AN ANSWER TO THE Animadversions ON TWO PAMPHLETS Lately Published By Mr. COLLIER, etc. BEFORE I engage the Argument, it may not be amiss to premise one Word concerning the Performance. This Author has rallyed the Old Objections against the Absolution of Sir William Perkins, drawn them up in a new Figure, and proposed them in a Method of Advantage. And to do him justice, in the first part of his Undertaking, He may be said to have done something more. He seems to have reinforced the Bishop's Declaration, with some New Observations, and Reasonings of his own. His Objections against my Conduct in the Absolution, are branched into two general Heads. The one relates to the Church, the other to the State. I shall begin with this Gentleman in his own Method. His first Attempt is to take off the Testimonies of Antiquity, from which I had sufficiently proved that Absolution with Imposition of Hands, was the general Practice of the Ancient Church. The Animadverter grants the Proof of this Point, but disputes the Application. The Absolution (says he) in which those Ancients made use of Imposition of Hands, was not such an Absolution as that in which Mr. C— was concerned: Animad. p. 4, 5. But an Absolution of Persons Excommunicated, and given them at their Reconcilement to the Church. To disarm this Objection, I shall endeavour to make good three things. First, That upon the Animadverter's own Principles, Imposition of Hands could not be confined to the Occasions he mentions, without great Reflection upon the Ancients. Secondly, That supposing all my Instances of Antiquity did relate to Excommunicated Persons, etc. this does not make them unserviceable to the Purpose they were brought for. Thirdly, That in Fact, Absolution, with Imposition of Hands, was given in other Cases besides the Reconcilement of Offenders. 1st, That upon the Animadverter's Principles, Imposition of Hands could not be confined to the Occasions he mentions, without great Reflection upon the Ancients. The Animadverter affirms, That the Fathers looked upon those to whom this Ceremony was applied, as deprived of the Holy Ghost. But that the Ancient Church did not always suppose This, will appear, if we consider that, as the Animadverter observes, Imposition of Hands was given after the Point of Satisfaction was adjusted. This Ceremony in the Animadverter's Opinion, was a Ratification of Articles between the Penitent, and the Church. It supposed the Peace concluded, and gave an Admission to the Privileges of the former Alliance. Now in many cases this Satisfaction could not be made without running through a long Course of Penance, without extraordinary Abstinence, and a great many other Instances of Discipline, and Mortification. They were abridged in almost all the Entertainments and Conveniencies of Life, and passed their Time worse than common Poverty could have used them. Their Habit and Devotions, their Retirement and public Appearance, were all of them apparent Signs of unusual Severity, and Sorrow, and Submission. And these Exercises of Humiliation were sometimes continued for several Years. A Humiliation, which had admirable effects upon the Christians of those Times. And as the Apostle speaks in a like case; What carefulness did it work in them? What clearing of themselves? What Indignation? What Fear? etc. 2 Cor. seven. 11. And can a Man practise all these Rigours upon himself, and subdue the Powers of Custom, and Inclination, without the Assistance of the Holy Ghost? Is it possible to begin Repentance, and carry it on through to many Stages of length and difficulty, by the pure Abilities of Nature? Can a Man practise so many prodigious Instances of Self-denial, and not be under the Conduct of a Divine Influence? This is to deny the necessity of Grace; to make the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Virtue, and to give away the Ancients to the Heresy of Pelagius. 'Tis true, the Ancient Church did use Imposition of Hands as a Mark of Authority, and a Circumstance of Paternal Benediction: She believed without doubt this Application a Recommendation to God's Favour, and that the Communications of his Spirit were enlarged upon such an Expedient. This Persuasion is agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of the Scriptures: And upon this view I suppose it is that our Church lays on her Hands at Ordination. But as our Church is far from supposing those who appear for Orders to be no true Christians; So neither did the Ancients always look upon those they Absolved with Imposition of Hands, under such an uncomfortable Notion. They could not look upon them as entirely abandoned by Heaven; or if they had believed them in this unsupported Condition, they would never have deferred their Assistance so long, nor refused them the relieving Ceremony, till Pennance was over, and Satisfaction made, as the Animadverter asserts. 