A Letter from the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom, to the Author of a late Discourse concerning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.  
SIR,  
PRefaces are now much in vogue; but your Discourse, it seems, had come out without any, had not my Vindication obliged you to direct one to Me, whom you think to be concerned to peruse your Papers. Really, Sir, I think it would have been much more prudence in you not to have called upon me at this time, or at least to have shown a more modest and sincere Behaviour that you have done. For if the exceptions you make against me in your Preface prove vain, the Tales you lay to my charge, be mere cavils, or your own; and, instead of justifying the Defender, you involve yourself in the same guilt; you give me and all honest well-meaning persons just reason to suspect the whole Book that follows.  
You say you did not fall asleep when you came to my Article of Extreme Unction; and really, Sir, I believe you: but whether you were kept awake by a more than usual curiosity, or by a desire to inform your judgement, or by some such kind of passions as are usually raised in Chemists, when after a long and tedious diligence and labour, they find all their expectations lost in a smoky Evaporation, is not easy for me to determine. But this is certain, if there be nothing said in all your eighteen Sheets, but what in five pages of my Reply has either been prevented, or such grounds laid, ●…s with a small Reflection will afford a sufficient Answer; you had more than the two first Reasons to keep you from sleeping whilst you perused them.  
But you are resolved not to take my word, because you say (Pref. pag. 4.) I have lessened the Authority of it by telling two Tales: (You had reason to beg an excuse for the Expression, tho' the way you did it makes it a double fault) But what if these Tales prove of your own coining, and you in them both have grossly imposed upon me and your Readers? my credit will, I hope, be still good: and the Tables being turned, your word, I fear, will have little Authority with men who hate to be imposed upon.  
The first Tale, you say, and that a notable one, is, that I make the Defender himself confess that this Extreme Unction is as ancient and universal a Practice as I would have it thought to be: Whereas you find indeed the Defender confessing, that the Interpretation of the words of St James, which he followed, was for 800 years the undoubted meaning of them, and that the ancient Liturgies of the Church, and the public Practice of it for above 800 years, show that they esteemed this Unction, (i.e. St. James' Unction) to belong primarily to Bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul. But that I should therefore make him confess Extreme Unction to have been of so ancient standing is to make him say the quite contrary to what he does say.  
But pray, good Sir, where is it that I make the Defender confess this Extreme Unction to be so old? Certainly, if you did not sleep when you read my Reply, you dreamt waking, or your passion urged you to take an occasion to cavil with me, tho' none was given. 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 Western Churches for the first 800 years, I should have made more benefit of such a Concession. I am certain my Cause is not so weak, as to stand in need of challenging such Concessions where they are not granted; neither will you. 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.  
My words in the beginning of that Article (Reply pag. 70.) are these,—' Yet, because he was to oppose the Catholic Church, he would have this (Extreme Unction) to be only a Ceremony made use of in the miraculous Cures of the Apostles: And to prove this, he affirmed that the ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for 800 years after Christ, show the Practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures.— Again, §. 53. I say, How! 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? But I presently show the Defender's sense, and add; Yes, but they (the Primitive Christians) practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures, and we (Roman Catholics) to those of the Soul. Moreover, pag. 74. I again plainly express myself, that he thought the Church understood that passage of St. James in His sense (that is, primarily for Bodily Cures) for 800 years.  
Now from all these passages it plainly appears, that I only argued from his admitting of an Unction practised in the Church for the first 800 years; which Unction he indeed affirmed had its primary respect to Bodily Cures; and which, I told him, unless he could prove that it had no relation to the Sickness of the Soul, as a Sacrament, but only to the Body, in order to miraculous Cures, he would prove nothing against us.  
Indeed where I speak of his falsifying Cardinal Cajetan's Expression, I have some words, which taken alone may bear the sense he would draw them to; for I say, What if Cardinal Cajetan had affirmed as he did, 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 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? 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 continued in all Christian Churches, both of the East and West, for 800 years; I meant it with those limitations which he had expressed, and which I intended afterwards to show were nothing to the purpose.  
But if this do not satisfy, rather than multiply disputes, I will acknowledge, that as the Defender did not confess that the Extreme Unction, of which we now speak, which has a primary respect to the Soul's Aid, and a secondary to that of the Body, was visibly continued in all Christian Churches, both of the East and West for 800 years, but only acknowledged that there was an Unction continued with a primary respect to Bodily Cures; so if my expression in that place have given any one an occasion to think that the Defender did confess such a Continuance without that limitation, I do retract it, and form my Argument thus.  
I told him that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did. But what if he had? (Why truly then (says this Discourser) the Defender did not falsify him. No truly, neither should I have accused him of it.) Seeing the Defender acknowledges that there was an Unction of the sick continued in the East and West for 800 years; nay, I may add, seeing both He and this Discourser (tho' they charge the Church with altering her Intentions, yet) cannot deny but there was an Unction practised in the East and Western Churches from Age to Age, ever since the Apostles times, notwithstanding the gifts of Miracles were ceased; and seeing it is manifest that those Rituals of the first 800 years, which the Defender says had a primary respect to Bodily Cures, had also a respect to those of the Soul, which is Primary in Dignity, as ours have now to both; and that it can 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 the Discourser have imagined: what madness would it be to reject a practice coming down by such an uninterrupted Tradition, and a universal consent of particular Churches, upon the Testimony of one man's affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture?  
But there is a second part of this Tale. I pass by (says this Discourser) your insinuation, that he (the Defender) supposed the Unction mentioned by St. James was practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 years. He said no such things nor supposed any such thing, but only that for 800 years they esteemed St. James 's Unction to belong primarily to Bodily Cures; which they might do, and yet in less than 800 years they might bring in an Unction different from that of St. James, tho' both of them were primarily designed for Bodily Cures.  
Now really, Sir, if this was insinuated, it was not without just grounds; for seeing the Defender's endeavours were to maintain that this expression of St. James' was to be interpreted of Bodily Cures, and backed his Assertion with the ancient Liturgies of the Church, and the public Practice of it for above 800 years, which he affirmed were also for Bodily Cures; and seeing he did not so much as hint at any alteration during all that time: how could any one imagine but he supposed the Unction mentioned by St. James was practised till that time? especially seeing he could not but foresee the many woeful contradictions which necessarily follow such a pretended change as Chemniti●s invented, and you have espoused after him.  
But now we come to the second Tale, Brother to the former, and therefore a notable one too. I told him that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as the Defender affirmed he did. 'Tis true, and I say it still a third time, and shall make it evidently appear, to any one that will weigh the Propositions.  
The Defender affirmed that Card. Cajetan freely confesses that this passage of St. James can belong to no other than Bodily Cures. But, says this Discourser, 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.  
Here, Sir, you are embarked in the same Vessel with the Defender, and espouse his dangers. You affirm with him, that the sense of that passage of Cardinal Cajetan's, is a free confession that St. James' words could belong to no other than Bodily Cures. Let us lay the Propositions together, and see whether they be equivalent, or no, or whether yours be a necessary Inference from the other; for if neither of these be, I hope you will grant it to look something like what I called it.  

