A Second Lett●● FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING Extreme Unction, TO THE VINDICATOR OF THE Bishop of CONDOM.  
IMPRIMATUR.  
Libellus cui Titulus, [A Second Letter from the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Unction, etc.]  
Decemb. 10. 1687.  
H. Maurice.  
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVIII.   

A Second Letter from the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Unction, to the Vindicator of the BISHOP of Condom.  
SIR,  
I Charged you with telling two Tales in the very same Breath, wherein you delivered your Oracle about the Antiquity and Universality of Extreme Unction.  
One was, That the Defender himself confessed this Extreme Unction to be so Ancient and Universal a Practice as you would have it thought to be. You deny that you pretended any such thing; which I can by no means commend you for, though I must praise you for one thing, and that is for retracting it, if you have given any one occasion to think that you did. You might as well have confessed, That you had given just occasion to think so, and so have saved me the trouble of proving it; in doing which, if I discover that Artificial dealing of yours, which I but just intimated to you in my former Letter, you may thank yourself for it.  
You said of the Defender, that from 800 years' practice, and the Confession of Cardinal Cajetan, he concluded they had reason to leave off this Extreme Unction, because Miracles are now ceased. And then you immediately proceed thus; In answer to this, I told him; First, That Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did? But what if he had? Would it be sufficient to reject a Practice coming down from the Apostles, and from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches, both of the East and West for 800 years, as HE HIMSELF CONFESSES, notwithstanding that the Gifts of Miracles were ceased, and this upon the Testimony of one man's affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture? What if it may be proved by the Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church? etc. Here I ask you, 1. Whether by a Practice coming down from the Apostles, and from Age to Age visibly continued in all Christian Churches, etc. you did not mean your Extreme Unction, of which you had just spoken before? Or if this Question be not plain enough; 2. Whether you did not speak of that Unction which Cajetan affirmed, that it could not be proved from St. James? And whether that could be any other than your Extreme Unction? And then 3. Whether they be not your own words, that the Defender himself confesses this Practice of which you speak, to have continued so long in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 years? Pray, Sir, put these things together, and then tell me if no body but one that has a mind to Cavil, can take occasion from your words to think that you make the Defender confess such a continuance of Extreme Unction?  
You would do well also to inform us with what sincerity you could come now at last and say, that you AFFIRMED, that he himself confessed that AN UNCTION was visibly continued in all Christian Churches both of the East and West for 800 years? to make which saying of yours more remarkable, you put it into a different Character, as if indeed you had affirmed this; and those words AN UNCTION, were to be met with in that passage. Really you had better have followed my Advice, to confess, etc. for you will run yourself into more and more straits for want of it; and every Fault that you would hid, will break out into a worse in another place: As for instance, if you should say next time, that An Unction were not your Words, but that it was your Meaning; then I come and show you, that you ought not to have said so, because thus you speak here; But any one but they who have a mind to cavil, will easily see by what went before, and my several Expressions after, that when I AFFIRMED that he himself confessed that AN UNCTION was visibly contained in all Christian Churches, both of the East and West for 800 years; I meant it with those Limitations which he had expressed, etc. For here any body may see that you produce those words, as if you had indeed Affirmed your Thoughts in those very words; since you go on immediately to explain their Meaning, and show how they ought to have been understood. But that which is worst of all is this, That though we are willing to make the best of every thing, yet we cannot find this to be so much as your Meaning; for if we put these words [An Unction] into the passage where I charged you with this Tale; instead of explaining, it does quite overthrow your purpose there, and makes it little better than Nonsense, instead of giving it that sense which you now pretend: For than it must run thus; Must we therefore reject Extreme Unction, because one man affirms that it cannot be proved by this Text of Scripture, though it continued for 800 years, as the Defender himself confesses, by which I do not mean that Extreme Unction was by him confessed to continue so long, but An Unction which was not Extreme. I have put those two words for you in the best place that I can; if you can dispose them better, I should be glad to see it.  
I know well enough that, you mentioned the Defender's affirming St. James' Unction, and the Ancient Unction to have a primary respect to bodily Cures, and this not only afterward, but just before the passage now under Consideration. But, Sir, I am not bound to take what you say in one place, for a limitation to what you say in another; when that which you call a Limitation, is no better than a Contradiction to what you say elsewhere, and being applied to it, makes it Nonsense.  
