I Charged you with telling two Tales in the very same Breath, wherein you delivered your Oracle about the Antiquity and Ʋniversality of Extreme Ʋnction.

One was, That the Defender himself confessed this Extreme Ʋnction to be so Ancient and Ʋniversal 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, tho 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 your self 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 Ʋnction, 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 [Page 2]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 mans affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture? What if it may be proved by the Ʋniversal Practice and Tradition of the Church? &c. 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, &c. you did not mean your Ex­treme Ʋnction, 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 Ʋnction? 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 Ʋnction?

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 [Page 3]in that passage. Really you had better have followed my Advice, to confess, &c. for you will run your self into more and more streights for want of it; and every Fault that you would hide, will break out into a worse in another place: As for instance, if you should say next time, that An Ʋnction were not your Words, but that it was your Meaning; then I come and shew 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, &c.’ 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 shew how they ought to have been understood. But that which is worst of all is this, That tho 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 Ʋnction] into the passage where I charg­ed you with this Tale; instead of explaning, 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 then it must run thus; ‘Must we therefore reject Extreme Ʋnction, because one man affirms that it cannot be proved by this Text of Scripture, tho it continued for 800 years, as the Defender himself confesses, by which I do not mean that Extreme Ʋnction was by him confessed to continue so long, but An Ʋnction which was not Ex­treme. I have put those two words for you in the [Page 4]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's 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 Ʋnction 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 Ʋnction, that you are not able to deny it: And to make the best of this advan­tage, you insinuate also, That he confessed St. James's Ʋnction 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 Ʋnction hath the Authority not only of the Ancient Church, but of St. James's too.

[Page 5]But then least so gross a business as this should be charged upon you, and you have nothing to say for your self; you were content also to acknowledge what he had so often said, that St. James's Unction, and the Ancient Unction, had a primary respect to Bodily Cures; From whence you should have concluded, that this Ʋnction was not, according to him, Extreme Ʋnction, or the Ʋnction of your Church; but if you had done so, there had been no opportunity left to have slipt 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 Ʋn­ction as now practised in the Church of Rome, was also Ʋniversally 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, [Page 6]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 Ʋnction, but rather of that Ʋnction 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 Ʋnction is not given, but when a man is almost at the point of Death; and as the Form of words there used suf­ficiently shews, it tends directly to the forgiveness of Sins.’

[Page 7]Of this the Defender said: ‘Cardinal Cajetan free­ly confesses, that these Words of St. James, Is any man sick, &c. 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 Sence, which he did truly; ‘For, says he, when two things only are in Controversie, 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 your self 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 your self with those words of the Cardinal, It does not appear that St. James speaks of Extream Ʋnction, 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, [Page 8]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 Extream, Ʋnction, 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, [Page 9]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's Un­ction was not to take place. I might make this as plain from that other Effect too of St. James's 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 sayings 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, &c. 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 [Page 10]them too. Something however must be said to your parallel Case, which is this.

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 my self. 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 tho 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, [Page 11]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 shew 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, tho 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 shew 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 Talent 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 minuits, 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.

[Page 12]I am afraid your next Letter to me will bring as bad an account of your spare minuits as this has done; and to be Free with you, this is the reason of my Fear. At the close of your new formed 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 woful 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 your self intends to say in answer to the Second Part of my Discourse. That is, whereas you have promised me to shew 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 yon; 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 Ʋnction 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, bur, God [Page 13]willing, I shall either tell you that▪ I am convinc'd, or shew you reason for the contrary; but I only foretel, 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 controversie 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, &c. and St. Austin &c. 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 in­tend 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 Minuits 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 [Page 14]your Adversaries, and in some small degree to imitate it your selves: If you understand me not, I will tell you my meaning more at large next time. And so I rest, as before,