The Cardinal's Proposition according to your own Translation, is, a Falsification.  
It neither appears by the words, nor by the Effect, that he (St. James) speaks of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but rather of the Unction which our Lord appointed in the Gospel to be used upon sick persons by his Disciples. For, etc.   

The Defender's Proposition, is,  
Cardinal Cajetan freely confesses that these words of St. James, Is any man sick, etc. can belong to no other than Bodily Cures.   
Now, Sir, that these two Propositions.  

Cardinal Cajetan acknowleges that Extreme Unction cannot be proved from that passage, but rather an Unction for Bodily Cures,   
and  

Cardinal Cajetan freely confesses that that passage can belong to no other but Bodily Cures,   
are not equivalent, I appeal to any one who can but understand a difference betwixt these two Propositions, What you say does not prove the Assertion; and, What you say proves the contrary.  
But it may be the one is a necessary Inference from the other; for, as the Defender says, 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 in that.  
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 only belong to that? I assure you, Sir, if you have no better premises to prove your other Conclusions by, than what you have for this, tho' they may perplex the less Learned, yet any one who knows what connexion there ought to be betwixt the Premises and the Conclusion, will deny your Consequences.  
But to make this clear; suppose I should tell you, you cannot positively prove from that passage, Go ye baptising all Nations. etc. nor from any other in Scripture, without the general Practice and Authority of the Church, that Infants are to be baptised: I suppose you would not deny me the 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. I might here return your own Compliment, and tell you that I might have spared all this trouble, because it is 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.— But (Sir) it must be such another man as You and the Defender seem to be, who reads the Cardinal's words, and can find him to be so positive as you say he was: But I do not think it proper to use so much Gall, where the simplicity of the Dove ought to prevail; especially seeing you tell us, that they who are honest and wise, will not so much consider who they are that break forth into the most vehement Exclamations, (I suppose you will give me leave to add, clamorous Censures, or bold Assertions) as who they are that bring the clearest Proofs.  
Thus, Sir, of the two Tales you lay to my charge, the first is a mere Cavil, and the other is plainly your own. So that I have a just occasion given me from hence to admonish You and the Defender, that if either of you undertake to vindicate him from those Calumnies, Falsifications, false Translations, etc. which I have so justly charged him with, you do not make yourselves more guilty by espousing their Defence; For tho' I think I might have excused the Defender from a wilful intention to falsify Cardinal Cajetan in his Exposition, yet seeing both He and You have gone about to defend that which was so plainly a Falsification; it is manifest that 'tis You yourselves have done the prejudice either to your own Honesty or Understanding. Pray take your choice, for one at least belongs to you.  
You seem to boast of a Talon the Defender has of Answering Books so quickly. Much good may do him with it. I envy him not; but wish he would take more care to study what he says himself, and to peruse the Collections that others bring him in, that we may not hereafter be troubled with false Translations, or so many things to so little purpose. For my own part, I thank God I have other Employments, which I am sure are much preferable to this; so that it is only spare minutes, which are not many, that I have to employ, the rest are spent in a nearer Service to my Master.  
And yet, Sir, I have so much Zeal for the Salvation of my Brethren, that I will bestow some moments to peruse your Book, and show you (if you have, as you say, a desire, and will not let the prejudice of your Education hinder you from taking the means, to be saved) what reason the Council of Trent had to Anathematise all those who deny the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and how little you have brought against the uninterrupted Practice of the Church ever since the Apostles times. But this shall be the subject of another Letter, from,  
SIR, Your Friend and Servant. Decemb. 5. 1687.   

London: Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His Household and Chapel; And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Blackfriars. 1687.