And since you will have it out, I saw into the Artifice and Contrivance of this business from the first, as clearly as I do now, only I would not seem to delight in exposing you, and was therefore content to let it pass with a general intimation which I knew you must needs understand.  
You saw it would set off your Cause not a little to slip in an Insinuation, That Extreme Unction was by your Adversary confessed to have been of 800 years standing after Christ; and because he had confessed that a certain Unction primarily respecting Bodily Cures, was of so Ancient standing, you took occasion to bring in his Confession in a place where 'tis so manifest that you speak only of Extreme Unction, that you are not able to deny it: And to make the best of this advantage, you insinuate also, That he confessed St. James' Unction to have been so long practised in the Church too. By which means an unwary Reader might be strangely amused, and not know what to make of this Defender and his Cause, who is brought in confessing in effect, that Extreme Unction hath the Authority not only of the Ancient Church, but of St. James' too.  
But then lest so gross a business as this should be charged upon you, and you have nothing to say for yourself; you were content also to acknowledge what he had so often said, that St. James' Unction, and the Ancient Unction, had a primary respect to Bodily Cures; From whence you should have concluded, that this Unction was not, according to him, Extreme Unction, or the Unction of your Church; but if you had done so, there had been no opportunity left to have slipped in the pretended Confession of the Defender, because the dullest Reader must then have reflected upon the Contradiction.  
Whereas therefore you say, p. 1. You cannot think, Sir, but that if I had really thought the Defender had granted me such a Conclusion as this: Extreme Unction as now practised in the Church of Rome, was also universally practised in the East and West, for the first 800 years, I should have made more benefit of such a Concession. And again:' You will not, I hope, when you reflect upon what you say, think me so stupid, as to pretend such a Concession, and after such a pretence, make no use of it. To this I Answer, 1. I never said that you really thought the Defender had granted you such a Conclusion; for by calling your pretence that he had granted it, a Tale, I supposed that you really thought the quite contrary. 2. I did not charge you with putting those words into the Conclusion, as now practised in the Church of Rome; and I now say, There was good reason not to put them in; for they would have laid open the Trick too manifest, for any body not to have discovered it. 3. As I do not on the one hand take you to be so stupid, but that if you had really thought the Defender had granted you such a Conclusion, you would have made more benefit of it: So on the other hand, I do not think you so stupid, but since you really thought that he made no such Concession, you saw well enough that this was a business not to make a bluster with, but to slip it in quietly, and then to wish it good speed. And so much for the first Tale.  
The next I charged you with, was, That Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as the Defender affirmed he did. And this you are so far from retracting, that you say it still a third time. But whether you have made it Evidently appear, is now to be tried.  
Setting aside therefore your Reasoning, and the variety you have expressed in ranging Propositions one against another, all which was but to make a show of doing some notable thing; I come to the business Cardinal Cajetan's words are these: 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 there used sufficiently shows, it tends directly to the forgiveness of Sins.  
Of this the Defender said: Cardinal Cajetan freely confesses, that these Words of St. James, Is any man sick, etc. can belong to no other than bodily Cures.  
For which saying you reproved the Defender, and affirmed, that Cajetan only said, the other did not appear from that place.  
The Defender says, he translated not the Words, but delivered the Sense, which he did truly; For, says he, when two things only are in Controversy, for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one, and apply it to the other, is in effect to confess, that it could only belong to that.  
To this, after all your flourishing about Propositions, you found yourself obliged to return an Answer; and it is this: p. 4.  
Well, but what if the Cardinal do not absolutely exclude the one, but say, this does not appear, but rather that, will you therefore infer positively, therefore it can belong only to that?  
To which Question I shall begin to answer with another: If it be very evident, that the Cardinal does absolutely exclude the one, by establishing the other, will you then confess, that you have given the World just occasion to think evil of you, and promise for the future to do so no more?  
Look you, Sir, you please yourself with those words of the Cardinal, It does not appear that St. James speaks of Extreme Unction, but rather of that which our Lord appointed; as if he had said nothing else upon this occasion.  
