(t) De Ext. Unct. p. 99  Mr. Daillé has brought together so many, and so likely Authorities to prove it a genuine Epistle of Innocent, that they seem to weigh more on the one side, than the Extravagancies of the Epistle do on the other.  
But by whomsoever it was written, and if all the rest of it were as true as Gospel, sure I am, that in the intended passage there is nothing at all for the Roman Sacrament of Extreme Unction; as any indifferent Man may see by the passage itself, which the Cardinal was wise enough not to produce as it is in the Epistle. In answer to some questions concerning Anointing, as to which Decentius thought those words of St. James, Is any man sick, etc. were fit to be considered; Innocentius, whom he consulted about it, makes this return; 
(u) Quod non est Dubium de Fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui Sancto Oleo Chrismatis perungi possunt, quo ab Episcopo confecto, non solum sacerdotibus, sed omnibus uti Christianis licet in suâ aut suorum necessitate inungendo. Caeterùm illud superfluum videmus adjectum, ut de Episcopo ambigatur quod Presbyteris licere non dubium est. Nam idcirco de Presbyteris dictum est, quia Episcopi occupationibus aliis impediti ad omnes languidos ire non possunt. Caeterum si Episcopus aut potest aut dignum ducit aliquem à se visitandum, & benedicere, & tangere Chrismate sine cunctatione potest, cujus est ipsum Chrisma conficere. Poenitentibus autem istud infundi non potest, quia genus est Sacramenti. Nam quibus reliqua Sacramenta negantur, quomodo unum genus putatur posse Concedi? Innoc. Ep. 1. n. 8.  That the Text no doubt is to be understood of the Faithful that are sick; who may be anointed with the Holy Oil of Chrism, which being made by the Bishop, it is lawful, not only for Priests, but for all Christians to use it, by anointing in their own need, or in the need of any of their Friends. But for what is added, 'tis a needless doubt, whether a Bishop may do that which is undoubtedly lawful for Presbyters. For Presbyters are therefore mentioned, because Bishops being hindered by other employments, cannot go about to all sick persons. But if the Bishop can, or thinks fit to visit any one, he that made the Chrism itself, may without all scruple, bless and anoint with it. But the Chrism is not to be given to Penitents, because 'tis a kind of a Sacrament: For how can one kind of a Sacrament be allowed to those to whom the rest are denied?  
Now here indeed is a Resolution of some Questions concerning Unction of the sick; but to fancy, that what the Church of Rome calls the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, was the subject of this place, is so wild an Imagination, that although All the Catholics have entertained it, I cannot but wonder how it should enter into any wise man's head. For 'tis in effect to say, That although this Unction was a Sacrament published by St. James, and had been applied to the sick constantly for above three hundred years; yet there was a certain Bishop well esteemed by his Holiness, who was so Uncatechized, that he neither knew who might receive this Sacrament, nor who might give it. I acknowledge, that if this be Innocent's Epistle, I have made a little bold with him upon the account of his gross mistakes in it. But Bellarmine and the rest of his Catholics, represent him ten times worse; and in plain terms they abuse him. And therefore here I must be the Pope's Advocate, and do him so much right, as to say, That if the Bishop of Eugubium had been so stupidly ignorant, who were to receive Extreme Unction, and who were to apply it; yet at least the Bishop of Rome, whom he consulted in the Case, would have wondered at it a little, instead of giving him such cool and formal Answers, as if Decentius had started some new difficulties which before his time there was no occasion to inquire about: Unless they will make Pope Innocent as ignorant as the Bishop of Eugubium must be supposed to be. But though the Pope was so egregiously mistaken in the History of the propagation of the Gospel over the Western, and some of the Southern parts of the World, and in the Discipline of the Church concerning Fasting days; yet that he should be ignorant too of the use of one of the proper Sacraments of the Church, till Decentius gave him occasion to inform himself better, is an imputation no less incredible in itself, than reproachful to him. This ought not by any means to be believed of a learned man and a holy, and one wonderfully commended by Austin, Hierom, and Chrysostom.  
Bellarmine indeed would persuade us, that the Bishop inquired only, 
(w) Ubi supra. §. Ex hoc etiam.  Whether a Bishop might give the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or a Presbyter only. A very fine Question for a Bishop to send to Rome, if that were all? But, by his leave, Decentius asked more questions than so, or else the Pope ran out in his Answer very impertinently; and that he inquired something farther, is very evident from his own words, who coming to that point, says, 
* Caeterùm illud superfluum videmus adjectum, ut de Episcopo ambigatur, etc.  But for what is added, your doubt is needless, etc. which manifestly implies, that there were other doubts; to which that was added concerning the power of a Bishop to anoint, etc. as indeed there was one or two before it, and another after it. So that they make this intercourse between Decentius and Innocentius, to be just as if one of the Bishops of the Roman Communion should write to the present Pope, to know whether Extreme Unction might be given to the faithful in their sickness, whether they might anoint themselves, whether a Bishop might anoint them, and (as I shall presently show the Case to be the same) whether Excommunicated persons, in no danger of death, might be anointed as well as the rest; and the Pope should make such an Answer as Innocent did. For if Extreme Unction was then understood and practised in the Church, as it is now in the Church of Rome, those two ancient Bishops were altogether as ridiculous, as his Holiness and some other Bishop now would be upon such a supposition.  
So that Extreme Unction cannot be meant in this place; and which makes this pretended testimony for it come off very miserably; we need not desire a better Argument, that in those days the Church knew nothing at all of the now Roman Doctrine or practice of that Unction; for if it was then as 'tis now, these two ancients talked of the matter before them like a couple of Idiots, and were so far from deserving to be Bishops, that they were not worthy to be accounted Novices in Christianity; which will more fully appear by a brief account of the Pope's resolutions, and the Questions which they suppose the Bishop to have sent.  
We have already seen, that the pretended Sacrament of Unction, cannot be the subject of the Discourse in that Epistle; And the reasons already offered make it necessary to suppose, that it was some new thing that had not been formerly thought of in the Church. Nor do we need to go far for a Key to unlock this mystery, since the place itself affords one, which is this, That the Inquiries of Decentius, and the Pope's Answers, went all upon the Oil of Chrism, which Oil (by the way) is not the matter of the late Sacrament of Unction; it being compounded Oil that was kept in the Church for anointing, not the sick, but those that were in health, that is to say, newly Baptised persons, and such as were made Bishops and Priests. 
‖ Vide §. 1.  This sort of Unction we have already seen to have been practised in the Ancient Church. And 'tis the Oil for such purposes, concerning which Decentius enquired, whether and how it might be administered to the sick, that is, applied to a new purpose for which the Church never used it before. As to the occasion upon which he made this inquiry, possibly if we had his Letter we should find it mentioned there. But since we have it not, we can but guests; and I believe it will be a hard matter to mend 
(x) De Extr. Unct. p. 100  Mr. Daillé's Conjecture; which is this. 'Tis very likely, that some who observed, that Diseases were by several miraculously cured, and this by applying Oil, and had read in St. James those words, Is any one sick, etc. being sick themselves, desired of Decentius, that they might be anointed with the Chrism, which they knew to be in the Church, not knowing but by this means they might be healed; and thereupon that Decentius inquired of Innocentius, what was in this case fit to be done.  
To which it may not be unfit to add, That as the Gift of Healing continued hitherto in the Church, so neither had all Presbyters that Gift, nor only they; nor was it exerted at the pleasure of those that had it; and therefore since the Rite of Anointing the sick with Oil, went along with the use of the Gift, neither could the sick expect to be anointed upon their desire, either by the Presbyters that had not the Gift, or by those, or any others, that had it. Which I say to prevent that Objection against Mr. Daillé's Conjecture; That probably the sick would rather have desired the Priests to anoint them with Oil, or some others that had the Gift of Healing so to do, than to be anointed with Chrism: For there is no ground for this at all, unless it had been part of the Priestly office to anoint the sick, as it is now in the Roman Communion; or unless they that had the Gift of Healing by Oil, could have exerted it when they pleased. And therefore it is reasonable to say, That as it is the manner of People in distress to try every way they happen to think of which flatters them into hope of success; so those sick Persons who could not demand that Unction which accompanied the Supernatural Gift of Healing, yet at least desired to try what might be done by the use of the holy Chrism that was reserved in the Church for other purposes, not knowing but that the effect promised in S. James to the Prayer of Faith, might follow it.  
But whatever the occasion was, the use of Chrism to a new purpose, was the subject of the Inquiry; And the ground upon which Decentius went, was, that the Text was to be understood of the Faithful that were sick, as Innocent acknowledged; and hereupon as it should seem by the Answers of the later, the Questions of the former were these Four:  
1. Whether the Faithful that were sick might be anointed with Chrism? To which the Pope answered, That they might. Now if by Chrism, was meant what they call the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and what they suppose was acknowledged by both of them and by the whole Church in those days; it was a very senseless Question, and as senseless an Answer; and it might as well have been asked by the one, Whether the Faithful may receive the Eucharist, and say their Prayers, and do what is their duty to do? and as gravely answered by the other, That they might. But there is some sense in it, if we understand the Question of the applying of that Chrism to the sick, which was hitherto used in the Church for other purposes.  
2. Whether the sick might in their need anoint themselves with it. To which the Pope answered, That they might; For, says he, Not only Priests, but all Christians may lawfully use in their own need, or in theirs who belong to them, the Oil of Chrism prepared by the Bishop, and anoint with it. Now if this was meant of Extreme Unction, it argued great stupidity in Decentius to inquire whether Lay-Christians might Administer a Sacrament to themselves and to others, which it was lawful for none to Administer, but a Presbyter at least, as we are told by the Council of Trent: And in the Pope it was unpardonable Ignorance to determine this Question the wrong way, by allowing that all Christians might use this Sacrament, by Anointing themselves or their Friends with it. But if we understand the use of Chrism in order to Healing, there was some reason for this Question, since on the one side the ordinary use of Chrism was applied only by Persons in Orders, on the other s●●e it was known that such as were not in Orders, had with success applied Oil to the Cure of the Sick; so that there was an appearance of Reason on both sides to move Decentius to ask, Whether if the Faithful might be anointed with Chrism in their sickness, the Laity might anoint themselves and others with it, as the Laity that had the Gift of Healing anointed with Oil? or whether they must leave it to the Priest, because it was Chrism. And Innocent in my opinion answered very well, that he knew nothing to the contrary, but they might do it themselves.  
3. If they might not Anoint themselves with it, it being clear from S. James, that Presbyters had power to Anoint the Sick, Whether Bishops were included or not? Now this seems to me to be no overwise Question, let the supposition upon which 'tis asked be what it will. But if Extreme Unction went then in the Church, as it does now in the Roman Communion, the Question was exceedingly foolish; for we are told that the 
(y) Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 3.  Ministers of this Sacrament are Bishops, or Priests rightly ordained by Bishops. And, to set that aside; who can imagine that a Bishop should doubt, whether a Bishop had power to Administer one of the Sacraments of Christ's Institution? But though 'tis hard to say what came into his Head to move this Question about the Bishop's power to Anoint the Sick with Chrism, yet the whole business being new, and he believing that it was to be governed by the Text of S. James, it was nothing near so extravagant a Question, as it had been upon the supposition of Extreme Unction: Though indeed it was something odd if we take it as it is; And therefore the Pope gave him a gentle gird for it, in these words: But for what is added, 'tis a needless doubt, Whether a Bishop may do that which is undoubtedly lawful for Presbyters?  
4. Whether the Chrism might be given to Penitents in their Sickness? Now if Chrism had been the Extreme Unction of the Roman Church, 'tis not imaginable that Decentius should have asked such a Question as this. For if by the Sick, to be anointed, he had meant only the dying, there had been no room for that Question, Whether sick, i. e. dying Penitents might be anointed, it being a notorious custom of the Church 
* Innoc. Ep. III. n. 2.  in those days to communicate those that were admitted to Penance, if they were in evident danger of Death. But 'tis evident, that both Decentius and Innocentius spoke of all that were visited with Sickness, though in appearance the Sickness were not mortal, (for Innocentius speaks simply of the Sick, and says that the Bishop cannot visit all the Sick, and the like.) And the Question thus taken, viz. Whether all sick Penitents might be anointed, was a very ignorant Question, if he meant Extreme Unction, and that because it was notorious that they who were in the state of Penitents, were denied all manner of Sacraments, (unless in the Article of Death) as Innocent observed in his Answer to this Question.  
If it be objected, That Decentius bewrayed as much ignorance, if he put this Question concerning the Unction of the sick Penitents, with proper Chrism, since Innocentius answering in the Negative, thought fit to give this reason for his Answer, That all Sacraments were denied to Penitents. I Answer, That there was a reasonable ground upon which Decentius might move such a Question; For though Chrism was esteemed a kind of Sacrament, yet whether it might not be applied for the recovery of their bodily health, to whom Sacraments were yet denied, was a doubt which a wise Man might make. For since the Sick in that place desired to try the success of being anointed with Chrism, in order to the same effect that they knew anointing with Oil, by those that had the Gift of Healing, produced upon sick Persons; it might be thought that this use of Chrism, just now started, might be exempted from the common Rule, especially because there were instances of some cured by Oil 
† Spondan. A. C. 63. N. IV.  that were not so much as Christians. And though Innocent concluded in the Negative, yet the Question would have born a Dispute in behalf of the Penitents, if upon trial of the virtue of holy Chrism to cure the Sick, the matter had been found to deserve it.  