2dly, Supposing all my Instances from Antiquity did relate to Excommunicated Persons, etc. this does not make them unserviceable to the Purpose for which they were brought. To take off the force of these Authorities, the Animadverter ought to prove, That the Ancients forbade Imposition of Hands, or at least forbore it, in all other Cases of Absolution, besides those abovementioned: But this he has not in the least attempted. I have sufficiently proved, that giving Absolution, with Imposition of Hands, was the general Practice of the Primitive Church. Does it not therefore lie upon the Animadverter to prove, That this Ceremony was appropriated to the more solemn and public Cases of Absolution by him recited? Ought he not to make good this Point by some Fact or Doctrine, by some Affirmation, or Instance of Antiquity? All the Precedents produced are on my side, and many more might be alleged to the same purpose. So that unless the Animadverter can show that Absolution, in the more ordinary Cases, was generally given without Imposition of Hands; and that, in the Opinion of the Ancients, the Necessities of Dying Persons were reckoned among ordinary Cases: unless he can show this, it must follow in contradiction to what he asserts, That I have the practice of the Primitive Church for my Justification. If he insists, That the Cases ought to have been proved exactly parallel: To this I answer (at present) that there is no necessity for such a Performance. For we are to observe, That the Remains of the Primitive Church, with Relation to Rites and Discipline, are very imperfect. The ancient Liturgies are most of them lost. That little which stands upon Record, was in all likelihood most remarkable; by which we have reason to believe the more common Instances were regulated. Church's don't use to alter the Solemnities of an Office upon every diversity of Occasion. To do this without weighty Considerations, would argue Inconstancy, weaken the Notion of Authority, and introduce Disorder and Neglect. But, 3dly, I shall produce some direct Proofs, That Absolution, with Imposition of Hands, was given in other Cases besides those of the Reconcilement of Offenders. This Assertion I shall endeavour to make out by three Arguments. The first, That Imposition of Hands was given before Satisfaction made to the Church, as well as after. Secondly, That it was applied to those who were not under Censure. Thirdly, That private Penance was performed with the same Rites with that which was public. 1st, That Imposition of Hands was given before Satisfaction, as well as after. It was used at the beginning of Penance, as a Ceremony of Entrance into that State. Optat. contr. Parmen. lib. 1. To mention some Authorities. Optatus will afford us two Instances very full to our Purpose. This Father tells us, That the Bishops of the Donatists' Faction pretended that the Ordination of Caecilian was null because his Ordainer Foelix was a Traditor. Caecilian being willing to stifle the Schism before it became too flagrant, very frankly offers himself to be re-ordained. Upon this Purpurius, a Donatist Bishop, out of his customary Malice, as Optatus observes, breaks out into this Expression: Let him come, (says he ) as if he was to receive Imposition of Hands, in order to be made a Bishop, and then we will put him under Penance with this Ceremony. Lib. 2. This Father elsewhere complains of these Schismatics, for patting the Clergy under Penance, by Imposition of Hands: That herein they contradicted the Practice of the Catholic Church, and inflicted those Punishments upon a lower Pretence, which were not imposed on Bishops, tho' guilty of Idolatry. And here we may see Imposition of Hands was sometimes taken for Penance, and sometimes for Reconciliation, as the Reader may be informed if he pleases. That it was given at the beginning of Penance, may be farther proved from all those Canons which forbid Imposition of Hands at the Degradation of the Clergy. And here I might cite several Councils; but to avoid length, I shall only produce the 11th Canon of the 5th Council of Carthage: by which 'tis decreed, That if any Priests or Deacons are convicted of any great Crimes, for which they must be Degraded: Non eye manus tanquam poenitentibus, vel tanquam Fidelibus Laicis imponatur, i.e. Let not Hands be laid on them, either as Penitents, or as Faithful Laics. From hence I shall observe two things. First, That Imposition of Hands was introductive to a Course of Penance; and not always a Mark of Privilege and Reconciliation, as the Animadverter affirms. 'Twas sometimes the Beginning of Discipline and Sorrows, and of Exclusion from Church-Communion. So that the reason why the Canon forbids laying on of Hands upon the Clergy at their Degrading, is, because this Ceremony would have put them under Penance; and Penance, besides the rigour of the Discipline, would have barred them the Privileges of Communion. Now this would have been punishing twice for one Fault, which was contrary to the Apostles Canons, and the Practice of the Primitive Church. And therefore those Crimes which were Excommunication in the Laity, went no farther than Degradation in the Clergy. The loss of Orders being then reckoned a Punishment, as it were, equivalent to Excommunication. I observe farther from this Canon, and bring it as a second Argument for the Point, That Imposition of Hands was given to the Faithful. Now the Faithful, and the Penitents, both in the Language of this Canon, and in the known sense of Antiquity, are two ranks of Christians contradistinguished, and opposed to each other. They were distinctly plaeed in the Church, and the first were admitted to the Blessed Sacrament, and to all the Prayers and Advantages of Communion, which the other had not. Now that Imposition of Hands usually received by the Faithful, was an Absolution-Imposition, and had some Confessionary reference, I prove thus in a word. Either this Imposition, etc. must relate to Absolution or Confirmation: To Confirmation it cannot, because 'tis prohibited in the Canon, by way of Moderation and Abatement of Rigour: But Confirmation was always thought a Privilege, not a Punishment. 