after Christ shew the practice to have had the primary respect to Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confessed the words of St. James could belong to no other and from thence concluded they had reason to leave off this Extream Unction because Miracles are now ceased In answer to this A Falsification of Cajetan 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 Universal Practice and Tradition of the Church is not that Practice and Tradition the best Interpreter must that be laid aside because a Cajetan or some few persons in these latter Ages think St. James in that passage had an Eye to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles when it is most likely the Unction mentioned by the Holy Evangelist St. Mark had a respect at least as a Figure to this Sacrament 2. §. 52. It has a respect to bodyly Cures As to the Antient Rituals I told him that ours also agree with them that this Sacrament has a respect to bodily Cures as well as those of the Mind and therefore I told him that unless he could manifestly prove that the Unction mentioned by St. James and practised by the Primitive Church for the first 800 Years 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 who acknowledge that the Sick persons do many times by it obtain health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of their Souls But this he saw was impossible However something must be said tho' to no purpose and therefore to make the unwary Reader think he had much the better on it St. Gregory's Ritual and the other antient Forms used in the Greek and Latin Church for 800 Years must be quoted at large and all the passages in them that tend to the Cures of the Body varied in a different Character but where the Mind is concerned the ordinary Character must serve and thence as wild a Conclusion must be drawn that this Unction had more than a bare respect to bodily Cures nay that it was especially or as he said before primarily designed for them How did the Greek and Latin Churches for the first 800 Years practise this Unction and do Protestants §. 53. who pretend to reform according to the Primitive purity reject it Yes but They practised it with a primary respect to Bodily Cures and we to those of the Soul. Sanctisying Grace Assistance against Temptations and Remission of Sin are the Primary Effects No wonder if we call Sanctifying Grace Assistance against Temptations in the last Agony and Remission of Sin the primary effects in Dignity whilst the corporal Cure may be the primary in Order and only with respect to the other But how does he prove that the Unction used by the Primitive Christians for the first 800 Years respected miraculous Cures only All the Prayers and Ceremonies says he shew it And do they not also shew a respect to those of the Soul Is there not mentioned a Tutamen mentis as well as Corporis Defence p. 46. in the Benediction of the Oyl Ejusque dimite peccata Ibid. Eripe animam ejus pag. 48. In te habitet Virtus Christi Altissimi Spiritus Sancti p. 49 Viseerumque ac cordium interna medica Medullarum quoque cogitationum sana discrimina Does not the Priest pray for the Remission of his Sins a delivery of his Soul that the Power or Vertue of Christ the most High and of the Holy Ghost way dwell in him He prays also tho' the Defender did not think it convenient to tell his Readers so in English That the interior of his Heart and Cogitations may find a remedy that God would heal the Distempers of the inward parts and thoughts that the corruptions of his Vlcers and Vanities may be evacuated that God would skin over the antient Scars of his Conscience and Wounds that he would take away his mighty Passions Vlcerum vanitatumque putredines evacua Conscientiarumque atque plagarum abducito cicatrices veteres immensasquo remove Passiones Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma DELICTORVMQVE cunctorum veniam tribue fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio morbi languoris praesentis expulsio atque PECCATORVM omnium OPTATA REMISSIOt Per Dom. pag. 50.51 and Pardon all his Sins and which is worthy our remark does not this Prayer end with begging that this anointing him with Holy Oyl may be an expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity and the desired Remission of all his Sins Through our Lord Jesus Christ c. Again How had these a respect to miraculous Cures only when the Fathers of those Times tell us that such Miracles ceased presently after the Apostles Times Does not their practising of this after the cessation of those Miracles shew that they expected an interior Assistance of the Soul rather than a miraculous Cure of the Body Well might I therefore tell him that his sense of the words of St. James and of the intention of this Extream Unction was contrary to what we were taught by all Antiquity I told him also §. 54. that the very words of St. James evinced it And I have heard of some Protestant Anabaptists that think so and therefore use it Luther However he knows who they were that threw off the Epistle partly upon that account Infirmatur quis in vobis The words of St. James Evince it says the Apostle If any one or whoever is Sick amongst you The words belong to all Christians But if he had spoken of miraculous Cures only he needed not have invited them their own Wants would have perswaded them sufficiently to send for those who had the Gift of Miracles as the Centurion sent to our Blessed Saviour Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae Let him bring in the Priests the Clergy the Ordinary standing Rulers of the Church of which as I told him All had not the Gift of Healing and some who were not of the Clergy had it 'T is manifest then the Apostle would have said send for those who have the Gift of Healing be they Clergy or Lay persons had he spoken of miraculous Cures only But says the Defender if all had it not 'T is very like St. James meant They should be sent for that had it whereas first this is clear against the Text which speaks at Large send for the Priests Secondly It would have been to no