And here we are come to the place upon which Bellarmin triumphs, as if Innocentius' Testimony alone would do the business. He says expressly and clearly, says the Cardinal, That this Unction is a Sacrament explained by S. James, and therefore not to be given to those who are not capable of other Sacraments, etc. What a small matter will serve the turn, where there is a good will, but no manner of good reason for the Conclusion! That this Unction is a Sacrament? What Unction I pray? Not Bellarmin's Extreme Unction: for of that he speaks not a word; and as I have abundantly shown, Innocentius cannot be understood as speaking of that, by any Man that has a grain of sense, and is withal as honest as he should be. But here lies the secret, that there is mention of Unction, and that of the Sick too, and moreover that there is the word Sacrament; and so without any more to do, it must be the Sacrament of Extreme Unction that is spoken of, as if no other account were to be given of the place. But let the place itself be produced, which Bellarmin, (to be even with him for his censure of Chemnuius) was afraid to produce; and the impertinence of appealing to it, will immediately appear. But the Chrism is not to be given to Penitents, because 'tis a KIND of a Sacrament. For how can one kind of a Sacrament be allowed to those, to whom the rest are denied? By which 'tis evident that 'tis not Unction of the Sick, much less Extreme Unction of the Sick, but the very Chrism itself, the Chrism I say which had been blessed by the Bishop, that Innocent calls a Sacrament. With this Sacrament they anointed those that were baptised, that were ordained Priests, that were consecrated Bishops; And the applying of it to the Sick made it not one jot more a Sacrament, than it was before. But then how does he style it a Sacrament? Far enough I am sure from Bellarmin's purpose. He says, 'tis a kind of a Sacrament. Now that which is a kind of a Sacrament, is not a Sacrament properly so called, such as Baptism and the Eucharist are, but that which in some respect may be so called. And many such Sacraments there were in those times, more than seven times seven, as every Man knows that is versed in the Ancients. Every sign of a holy thing, every thing blessed to a Religious use, and not only the Ceremonies of the Christian Church, but sometimes the mysteries of Moses' Law, and the Types of Christ that were amongst the Israelites, were called Sacraments. 'Tis very much that Bellarmin did not produce for his Sacrament of Extreme Unction that saying of 
(z) Adu. Prax. C. 28.  Tertullian, Jesus was called Christ from the Sacrament of Unction. But to clear this matter from all shadow of scruple, I will here transcribe out of this very Epistle, what shall be able to do it alone. 
† Ubi Supra n. 5.  Concerning the Fermented Bread which we send about the 
* Tituli.  City Parishes upon Lords days, you had no need to ask our opinion, since all our Churches are within the City; whose Presbyters because they cannot be with us upon that day, by reason of their Flocks committed to them; Therefore of the Acolytes they take the Bread, which is blessed by us, that they may especially upon that day be judged not to be separated from our Communion; which should not be done through the Country Parishes as I conceive, 
† Paroeciae.  because Sacraments are not to be carried a great way off. Here he calls the blessed Bread or Holy Bread which was sent about to the Parishes of the Diocese, (but at Rome, it seems, only to the Parishes of the City) to testify unity of Communion; he calls it, I say, a Sacrament; not so much as qualifying it with that diminution, A kind of a Sacrament, which he bestowed upon Chrism. And yet in a proper sense one was just such a Sacrament as the other, that is, not at all; but both of them come under that sort of things, which the Romanists themselves call Sacramentals, or Rites that have some kind of likeness to Sacraments truly so called.  
And thus much concerning the Testimony of Innocentius I. which had not deserved an Answer of ten lines, but that All the Catholics produce it, and the Cardinal would bear us in hand that it ought to suffice, though there were never another. And he confesses that they 
(a) Ubi supra, Cap. IU. § E●● hoc, etc.  have not many Testimonies of this kind, that is, so ancient and so express, as this is; because the Ancients had not occasion to write of this matter. That they had no occasion to write of Extreme Unction, is undoubtedly true; for there could be no occasion to write of a thing that was never dreamed of till some hundreds of years after. But if this be the most ancient and express Testimony they have, it had been better for them that Decentius had never consulted Innocentius about anointing the Sick with Chrism, that they might have had no occasion of appealing to thus much Antiquity for Extreme Unction, by which, if that be a thing they care for, they have exposed themselves to open shame.  
But now it may be expected that Innocent III. for coming so short of the other in point of Antiquity, should at least make amends for that, by the plainness and expresness of his Testimony. And so he does, if the Cardinal may be believed, who assures us that Innocent III. gives testimony to this Sacrament largely and clearly. But so he does not, if one may believe that Pope himself expressing his own mind in the place to which the Cardinal refers us. For neither can I, nor, I am confident, did he find more in it, than this, that the Pope having distinguished between the inward and the outward Unction, quoted S. James for the later, and then tells us, That 
(a) Decretal. Gr. lib. 1. Tit. 15.  in order to the outward and visible Unction, Oil is blessed, which is said to be the Oil of the Catechumen, and of the Sick, and Chrism is prepared which is made of Oil and Balm, for a mystical reason. But neither does he speak one word of Extreme Unction, nor does he make the anointing of the Sick a Sacrament any more than the anointing of those that were learning their Catechism. And the truth is, the great business of that Chapter is to explain the mystery of anointing Bishops. So that one would wonder why the Cardinal should pretend that even this Pope's testimony is given largely and clearly: though if it had, the testimony had been very impertinent, since it is no proof at all that Extreme Unction stands upon the Tradition of the Ancients. For this Pope lived in the thirteenth Age, as we observed before, was a Man as degenerate from the Ancient Bishops of Rome, as the Age in which he lived was from the Primitive times; He was a Deposer of Princes, and a horrible persecutor of God's servants; nor is his testimony, what ever it had been, worth considering, but only to show that the zealous Men of that Church, are resolved not to want Authorities, though there are none to be had. And so much for the Testimony of Popes.   

SECT. iv That Extreme Unction has not the Testimony of any Ancient Council.  
IN the second place we are told of Councils, that prove the Antiquity of Extreme Unction. And the first that they bring forth is that of Nice; witness the sixty ninth Canon of the Latin Translation of the Arabic, where, saith Bellarmin, 
(b) Ubi supra, Cap. IU. §. Deinde ex Conciliis, etc.  express mention is made of the Oil of the sick, and it is distinguished from Chrism, and from the Oil of the Catechumen. And so there is some hope that we shall be troubled no more with Chrism, instead of Extreme Unction; which two things, the Cardinal, it seems, saw well enough, did not infer one another, though he was willing to forget it, to make room for the famous testimony of Innocentius. But to make riddance of the testimony in hand: this sixty ninth Canon with the other seventy nine Arabic ones, its fellows, is all a senseless forgery, for which we are beholden to the Face of Turrian the Jesuit; (to who) cast the better grace upon his Work, brings in the African Fathers for witnesses that there were more than twenty Canons of that Council; though the Greek and Latin Churches knew of no more. 
(c) Turrian. Prooem. in Canon. Arab.  For, says he, if they had not been very sure there were yet other Canons, they had never desired the Copies of the Acts of that Council from the Eastern Sees: when all the World knows that they desired it upon no such account, but only to deliver themselves from the importunity of the Bishop of Rome claiming a right of appeals from them, upon a forged Canon of Nice.  
The truth is, this sixty ninth Canon is a very foolish one, and altogether unworthy of those Fathers. It shows how they are to be reconciled that were led from the Faith by Fornication with Infidels, viz. amongst other things, by sprinkling them with Water and Oil blessed, as water is blessed for the purifying of their uncleanness, who had eaten any thing that died of itself. What stuff is this?  
And yet this worthy Canon cannot be made to speak for that purpose for which 'tis brought; for it says, the Priest must bless Water and Oil, not as 'tis blessed in Baptism, nor as Chrism is blessed, but as the Oil of the Sick is blessed, and as Water is blessed for the purifying, etc. But does it say that the Oil of the Sick is blessed for Sacramental Unction of the Sick? No more, I assure you, than that Water is blessed for the Sacramental purification of those that had eaten Carrion. In a word here is no mention so much as of Extreme Unction, which at least had been necessary, to make this testimony worth any notice. But 'tis a misfortune that will some times happen; to bring forth a Forgery, and to get nothing by it.  
The Cardinal having made all sure by a General Council, tells us, that they have particular Councils too, but then they are Ancient ones, he says; And yet not so Ancient, neither. For the first he mentions is the second Synod of C●●●lon which was held in the ninth Age; and therefore at too great a distance from the beginning, to prove a Sacrament by the testimony of the Ancients. But however let us hear the Canon to which we are referred: 
(d) Can. 48. Tom. 7. Labb.  According to the Instruction of S. James, with which also the instructions of the Fathers do agree, the Sick aught to be anointed by the Presbyters, with Oil that is blessed by the Bishops. For so he says, Is any one Sick, etc. Therefore this kind of Medicine is not to be undervalved, which heals the distempers of Soul and Body. The Cardinal's gloss upon this Canon, is, that the Council speaking of this Sacrament says, that the Decrees of the Fathers are consonant to the Epistle of S. James. But he did very well to suppress the words of the Canon itself; for otherwise it had been evident that it does not speak of his Sacrament, as he, of his own head, says it does: For indeed it speaks of no Sacrament at all; the word Sacrament at which elsewhere he is so ready to take advantage, being not so much as here mentioned. Moreover that Unction of which this Synod spoke, was for healing the distempers of the Body, and therefore very different from the Roman Unction, which is principally for those that are drawing on to the last gasp. And as for the diseases of the Soul which it was said to heal too, there is no reason that the Synod should be interpreted otherwise, than according to the Text which they cited; where 'tis said, If he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him: that is to say, that the first and constant intention in Unction of the Sick, was to relieve their Bodies, and in some cases it would also be beneficial to their Souls.  
But by this time I grant there was a certain custom of anointing the Sick, slipped into the Church, something different from the judgement and practice of more ancient times, but withal a great deal more different from the modern doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome. This I shall show more particularly in its proper place, and that although thus much Antiquity comes too late to conclude us in points wherein it was singular, yet it does effectually condemn the Roman Church in points wherein it was not so, because it shows the lateness of their Innovations.  
As for the Synod of Worms held in the year 868, which he next mentions; he confesses that the Canon he refers to, renews the Decree of Innocentius. The truth is, that Canon does word for word repeat all that passage in the Epistle of Innocentius, 
Can. 72.  which we have considered before, and this without the least Preface to it, or Note upon it. This therefore instead of being a Testimony to Extreme Unction, is a good Argument that those Fathers knew no more of it, than the Bishops of Rome and Eugubium did above 400 years before.  
He citys also a Canon of a Synod at Meaux out of Burchardus, commanding that upon Good-Friday Eve the Rectors of Parishes should receive a Glass of holy Oil from the Bishop for the anointing of the Sick, according to Apostolical Tradition. Now whether there ever was such a Canon made at Meaux or not, 'tis all one to us; for that it was now the custom to anoint all Sick persons, we readily grant, but that it was either Extreme or Sacramental Unction, we flatly deny; nor is there a word to that purpose in the Canon now cited.  
The next is the second Synod of Aken 
(e) Aquisgr. 2. Cap. 2. §. 1. Can. 8. , which requires that once a Year the Bishops in all Cities do not neglect the Benediction of Holy Oil, 
† In quo salvatio infirmorum creditur.  wherein the relief of sick Persons is believed to be. What says Bellarmin upon this? The Canon, says he, requires, that this Sacrament be not neglected, in which the Salvation of the Sick is contained. But does it speak of Extreme Unction, or of Sacramental Unction? Yes, they will say, for it speaks of that Unction in which the Salvation of the Sick is contained; But the Canon does not say as Bellarmin does, but that the Health or Salvation of the Sick is believed to be in that Unction; which is as much as to say, that their Unction was believed to be very profitable towards the recovery of a sick Man's Health. And that this was the meaning of the Fathers, appears from their instructions to the Presbyters concerning the care they ought to have of the Sick, which is expressed in these words, 
(f) Ibid. §. 2●. Can. 5.  But if he [his Parishioner] be grieved with Sickness, let him not by his [the Presbyters] negligence want Confession, and the Prayer of the Priest, or the Anointing of holy Oil. Lastly, If he perceives his end approaching, let him commend the Christian Soul, as a Priest should do, to the Lord his God, with the reception of the Holy Communion, and his Body to be buried in a Christian manner. By which you see there are two states of the sick Person considered, one when he is depressed by sickness, the other when he is drawing to his end; And that the Anointing with Oil is prescribed as proper to the former, viz. while good hope of life lasted; not to the latter, as 'tis now in the Church of Rome, when he seemed to be near his end; For in that case they prescribed the Administration of the Communion. Which shows that by believing the Salvation or Health of the Sick to be in Unction; which they had observed not long before, they meant the common belief of the profitableness of Unction to raise up the Sick, and to restore him to Health. For if they had taken Unction to be the Sacrament of the dying, according to the new Divinity of the Trent-Synod, they also would have prescribed Unction in that case wherein 'tis plain they did not prescribe it, viz. 
* Si finem urgentem perspexerit.  when it was perceived that Death was at hand.  
To conclude, whereas the Cardinal affirms, That the Council of Mentz under Rabanus, affirms like things; I do acknowledge that in this he says the truth, for they require 
(g) Mog. I. Can. 26.  that according to the decrees of the Fathers, the Sick should be heartened with Prayers, Consolations, and holy Unction, and refreshed with the Communion; where 'tis again observable, that the Unction is to go before; and then the Communion to follow; which later that they required in case of such a prospect of death, as the Synod of Aken speaks of, is plain from their calling the Communion, the Viaticum, or 
* Communione Viatici reficiantur.  the Food for their passage out of this into the other World. But if they had dreamt of the Extreme Unction of the Church of Rome, that, and not the Eucharist had been prescribed in the last place, to fortify the Soul in her last conflicts,  
And now the sum of his Testimonies for Extreme Unction out of Ancient Councils, comes to this, That he has not one genuine Canon of a Council to pretend, till the Ninth Age; and there is not one that he appeals to in that Age neither; but, all things considered, it rather mak●●gainst him than for him. And so much for Ancient Councils.   

SECT. V That Extreme Unction has not the Testimony of any Ancient Father.  