'Tis plain therefore by the Supposals and Implication of the Canon, that Imposition of Hands was customarily given to the Faithful, that is, to those who were under no Censure; and Given them at their Absolution, upon their Confession of those Sins, which were thought too light for Excommunication. 3 dly, Private Penance was performed with the same Rites with that which was Public. The difference between these two consisted only in the Abatement of the Solemnity: In some circumstances which were to be performed by Assistance: Morin. de Adm. Sacr. Poenitent. lib. 9 cap. 31. But the Priest's Office was the same in both. By consequence the first must have Imposition of Hands no less than the later. Now, private Penance was transacted between the Priest, and the Penitent, and therefore there could be no precedent Excommunication, to make way for such a Reconcilement, as the Animadverter supposes: I say, there could be no precedent Excommunication; for such a Censure does not use to be made a Secret, but passed in the Face of the Congregation. Indeed, without public notice the Censure could not be executed; the Excommunicated Person could not be treated with that Distance, not refused in Church-Correspondence, as the Punishment required. De Poenit. li. 8. ca 15. The Learned Morinus abovementioned, citys Marianus Victorius, to prove, that no one was absolved without Imposition of Hands. And for this, Marianus quotes a Synod under Charles the Great. And in his Book de Poenitentiis publicis, He affirms, That every Absolution consisted of two things, i. e. Imposition of Hands, and Prayer. That this Imposition of Hands was twofold, Public and Private. That is called Public, which is publicly performed in the Church before the Congregation. That is called Private, which is given at Home, or at any private place. Morinus brings several other Authorities to the same purpose. And thus the Animadverter may please to take notice, that Imposition of Hands in Absolution, was practised in other Cases besides those which relate to the public Reconcilement of Offenders. The Animadverter goes on, and endeavours to show, that the Plea of Antiquity, tho' never so well furnished with resembling Cases, will not justify my Proceedings in Absolving with Imposition of Hands. (Animad. pag. 6.) His Reasoning stands upon this Ground. That Rites and Ceremonies are not unalterable in their own nature, but are liable to be changed or abolished, as Circumstances require, at the discretion of every Particular or National Church. For this he citys Tertullian, and the 34 th' Article of our own Church. I grant the Animadverter all this; but which way 'twill affect me, is not so easy to determine. I never asserted the Necessity of Imposition of Hands, or that Absolution was imperfect without it: Neither does my Practice suppose any such thing. Well! But this Ceremony is not retained in the Church of England; and therefore the Practice of the African Church, tho' never so Primitive, is no sufficient Warrant;— For good Order and Uniformity require, that Particular Ministers should not make use of any Ceremonies, but what the Church and Law amongst us prescribe. (Animad. p. 7, 8.) In answer to this, I can't help taking notice of his saying, that a Minister of the Church of England is not to govern himself by the Church of Carthage, Pag. 7. etc. This Sentence looks somewhat artificial, and seems designed to misled the Reader into a Belief, That Imposition of Hands in Absolution, was only the Custom of St. Cyprian's Jurisdiction, or at most of the African Church. Whereas he may please to remember, I proved the Practice General, and could have cited many more Testimonies had it been necessary. His affirming that Imposition of Hands is not retained in the Church of England, will not hold generally speaking. For this Ceremony is retained both in Orders, and Confirmation; which is a sufficient Argument of its being approved by the Church. But the Church does not retain it in her Absolutions. I grant 'tis not in the Rubric for that purpose. And therefore had it been used at the Daily Service, or upon any Solemn Occasion regulated by the Church, there might have been some pretence for Exception: But the Rubric and Act of Uniformity mentioned by the Animadverter, provide only against Innovation in stated, and public Administrations. 