Now: first of all, those words, It neither appears by the Words, nor by the Effect, were enough to have made you quiet here; since when an Effect is mentioned, which always follows upon the thing spoken of, another thing cannot possibly be meant by, the Words, from which the Effect does not follow; and therefore according to him, your Extreme, Unction, cannot possibly be meant in that place; and therefore that Sense is absolutely excluded. And therefore I add,  
2. That you were exceedingly to blame, when you gave me some part of the Cardinal's Observation upon that place which I had translated, that you did not add the rest which I translated too, and which I transcribed just now. For there you see, that he did not only oppose but Two Unctions to one another, but that they are such as could not possibly be meant by the same words, since the intention of the one is the recovery of the sick, the intention of the other is to do something for him when he is almost at the point of death. Pray remember that this is the Cardinal's own Observation; and then mind what I say: So long as recovery from sickness is absolutely excluded by being almost at the point of death; so long also those words which establish an Unction for recovery from sickness, which is the Effect of that Unction, do absolutely exclude an Unction which is not to be given but when a man is almost at the point of death. I can foresee but one possibility of Cavil against this Evidence, but 'tis so pitiful a one, that I must beg the Reader to consider with what persons we have to do. This it is, That Anointing for the recovery of health, does not absolutely exclude anointing at the point of Death, because a man may be anointed at the point of Death, and upon that anointing recover. Now though this be true, according to our way of speaking, yet this could not be the Cardinal's meaning; for by the Opposition of the Two Unctions, and the Effects of them, and most evidently by those words of his, The Text does not say, Is any man sick unto death? it appears, that by being almost at the point of death, he meant the Case of a man that is in all appearance to die presently, notwithstanding Unction, and upon whom therefore the Effect of St. James' Unction was not to take place. I might make this as plain from that other Effect too of St. James' Unction, which is conditional forgiveness of sins: Whereas, according to the Cardinal, and the truth of the matter, your Unction tends directly to the forgiveness of sins.  
And now having proved it, I say, That the Cardinal does absolutely exclude the one, as the Defender said he did, though he does not use those very words: Mark what I say; He absolutely excludes your Unction from being meant by St. James: And (which I had almost forgot) whereas you put the word Rather into a different Character, as if you would beg the Reader to take notice of it: Be it known to you, that it can do you no manner of Service. Since there is no phrase more common, than to express sometimes absolute say by comparative ones, as at other times comparative ones by absolute. Thus, When 'tis said, Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labour: And, Neither filthiness, 
Eph. 4.28. v. 4.  nor foolish talking, etc. but rather giving of thanks. I am confident you will confess, that stealing and filthiness are absolutely excluded, notwithstanding the Word Rather.  
By this time I suppose you are satisfied, that the parallel Case, by which you would make your own clear, is nothing at all to the purpose; or rather, I believe you knew it, and all these things before, that I have now offered; but you would not be quiet till the World knew them too. Something however must be said to your parallel Case, which is this.  Suppose I should tell you, you cannot positively prove from that passage, Go ye baptising all Nations, etc. nor from any other Scripture, without the general practice and Authority of the Church, that Infants are to be baptised. I suppose you would not deny me that Proposition. But should. I say, that passage and all the other in Scripture concerning Baptism, can belong to no other but to Adults, I persuade myself you would not readily give me your Assent. And if this be not a parallel Case with the other, pray show the difference. 
With all my heart, Sir, and because you shall have no occasion to run into other matters, I will take your supposition in every part of it, and suppose it all myself. I say then, that the Case is not parallel, but as cross to the other, as any one you could have well chosen. For there is this difference.  
That on the one side, the Baptising of all Nations, is not there limited to Adult persons, and therefore excludes not the Baptising of Infants. So that though I could not prove from that, or from any other passage in Scripture, that Infants are to be baptised, yet from that and such like places, I could not conclude, that Baptism does belong to no other but Adults, because the Baptism of these is left to be consistent with the Baptism of Infants, and the same words may include both.  
But on the other side, That Unction which is given to those who are sick unto death, cannot possibly be meant in those words which prescribe an Unction, the effect whereof is this, that the sick person shall not die, but recover; and that because Life and Death are two things, of which if you say the one, do what you can, you unsay the other. And therefore he who says, that the words of St. James speak of the Unction that is for Life, does not only say, that the Unction for the point of Death, is not proved from them, but, if he be a man of sense as the Cardinal was, he does in effect say, that it cannot be proved from them; and that the words can belong only to bodily Cures, or to the Case of those persons who recover by Unction.  