HE pretends that they 
(h) Ubi supra §. Jam vero ex patribus, etc.  have two kinds of Testimonies from the Fathers. One of those who indeed do not expressly say, that this is one of the Sacraments; but yet they expressly say, That the words of S. James belong to us, and that the Presbyters ought now and in all times to do that which S. James describes. Now if he had such Testimonies as these to produce, they would not in the least affect our Cause, since we also say that this place of S. James belongs to us, as I have already shown, [P. 1. §. 8.] and that it prescribes some things which there will be occasion for in all Ages of the Church, and nothing but what is very fit to be done when there is the same occasion for it that there was at first. But le● us however consider the Testimonies themselves.  
The first he refers to, is Origen's second Homily upon Leviticus; where there are seven ways laid down of obtaining remission of sins; the seventh being expressed in that passage which the Cardinal meant. The words are these: 
(i) Ultra med.  There is yet a seventh way, though it be hard and painful; when the sinner washes his Bed with tears, and tears are his meat day and night, and when he is not ashamed to show his sin to the Priest of the Lord, and to seek for Healing, according to him who saith, I said I will confess against myself my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the ungodliness of my heart. In which also is fulfilled that which the Apostle saith, Is any man sick, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them lay their hands upon him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, and the Prayer, etc. Now here indeed Origen says, that in the Penitence which he described, in order to the remission of sins, that Text of S. James was fulfilled. Which is so far from being an Argument that he understood the Text of Extreme Unction, that 'tis a good Argument of the quite contrary; for 'tis manifest that he does not apply the Text to the case of a dying, or so much as a sick Person; but in general to the case of a sinner that anxiously seeks for Pardon, and is willing to undergo that hard and painful Penitence which he described. If therefore the Cardinal's meaning by this Testimony was to prove that Origen believed all was to be done in every Age which S. James directs, and in particular the anointing with Oil; then he must needs suppose that in Origen's opinion S. James directed the anointing of Penitents, without any regard at all to a state of Health or Sickness. But if Origen had thought so, I dare say that he, (whatever the Cardinal might ha●● done) would not have called this Unction, either the Sacrament of the dying, or Extreme Unction, or so much as the Unction of the Sick. Can any thing be more absurd than to pretend that this great Man produced S. James' Text in favour of Extreme Unction, which is always of the sick or the dying; when the Persons to whom he applied it, and who were to be anointed, if he speaks of any that were to be so, might every one of them be in good and perfect Health? Only Bellarmin, of all Men should not have dealt in this fashion, because he says expressly afterward, That 
(k) Ubi supra Cap. VII. §. Tertio nota.  this Sacrament is as it were a kind of Penance of the Sick, who cannot do works of Penance. But 'tis plain that those Persons to whom Origen applied the Text of S. James, were those that did works of Penance, and that a hard and laborious Penance too. It is not for nothing that the Cardinal does so often refer his Reader to Authorities, without producing the words themselves.  
So that this Authority is grossly impertinent to the purpose for which 'tis brought; and though 
(l) Orig. Paris.  Genebrard had some colour to make this place speak of Sacramental Confession, yet there is none in the World to produce it in favour of Extreme Unction. But than what was Origen's meaning to say, that in the Penitence of a sinner, and God's Mercy to him, that was fulfilled which S. James said, Is any man sick, & c? I Answer, First, That although this Text was produced, yet it may be reasonably supposed, that Origen did not mean all was fulfilled that is there said, but only some part of it, viz. That which concerned calling for the Presbyter, and desiring his Prayers, and obtaining Remission of Sins, to which we are to add, Confessing of Faults, though he did not cite the Text so far. For that all should be fulfilled in the proper sense, by doing what he prescribed, is unconceivable; for to weep, and to confess, etc. is not to be anointed with Oil. I say therefore Origen might reser to some special passages in that Text, viz. those which might be well accommodated to his presont purpose.  
Or, Secondly, According to the ingenious conjecture of Mr. Daillé, Origen allegorized this place after his manner, making the sick Man the Type of the sinner. 
(m) Ubi supra, §. 93.  As in S. James, the sick calls for the Presbyters, so here the sinner goes to the same. There the sick is anointed with Oil. Here the sinner is besmeared with his own Tears, and as it were with the Unction of Penitence. There the sick Man is healed; here also the sinner is restored. And therefore Origen affirms that to be fulfilled in the one, which S. James affirmed properly and literally of the other. For every one knows, that as often as that is done which was expressed by a Type, so often the Type is said to be fulfilled. Which supposition is the more probable, because in this Homily, that great Man's hand was in at Allegorising: for there the Reader may find, that he discovered his seven ways of coming to Forgiveness in the Sacrifices of the Law. But whatever his meaning was, one thing is certain, that he did not mean Extreme Unction: And that is all we need to be sure of at present.  
To the same purpose is 
(n) De Sacerdotio, L. III. c. 6.  S. Chrysostom quoted in the next place, but not a word produced that he says. For, indeed, he brings in the Text of S. James as an instance of that Priestly Dignity and Power which he was speaking of; how available it is to obtain forgiveness of sins for us not only in Baptism at first, but afterward by Discipline, Instruction and Prayers. But of the case of a dying or sick Person he says not one word; which shows plainly enough that he produced the whole Text for the sake only of the latter part of it which expresseth forgiveness of sins, and that he thought this part of the Text might be understood of the power of the Keys, which was the subject of his discourse, both before and after the mentioning of this Text.  
As little to the purpose is it, either that he found this Text quoted in S. Austin's 
(o) Tom. III.  Speculum; for no interpretation of it is given there; or that, as he observes, S●●ustin lays down those passages only of the Scripture which are useful to us at all times; as if this place of Scripture were of no use to us now, unless the Doctrine and use of Extreme Unction might be concluded, from it, the vanity of which conceit, we have already touched more than once.  

(p) Vid. Dallaeum de Extr. Unct. p. 108, 113.  As for the 215 Sermon, De Tempore, which comes next, 'tis none of S. Austin's; but taken out of a Book written above 200 Years after his Death. And yet that which the Cardinal aims at here, does him not the least service. For though S. James' Text is produced, yet 'tis to exhort the sick to anoint his own Body with Oil, that the Church was to furnish them withal, instead of going to Enchanters, Wizards, Soothsayers, and using Devilish arts to recover his Health. He must be a cunning Man indeed that can from hence make out either Extreme Unction for the Soul, or a Priest to Administer it.  
But his next step is to the Treatise of the Visitation of the sick. And now we are gotten the Lord knows where. For Bellarmin himself confesseth, That it seems to be falsely attributed to S. Austin; only he adds, It cannot be denied to be an ancient and good Book. That's hard indeed: But yet Erasmus denied it, who could judge of an Author as well as another Body, and calls 
(q) Censura in Visit. Infirm.  this Author a prating fellow, neither Learned nor Eloquent. And, in truth, 'tis such a senseless Book, that he had reason to be angry at the impudence or ignorance of those that obtrude such Writings upon us under the name of S. Austin. And yet Bellarmin upon second thoughts could not find in his heart to let this Book go for one that seems to be none of S. Augustin's, but afterward chose to say, 
(r) De Scriptor. Eccles. p. 171. Lugd.  that he had nothing certain about it. For why? there is good evidence in it for worshipping Crosses and Images, and for Auricular Confession, besides the small touch concerning the Spiritual signification of External Unction. Such Books as these they give up as unwillingly as a Man parts with a dying Friend; and seem to have no regret all the while for sacrificing the reputation of the Fathers to the service of their Cause.  
Bede is mentioned next, who in his Notes upon James V speaking of the Unction there, hath these words: And we read in the Gospel that the Apostle also did this, and now the custom of the Church is that the Sick should be anointed with consecrated Oil by the Bishops, and be healed thereby together with Prayer. Nor is it only lawful for Presbyters, but as Pope Innocentius writeth, for all Christians also to anoint themselves or their friends with it in their need. So that Bede makes the Unction of S. James, to be the same with that of S. Mark, and that of the Church the same with both; the recovery of bodily health, being the end of all three; than which there could not be expected a better Testimony against Etreme Unction. But by this time we are so well used to the Cardinal's Authorities, that we ought to wonder at nothing.  
As for Theophylact in the eleventh Age, the Cardinal sends us to his Notes upon S. Mark, where indeed he takes occasion also to repeat the place of S. James, and from thence to show the several significations of anointing with Oil; but of Extreme Unction, no, nor so much as of anointing the Sick, he saith not a word.  
Lastly, Oecumenius upon the Vth. of S. James, tells us, That whilst our Lord conversed with Men, the Apostles did the same thing, anointing the Sick with Oil, and healing them. And therefore according to Oecumenius 'tis impossible to prove Extreme Unction from S. James, which is not a Rite of healing the Sick, but the Sacrament of the Dying.  
Commend me to these Men for doing their work by Authorities of the Fathers, and Traditions of the Ancients.  
The second set of Bellarmin's Fathers, are those that 
(s) Ubi supra §. Habemus deinde alios, etc.  expressly number this Unction amongst the Sacraments, that is to say, they call the Unction of the Sick, a Sacrament, to which I have already said that if every Rite and Ceremony, to which Ancient Writers have given the name of a Sacrament, must go for a Sacrament properly so called, the Church of Rome must mend her Councils and Catechisms, and multiply Sacraments exceedingly. But who are those Fathers? The most ancient that he names is Alcuinus, who lived in the later end of the 8th. Age, and the beginning of the 9th. He was Scholar to Venerable Bede, and if in this matter he learned of his Master, we are secure enough that his Authority will do us no harm. But whether it would or not, we shall never learn from that 
† De divinis Officiis cap. 47.49.  Book to which Bellarmin refers us, because it was none of his, but the work of a much later Writer, as Quercetanus has shown in the Preface to the Edition of Alcuinus. But what is worst of all, the testimony of this Author, whoever he was, though it proves Unction of the Sick to be customary in his days, yet proves as clearly that Extreme Unction was not. For he distinguishes between the Sick and the Dying, showing that the Sick indeed were anointed, but not those that were in extremedanger of Death, for which there was very good reason, since, even in those days Unction was used in order to bodily health, but not as a Sacrament to fortify the Soul in her passage out of this Life. For a more particular account of this Authority, I refer the Reader to 
(t) Ubi supra p. 119. etc.  Mr. Daille's exquisite Discourse upon it.  
Amalarius comes next, whose judgement concerning the use and end of that Unction which S. James mentions we have already seen [P. 1. §. 5.] and that in the very 
* De Offic. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 12.  place to which the Cardinal refers us. This Writer does accordingly make the Unction of his time to be a Remedy of sickness; and therefore they may as well make Life and Death to be one and the same thing, as have the confidence to make the Unction of Amalarius Extreme Unction.  
And now we are brought to the borders of the Twelfth Age; for his next Father is Cardinal Damiani, who is yet far enough from acknowledging this Sacrament of Extreme Unction: For though he ascribes spiritual effects to that Unction mentioned by S. James, yet he says, health is restored by it; and though he calls it a Sacrament, yet he makes it to be a 
† Unde & Sancti Patres hanc Unctionem Sacramentum esse sanxerunt.  Sacrament established by the Fathers, i.e. a Rite which the Fathers thought deserved the name of a Sacrament, no less than many others, which yet were not of Divine Institution, or universal and necessary obligation. And that this was his meaning, cannot, I think, reasonably be denied by our Adversaries, since he makes Unction of the Sick, not to be one of Seven, but of Twelve Sacraments which he reckons up in that place.  
But to make sure of some body, Bellarmin goes on to S. Bernard, Father Hugo de Sancto Victore, and Father Lombard, who, I acknowledge, began to speak of the Unction of the Sick as the Church of Rome does now. But then I cannot allow these to be Ancient Fathers, for they were all Men of the Twelfth Age. And it is more than enough for us, that the great Cardinal having undertaken to prove by the Tradition of the Ancients, that Extreme Unction is a Sacrament, has not been able to produce so much as one pertinent Testimony for it, of Pope, Council or Father, for above a thousand years after Christ.   

SECT. VI That the silence of Antiquity, and the Circumstances with which it is to be taken, are a positive proof that Extreme Unction has not the Tradition of the Ancients, but is a notorious Innovation.  
THough so great a failing is of itself a reasonable inducement to believe, that Extreme Unction was utterly unknown to Antiquity, yet there are many more evidences of it; which it may be worth the while to produce, if it be but to reprove the confidence of our Adversaries, and to show that they who make the greatest noise of Ancient Fathers and Councils, have the least cause for it of all other Christians in the World. And here I am entering upon a Subject which 
* De Extr. Unc. Lib. 11. cap. 1.  Mr. Daillé has quite exhausted, and have therefore no more to do than to bring into a narrow compass some of those Arguments from Antiquity which he has brought together, and pursued at large with extraordinary judgement.  
In the first place; there is not the least mention of this pretended Sacrament in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian or Cyprian, 
P. 61.62.  nor in any of the Writers of the Three first Ages, who yet discourse frequently and plainly of the Discipline and the Sacraments of the Christian Church; and therefore it was not known to them.  
2. Neither was it known in the Fourth Age, which afforded so many Christian Writers, since not one of them mentions it, no not in treating upon the Sacraments and Rites of the Church: which had been as unpardonable negligence in them, if they had believed any such Sacrament as this, as it would be now in the Divines of the Church of Rome, to omit Extreme Unction when they pretend to give an account of the Sacraments. 
P. 62, 63.  Epiphanius largely treats of the Doctrines, Rites, and Disciplines of the Church, in the close of his work against Heresies, and has not a word of Extreme Unction. The Counterfeit Dionysius in his Eccl. Hist. does with wonderful exactness and curiosity lay down all the mysteries of the Church from the Baptism, to the Funerals of the Faithful; but of Extreme Unction he is altogether silent. And so is the Author of the Apostolical Institutions, in his Eighth Book, where he undertakes to declare all Ecclesiastical Forms whatsoever.  