'Tis in Churches, and Church-Appointments, that the Rubric condemns adding or diminishing. But this is none of the present case. For the Church has not prescribed us any Office for Executions. Every Priest is here left to his Liberty, both as to Office and Gesture, to Substance and Ceremony. The Devotion may be all private Composition if the Confessor pleases. And when out of respect to the Church, he selects any part of her Liturgy, tho' the Form is public, the Choice and Occasion are private, which makes it fall under another Denomination. The selected Office in this case, is like Coin melted into Bullion. The public Impression is gone; and with that, the Forfeitures for Clipping, and Alloy, are gone too; and the honest Proprietor may add to the Quantity, or alter the Figure as he thinks fit. I confess, had the Church excepted against Imposition of Hands in Absolution; Had she condemned the Ceremony thus applied, and laid a General Prohibition upon it; her Members ought to govern themselves accordingly, and not to use it so much as in private: But since the Church prescribes this Rite in her Rubric, and takes notice of it only by way of Practice and Approbation: When Matters stand thus I say, her Non-prohibition implies Allowance in private Ministrations; and in cases no ways determined by herself. For pray what is Liberty, but the Absence of Command, the Silence of Authority, and leaving things in their natural Indifferency? Thus the Point was understood, and practised by the famous Bishop Sanderson, upon one of the most Solemn Occasions, and in which himself was most nearly concerned. This eminent Casuist about a Day before his Death, desired his Chaplain Mr. Pullin, to give him Absolution: And at his performing that Office, he pulled off his Cap, that Mr. Pullin might lay his Hand upon his bare Head. Walton's Life of Bishop Sanderson, p. 49. Fol. Edit. Animad. p. 11, 12. The Animadverter therefore had no reason to spend two Pages against me, as if I left too much to the Direction of the Inferior Clergy, and paid too slender a regard to the Bishops. Did this Gentleman expect I should apply for Advice to the Bishops who set forth the late Declaration? He could not imagine this, if he considered what he had said himself, Pag. 17. If I consulted the Heads of my own Communion, I hope 'twas sufficient. But supposing I did not trouble any of our dispossessed Holy Fathers with this Matter, where was the harm on't? Had I not both Ancient and Modern Precedents to direct me? Had I not the Authority of the celebrated Bishop Sanderson? Pray is the Priest obliged to consult the Bishops for Directions at an Execution? Does the Church either in her Rubric, or Canons, require such an Application? Nothing of this can be pretended. And since this Point is left to the Discretion of the Priest, and there are no stated Ceremonies prescribed, nor any Liturgical Forms to govern the Office; where lies the Offence of having recourse to Primitive Usage? Why may not the Confessor officiate with an ancient Gesture (practised in other cases by his own Church;) as well as draw up a private Office, or make use of an extemporary Prayer? What reason can be assigned why there should be less of liberty in the former, than in the latter Case? 'Tis well known the Regulation of the Penitents Conscience is left wholly to the Priest's Conduct, both in Prison, and at the place of Execution. The Church interposes in no respect. Advice, and Discipline, and Devotion, lie all at discretion. Now the Success of the Administration depends much more upon the management of these Points, than upon any Latitudes of Gesture. And since the weightier Circumstances go at large, and are resigned up to Trust, and Prudence, by what reasoning can we put a restraint upon the lesser? The truth is, the Church determines nothing in the case; and where there is no Law, there can be no Transgression. If 'tis said the general Law of Decency is to be regarded: I grant it; and affirm that this Rule was very well observed. For the Animadverter cannot deny that Imposition of Hands in Absolution, is a significant, solemn, and ancient Ceremony. Besides, had there been any thing exceptionable in point of Decency, it could amount to no more than a Defect in Conduct, and a Mismanagement of Liberty. But as for any Crime, or Disobedience to Church-Authority, it can never be fairly swelled to such an Aggravation; because there was no breach made in any public Order or Constitution. I don't mention this, as if the Practice needed an Excuse, but only to show the Right to such a Plea, if there had been occasion. The Animadverter proceeds in his Articles of Impeachment, and objects, That 'tis against the Practice of the Church in general, and against our own Rubric in particular, to Absolve or assist in the Absolution of a Person, whose Confession and Repentance are known no otherwise than by the Testimony of others. Animad. p. 8. The first part of this Charge is only bare Affirmation, and that which brings no proof, needs no confuting: But it may be the second Attack will be better maintained. Here he tells us, That by the Rubric in the Visitation, etc. special Confession of Sins is required, and after that, the Priest's Absolution is to follow. This is all true, but I think little to his purpose. The Church advises Confession should precede Absolution: She does so, and with good reason. And here was a previous Confession in the Instance debated. Which way then does my Practice clash with the Directions of the Rubric? The Church for the right Application of the Keys, makes Confession to the Priest