Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33219
|
A second letter from the author of the discourse concerning extreme unction to the vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.
|
Clagett, William, 1646-1688.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing C4395; ESTC R38745
|
8,309
|
16
|
A Second Lettâ—â— FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING Extreme Vnction TO THE VINDICATOR OF THE Bishop of CONDOM IMPRIMATUR Libellus cui Titulus A Second Letter from the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Vnction c. Decemb. 10. 1687. H. Maurice LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII A Second Letter from the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Vnction 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 Vniversality of Extreme Vnction One was That the Defender himself confessed this Extreme Vnction to be so Ancient and Vniversal 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 Vnction 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 mans affirming that it cannot be proved from that Text of Scripture What if it may be proved by the Vniversal 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 Vnction 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 Vnction 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 Vnction 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 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 Vnction 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 Vnction 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 Vnction 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 Vnction was by him confessed to continue so long but An Vnction 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'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 Vnction 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 't is so manifest that you speak only of Extreme Vnction 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 Vnction 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 Vnction hath the Authority not only of the Ancient Church but of St. James's too 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 Vnction was not according to him Extreme Vnction or the Vnction 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 Vnction as now practised in the Church of Rome was also Vniversally 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 Vnction but rather of that Vnction 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 Vnction 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 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 Vnction 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 Extream Vnction 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 't is 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