3. That for the first fix Ages, though the manner and circumstances of the Deaths of many holy Persons were described very particularly by the Writers of those times, yet there is not the least intimation that so much as any one of them was anointed. Eusebius mentions it not of Constantine, or Helen; Nor Athanasius of Anthony; Nor Gregory Nazianzen of his Sister Gorgonia, 
Cap. 2. p. 66.67, 68  or of Gregory his Father, or of Basil; Nor Gregory Nyssen of Gregory of Neocaesara, or of Ephrem; Nor Ambrose of his Brother Satyrus, or of Theodosius; Nor Sulpitius of Martin; Nor Simeon Metaphrastes of Chrysostom; Nor Paulinus of Ambrose; Nor Hierom of Lucinius, or Hilarion, etc. no nor of Paula, though he and her Daughter Eustochium were present at her end, nor S. Augustin of his Mother Monica, nor Possidius of S. Augustin.  
On the other hand in these later Ages, the Extreme Unction of those who die in the Roman Communion, and have their Lives and Deaths written afterward, is seldom or never omitted, as appears by a vast number of Instances out of Surius, 
P. 70.  particularly of Carolus Borromeus, Franciscus Borgia, Antonine of Florence, Bernardinus de Senis. Justinian of Venice, Count Eleazar, Thomas Aquinas, William the Abbot, Antony of Milan, and the Famous Dominic, and a great many more, of whom 'tis expressly recorded that they had Extreme Unction. No other reasonable account can be given why this so very material a Circumstance should perpetually be omitted in describing the deaths of the Ancient Christians, and hardly ever omitted upon the like occasion by Roman Writers; but that as the thing itself is now constantly practised in the Church of Rome, so it was utterly unknown to the Ancient Church.  
4. That from the fifth Age to the ninth, they that wrote the deaths of Holy Persons, do very frequently remember that they received the Eucharist, never that they received Extreme Unction, before their departure out of this Life; which is proved by an abundance of Instances, out of Bede and Surius, etc. 
Cap. 3. p. 73, 74. etc.  But had Extreme Unction been used in those times, no account can be given why the mention of that should be perpetually omitted, there being no manner of reason why it should not have been as frequently remembered as the other.  
5. That to the ninth Age none of the Ancients moved any Question concerning Penitents receiving or not receiving Extreme Unction before the Article of Death; whereas nothing had been more proper, if they had believed it to be the Sacrament of the Dying. 
Cap. 4. p. 75. etc.  For there was a diversity of Discipline as to the communicating of Penitents in the Fourth and Fifth ages, and so on, from that which obtained in the three First; and it consisted in this, that the First were more rigid, and denied the Eucharist to those in their departure out of this life, to whom the latter Ages allowed it. But if Extreme Unction had been then used, this diversity had appeared in that, and not in the Eucharist.  
I shall produce no more of his Arguments to this purpose, these being abundantly sufficient to satisfy any disinterested Man, that either there was no such thing as Extreme Unction known in the Church for many Ages from the beginning, or else the Ancients, and indeed all Christian Writers that had any occasion to treat of the forementioned things, for above a thousand years after Christ, were guilty of unaccountable folly, and stupidity in one and the same thing, i. e. in omitting not only what was necessary for their purpose, but moreover plain and easy, and, one would think, unavoidable by men of common diligence and understanding.  
That one consideration, which Chemnitius objected against Extreme Unction, that there are no ancient examples of Holy Men anointed in their Extremes, is of itself sufficient to carry the cause from the Church of Rome in point of Antiquity, after once it is made evident that there is no passage in any Ancient Father that bears witness to that pretended Sacrament. Unless Bellarmin's answer may pass, that there are no such examples, because 
(t) Cap. VI §. Respondeo non exstare, etc.  things that are generally known, and daily practised, do not use to be written. But if this will do, 'tis impossible these men should ever be convinced. For when we charge them with Innovation in any matters of Doctrine and Practice, if they can show that those things are Written in the Ancients, we are certainly gone that way; for this proves that to have been well known, and commonly practised in the primitive times, which we pretend was but of yesterday. But if we can show that they were not written, we get nothing by it at all, for it seems the reason why they were not written is because they were generally known and daily practised. If indeed there had been as pregnant testimonies to the use of Extreme Unction, as there are, for instance, to the anointing of the Baptised with Chrism, one might have wondered that there should be no mention of any one person in the Ancient Church anointed in his extremes; but he could not from thence reasonably conclude that there was no such Unction, because there is other kind of written testimony for it. But the Chrism after Baptism, though of less moment than Extreme Unction, is plentifully attested, as I have shown §. 1. but Extreme Unction not at all; and therefore to answer the Objection from want of any one example of this kind in Antiquity, by saying, That those things were not written, because they were perfectly known, is not to reason with an Adversary, but to face him down.  
Nor does he mend the matter by supposing that Bernard would not have omitted this Sacrament, although it is not written in his Life that he received it. For it appears by other testimonies of that Age, that Extreme Unction than began to be in use, and therefore we do not deny that S. Bernard was anointed in his Extremes, because Malachias said nothing of it. But that the lives of so many ancient Christians should be written, and the manner of their dying punctually described, and not one of them said to be anointed; this, we think, makes it very reasonable to conclude that Extreme Unction had no being in those days, and impossible for a reasonable man to deny it, if upon no occasion whatsoever there is any mention of it, even where there was all imaginable reason to mention it, excepting this only, that there was no such thing to be mentioned.  
If to save the Cardinal's sincerity, it be said, that he had before proved the Doctrine of Extreme Unction by other testimonies of Antiquity; I grant that he had done his best towards it, but whether to his own satisfaction or not, whether to warrant his putting off the want of so much as one example, by pretending that known things are not written, I shall leave the Reader to judge, upon this observation: When he had produced and amplified the testimony of Innocentius, he concludes thus. 
(u) Cap. iv §. Ex hoc etiam, etc.  From this Testimony we gather why there are not many testimonies of this kind, i.e. so ancient and so express, viz. because they had no occasion of writing about this matter. For neither had Innocentius written upon it, if the Bishop of Eugubium had not doubted whether a Bishop might give the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Now let us lay these things together. When he excuses himself from producing Examples; he tells us, that things perfectly known and daily practised are not wont to be written. Well! admitting this for the present, how shall we come to know that Extreme Unction was a thing perfectly known to Antiquity, and daily practised? Without all doubt by clear and unquestionable testimonies of another sort, and such as will more than balance the want of Examples. And therefore it is to be hoped, that we shall not be put off with excuses when those testimonies are desired. But alas! he begs our pardon here too; for as things perfectly known are not written, so likewise, we have not many testimonies, so ancient and so express, because there was no occasion for them. So that there are no ancient examples of Extreme Unction written, because it was perfectly known; nor many Testimonies for it so ancient and so express, for want of occasion. Did ever Man talk in this fashion, that thought his Cause was honest? And now at last the Testimony of Innocentius had need be a thundering Testimony, because we have not many so ancient and so express. And yet neither is his Testimony so ancient, being no older than the Fifth Age; nor is it so express, unless because 'tis expressly against Extreme Unction; as I have manifestly shown the Reason of that Testimony to be, though Extreme Unction be not named there.  
After all, 'tis notoriously false, that things perfectly known and daily used, are not written, which is evident from this very instance, that since Extreme Unction came in fashion, they seldom or never describe the circumstances of their People's dying, but they observe how they departed with this their Sacrament; 
† Ubi supra, p. 70, etc.  of which Mr. Daillé has given great plenty of instances.  
The Promises are so clear and full, that without repeating them, I shall take leave to conclude, that they have not only no Tradition for their pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; but that the Tradition of the Ancients is as plainly against it, as Tradition can be against an Innovation; & he must be a very unreasonable Man that desires better evidence of this kind for a Negative.   

SECT. VII. Of the occasions and beginnings of Extreme Unction; how vast a change it made from the Primitive Unction, and by what degrees it was made.  
AND now it is easy from what hath been already produced in this Controversy, to gather how and when this Mystery of Extreme Unction gained footing in the Roman Communion. For it already appears, that there are three Unctions of the Sick to be distinguished one from the other.  
1. The Unction of the Sick that were miraculously cured, and of them only.  
2. The Unction of all sick Persons whatsoever, but this in order to Bodily health.  
3. The Unction not of all sick Persons, but of the desperately sick, or the dying, and this to take away the Relics of sin, and to fortify their Souls against the Agonies of Death; which is the Extreme Unction of the Roman Church.  
Now these three kinds of anointing the Sick being duly considered, will naturally guide us to the occasions and degrees by which the last came to take place, and to the Age in which it began. For the first Unction in process of time grew into the second, and the second at last into the third.  
1. The first is not only an ancient Unction, but was from the beginning, viz. the anointing of those that were healed by a Supernatural Gift. Which Gift continued in the Church more or less for six Ages after Christ, and was not quite worn out in the seventh, if we believe our Countryman Bede [§. 1.] about which time it was that the second Unction of all sick Persons whatsoever took place. The chief inducement, to which, seemed to be the observation of those Cures by anointing, that were wrought by such as had the Gift of Healing; and the reports of miraculous Cures that were done also by the Sacraments of 
(a) Aug. de Civ. D. lib. 22. c. 8.  Baptism, and 
(b) Naz. Orat. 11. p. 187.  the Eucharist, and 
(c) Theod. Hist. c. 21.  by Water blessed out of Baptism, and by the 
(d) Chrys. in Matth. Hom. 33.  Oil of the Church-Lamps, contributed not a little to the bringing in of the custom of anointing all sick Persons indifferently. We have already observed some beginnings of it in the Fifth Age, in the Epistle of Innocentius, by which it appears, that one of Decentius his Questions was this, Whether Chrism, or the holy Oil, that was reserved in Churches might be applied to the Faithful in their sickness; which Innocentius resolved in the Affirmative. And no wonder that in an Age or two more, the custom of anointing all sick Persons in order to their recovery was grown general, since very small inducements are sufficient to dispose Men to seek for Temporal and Bodily relief, from things that are consecrated to the uses of Religion, especially when there are some notable examples of success. For as yet miraculous Healing by Oil was not quite ceased; and by consecrated Oil other wonderful things were said to be done besides Healing the sick; such for instance as 
(e) Hist. Angl. lib. III. cap. 15.  Bede relates concerning the Voyage of Vtta, a Presbyter, who came to Aidan and desired his Prayers for a prosperous passage and return: Aidan gave him holy Oil, telling him that he knew a Tempest would overtake him, and charged him that when it began he should throw that into the Sea, for then all would be quiet again, as it happened. For such reasons as these, Christians in their distress were disposed to seek for relief and recovery, rather by holy Oil than by any other sacred matter, especially since the Text of S. James lay before them, and could be easily applied to this practice. So far at least as to create some good hope of benefit. To all which we must add, That the great appearance of Piety that that practice made, being an expression of reposing greater confidence in God, than in the force of natural Remedies, made it pass without opposition. And so entered,  
2. The sacred Unction of the Sick into the Church, not now of those only, who were cured by the Prayer of Faith, but of all sick Persons whatsoever, in hope of receiving bodily relief by it. Which beginning at the Seventh Age, went on through the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Ages, to the beginning of the Twelfth. 'Tis of this Unction that the Liber Sacramentorum, said to be Pope Gregory's, gives a full account in the Office of Visiting the Sick, where 'tis very plain that the Prayers upon that occasion show the principal end of Unction to be the recovery of the 
(f) See Defence of Exposition of the Order of the Church of England, p. 45, etc.  sick Persons health. I confess, if that Book, as it is now published, were all of it used in Pope Gregory I. his time, it would be an argument, that in the Church of Rome, at least, this practice of anointing all the Sick, had obtained in the Sixth Age; and perhaps Decentius his Letter to Innocentius I. had given a start to it there, sooner than it had in any other of the great Churches. But whether this Office for Visiting the Sick was composed at the latter end of the Sixth Age, or afterwards; this one thing I am sure of, that the Unction there referred to, was altogether accommodated, as by the Prayers it manifestly appears, to the raising up of the sick Person, and the recovery of his health. Of this Unction it is that Bede, Alcuinus, Amalarius, the Synods of chalon, Aken, and Mentz, and Peter Damiani himself spoke, as any one may see by what has been said. Now this Unction was ancient indeed, but yet a great way off from the beginning. It agreed with the Primitive Unction in this, that the professed and direct design of it, was the recovery of bodily health; but in this it differed from it, that now all sick persons were anointed; whereas at first those only were so for whom the supernatural Gist was exerted. They anointed before for bodily health, and did not fail of the end, because they anointed as they were guided by a supernatural impulse. But now they anointed for the same end, but must necessarily fail very often, because they anointed in course and it was grown a settled Office in the Church. For which reason it is something to be wondered at, that this kind of Unction should last so long as it did in the West, and yet more, that it should continue in the Greek Church to this very day, of which more in its place. For it must needs seem no little disparagement to the Ceremony and to the Office belonging to it, that so little fruit of it should appear, and that the experience of one Age after another plainly showed that the virtue and power that used to accompany it in the Primitive Church was now to be seen no more. But I believe the casual cures which had happened without any Unction at all were constantly made use of to support the Reputation of this Rite; to which not only the influence which the Priests had upon the People, and that reigning Opinion of those Ages, that nothing guarded Religion more than the Amusement of many Mysteries; but likewise the Zeal of pious and devout Christians contributed very great assistance: Thus I say, this Practice might come to be supported so long together, that is to say, by Policy on the one side, and credulity on the other; and no great harm was there in all this, till at last it brought forth Extreme Unction in these parts of Christendom. For the same Policy that had kept up the Rite of Anointing the sick, upon the foundation of believing that it was good for their bodies, would, when that could hold no longer, lay another, viz. That at least it was very good for their Souls; and that when it did not recover the Health of the Sick, yet at least it had a wonderful Virtue to save the Soul of the Dying; which pretence had some advantages to keep up the Ceremony of Anointing the Sick, that the former had not, and all that it had. Here was enough to entertain the Zeal of well meaning People, and which was something more, here was new comfort too, for the slothful and licentious. And in an Age so ignorant and barbarous as the Eleventh and Twelfth Ages were, it was easy to make this persuasion go down: And though Unction did not save the Soul, yet if the Priest said it did, he was not so liable to be confuted, as when they said it was good for restoring Health, tho' the Patient died of his Disease presently after.  