the Condition of Absolution. But does she oblige the Penitent to confess to more than one? Does she make the Office of Absolution single and solitary, or forbid the Concurrence of a plurality of Presbyters? Of Presbyters invited to an Assistance by the Confessor, and informed with general satisfaction at the first hand? However; Silence it seems is a perpetual Equivalent to Prohibition, and that which is never so much as mentioned is always condemned! This is extraordinary arguing! Under favour, we may much better collect the sense of the Rubric by the Practice of resembling Cases. And here I alleged both the Ancient, and our own Church in my Defence. My Instance from the Ancient Church, was a general Custom of admitting Strangers to Communion, by Virtue of a Certificate given by the Bishop from whence they came. To this the Animadverter makes two Exceptions. First, He thinks the Proofs insufficient, because they are not particular to the Business of Absolution. Suppose they are not: If the Resemblance holds, the Proofs will do so too. Parallel Cases, and proportion of Inference, uses to be thought good arguing. It stands upon this plain Ground: That all Conclusions regularly drawn from a Principle, are equally certain. And that when two Actions have the same Reasons to plead, they must be equally defensible. To apply this Reasoning. Admittance to Communion, includes admittance to Absolution: And since I made it appear the Ancients did the first upon the Testimony of others, there was no need of any distinct proof for the latter. Those who were received to Communion had all the Privileges of Church-Society. They were admitted to the Blessed Sacrament, which was always counted one of the highest, and most intimate Acts of Communion. Of this the Animadverter may inform himself if he pleases to consult my Albaspinaeus. Now since the Bishop's Letter gave Strangers a Right to all these Privileges, it gave them by consequence a Right to Absolution; If Absolution was made preparatory to the Sacrament, and given in other cases besides the Relaxation of Censures, which I suppose by this time the Animadverter will not deny. However, Secondly, He is loath to grant the Instances Parallel. Why so? Because the Ancients never gave Certificates to such as were not personally known to them, or whose Case they were not privy to▪ (Animad. p. 9) And what follows? Why that the Animadverter has lost himself. I beseech him was not Sir William Perkins personally known to me, and was I not acquainted with his Case? Did not Sir I. Friend stand in the same Circumstances of Intimacy with Mr. Snatt and Mr. Cook? And if so, why might not the Testimonials be interchangeably given, and the Penitents received to reciprocal Absolution? He must not say that our being no more than Priests, unqualified us for this Privilege. An Episcopal Character is not always necessary for Recommendation. The Animadverter himself observes, That our Laws and Canons require, That the Person to be Ordained should be recommended by some approved Presbyters. So that notwithstanding my improvement of his Argument, my Instance from Antiquity remains parallel to the Case in hand, and stands in full force against him. Farther. That some of the highest Functions of the Clergy might be discharged upon Confidence and Recommendation, I proved from our own Ordination-Office: This he is pleased to call a gross mistake; tho' no Sunshine can be clearer than the Evidence of what I affirmed, as the Reader may see by perusing the Office. Nay, the Animadverter is so unlucky as to confess thus much in his very Endeavours of Disproof. Page 9 He tells you, That Orders amongst us are never conferred upon such as are not personally known. Pray by whom must they be personally known? Animad. p. 10. By the Clergy who give them their Testimonials, and by the Archdeacon too as far as Enquiry and Examination. But what is all this to the Point? Here is no contradiction to any Assertion of mine; nor anything that condemns my Practice. To put the Question home. Is the Bishop, or the Clergy assisting at the Ordination, bound to immediate knowledge of the Life, or sufficiency of the Person Ordained? This I deny: And unless the Animadverter can prove the Affirmative, he says nothing. But here he is silent, and when he does speak, 'tis against himself. The Archdeacon (says he) is to inquire of the Candidate's Qualifications, Ibid. and to declare publicly to the Bishop, That he believes the Person presented, apt and meet for the Ministry. Now I would gladly understand, why the Archdeacon should tell the Bishop all this, if he knew it before? Information always supposes Ignorance in the Person informed, or at least that 'tis lawful for him to be so. To acquaint the Bishop with what he was bound to know by immediate Trial, and Experiment, would be extremely untoward. The Church don't use to trifle at this rate in her solemn Offices. In short, the Functions of the Archdeacon are Demonstrations, that the Ordainers are not obliged to personal Knowledge of the Ordained. This is so plain, that I'm amazed the Animadverter should venture upon Contradiction, and entangle himself so unhappily in the Argument. Sure this Gentleman presumes very much upon the Favour, and implicit weakness of the Reader, otherwise he would never dispute in this manner! The Animadverter fortifies himself, and adds, That there was no Necessity for this manner of Absolution: Ibid. For if the Confessary had given it without any Assistant it had been sufficient. This Argument stands upon a false Bottom, and supposes nothing lawful but what is necessary, than which nothing can be a greater Mistake. 