of their Churcy what it she holds Let him therefore I say shew this to be the Doctrin of his Church before he build other Doctrins upon it And when he has done that there will remain some other Obstacles to be removed before his Supposal will be admitted by us One of which is how he proves it obligatory for every individual person to dissent from the Church or oppose her Doctrins in those necessary Articles of Faith upon their being evidently convinced in their judgments that they have hit upon the right sense of Scripture and the Church has not and yet will not allow them the same Liberty upon the same Evidence in matters which are not so necessary One would think that if they be obliged to submit to the Church in non-necessaries they should be so much the more in necessaries Unless he will have the Church to be an unerring guide in non-necessaries and mans particularl judgment of the sense of Scripture Errable and on the contrary mans particular judgment of the sense of Scripture infallible in Necessaries and the Church's judgment fallible No But his reason is because it is every mans concern and duty hoth to Judge for himself and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able when the Dispute is about necessaries whereas he is not so bliged about non-necessaries I deny not but that it is every mans concern and duty to make the best Judgment he can about necessaries to his Salvation when a less care is required in non-necessaries But is it not the Church's concern and interest to do the same and when she has done that will right reason teach every particular man to prefer his sense before hers in either of them No certainly but on the contrary will dictate to him that the best and securest means he can take not to be deceived in his Judgment is to rely upon the Churches sentence because God has given a Promise to secure his Church from Error whereas there is no Promise to Individuals that they shall not be Deceived in searching the sense of Scripture If the Defender can shew such a Promise he will instead of destroying the Popes Infalliblity set up as many infallible Popes as persons For to be Infallible in this case is no more than seriously and impartially to follow an Infallible rule which is so clear in it self that every serious and Impartial Enquirer shall certainly understand the right sense of it Every individual person therefore according to our Defenders supposition who is fully convinced that he has made use of the best endeavors he can his Employments Capacity Learning c. considered to come to the right sense of Scripture which Scripture is in it self Infallible may assure himself that he has Infallibly hit upon the true sense of Scripture from whence it would necessarily follow truth being but one that we should have no Errors in the world but amongst those who are neither serious nor impartial in their enquiry For the fault must either first be in that they do not use their best endevors or secondly that their Rule they go by is faulty or thirdly that they take that for a Rule which is not rruly so and guiding themselves by a Rule which was not given them to be their Guide to wonder if they go astray His second Postulatum is that the Holy Scripture is the Rule §. 117. His second Postulatuns answered Ibid. pag. 80. and that those Scriptures are so clearly written that as to what concerns those necessary Articles it can hardly happen that any one man any serious and impartial enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion It seems the Defender would gladly be nibling at Doctor Stillingfleets principle Princip 15. That the Scripture contains the whole Will of God so plainly revealed that no sober enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation But seeing how unable the Doctor was to defend it See Error non-plust he gives some limits to it as afraid to speak out what he would willingly have believed And therefore does not positively say That the Scripture is so clear and sufficient a Rule in necessaries that every sober Enquirer cannot miss of the right sense of it but that it is so clear c. that it can hardly happen that any one Man any serious and impartial Enquirer should be found opposite to the whole Church in his opinion Now what he says can hardly happen may at least happen sometimes and if it do what must that one Man do He is then obliged says the Defender to adhere to his own Belief in opposition to that of the Church How is Scripture the Rule of Faith Is this Rule clear and sufficient in Necessaries to every sober Enquirer and is it not clear to the whole Church Or does the whole Catholic Church of Christ cease to enquire seriously and impartially Yes if this Man be but evidently convinced that he is the sober Enquirer and she is not he must prefer his own sense before hers says the Defender But what is this Evident Conviction here required If all Mankind for Example tell me this is the Year 1687 since Christ and I should stand stifly against their Account and tell them it is but the Year 1686 certainly I should be esteemed mad by all Mankind and my pretending my being evidently convinced in my own imagination or my really being so would not hinder me from being justly condemned of the greatest Folly and Impudence imaginable as preferring my own sense and sentiments before the common sense and sentiments of the whole World But this it seems which would be esteemed Folly in such temporal concerns would be Prudence with our Defender in the necessary concerns of Faith and eternal Happiness for with him tho' it be highly useful to individual persons or Churches Ibid. pag. 81. to be assisted in making their judgment by that Church of which they are Members yet if after this instruction they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith between the voice of the Church and that of the Scripture they must stick to the latter rather than the former they must follow the Superior not Inferior Guide §. 118. What are necessary Articles of Faith I would gladly know of our Defender what he means by Necessary Articles all which are so clear in Scripture Are they all those which are contained in the three Creeds Or will he run to Hobs his necessaries only a belief in Christ If he take in all the Creeds as certainly he is bound by his Church or if at least he admit that of St. Athanasius in which he declares that except a Man believe all that is contained in it he cannot be saved let him tell me and prove it when he can that all the Articles contained in it are so clear in Scripture that every individual person every sober Enquirer