But another thing which made the entrance of extreme Unction more easy and unsuspected, was the advantage of time, and the notable preparations that made way for it to come in gradually and insensibly, and without the noise that violent and sudden alterations make. By the forms of Unction that obtained in the Tenth Age, it appears that they applied it to the Eyes, the Ears, the Nostrils, the Lips, the Breast, and this with reference to the sins that had been committed by seeing, hearing, etc. 
* Menardi Notae in Sacram. Greg. pag. 337.  Thus in Ratoldus his Form. I anoint thy Eyes with sanctified Oil, that whatever sin thou hast committed by unlawful seeing, may be expiated by the anointing of this Oil; the intention of which kind of forms is sufficiently explained by that which follows, 
† Ibid. p. 338.  I anoint thee, etc. that by the Operation of this Mystery, and the Unction of this Holy Oil, and our prayer, thou being relieved and cherished mayest through the power of the Holy Spirit be so happy as to obtain thy former and better Health. By which it is highly reasonable to say, that the anointing the Senses, and the several remarkable parts of the Body with reference to the sins of the sick person, did itself refer to the recovery of his Health; and that the sickness being supposed to be sent for the punishment of some sin or other, they made sure to deprecare all they could think of, that the sin being forgiven, the sickness might be removed. This Form, as 
* Praef▪ Menardi in Sac. Gr.  Menardus shows, was written in the Tenth Age, as that which was taken out of Tilius his Library was in the Eleventh, and that of the Monastery of St. Remigius between the Tenth and Eleventh. 
† Men. Notae. p. 140. 334, etc.  They are all of the same strain; and that which I note from them is this, That the plentiful care that is taken in them, for the deprecation of the Gild of all kind of sins, made the whole Ceremony look something like anointing for the cleansing of the Soul, rather than the recovering of the Body, though this was the direct intention of the whole; and so it was not not so dangerous a leap in the next Age to forget, or at least to take very little notice of the bodily effect which was designed by Unction, and to turn the whole Mystery into a proper Sacrament for the good of the Soul; especially, since there were many more words used to express the deprecation of Gild, then in the Prayer for recovery of Health, tho' the former was in order to the later. To this I add also, that in all likelihood this solemn, particular and circumstantial Unction of the several parts of the body, and deprecation of the Gild contracted by them, was itself by degrees brought in, to save the credit of Unction, under which the Sick died or recovered; I suppose, as certainly as they would have done without it. For that care that was taken to anoint them so formally for those sins which were presumed to have brought that sickness, made the whole business look as if it were good for the Soul at least, whatever became of the Body. And thus,  
3. About the Twelfth Age came Extreme Unction into the World, for we can hear no tidings of it from any of the former. And it is therefore no Primitive practice, as the First. Unction of the Sick was, nor Ancient practice, as the Second was; but an Innovation that crept in when the middle Ages of the Church were now advancing apace to the last. It was begotten in that thick Night of Ignorance and Barbarism, that shuffled this and some other Children of Darkness into the Western Church. It was licked into some shape, and brought to a Form of Doctrine by the Schoolmen; and being almost grown to what it now is, it was publicly owned by Eugenius iv at the close of the Florentine Synod, in the year 1438. to be the Fifth Sacrament; and in the next Age came to be established under Anathemas by the Fathers of Trent.  
And now if we compare these Three several Unctions of the Sick, one with another, the Differences will appear to be these:  
The Ancient Unction did indeed agree with the Primitive one in this, that both were applied for the Recovery of bodily Health: But then in this they differed, as we observed before, that the Primitive Unction was applied but to some sick persons, and that by the direction and impulse of the Holy Spirit; but the Ancient Unction was applied to all the sick, and grew to be a settled Office in the Church; and therefore there was this difference also, that by the Primitive Unction all were restored to Health who were anointed; not so by the Ancient one; and if a man may freely speak his mind, it had just such a supernatural effect upon the Bodies of the Sick, as the New Unction of the Roman Church has upon the Souls of the Dying, that is, none at all.  
This new Unction, which they call Extreme, is vastly different from the Ancient one in many points, some of which I shall briefly represent in that Order wherein 
‖ Ubi supra. Cap. 18.  Mr. Daille has more largely considered them.  
1. The end of the Ancient Unction was the recovery of bodily Health; but the end of Extreme Unction is to prepare the Soul for its passage into the other life. This was one of the ancient Forms of Unction. 
(f) Vide Menardi Not. in Sacram. Greg. p 341. Vide etiam Vetustiores Formulas in Cassandr. Scholar in Hymn. Eccl. p. 288.  I anoint thee with Holy Oil in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that by the Operation of this Mystery, being cherished, thou mayest be so happy as to obtain thy former and better Health. But in the Roman Church this is all, By this Holy Unction, and by his most Holy Mercy, God forgive thee whatsoever sin thou hast committed, by Seeing, Hearing, Tasting, Smelling, and Touching. Amen.  
2. There is a great difference also, touching the persons anointed, which according to the Roman Unction, are those only who are baptised, and amongst these none but the sick, and of these only the adult, and such as are in all appearance dying persons. But it was quite otherwise in the ancient Church. For they anointed those that were 
(g) Innoc. III. ubi supra.  preparing for Baptism; they anointed those that were 
(h) Beda in Jac. v.  possessed; they anointed 
(i) Cassand. Scholar in Hymn. Eccl. p. 289.  Infants, and, which is the most remarkable difference of all, they anointed not dying persons, but the sick of whose recovery they had reasonable hopes; as we have proved before. The ancient Unction in all these respects being suitable to the end of it, which was bodily Health, as the Roman Unction is in every one of them accommodated to its pretence of being a Sacrament for the forgiving of sins, and the saving of the Soul.  
3. Accordingly the 
(k) Cassand ubi supra. p. 288.  anient Unction was applied to those parts of the Body, as near as they could, which were the seat of the disease; but the Roman Unction pretending to purify the Soul, is applied to the Five Senses, to the Feet and the Reins, as to the seats of sin.  
4. The Ancients 
* Menard. ubi supra.  anointed for seven days together, plainly thereby intimating the hope they had of doing good upon the Patient, by repetition of the Remedy. The Romanists anoint but once in a disease, and this according to the order of the Council of Trent.  
5. The Ancients first anointed, then gave the Eucharist; first they tried the Remedy for the Body, than they gave the Viaticum for the soul. The Romanists make their Unction the last of all the Sacraments, doing thereby agreeably to their practice, which is to anoint for the cleansing of the soul, when there is now little or no hope of the Body.  
6. Lastly, The Unction of the Ancients might be administered by Lay-people; but the Roman Sacrament must not be applied by any but by a Presbyter at least. To which I add, that  
It agrees with the ancient Unction in that point only, wherein the ancient differs from the Primitive, i. e. that whereas the Primitive Unction was directed by the spirit; on the other hand, as the ancient Unction was under a settled Office for the anointing of all the Sick, so the Roman Unction is reduced also to a settled Office for the anointing of all (with such restrictions as we observed before) that are desperately Sick, or dying.  
And thus the Ancient Unction agrees with the Primitive, as a mixed colour does with white; but there is no more likeness between the Primitive and the Roman Unction, than there is between white and black. Thus much for the Occasions, the Time, and the Nature of that Change which has been made in this matter of the Unction of the Sick.   

SECT. IX. That this Innovation was not universal, the Unction of the Greek Church at this day being not Extreme Unction, but that of the Ancients.  
BEllarmin concludes his Argument from the Tradition of the Ancients, with the Testimony of the Greek Church, 
(m) Ubi supra Sect. Accedat denique, etc.  Which, he says, is to have its weight, because since it appears that the Greeks received not their Rites from the Roman Church, at least for five hundred years last passed, since they were separated from it, it is certain that those things in which they agree are more ancient than the Schisms and Heresies which arose afterwards. Now that consequence which the Cardinal here affirms to be certain, is most certainly false, unless it be impossible that two Churches which are fallen out, should afterwards agree in the same Innovation for reasons either common to both, or peculiar to each, and this without any agreement in those things which first made the breach between them.  
But that which he supposes, is as false, viz. that Extreme Unction has the Testimony of the Greek Church. For his first proof of it is a shameless falsehood, viz. That the Greeks did without contradiction receive the instruction of the Armenians, where Extreme Unction is numbered amongst other Sacraments. For it appears plainly by the Acts of the Florentine Synod, that the Greeks were gone from Florence four Months before that instruction was given by the Pope to the Armenians.  
As for the Patriarch Jeremy and his other Authors, 'tis true indeed, they attest the Unction of the Sick in the Greek Church, and that with them it goes for one of their Sacraments. But that it is Extreme Unction, we utterly deny. And to show the Cardinal's confidence, it will be enough to produce the Testimony of one of his Authors, Simeon Thessalonicensis, as he is quoted by that Latinizing Greek 
(o) Arcud. de Extr. Unct. cap. 7. Sect. His ita, etc.  Arcudius' himself: Here another opinion of the Innovating Latins is overthrown; for these men say, that the holy Oil ought not to be given to those that have hope of life, but to those that are dying, because it confers remission of sins; judging and practising quite contrary to what the Apostle says, as in all other things, so also in this. For whereas the Brother of our Lord cries out, And the Lord shall raise him up; these men say it is to be given to those who are not raised up. And again, The Latins who Innovate in all things, have corrupted this Rite also, and say it is not to be applied to the Sick, but to the Dying. For because this Sacrament forgives sins, it must be so, lest the person recovering should sin again. O what a madness is this! The Brother of our Lord saith, That the prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. But these men say, that he should die. There is no no stopping them, you see, that are tumbling down a precipice. And if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him; that is to say, that he may recover his health, and be raised up. And this our Saviour shown, saying to the man sick of the Palsy, Thy sins are forgiven thee, arise and walk. And behold thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to thee. But these men contrary to our Saviour and his Apostles, say, that 'tis not to be given to the Sick that they may recover, but to those that are to die. Is not this an admirable Testimony to Extreme Unction? I know Arcudius was very angry with this Author, and took a vast deal of pains to bring the two Churches together in this point; but 'tis like the labour of making Iron and Day hold together, when the applying of more strength makes them fall asunder the faster.  
For which I shall not desire the Reader to take my word, but to judge between Arcudius and Simeon, by the Greek Ritual itself; to which I appeal the more willingly, because 
(p) Ubi supra.  the Cardinal also was so hardy as to appeal to it.  
The Form of Unction in that 
(q) Euchologium, Goar. p. 408.  Book has this Title, The Office of Holy Oil sung by seven Priests, assembled in the Church, or in a House. The Prayers and Songs which express their intention are such as these 
(r) Ibid p. 411. , My Saviour and only God, who in mercy and compassion healest the sufferings of Souls, and the wounds of Bodies, do thou restore health to this person afflicted with diseases. 
(s) Ibid p. 411.  By the streams of thy mercy, and the anointings of thy Priests, do away the pains, and the illness, and the growing languishment of this person, who is subdued by the distress of his sufferings, that being recovered, he may glorify thee with thanks. These and the like prayers, I say, show the intention of Anointing the Sick in that Church, as the Ritual itself speaks in these words: 
(t) Ibid. p. 412.  Regard favourably our prayers who meet in thy holy Temple this day to anoint thy infirm persons with holy Oil. This goes before the Consecration of the Oil. But after that, 
(u) Ibid. p. 417.  the Priest takes the holy Oil and anoints him that is to receive the Unction, and is to be prayed for, saying the following Prayer: Holy Father, the Physician of Souls and Bodies, who didst send thy only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease, and redeeming us from death, heal this thy servant of his bodily and spiritual disease which has laid hold upon him, and revive him through the Grace of thine Anointed, by the Intercessions of our Holy Lady, the Mother of God, etc. By the Protection of the Heavenly Incorporeal Powers, by the virtue of the precious and lifegiving Cross— of John the Baptist— the Apostles, the Martyrs— and our Godlike Fathers, the Holy Physicians that received no Fees, Cosmas and Damian, Cyrus and John, Pantaleon and Hermolaus, etc.  
In this Prayer indeed here is a great deal of wretched stuff of another kind; but not a word that looks towards Extreme Unction; the whole relating to the intention of the Ancient Unction, which was to recover the Sick; and therefore the Priest pleads in particular the Intercession of those Saints that were said to have been particularly famous for the cure of Diseases. And that which is remarkable in the case, is this, that the Rubric requires every one of the other six Priests, when he anoints the Sick, to use this very Prayer; which plainly shows that every one of them anoints for the same end and purpose. Neither is it any advantage towards the Roman pretence, that the Priest prays also for the cure of the spiritual infirmity which holds the sick person; it being evident, as Simeon Thessalonicensis observes, that the disease of the body being inflicted for the sin of the soul, the cause is to be removed, that the effect may cease. Nor indeed is it fit that we should pray for any blessing of this life, without imploring Gods pardon of those sins which make us unworthy of it.  
At length the second Priest prays, 
(w) Ibid. pag. 418.  O God great and high, who art adored by every creature, etc. look upon and hearken unto us thy unworthy servants, and when in thy name we bring forth this Oil, do thou send forth the medicines of thy free gift, and the pardon of sins, and according to the multitude of thy mercies heal these persons, etc.  
Then the Third Priest to the same purpose. 
* Ib. p 420.  Almighty Lord, Holy King, who dost chastise and not deliver to death, who supportest those that fall, and settest strait those that are broken, and repairest the bodily infirmities of men, we beseech thee, O our God, to send forth thy Mercy upon this Oil, and upon those that are anointed with it in thy Name, that it may become to them the healing both of Soul and Body, their deliverance from all grief, and every disease and malady; and lastly, from all defilement of Flesh and Spirit. So Lord, send thou from Heaven thy healing Virtue: Do thou touch the Body, extinguish the Fever, mitigate the pain, and expel every hidden Infirmity. Be thou the Physician of this thy Servant; raise him up from the Bed of grief, and the Couch of sickness. Be pleased to restore him safe and every way healthy to thy Church, to please thee, and to do thy will.  