'Tis true, what is not necessary may be omitted, but it does not therefore follow that it must. Religion, and common Life would make but a lean Appearance, were they stinted to the Allowance of Necessity. But there needs to be no more said about this matter. A 3d Thing which the Animadverter fancies to be irregular, is the pronouncing Absolution in public, when there was not any public Confession. I am surprised the Animadverter should object this to me: Have I not told him I was denied the Liberty of visiting Sir William Perkins for two or three of the last Days, and that he desired to receive Absolution at my Hands? I'm sorry he forces me upon the Repetition of these Things. Farther. As to Sir William's being privy to the intended Assassination, there was both public Confession and Repentance too, if he will believe the Committee. And for this Point I refer him to the Votes of Apr. 2d, and to what I have observed upon them, in my Reply to the Absolution of a Penitent, etc. This is a sufficient Answer to what is objected. But because the Animadverter is so tragical and triumphant in this Paragraph, and charges me with unheard of Singularity; I shall observe to him in the 3d place, That Absolution was sometimes public among the Ancients when Confession was private. I have already proved, That Absolution was frequently given at the beginning of Penance, and the Animadverter grants it at the end of it. The proving therefore public Penance assigned to private Confession, proves Absolution was public, tho' Confession was not so. Because without Absolution, Penance could not be regularly completed, nor the Person restored to the Peace of the Church. Now that those who confessed privately were ordered to do open Penance, without being obliged to publish their particular Miscarriages, appears from the 34th Canon of St. Basil to Amphilochius. Adulterio pollut as Mulieres & confitentes ob pietatem— Publicare quidem patres nostri prohibuerunt, eas autem Stare sine Communione jusserunt donec impleretur Tempus Poenitentiae. And from the 58th Canon of this Father 'tis plain, that these Women were dispensed with in the three first Stages of Penance. They were excused the Discipline of the Flentes, Audientes, and Substrati, and immediately ranged among the Consistentes to prevent the Discovery of their Crime. Morin. lib. 2. c. 19 Farther. 'Tis well known that before the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople, public Penance was used in the Eastern Church, as well as in the Western. For the better regulation of this Discipline there was a Person chosen to inspect the State of the Penitents, Socrat. l. 5. c. 19 and receive their Confessions. To this Office Sozomen tells us 'twas customary to appoint some Priest eminent for his Prudence and regular Behaviour; S●zom. l. 7. c. 16. but especially one who was remarkable for his Secrecy. Now to what purpose should this last Qualification be thought so necessary in a Penitentiary, if Confessions were not delivered as Secrets, and kept so too? And accordingly we find that Person of Quality, who occasioned the Change of Discipline in the Church of Constantinople, Confessed to none but the Priest, tho' she was at the same time openly Penitent. For tho' Confessions were private, yet Pennance was then public, and by consequence Absolution too. The Animadverter objects in the 4th Place; Page 11. That their concurring all three together in the Absolution, cannot be sufficiently excused. Why so? I had given him several Reasons why it needed no excuse. Upon what account are they all passed over? If they are defective, he should have shown it. The Animadverter grants that this joint Absolution, perhaps carries nothing of ill with it. How comes it about then to be no small Presumption, as he calls it? Is it so great a Presumption to do that which carries nothing of ill in't? Yes. In some People's Opinion a greater than the contrary. Ibid. But the Presumption lies, it may be, in pretending to do a thing so unusual in the Church, without any Church-Rule, etc. I have already shown this Practice not to be unusual, and justified it from Precedents of Antiquity, and Parallel Cases in our own Church; and till the Animadverter can answer what I have brought, I think he presumes too far in making his Exceptions. As for any direct Precedent at home, there is no necessity for that. 