And this is so substantial a difference between the two Cases, that I should be ashamed to show any other; and I think, Sir, you have some little cause to be ashamed of giving me this needless trouble.  
We feel what Adversaries we have, and must be content to undergo this Drudgery of answering what they please to put to us, though we have not so mean an opinion of them, as to think that they could not Answer it themselves.  
But one comfort is, that your Objections and Accusations are so weak, that a very little time serves to show that they are so; which is all I meant by promising you some account of your Reply from the Defender in a Month. No boasting, I assure you, Sir, of a Talon of answering Books so quickly. For what matter of boasting is it, if a man can answer such a Letter as yours, as fast as he can write? or if he sees presently what is fit to be said, where there is nothing to surprise, but the confidence of an Adversary, and the little reason he has for it.  
As for you who have only spare minutes, which are not many, to employ this way, the rest being spent in a nearer service to your Master: If you mean, in saying your Prayers and the like, I am sorry to see no better effect of spending the most of your time so well, then to spend the rest of it so ill as you do.  
I am afraid your next Letter to me will bring as bad an account of your spare minutes as this has done; and to be Free with you, this is the reason of my Fear. At the close of your new form Argument, upon that Retractation of yours spoken of before; you talk as if it could be made out by the very nature of Tradition, that it was morally impossible for such successive Innovations to be made as the Defender and Discourser have imagined. Nay, you say, that the Defender could not but foresee the many woeful Contradictions which necessarily follow such a pretended Change as Chemnitius invented, and I have Espoused after him.  
Now, Sir, this new Notion of the Nature of Tradition, and the Indefectibility of it, being here brought in, without any thing passed on my side to make it pertinent; I fear that all the pertinence it has, is with reference to what yourself intends to say in answer to the Second Part of my Discourse. That is, whereas you have promised me to show how little I have brought against the uninterrupted Practice of the Church ever since the Apostles time, which is to be the Subject of a second Letter from yond; you will now accost me with the Nature of Tradition: And notwithstanding that I have, from reasonable good Testimonies, made it undeniably evident, (if those Testimonies are credible, and if I have not misrepresented them) That Extreme Unction is an Innovation, and a late one too; and tho' I have given a very fair and probable Account how that Innovation crept into the West; yet all this is to go for nothing, because you can demonstrate, That 'tis impossible this should ever happen, or any thing like it.  
But, Sir, I do not forewarn you of this, because I am afraid of the strength of your Demonstration; for, say what you please, 'tis an hundred to one, burr, God willing, I shall either tell you that▪ I am convinced, or show you reason for the contrary; but I only foretell, That you will never make any Work of this new Notion, which, as new as it is, has been driven as far as 'twill go. It was intended for a Bush to stop every Gap; and if you could have baffled all Ancient Testimonies against you, with a 'Tis impossible it should have been so, you had been without all controversy the Men of this Age: And in stead of going to the Fathers for Antiquity, we must come to your Church to know what she holds, and to some few such Writers as you are, to know the Nature of Tradition, for thus (Who would have thought it?) we could in many things more certainly tell what Irenaeus, etc. and St. Austin etc. held, than by the dull and fallible way of reading their Books.  
But as this has all the Appearances, so it has had the Success of a Project. Your Indefectible Oral Tradition, seems not to us only, but to the most considerable Men of your own Church, a very ridiculous Pretence; and has been confuted both by some of us, and some of them.  
I shall give you but this other hint, That if you intent to go on this way, you are undertaking one of the vainest things in the World, next to defending Transubstantiation: For as he that does this, has that hard Task of maintaining that to be true, which 'tis impossible should be so; so in the other Undertaking you must spend a great many Words to prove that a Matter of Fact was impossible to be, which yet most certainly was. But for this I beg your pardon; you will go your own way to work, when I have said all I can; and you may take this if you please. My spare Minutes are now at an end; and I shall only add, That you would do very well both to make a civil use of the Ingenuity of your Adversaries, and in some small degree to imitate it yourselves: If you understand me not, I will tell you my meaning more at large next time. And so I rest, as before,  
SIR, Your Friend and Servant. Decemb. 9  
FINIS.