Of the same nature are the Prayers of the following Priests; this being repeated after every Gospel in each administration, We still pray for Mercy, Life, Peace, Health, and Deliverance.  
I shall only add the beginning of the Prayer offered by the Fourth Priest; because it shows how that Church understands the place of St. James so often mentioned. 
(x) Ib. p. 421.  Lord who art Good, and the lover of Mankind, the God of tender Compassion and great Mercy, etc. who by thy Holy Apostles hast given us Authority to undertake the cure of the Infirmities of thy People, do thou also cause this Oil to be a means of Healing all those that are to be anointed with it, to be a remedy against every disease, and every malady, and a deliverance from evils to those that expect Health from thee, etc.  
For by this it appears that the Greeks, as the Ancients did, understand St. James' Unction to be the same with that of the Apostles in St. Mark, and consequently refer it to bodily cures: And that they ground their Authority to anoint the sick in order to bodily Health, upon these places of Scripture so understood. And now I shall make bold to say, That there is nothing in their whole Office of Holy Oil, that does in the least favour Extreme Unction; but take it all together, 'tis in effect a flat contradiction to it. And therefore to make it look a little Roman like, the Latin Translator (Father Gore by name) has falsified the Rubric before the Prayer that is to be repeated by every Priest, and with very convenient impudence rendered it thus: 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So is the Greek Rubric; but Gore renders it, Et post Orationem accipit Sacerdos Sanctum Oleum, & extremam unctionem suscipientem ungit, sequentem orationem dicens. p. 417.  And after the Prayer [of Consecration] the Priest taketh the Holy Oil, and anointeth him that receiveth EXTREME UNCTION, saying the following Prayer. Whereas he ought to have translated it thus— and Anointeth him that waiteth there for Unction and Prayer: Not, that receiveth Extreme Unction, as the false Translator would have it. 
(z) Orat. Tert. Sac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated, Qui Corporeas hominum infirmitates in utilitatem eorum disponis, whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies here, afflicta reparans, as is translated above.  Other Prevarications of less moment, I have observed, whereby he has shown a good will to bend the Office by Translation, even where he could get next to nothing by it. But if Testimonies are not to be had, and yet men will not be content without them, there is no help for it, but they must be made.  
And now I may leave any one to judge between Simeon and Arcudius, who is the True, and who the false Greek; and likewise between Bellarmin and me, whether the Testimony of the Greek Church be for or against Extreme Unction.  
The truth is, tho' the Greek Church hath in some things innovated no less than the Roman, yet in others she has kept to ancient Tradition, where the Roman has not; and of this their Unction is one notable instance, which is apparently that Unction which began to take place in the Seventh Age after Christ. But the Roman Unction is so far from having Primitive Tradition, that 'tis not so much as an ancient Innovation, as the Unction of the Greek Church is. 'Tis a Corruption that came into these parts of the World, but lately in comparison; and as it has no Antiquity, so it never had Universality; and, by the Grace of God, we hope it never shall.    

PART III. That the Appeal to Reason in behalf of this pretended Sacrament, is altogether vain.  

SECT. I. That the pretence to prove any thing to be a Sacrament by mere Reason, is an absurd Presumption.  
LAstly, It is proved by Reason, that Extreme Unction is a Sacrament. And this proof, is a Reason taken from Divine Providence, which as the Cardinal notes, the Council of Trent used before him. He argues thus, 
(a) Bell. ubi supra. Cap. V Sect. Accedit ultimo, etc.  Since our Lord instituted Sacraments, by which, as by Divine Aids, we should be assisted in our entrance into the Church, and in our Progress in it; surely it is by no means to be believed, that his Divine Providence has been wanting in our going out, and passing from this temporal Militant Church, to the other that is Everlasting; especially, since a man is never in greater want of help and defence, than in the Article of Death, as the Fathers teach every where, etc. For than our Adversaries assail us more powerfully, because they see their time is short; and man himself is never more unfit to make resistance, by reason of the greatness of his Pains and Sickness. For if this corruptible Body is a burden to the Soul, even in its best estate of Health; surely, in the very Act of Corruption it will be the heaviest weight of all; and experience itself shows, that the Sick who are dying can hardly so much as lift up their minds to God.  
He had tried the Scripture before; he had also tried Antiquity; and now at last he comes with an Argument distinct from all Testimony, which he calls Reason; and which is therefore mere Reason, because 'tis opposed to all Testimony.  
Now to this Arguing, I have two things to say, 1. That to pretend the proof of a Sacrament by mere Reason, is itself a most unreasonable thing. 2. That if this way were allowable, yet the Reasoning insinuated by the Council, and more distinctly explained by the Cardinal, is weak and trifling.  
First, That to pretend the proof of a Sacrament by mere Reason, is a most unreasonable pretence. For Sacraments cannot otherwise be proved, than by Testimonies of Divine Revelation, because they depend upon Institution.  
The Definition of a Sacrament in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, is this, 
(b) Catech. ad Paroc. part. 11. Sect. 1. n. 10.  A Sacrament is a thing subject to the Senses, which by the INSTITUTION OF GOD, has the power both to signify, and to effect Holiness and Righteousness. This Definition is 
(c) De Sacram in genere, lib. 1. cap. xi. Sect. Quinta definitio, etc.  praised by the Cardinal, and that for comprehending in few words, those eight Points which himself had showed before to belong to the nature of a Sacrament. 
(d) Ibid. & cap. ix. Sect. Tertium est▪ ut hoc, etc.  One of those Points was this, that a Sacrament is a voluntary or given Sign, depending upon Institution. And this he affirmed to be a Point which no one Person contradicts, and that the thing loudly speaks itself. Now I would know how 'tis possible to prove by mere Reason, that God has instituted any thing, which to institute, or not to institute, depended upon his own Pleasure. Those things indeed, which to do, or not to do, is inconsistent with the Nature of God, we may know by mere natural Reason: But that such Reason can find out those things of God, which depended upon his Will and Pleasure, or that Reason should be able to prove them otherwise than by Testimonies of Revelation, is a discovery that I believe was never heard of before. St. Paul, I am sure, was quite of another mind. 
(e) 1 Cor. two. 11.  For says he, what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Which Maxim the Apostle used in a Discourse against the Greek Philosophers, and therefore could not be thought to support the credit of it by his Authority, but to lay it down as a point Point evident to common Reason. Since, therefore Sacraments properly so called, do by the Confession of the Church of Rome, stand upon Institution, and did depend upon the free Will and Pleasure of God; the very pretence to prove Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament by Reason, abstracted from Divine Testimonies, must needs be absurd; if absurd it be, to go about a thing that is impossible to be done, even by that man's Principles who pretends to do it; especially, if those Principles are so clear and evident, that no one Person contradicts them.  
But this pretence of the Cardinal, might be easily forgiven, if it were not as arrogant and presumptuous, as 'tis absurd. For to conclude, that in matters depending upon the Pleasure of God, he hath done that which seemeth best to our Reason; is to suppose that in these things we know what is best, no less than God doth; that we have weighed all the Conveniences and Inconveniences of either side, the Advantages and Disadvantages of every thing that lies before us; the Arguments for, and the Objections against this or that, with the same exactness, wherein they are comprehended in his infinite Understanding. The Cardinal might as well have said in plain terms, God ought to have instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction; and therefore he has done it. For he tells us, 
(f)  nullo modo credendum est defuisse Divinam ejus Providentiam, etc.  That it is by no means to be believed that his Divine Providence has been wanting in our going out of this Militant Church, etc. If, therefore God has not instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, to convey us safely out of this World; it is to be believed, that he hath been wanting to his Church; but it is not to be believed that he hath been wanting, because he ought not so to be, and therefore he hath instituted that Sacrament. Which arguing has not the least appearance of Sense, without the help of another Proposition, which gives it more than the appearance of Blasphemy, That it is by no means to be believed, that God is wiser than a Cardinal, or a Council.  
Indeed, when once the Institutions of God are revealed and testified to us, we must not only conclude, that they are Wise and Good, because they are his, but we ought also to take notice of those footsteps of Divine Wisdom and Goodness, which are discernible in them. And the more that a wise man considers and understands their ends and usefulness, the more worthy of their Author he will find them to be. But their congruity to our Reason is not the proof of their Divine Institution, since there are very many things, which to our finite Understandings would appear as useful and as reasonable, but which yet God hath not instituted. And therefore, unless we knew all those Relations of things to one another, which God only knows, when we consider the Mysteries of Religion; we ought to conclude that he hath appointed what is best for us, not so much, because of that Wisdom and Goodness which we discern in his Institutions, though we are able to discover a great deal, as because these Institutions are his.  
I am sure that our Lord instituted two Sacraments for his Church, Baptism and the Eucharist. I see clearly, that as they were accommodated to some Customs of the Jewish Church, to which the Gospel was first to be Preached, so in all respects that I can think of, they are wisely contrived for the Christians of the Gentiles too: that they signify the most important duties and motives of the Gospel, and that their signification is easy and obvious; that they represent the greatest Grace of God towards sinners in this life, and this by very lively and instructing signs; that they are framed to quicken a reasonable service of God, to excite a wise devotion in the people, and to command humble reverence from all; that there is nothing wanting in them to admonish us of our great obligations, and to give comfort where comfort is due, by being pledges to us of that Grace which they signify, if we apply ourselves to that Duty which they signify too: Lastly, that they are accommodated to our imperfect state, who are clothed with this flesh and blood, and seem to need therefore some sensible and solemn Mysteries to assist that vital and spiritual part of Religion, which gins in the soul, and runs through the life; But yet that they are not so many as to amuse a Christian with an outward pomp, or to be an occasion of diverting him from the inward worship of God, or of abating the sense of that pure and undefiled Religion before God, which consists in a life of charity and purity.  
There are very many advantages and conveniences which I discern in these two Sacraments, now that they are established by the Authority of our Lord Jesus. But if there had not been good proof of their Institution, I trust in God that all the Reasons of convenience which the wit of man could have brought together, should never have carried me to this saucy conclusion, Therefore God hath appointed these two Rites to be Sacraments in his Church, for the signifying and conveying of his Grace to sinners.  
Even where the appointments of God are evident, that wisdom and goodness which I can discover in them, is not the proper ground of my assurance that he hath established them, for that is no other than the evidence of the Institution. Nor can that discovery alone give me the least assurance that in making such provision he hath not been wanting to our needs; for the Reason of that assurance is this, that it is He, it is God, I say, that hath made such provision for us.  
When it once appears what God hath instituted in order to our Salvation, and no more, we are to conclude that this is enough in its kind, because 'tis all that God hath done. But for that other kind of arguing, that God has been wanting to us in his Institutions, if he has not instituted Extreme Unction, and therefore he has instituted it; I leave it to those whose conclusions need it; very much desiring them to consider what a cause that must be, which drives them to such bold reasonings as these are. 
(g) 1 Cor. 11.16.  For, as St. Paul saith, who hath known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.   

SECT. II. That the Reason brought to prove that Extreme Unction was fit to be instituted, has not so much as any probability.  
BUT secondly, If it were an allowable way to conclude a Divine Institution from what appears to us fit to have been Instituted, yet the reason of this kind used by Bellarmin and the Council of Trent in behalf of Extreme Unction, has not so much as the face of probability.  
It was rather a just indignation, than the need of using many words to make the thing plain, that held me so long in the former Answer: And it is such another excuse that I must make for insisting at all upon this. For if it be in itself absurd and a dishonourable reflection upon Almighty God to pretend to prove Sacraments by mere natural reasonings; then how plausible soever those reasonings may seem to be, they deserve no other answer than silence and contempt. But there is this temptation to say something to 'em, if it be but to show, that when men will go about to make themselves, as these men in effect have done, as wise as God, they are so far from speaking wisdom, that they do but betray their own folly and weakness. I shall therefore show these two things: 1. That the Cardinals reasoning for the Institution of Extreme Unction from the congruity of the thing, is mean and trifling. 2. That if this point were to go by such arguing, there are much more plausible things to be said against it, than he has produced for it.  
His reason from the congruity of the thing, in short, is this, That because we have one Sacrament to assist us in our entrance into the Church, and some others in our progress in it, therefore 'tis not to be believed that God should be so wanting to us, as not to add yet another to assist us in going out of this Militant Church, because than we have the greatest need of a Sacrament. But this reasoning is liable to many troublesome Objections.  
1. Whereas a Reason to prove that God hath instituted a certain Sacrament, because otherwise he had been wanting to us in our need; when as such a Reason, I say aught to be of the plainest and most convincing kind; this is very far from it; being founded upon a mere Analogy, and that a congruity rather of words than things. There is one Sacrament to let us in, and others to carry us on, and therefore there must be yet another to bring us off. This is what the Cardinal calls Reason, but in truth it looks more like the wantonness of a Fancy that cannot be quiet without two sets of Things to make a handsome Figure one against another; that as there is Entering in, and Going on, and Passing out on the one side, so there may be a Figure of three Kind's of Sacraments to answer those three states on the other. If it be said, that the force of the Argument lies in the great danger we are in when death is at hand; I answer, That does by no means imply the need of a proper Sacrament to assist in that danger. For if God pleases, he can then give sufficient assistance without any Sacrament at all; or if he intended to assist by a Sacrament, there is I am sure nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder, but that he may assist by the reception of the Eucharist at the hour of death, though it be not a Sacrament proper to the Dying. And if this be true, there is nothing in the Argument, why God must needs have appointed Extreme Unction for the Dying; but that the Number Three ought go round, for the pleasing of their Imaginations, who are entertained to their liking more with regular Figures and Analogies, than with substantial and useful Truth.  