'Tis true, we officiated as Priests of the Church of England; but we were not tied up to any Liturgick Rites, nor acted under any Church-Rule. The Office was private, and left at liberty. In such Circumstances, Parallel Reasonings and Warrants from Primitive Practice, are sufficient Justifications. Where Matters are undetermined by Authority, nothing but Opposition can make a Fault: In these cases, he that is not against the Church, is for Her. All this while I argue only for myself, tho' if any thing I have offered proves serviceable to Mr. Snatt, and Mr. Cock, I am glad of it. However I can't help thinking the Animadverter unfair in saying, P. 27. I speak for the rest: Since I have fully declared the contrary; Vid. 2. Defence and published an Advertisement on purpose to prevent all possibility of mistake. At last the Animadverter objects, That I combat an Adversary of my own making. Animad. p. 13.14. It seems then, that I have proved more than was necessary, and over-defended myself. Best of all! I had rather do so, than fall short. But I mistook the Bishop's Declaration. For they never denied that the laying on of Hands was oftentimes used by the Ancients in Absolution: Ibid. But they understood, (I presume.) And thus he presumes, and conjectures the Sense of these Reverend Prelates for a Page together: And writes more upon their Thoughts, than their Declaration. But the Animadverter does but presume all this while I'm glad to find he is not positive. A Parenthesis of Conscience, is better than none at all. However; with this Gentleman's Favour, I had reason to prove the Absolution unexceptionable, both with respect to Imposition of Hands, and the other Circumstances mentioned in my Defence. For the Bishops were pleased to make a kind of general Assault, so that 'twas necessary to guard at all Quarters. And that I did not defend my felt without an Aggressor, will appear by considering the Declaration. Here, these Reverend Prelates condemn the Absolution upon two accounts. They are pleased to say, ' 'twas both irregular in the Thing, and insolent in the Manner; Declar. p. 7. without Precedent either in our Church, or any other that we know of. To be clear. What is the Thing? The Thing, is the Absolving Sir William, and Sir John, precisely and irrespectively considered, without relation to Place, Ceremony, or Words. This I have dispatched elsewhere, and so I shall leave it. But what is the Manner? The Declaration will tell you. 'Tis Absolving at the place of Execution; Declar. p. 6. by laying all three their Hands upon their Heads, and publicly pronouncing a Form of Absolution. The Imposition of Hands, the joint Absolution, the public pronouncing a Form, are all Branches of the Manner, in the Bishop's Description. This, these Reverend Prelates are pleased to condemn without Restriction of Censure, Distinction of Case, or Particularity of Circumstance. Had I not reason then to suppose their Exception general, and defend the whole? With submission, why was Imposition of Hands censured in the gross, if it was not altogether disliked, or thought at least too much for any Churchman, but a Bishop? And as for the Form; if it was not a Fault, why does it appear in ill Company? Why is it brought to the Bar, and placed among other exceptionable Circumstances? It wears a suspected Livery, and stands with the Articles of Accusation, without any mark of Innocence, or Distinction. Yet after all. To do these Reverend Prelate's justice, I don't think them averse to a Form of Absolution; neither did I affirm it. I said no more than that 'twas mentioned with seeming Coldness, and Abatements of Expression: And with submission, so I say still; and the wording of the Declaration proves it. So that this Remark of mine has neither Disingenuity, nor false Accusation in't, as the Animadverter pretends. 'Tis only a gentle Reprisal on the Declaration when it lay fair. And this I persuade myself the Reverend Prelates will not take amiss, if they please to reflect on the unexpected Language I had been treated with. The Animadverter is now come to the 2d Branch of his first Division, Page 16. and considers the Absolution with relation to the State. And here he makes the Countenance of a very obliging Person. He is sure he does not hate me. Page 18. He would rather excuse, than aggravate my Crime, as he phrases it. Nay, for once, to be courteous, He will even force himself against his Reason. What can be more Tender and Melting, than such Expressions as these? What! Deny his Judgement out of Good Nature, and be Civil against Sense, and Reason? Who could desire a Friend to go farther? And can you imagine a Gentleman of all this Ceremony should charge me with impertinent Allegations, pronounce me guilty of a during piece of Insolence; call me a new-fashioned Guide, and that I am nearest of Kin to a Church beyond the four Seas, which without doubt is some terrible one, if there be not more of them. But this is not all. He makes me an Abettor of Assassinations, and prays God I may be the last Confessary that may trouble the World in this kind: And lastly, endeavours to menace my Brethren of the Clergy, into a Protestation against my Proceedings: Which if they refuse to make, it seems they must not be allowed to have any Honour, Conscience, or Protection either, Page 7, 16, 22, 28. if he can help it. Here is stark Love and Kindness for you! Was ever any Treatment more engaging, or good Humour set off with better advantage? Page 16. This is the gentle Animadverter, who does not love to use hard words, who hates it in others, & c! This Gentleman puts me in mind of the * An Engine for Executions, in the Figure of a Woman. Maid of Presbourgh, who makes you a very decent Honour, and is strangely Caressing in her Gesture, when she is just going to dispatch you. 