That the Inquiries of Decentius and the Pope's Answers went all upon the Oil of Chrisme 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 Baptized 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 Antient Church And 't is the Oil for such purposes concerning which Decentius inquir'd whether and how it might be administred 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 guess and I believe it will be a hard matter to mend (x) De Extr. Unct. p. 100. Mr. Daillé's Conjecture which is this 'T is 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 c. 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 Vnction and what they suppose was acknowledged by both of them and by the whole Church in those days it was a very sensless Question and as sensless 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 determin 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 sâ—â—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 't is 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 imagin that a Bishop should doubt whether a Bishop had power to Administer one of the Sacraments of Christ's Institution But though 't is 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 't is a needless
Extreme Vnction IMPRIMATUR Septemb. 29. 1687. Hic Liber cui Titulus A Discourse of Extreme Unction c. JO. BATTELY A DISCOURSE Concerning the PRETENDED SACRAMENT OF Extreme Vnction 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 Church-yard 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 your self concerned to peruse the following Papers I could not by any means suffer my self to be diverted from reading your Book that was published last Week and that not meerly for gratifying a more than usual Curiosity to see what you had to say but rather for the informing of my Judgment 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 dwelt 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 my self 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 tho there are many Inducements to the latter Opinion offered in the First part of this Work which you seem not to have been aware 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 damn'd us as far as Anathematizing 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 examin 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 tho 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 shew 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 't is 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 8â—0 Years esteemed the undoubted meaning of them and that the ancient Liturgies of the Church and the publick practice of it do for above 800 Years shew 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 spake was not Extreme but brought to shew 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's 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 shewn 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 't is 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 disheartned 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 judg betwixt you and us in this Matter For I intend not to produce the Place here too and to argue the Point precisely because 't 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 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 Sence 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 then 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 your self 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 falsly 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 c. 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 your self 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 't is 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 perswaded 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 c. you conjure the Defender by all that is Sacred c. by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus c. 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 c. 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 Vnction Pag. 1 § 2. That Extreme Vnction 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 Vse of Anointing in St. James and not our Adversaries is favoured by the following Passages to
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 altho 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 Antients 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 Antient 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 Reliques 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 shew 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 Vnction has not the Testimony of any Antient 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 Antients nor so wisely neither because tho he were so late a Pope yet his Testimony is but a scurvy one and fitter 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 Antient 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 expresly and clearly That this Vnction is a Sacrament explain'd by St. James and is therefore not to be given to those who are not capable of other Sacraments c. Nor did ever any of the Antients reprove him for teaching that the Vnction 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 Catholicks produce it and that Chemnitius durst not so much as name it But I rather guess 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 Catholicks 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 falshoods * 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 whilest 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
that purpose But at length none but Priests must do it and as Customs that are meerly 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 setled mystery But though in respect of us it be indeed an Antient Innovation yet an Innovation it was and a late one too in respect of the truly Primitive Church 2. It was never Vniversally practised for besides the Christians of St. Thomas in East-India who had no use of Oyl at all in their Holy things the Aethiopian Church useth no Unction of the sick tho they have their (r) Ludolf Lib. III. Cap. 6. N. 31. Holy Oyl wherewith they anoint persons to be Baptized and so when the Missionaries from Rome came thither they found these Christians (s) Ibid. Cap. V. N. 44. utterly ignorant of Extreme Vnction 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 Antient Customs insomuch that the most Antient 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 Love-Feasts c. 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 our selves 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 refering it all to him but thus may many other things be excused which yet ought not to be imitated Here was inded 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 vii 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 shew 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 Vnction into Extreme Vnction 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 c. 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 condemn'd 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 her self 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 my self 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 imploy some charitable hand to shew me where they lye 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 perswasion a perswasion that whatsoever they say against us is True in General against a terrible evidence that 't is all False in the Particulars Especially when we produce such Evidence from those Authorities upon which the General perswasion 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 requir'd 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 enquire 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 Judgment when the secrets of all Hearts shall be disclosed But for our selves 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 concern'd 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 Vnction 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 veryest Fools alive to stand as we do in our own Light and to prefer a Heresie 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 our selves what we profess or of consulting our secular Interest when we intreat 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 c. 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