I confess, I am not very much concerned to see men take these pretty congruities, and make them reasons for what they do themselves, provided they will rest there, and not make them Rules for what God Almighty does. When 
(h) Arcud ubi supra. cap. 3  Simeon Thessalonicensis tells us why in the Greek Church there are Seven Priests to anoint the Sick, viz. because of all the Sevens that he could readily think of, I am very well content; for it being indifferent, whether there were Seven Priests or not, an indifferent reason, I thought, would serve the turn one way or other. But it is not to be endured to put these petty Arguings upon the Infinite Wisdom of God, by obliging him to appoint Sacraments for the sake of fanciful and neat Analogies.  
2. To make this Analogy hold, the Cardinal did not think fit to mention some of the Sacraments of his Church, some of those I mean that are for the aiding of us in our progress after Baptism, as they hold; for in this whole Chapter he mentions none of these but the Eucharist. Now with them there are Seven in all, i. e. Five between the first and the last; from which Five indeed he might well have excepted Holy Matrimony, and Holy Orders, because according to them, these two can never meet to the assistance of the same persons in their progress through the World, and because they are not necessary to all. But the Sacraments of Confirmation and Penance being added to the Eucharist, do certainly make Three for our progress in the Church. Nor can I imagine why those two were not remembered, but for fear of spoiling the handsomeness of the Analogy, and of raising an expectation of more than one Sacrament proper for us in our Egress out of the Militant Church; especially, since our dangers are said to be then greater, and our strength to encounter them less than in the whole course of our life besides. The truth is, if the Institution of Sacraments must be thought to go by such Congruities as these, it would be impossible for men to agree about the number and the use of Sacraments, till they all agree in the same Fancies of Congruity. And yet nothing in the World seems to have greater variety, than Fancy has.  
3. If there were some colour of Agrument in a handsome Congruity, yet in one that is strained and forced, there is none at all. For such is the congruity of being furnished with a Sacrament for our going out, as we are with a Sacrament for our entering into the Church. If the opposition had been natural, either Baptism must have received us into the life of this World, as Extreme Unction is intended so secure our passage out of it; or Extreme Unction must send us out of the Church, as Baptism does enter us into it. No man will say the former, nor Bellarmin the latter; and therefore he was fain to add the consideration of the Church's Militancy in this life, to save himself from the absurdity of making Extreme Unction the Sacrament of our going out of the Church, as Baptism is the Sacrament of our entrance into it. But then this spoils the congruity of the opposition; for he that is baptised, does thereby become a Member of that Church, part whereof is in Heaven; but he that is anointed with Extreme Unction, does not thereby, no not when he dies, cease to be a member of that Church, part whereof is upon Earth, if he dies in the Lord. And therefore it cannot be said that he goes out of the Church by death, as he entered into it by Baptism: For by death itself he makes a farther progress in it.  
Besides, the effect of Baptism is this, That thereby we were actually admitted into the Church: But is it the effect of Extreme Unction to pass us out of the Militant Church? 'Tis the Sacrament of the Dying, they say; but what effect has it, if the sick person happens to recover after anointing? Did his anointing assist him in his passage out of this World, though he tarried in it still? Or is it only a Sacrament that confers the Grace proper to it, and is good for its end, if there be occasion for it? Or a Sacrament by itself, that, when it happens to do no good, will be sure to do no harm? It is a dangerous thing to lay any great weight upon these slender congruities.  
And therefore dismissing the Analogy of Extreme Unction to Baptism and the Eucharist, and the congruity of providing a Sacrament for our Egress, to answer the Sacraments of Ingress and Progress, we have nothing to consider, but the single congruity of providing sufficient assistance for the Faithful, in so dangerous an hour as the hour of death. But to this also I have spoken already; and shall now add,  
1. That we do not in the least doubt, but as God is present with his faithful Servants in all conditions of life to deliver them out of Temptation, so he will not forsake them in the hour of death, nor then suffer them to be tempted above what they are able; but we say that this does not infer any the least need, or even congruity that he should therefore institute a Sacrament proper for the comfort and assistance of the Dying; since if he is pleased upon our Prayer to give the assistance of his Holy Spirit in that case without such a Sacrament, our needs in that time of danger are as effectually supplied, as if such a Sacrament had been added. And therefore Chemnitius did well to say, That other guards and defences are not to be sought for the dying, than those that are provided for the living; viz. the Word of God, the remembrance of Baptism, and the reception of the Eucharist, which are all profitable to the dying. And 
(h) Ubi supra. Cap. V.  Bellarmin did very ill to answer, that at this rate there would be no need of the Eucharist after Baptism. For in order to the receiving of Divine Grace, we must observe Divine Institutions. God was not bound to institute Sacraments for us, and I think no man will deny, but if he had pleased, he could have saved us without them; but when he has once instituted them, we are bound to observe them, if we expect Grace to help us in the time of our need.  
2. If it were true that a sufficient aid could not be provided in the dangerous hour of death, but by a Sacrament proper and special to the case, such as Extreme Unction is supposed to be; then they of the Church of Rome must either say that God has been wanting to those dying persons for whom he has not provided such a Remedy, or else that themselves are horribly to blame in refusing it to them. For they do not administer Extreme Unction, but to those that are dying of sickness; for if a man is to die a violent death, or be in imminent danger of death any other way than by a disease; according to their Doctrine and Practice, he is not to be anointed with Extreme Unction. But if it be the proper guard of the dying, all reason in the World requires that it should be administered to the later, no less than the former. They that are to to die a violent death, need support and comfort not less, but rather more than those that are dying a natural death, as we use to call it; and they are every whit as capable of the spiritual advantages of the pretended Sacrament, as these are; and one would think, something more than many of them. For we are told that 
(i) Bell. all supra.  because in passing out of this World there are special difficulties, therefore our Lord has instituted a special help and defence: Chief because it often happens that they who are drawing on, can neither hear the word of Exhortation, nor receive the Eucharist, being oppressed by their Disease, and deprived of the use of their Senses; but they may be anointed and receive the fruit of this Sacrament. Now what the spiritual dangers or difficulties are or can be of those who have thus far safely advanced towards their end, as to be deprived of the use of their Senses, I am not able to imagine; for it seems evident to me, that if through the Grace of God, they have to that moment well acquitted themselves, the Devil may from that time be suffered to do his worst upon them, nor can there be any need of Extreme Unction to guard and fortify them, who now are out of all danger of their spiritual enemies. But those who are yet in their full health, and know they must die by violence in a few Minutes, though they are subject to the Terrors of Death, and capable of receiving comforts against it; though they understand their own needs, and can submit to remedies; must, it seems, be left without this special guard of Extreme Unction; while they are to be anointed, and to receive the fruit of this Sacrament, who are past all apprehension of any thing that can be said or done to them, and in all appearance are as incapable of receiving any benefit by it, as if they were stark dead. But this I confess, that there is a notable congruity between the supposed need of the dying persons last mentioned by the Cardinal, and the supposed remedy. For Extreme Unction will do just as much good to the Souls of the Faithful who are deprived of the use of their Senses, as their Adversary the Devil can do them harm.   

SECT. III. That more congruous Reasoning may be offered against it, than for it.  
2. IF this Point were to go by such arguings, there are more plausible things to be said against it, than those which the Cardinal has produced for it. What he has offered, we have seen already. Now it seems to be much more substantial to argue in this manner against this pretended Sacrament for the Dying.  
1. That there was nothing like it in the Jewish Church, who yet had abundance of Rites and Ceremonies instituted for them by God himself. Now if it had been of such mighty consequence as is pretended, that dying persons should be provided with a Sacrament proper to their case, it is not to be believed, but that God would have furnished that People, of whom he took an especial care, with something of this kind; especially, since their Religion had a vast number of Institutions. They had Rites instituted by God himself, which may be said to answer our Baptism and Eucharist; but they had none to pass them safely out of this World, to answer the pretence of Extreme Unction. And yet their dying needs were the same with ours, their sickness as painful, and their Temptations as many; nor can any reason be assigned, why they should not have been provided with a proper Sacrament in the case, as well as we. But yet no such Provision was made for them. And therefore it should seem that no such provision was made for us neither. For if they had no need of such a thing, neither should it be thought needful for us.  
2. There is farther to be said from the Reason of the thing, That a Sacrament proper for dying persons would be more liable to be abused by placing too much confidence in it, than any other Institution whatsoever. For those careless and licentious persons who are apt to rely more than they ought even upon Baptism and the Eucharist, which are manifest engagements to a Holy life for the time to come, would much more easily persuade themselves, that a Sacrament proper to their dying hour, and which could have no respect to any duty to be performed by them afterwards, must be of no other use in comparison, than to take away the guilt and impurity which they had contracted heretofore: Which would be a dangerous temptation and encouragement to live as they list, in hope of making all good at last by a Repentance, and by a Sacrament proper to a Deathbed. It seems therefore reasonable to believe (if People will be so bold as to make reasons for God) that what assistance God would afford by a Sacrament in the ease of a dying man, should be conferred by means of a Sacrament not proper to a Dying man, but one of constant use in the course of his life, viz. The Eucharist, which being also a Sacrament no less signifying our own duty, than the Grace of God, would not so easily be turned into an occasion of Presumption. For because it is a Sacrament that was frequently to be received in the time of Health, therefore when sick persons receive it, they must be very stupid to think it has any other kind of efficacy at that time, than when they received it in their Health, that is to say, than a conditional efficacy, conveying to them the Grace which it signifies, upon their being qualified as the Sacrament supposes them to be. But a Sacrament for the dying, has not its efficacy till a little before death; and therefore seems not to have much respect to conditions, but rather looks like a Reserve to secure those at last, who have not lived answerably to the Sacraments, that promised nothing but upon the condition of a sober, righteous, and godly life, for the time to come.  
But after all, had it pleased God to institute Extreme Unction, or any other Sacrament proper for the dying, I am not that wretch that would have laid the least weight upon these reasonings, against the Divine Institution. Nor do I now offer them as Arguments to prove that God hath not instituted any such thing, (for the true ground upon which we affirm there was no such Institution, is, That there is not the least evidence of the Fact) but only to show that the Cardinal was not less unfortunate in his Reasonings themselves, why God ought to have instituted Extreme Unction, than presumptuous in offering to prove it, by any such Reasonings whatsoever: For though presumptions of this kind are not to be brought either for or against an Institution under question, yet the presumptions on our side are much more reasonable than those of his.   

SECT. iv An Apology for this Controversy about Extreme Unction, from the great moment of it.  
BUT now perhaps it may be asked by one or other, To what good end all this serves? Why must it be made to appear that Scripture, Reason and Antiquity, are all vainly pretended in behalf of Extreme Unction? The Opinion and Practice of it does not stand in defiance to any Institution of our Saviour, or any express Rule of the Gospel, and might therefore without great harm be indulged, at least not opposed, now it has spread as far and wide as the Roman Communion goes; especially since we charge them with so many Doctrines and Practices, which as we say, do manifestly contradict the Scriptures? To insist upon small faults, is to heighten animosities, and to make our breaches desperate. And while we charge our Adversaries with Innovation in the use they make of an Ancient Rite, as Unction of the Sick is confessed to be, they have this at least to return upon us, that we are guilty of as great an Innovation in making no use of it at all.  
Now as to letting the dispute fall, there had been some reason for it, if the Church of Rome had either kept to the Ancient Unction, which directly referred to bodily Cures; or if when they were perhaps grown ashamed of anointing the Sick for the recovery of their health, after long experience had shown that the Remedy was all in vain; if then, I say, they had retained the Rite of Unction under the notion of a Rite merely standing upon Ecclesiastical Authority, and whatsoever plausible signification they had given it; if they had ascribed no more spiritual effect to it than to the observation of any other mutable custom of the Church; Had they ordered matters thus, and not intermeddled against the liberty and authority of other Churches, I for my part am of opinion that neither breach of Communion ought to have followed such a provision, nor any such controversies raised about it, as would hazard the peace of the Catholic Church.  
But the matter is far otherwise. They thought it not worth the while, to retain it as a mutable Rite, but have given it the venerable name of a Sacrament, and as much as they can, the nature of a Sacrament too. They have found out a Grace for it, which they say it confers, and they have put the invention upon our Lord Jesus, and the recognition of it upon the Christian world. They have Anathematised all that dare to call it into question; nor are they content to train up their own people in the belief that it takes away sin, but they would make us such hypocrites as to say that we believe it too; for with these men we can have no Communion unless we 
(k) Bulla Pii, supra Formâ Juramenti, etc.  profess that there are seven Sacraments of the new Law, truly and properly so called, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary to the Salvation of mankind; of which number Extreme Unction is one, and that they do confer Grace. Thus the case stands, and as it stands, let our enemies themselves be our Judges, if the truth be on our side in this Question, whether we have not all the reason in the world to avow it openly, and defend it.  
Besides that relation of Bishops and Presbyters to the particular Churches that are under their especial care; they are also Ministers of the Catholic Church, and by virtue of that relation wherein they stand to the whole, are bound to declare against intolerable abuses and corruptions that do notoriously prevail in any part of it.  
There are not many errors of more pernicious consequence to the souls of men, than to be made to believe that forgiveness of Sins, Grace, and Salvation, may be attained by things that are blest by man, without any appointment of God. Nor is it easy to give a worse instance of Treachery in managing the care of souls, than to support so dangerous a superstition, by pretending that God is the Author of those Institutions which he never established, and of those promises which he has no where made. What is this but under a pretence of carrying men to heaven, to venture the diverting them out of the only way to it, which God has shown; and to cherish a fatal superstition in the people, to which of themselves they are strangely prone, instead of reproving and correcting it, as the Priests of the living God ought to do?  