'Tis well the Animadverter has not Force for such a Compliment, for he has shown his Inclination enough in all Conscience. But the best on't is, the Cause has made him kinder in his Reasoning, than in his Language. To engage him a little farther. Page 17. He fancies the Absolution was intended to be public. How does the Animadverter make out this? Because I had informed him that Mr. Ashton was publicly Absolved at the same place, and in the same manner; and as he adds, by a Non-jurant Minister. Granting all this, what follows? It seems it follows, That he that seriously considers this, will be very apt to believe that it was the Resolution of the Non-jurant Clergy to Absolve their Friends in that manner. Some People are very apt to believe, and to say too, more than is necessary: And 'tis not always either Evidence, or good Nature that makes them so forward. Mr. Ashton was publicly Absolved by a Non-jurant Clergyman, therefore all the Clergy of that Persuasion, have concerted a Resolution to Absolve their Friends in that manner! Where is the Consequence of this? One did it once, therefore all must do it always! Are all these Non-jurant Churchmen of a Mind in everything? Are they so much resigned to any single Authority, or so unalterably bound up to Precedent, as not to leave themselves a Latitude for Time and Occasion? Such lame Conjectures as these, raised into Accusation, are no generous Indications. He that charges so high as the Animadverter, certainly aught to prove his point a little more home. The Animadverter asks me, Pag. 19 Why I will not reveal any part of the Confession? I conceive he might have given himself an Answer. I had told him, I was not obliged to reveal it; and what I was not obliged to reveal, the Canon obliged me not to reveal. Had I done otherwise, I had been pronounced Irregular, been false to Trust, and Confidence; betrayed and discouraged Confession: I had been guilty of a Practice both dishonourable, and unconscientious, and deeply censured by Antiquity, as well as our own Church. This Plea, Page 21. had it any thing to support it, the Animadverter owns would be the best Argument. He means, I suppose, 'twould be a good one, and justify the whole Practice. And which way does he prove it unsupported? Why, he wonders at it, and makes a strong Appeal, and asks a foreign Question or two, and falls into a fit of satire, and so takes his leave: But as for engaging the main difficulty, and proving the Case exempted by the Canon, he desires your Excuse. This is the Animadverter's gentle way of confuting the best Argument; and you may guests at the reason of his Civility. And, tho' the Animadverter has not answered what I offered in my two first Papers; yet if he pleases to see this matter treated more at large, he may consult my Reply to the Absolution of a Penitent, etc. Which, tho' written before, was published some few Days after his Animadversions. The Animadverter is offended, Page 23. because we did not conceal the Absolution from the People. How could that be at a public Execution? Would he have had us Whispered over the Office, as if it had been Treason, as 'twas in Daniel's Time, to pray to GOD Almighty? Had this Method been taken, the Charity of some of the Audience might have said we had muttered a Charm, or at least, made use of a Form of that Church on the other side the four Seas. But we were to blame for letting all the Hearers know it to be an Absolution. Ibid. That's strange! He supposes the People to hear the Form pronounced, and yet they must not understand it! I perceive the Animadverter is for Prayers in an unknown Language, otherwise his Expedient is impracticable. After all; why so private in a solemn and warrantable Action? Why should Innocence and Regularity be afraid of Notice and Observation? I have shown the Office in all respects defensible: And had no reason when I was in a public place, to perform it in a conscious and clancular manner. Ibid. But by pronouncing the Absolution, we looked upon the Fact as no Sin: Just on the contrary. He may be assured if we had not believed some Facts of those Gentlemen to have been sins, we had never Absolved them. For Innocence stands in no need of Forgiveness. But what these Facts were, I can never tell him. He insists farther; That if Sir William died a Penitent, and I Absolved him as such, then surely Sir William did express his Repentance for being concerned in the intended Assassination. Page 27. I have fully satisfied this point in my Reply, etc. and thither I refer the Animadverter. There the Reader also may see his State-Objections answered more at large; my Adversary in that Paper having proposed the chief of them before. And by this time, Pag. 26. I suppose, the Animadverter's Harangue may be inoffensive, and the edge of his satire rebated. He may now, take down his Triumphal Arch, recant his Censures, and recall his Protestation. Pag. 28. And if I might advise him, as he has done the Clergy; It should be to exert himself with more Temper and Caution: And for his own sake at least, to keep Zeal and Justice, Passion and Conscience, somewhat better proportioned. J. C. July 1 st. 1696. FINIS.