shall certainly find them there The Socinians will smile at his Boldness But certainly according to his Principles it must be so for if those abstruser Doctrins of the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and Divinity of our Blessed Saviour contained in that Creed be necessary Articles of our Faith and all Necessaries be clear in Scripture to every sober Enquirer which they must be if every Man must judge for himself and Scripture be the only Rule to judge by then it would necessarily follow that every Tinker Cobler Weaver or Tankerd-bearer if they do but seriously enquire into Scripture would certainly find them there But if neither they nor our Defender nor his whole Church can find such evidence for them there as to silence the Socinians who profess to follow the same Rule to be sincere and to use all due diligence it will cortainly follow that those Points are not clearly contained in Scripture unless we take the Authority of the Church along with us for the interpretation and by consequence not necessary Points of Faith with our Defender If any one therefore enquire into the occasion of this difference even in necessaries amongst those who follow the same Rule and use their best endevors they will find their Error to proceed from this that they err in making choice of that for their Rule which is not so And to shew that Protestants err in this making Scripture as interpreted by their own private Judgments the only Rule of Faith I make use of this Argument besides the several reasons before alledged §. 119. Hebr. 11.6 Eph. 4.4 Scripture interpreted by Private Reason or the Private Spirit cannot he our Rule of Faith. and the inconveniencies that follow from it All Christians agree with the Apostle that without Faith it is impossible to please 〈◊〉 and that this Faith is but one They all agree also that this Faith contains in it many Mysteries beyond the reach of mere human Reason so that man by the use of that alone could not come to the knowledge of the chief Mysteries of our Faith The Trinity Incarnation Original Sin Resurrection of the Flesh c. They all affirm therefore that God who sent his Son to redeem man who could not do any thing of himself to satisfy his infinite Justice would not command him to believe this one Faith under the pain of Eternal damnation and at the same time leave him without a means to bring him to the knowledge of what he was to Believe This means is called the Rule of Faith by Controvertists Now seeing God would have all men to be saved of what learning or capacity of what age country or condition soever this Rule or this means must be general and applicable to all and therefore Plain and Easy by which the Ignorant and unlearned may arrive at the same one Faith as well as the learned Isa 35.8 for God has prepared a Way that the wayfaring men tho' fools shall not Err therein It must be Visible and Apparent to All persons in All places and in All Ages to All I say who will not shut their eyes It must be Sure Certain and Infallible that the ignorant who Rely upon it may come to the unity of Faith with Security and the Learned who follow it may be convinced of the truth of that one Faith rationally and oppugners find no substantial Arguments against it All which qualifications do not only arise from the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God but are conformable to the very notion of a Rule of Faith. If then the Scripture as interpreted by that private judgment of Particulars be this Rule of Faith it must have all these advantages towards the uniting us in this Faith without which it is impossible to please God. I will not descend to particulars and shew how the Scripture is void of the essential qualifications of a Rule that has been done by many hands and particularly by the question of Questions But I will Argue from what our Adversaries themselves grant us I suppose then it will not be denyed me but that the Scripture even in necessaries 2. Pet. 3.16 may be differently interpreted since St. Peter affirms that the Vnlearned and the Vnstable do not only Wrest the Epistles of St. Paul but other Scriptures also to their own damnation now the question is only when things are thus controverted which is the True sense of Scripture and since these Controversies may arise in necessary matters of Faith God would not leave us destitute of a means to come to know which is the True and genuine sense of this Scripture in those necessaries and this means must be as I said before easy plain general secure and infallible or else this Scripture supposing not granting it to be the Rule of our Faith would be useless to some part of mankind if it wanted any one of those qualifications and by consequence those persóns might justly complain that God had not taken a sufficient care for their Salvations If we examin our Defenders Rule for us to come to the True meaning of this Scripture he tells us it is a serious and impartial inquiry If so then it would necessarily follow that every serious and impartial Enquirer would infallibly hit upon the true Faith which Faith being but one all those impartial Enquirers would be at unity in their Belief But since experience tells us that many serious and impartial Enquirers if we can believe any men in what they affirm with the most solemn protestations imaginable in a matter of such high concern do differ in the sense which they draw from Scripture even in necessaries we must conclude That Scripture interpreted by this private reason of every individual person cannot possibly be this easy clear universal and Infallible rule or means to come to an unity in Faith. What I said against this Private Reason of particular persons or Churches §. 120. concludes also against the Private Spirit which some pretend to which Spirit if it were the Spirit of God would certainly teach all persons the same thing Others there are who tell you that the means to come to the knowledge of the true sense of Scripture is to compare one Text with another to examin the Commentators the Original Languages the Antient Writers and Interpreters c. but this way beside that it is coincident with Private Reason which we have already shewn cannot be our Infallible Rule to come to the true sense of Scripture is moreover impossible to be done by the generality of Mankind whose concerns to get a livelyhood are such that they have neither time opportunities nor abilities to do it Our Defender will perhaps Argue here from his good friends Doctor Stillingfleet and Mr. Chilling worth that they need not take such pains nay moreover that if they use only such a moderate industry as is consistent with their employments tho' they should err God will not impute it to them In