It is seldom seen that people are very much concerned for Ecclesiastical Rites and Customs, for which no other reasons are pretended but those of Prudence, Order and Expedience. But when they are made Mysteries, good to take away sin, and to save the soul, no degree of zeal is thought to be too great for them. Men love to be saved by a multitude of Ceremonies, and a Priest to administer them. But surely it is not so much the business of a Christian Priest to make himself necessary by deceiving and pleasing others, as to please God, and to profit the flock of Christ. He should be content with so much dependence of the people upon him, as may be kept by speaking truth, and doing his duty. But as for them that do not think this to be enough, but pretend to have ways of Gods appointing to take away sin, which yet are mere inventions of their own, do they not at once abuse the name of God, and gratify their own ambition at the price of men's souls? Certainly if any occasion of declaring the truth can be just, even when we know before hand that many will be offended with it; this is such an occasion. Express warning ought to be given against the deceitful insinuations of those men, who talk of nothing more violently than the Salvation of souls, and who would almost make one believe that no body can be saved who does not pass through their hands, nor any body damned that does. For if what they say of two of their Sacraments be true, the Sacraments of Penance, and of Extreme Unction, there is as little cause to fear damnation in their Church, as they say there is to hope for Salvation in ours. Of Confession in Penance they say thus, 
(l) Catech ad Par. P. II. de Paenit. Sect. 46, 47.  Granting that sins are blotted out by contrition, who knows not that it ought to be so vehement pungent and intense, that the bitterness of the grief may equal the greatness of the sins? But because very few would reach this degree, therefore the number of those that could hope for the pardon of their sins this way, must have been exceeding small. Whence it was necessary that our most merciful Lord should provide for the common Salvation of men by an easier method, as he has done with admirable wisdom, in delivering to the Church the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. For according to the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith, all are to believe, and constantly to affirm, that whoever is so disposed as to be sorry for the sins he has done, and withal to purpose with himself that he will sin no more, although he is not affected with that grief which may be sufficient to obtain his pardon, yet when he has duly confessed his sins to a Priest, all his sins are pardoned and forgiven him by the power of the Keys. This is the Doctrine of their Famous Catechism; and thus far sufficient care is taken for mortal sins by the Sacrament of Penance, that they shall be blotted out upon easy terms, if a man does but Grieve, and can hold his intention to amend, but so long till he receives Absolution. Now this Sacrament being 
(m) Ibid. de Extr. Unct. Sect. 23.  to go before Extreme Unction, lest the conscience of some mortal sin should hinder the effect of it; the greater sins are therefore all done away not long before the hour of death. And then for the 
(n) Ibid. Sect. 27.  lesser sins, and 
(o) Conc. Trid. Sess. xiv. de Extr. Unct. cap. 2.  any sins that remain yet to be expiated, and the Relics of sin, they are forgiven and wiped away by Extreme Unction. Now if this be true, he must be a very wretch indeed that can desire a milder Gospel than a Gospel which comes so low as to take some grief, and a good resolution for the forgiveness of all that is past. For who is so bad as not to be sorry at certain times, and to intent a new life for the future, especially under the fear of death? But though he should afterwards take leave to retain his sins, yet the Priest it seems had power to remit them before, and he has power to remit them so plentifully at last, that no Relics of sin shall remain behind, since the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is that which completes and 
(p) Ibid Doctr. de Sacr. Ext. Unct.  consummates the Sacrament of Penance.  
And thus 'tis left to the choice of their people, whether they will live according to that Truth which the Ch. of Rome holds with us, or according to those Doctrines which they maintain and we reject; to their choice, I say, for any reason that they have to be afraid of going to Hell, if they have but the benefit of the power of the Keys, and the virtue of that Church's Sacraments. I know indeed that some good things are said by the Council in behalf of reformation of life, particularly in the place last cited, they say that 
(q) Ibid.  the whole Christian life ought to be a perpetual Penance; they meant, I hope, a state of Amendment. But 'tis a very unlikely matter that men should be persuaded to a holy life, when by those Assurances that the Church has given them, they can so easily persuade themselves that they may be saved without it. Nor is it very likely that many Confessors should withhold either the saving use of the Keys, or the comfort of that use of them from wicked persons, when they cannot do it without mending the Doctrine of their Church. And if any should be so honest, there are yet others to be had, together with the word of the Church, to warrant the effect of the Sacraments, against the word of a single Priest to the contrary.  
Against such abuses as these, we not only may, but aught to protest, if we ought to be concerned for the honour of God, and the souls of men; that we may warn all those of our own Communion not to fall from their steadfastness, and if possible, recover those that are led away into these dangerous errors; or have been educated in the belief of them.   

SECT. V The Church of England, and other Protestant Churches, justified, in not anointing the Sick at all.  
IF it be laid to our charge that we have no Unction of the Sick, we are very sure that whatever Unction of the Sick, the Church of Rome can tax us for wanting, excepting her own, the charge will fall as heavy upon herself.  
We do not anoint the Sick as they did in the Primitive Church, because we pretend not to the Supernatural Gift of Healing; and they anoint the Sick for this purpose in the Church of Rome no more than we.  
We do not anoint the Sick as they began to do in the Seventh Age, when all sick persons were anointed in order to bodily Cures, but not to prepare their souls for death: No more do they of the Church of Rome.  
We do not anoint neither with Extreme Unction, as they indeed do: But the business of this Discourse has been to show that they ought to do it no more than we.  
But the account we have to give of this matter is very plain, and such as will bear us out to any man that asketh us a reason, whoever he be. For of those Three Unctions, there is no colour to charge us with blame in omitting any of them, excepting the second, which had the Authority of the middle Ages from the Seventh to the Twelfth. But that we are under no colour of Obligation to be determined by that Authority, is plain to us from these three Considerations: That it was neither Primitive, nor has at any time been Universal, nor had they who began it any good reason for what they did, but were themselves to blame for beginning it.  
1. It was not Primitive, since by anointing all the Sick for the recovery of their Health, the Seventh Age departed from the example of the Six foregoing Ages, which are and aught to be of greater Authority than those that followed. They had no standing Offices for Unction of the Sick, nor knew of any other but that mentioned by St. James, when a Miraculous Cure followed. The Religion of being anointed for Health, by those that had not the Gift of Healing, was so unknown a thing to Primitive Antiquity, that a Bishop of the Fifth Age, wrote to the Pope of Rome about something like it, as men use to do of things that had never been heard of before. Those fancies of receiving Health by the use of Chrism, began but then to stir, which afterwards settled into Rules and Offices for anointing all the sick with Oil for the Curing of their Diseases. At first, in imitation of the Primitive way, not only Priests, but all Christians might anoint for that purpose. But at length none but Priests must do it; and as Customs that are merely of human Original do commonly begin with a rude and light draught, and in process of time are filled up with artificial and regular Forms; so this Innovation which was at first begotten by Questions concerning the use of Chrism in the time of Innocentius, grew in two or three Ages more into all its shapes, and became a settled mystery. But though in respect of us it be indeed an Ancient Innovation, yet an Innovation it was, and a late one too in respect of the truly Primitive Church.  
2. It was never universally practised; for besides the Christians of St. Thomas in East-India, who had no use of Oil at all in their Holy things; the Aethiopian Church useth no Unction of the sick; though they have their 
(r) Ludolf. Lib. III. Cap. 6. N. 31.  Holy Oil, wherewith they anoint persons to be Baptised; and so when the Missionaries from Rome came thither, they found these Christians 
(s) Ibid. Cap. V N. 44.  utterly ignorant of Extreme Unction; which by the way is a good evidence, if there were no other, that even the Unction which was not Extreme, was an Innovation. For 
(t) Ibid. Cap. VI N. 14, 15.  no people are more tenacious than they of Ancient Customs; insomuch that the most Ancient Ceremonies of the Old Church that are obsolete elsewhere, and now hardly known, are seen to continue amongst them; so that their Rites being well considered in Baptism, the Eucharist, Lovefeasts, etc. one would think he saw a kind of Image of the Primitive Church, as we are told in the best account that was ever yet given of the state of that Church.  
3. They that began this kind of Unction, had no good Reason for what they did, and it is much easier to defend ourselves in refusing to follow that example, than them for setting it. It may indeed be excused by a Pious intention of seeking Health this way from God, and referring it all to him; but thus may many other things be excused, which yet ought not to be imitated. Here was indeed the Primitive Rite of Unction used, and that also for the same general end, for which it was used in the Primitive Church, viz. The Raising up of the Sick; but it was far from having the same ground and reason, because it could be of no effect, the Gift of healing being discontinued: Which in truth made it look as untowardly, as if to recover any one to hearing and speech, they had ordered the Priest to put his Finger into the Ears, and to touch the Tongue of the Patient because 
(u) Mark. seven.  our Lord did with such signs recover one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his Speech; or that when the Priest could not himself go to pray over a sick person, he should send him a Handkerchief or an Apron from his Body, because 
(w) Acts xx. 12.  such things being carried to the sick from the Body of St. Paul, their Diseases departed from them. For the reason of the thing seems to be much the same in all the three cases. It is not very discreet, nor for the Honour of Religion to make any show of a Miracle, when none is like to follow; nor to use a Religious Rite for healing the Sick, which promises extraordinary matters, and yet People die as they did before; which experience was in all probability the reason of changing the middle Age Unction, into Extreme Unction; they were ashamed and weary of anointing for the Body, and so fell to anoint for the Soul. The Greek Church indeed still retains that Unction for Health; but how unable she is to defend it, may be observed from 
(x) De Extr. U. Lib. V p. 466, etc.  Arcudius, who brings in Simeon Thessalonicensis pleading against the Unction of the Latins, himself doing what he can to defend it against the Greeks. The case in short is this, That they are both right, one against the other, as it must needs be when Two notable Antagonists do each of them maintaintain a different error. Simeon, as well he might, condemned the Latins for anointing dying persons, contrary to St. James. Arcudius, as well he may, does almost laugh at Simeon and his Greeks, for their anointing in order to bodily Health, as if they thought to make men Immortal, and not suffer death to reign amongst them any more. Our Church is to be praised for not being led away by a colour of Antiquity to expose herself in this Fashion. And it is the glory of a Church, that she is able to defend not only the bare lawfulness, but the prudence and expedience also of her Constitutions.  
In short, the Unction of the middle Ages, has neither Authority great enough, nor reason good enough to recommend it. And the Church of England is therefore by no means to blame, for not taking up that Unction, when she laid down the other that is incomparably worse.   

SECT. VI An Address to the Laity of the Roman Communion.  
AND now in the Close of all, I would fain address myself to the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, in such manner as might incline them to consider what has been said.  
As for those of them that are in Orders, it belongs to them particularly to consider it, and I have no other application to make to them, but that if I have gone upon mistakes, they would employ some charitable hand to show me where they lie. But in the mean time, I hope the following Address to the Laity of that Communion will not be thought unreasonable.  
Brethren, we are sensible at what disadvantage we endeavour to lay the Truth before you; we know that the prejudices which have been infused into you against all that we can, say, are very great; but we would fain hope that they are not invincible. What is it, I beseech you, in those Guides you follow, to make you depend altogether upon their Authority? What is it in us that should make every thing we say, suspected and slighted? We do not love to enter into comparison; but we can see no good reason for so great a difference. If you say that they can teach nothing but truth in delivering the Doctrine of your Church; certainly, it ought to be a very strong Reason that can support such a persuasion; a persuasion that whatsoever they say against us is True in General, against a terrible evidence, that 'tis all False in the Particulars: Especially, when we produce such Evidence from those Authorities upon which the General persuasion is said to be built, i.e. from Scripture and Antiquity.  
For Antiquity, many of you at least must rely upon the skill and fidelity of others; and for our parts we desire to be trusted, but as we deserve. We think, the clearness of the Testimonies we produce, the manner of our citing Authors, and the connexion with which we take their periods, may induce a prudent person, who himself is unacquainted with the Fathers, to believe that we are fair Representers of Antiquity.  
For Scripture, that indeed is a Rule which you may, but will not use; for let us produce places of Holy Writ never so many or so clear, you refer the Interpretation of them, to those Guides against whom they are produced. So that still they are believed upon their own Testimony.  
Is it because you take their Skill and Learning to be greater than ours? But how can you be sure of that, without examining the different appearance which that difference would make in the management of these Controversies?  
Or do you believe us to be Hypocrites, and that sincerity is to be met with no where, but in the Guides of your Communion? We are Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, no less than they; and we know that it is required of Stewards that a man be found faithful. Consider us, Brethren, that neither our Doctrine nor our Conversation in the World, carry the marks of Hypocrisy. Had we any other Interest to serve, but that of Truth, we also should contend for Mysteries, by which the People get Ease and Liberty, and the Priest Power. We tax not your Priests of Insincerity, nor inquire why they teach certain Doctrines, and administer those Sacraments which they do, and which we do not administer. We leave them to give an account of their ends and motives, at the Day of Judgement, when the secrets of all Hearts shall be disclosed. But for ourselves, we must needs say, That if we were disposed to bend Religion to Worldly Interest, we should maintain another part than what we are now concerned for. To make the most of our Orders, we are very sure that you ought to depend upon us for forgiveness of your sins while you live, and when you are dying; and yet not so to be forgiven, but that there should be a reckoning of Temporal punishment behind, which would make us necessary for you when you are dead. Though you still purpose Reformation of Life without performance, we would have Sacraments to save you from Hell; but a life of strict Piety and Virtue, tho' crowned with Extreme Unction, should not excuse you from Purgatory without a farther favour of the Church, that should not be easily obtained neither. You cannot conclude that we are Insincere, but at the same time you must take us for the veriest Fools alive, to stand as we do in our own Light, and to prefer a Heresy that does us no manner of Service, before that Truth which would bring all to depend upon us. Think upon this, and consider at least that you have no Reason to suspect us of not believing ourselves what we profess, or of consulting our secular Interest, when we entreat you for the love of God, and for the sake of your own Souls to weigh impartially what we say; which if you would do, we doubt not in the least, but you would find our Cause to be as good as our meaning. Only let not prejudice extinguish the very desire of knowing better things, nor an 
† Pontif Rom. Ordo ad Reconc. Apost. etc.  Oath to yield to no manner of Argument, prevail against that Obligation to follow God and Truth, which all the Oaths in the World can never dissolve.    
THE END.