THE CASE Of the Two absolver's THAT Were Tried at the Kings-Bench-Bar, at Westminster, on Thursday the 2d of july 1696. For giving ABSOLUTION AT The place of EXECUTION TO Sir john Friend and Sir William Parkens.  
I. FOR a Minister of the Church of England to give Absolution to a dying Penitent, if he humbly and heartily desire it, is a lawful Act, as appears by the Rubric in the Office ●●r the Visitation of the Sick; which is not only con●●m'd by, but a part of the Act of Uniformity.  
II. There being no particular Office appointed in the Liturgy for Persons to be Executed (whose Souls are as precious, and as much to be taken care of, as the Souls of those who die in their Beds) that for the Visitation of the Sick, which by parity of Reason is fairly applicable to the case of Persons to be Executed, who are to be considered as dying Men must be used, or none at all in their Case; unless the Minister's officiating are left to the liberty of Extemporary Effusions, which rather become a Calvinistical Elder, than a Presbyter of the Church of England. And why is it not as justifiable to use the Office for the Visitation of the Sick in the Case of Persons to be Executed, as to use the Prayer in that Office Publicly in Churches in behalf of the Sick, which are appointed by the Rubric to be used in the sick Persons Chamber; for which only necessity, and a defect in the Liturgy is pleaded?  
III. The Circumstances of time and place and Ceremony being entirely left by the Rubric (where there is neither Command nor Prohibition concerning them) to the discretion and choice of the Ministers Absolving, and the Penitent to be Absolved; how could it be Criminal in the absolver's of Sir I. F. and Sir W. P. to give them Absolution with Imposition of Hands at the place of Execution, which they desired as a comfortable Support under the Terrors of Death, as a Viaticum in their Passage to Eternity?  
IU. 'Tis entirely left to the Absolving Minister to judge of the Spiritual state of his Penitent, whether he be duly qualified, or not, to receive Absolution.— Vid. Rubric, ut supra.  
V. The Minister Absolving is to rest Satisfied with an Account of the general Repentance of the Person to be Absolved, who is not obliged to make a particular and special Confession of his Sins to the Sin-absolver, unless he feel his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter; as appears by the Rubric, ut supra. To affirm the contrary, is to plead for Auricular Confession, as 'tis taught and practised in the Church of Rome.  
VI If the Person to be Absolved makes a special voluntary Confession of his Sins, the Sin-absolver is bound by the Canon to conceal it, and keep it a Secret from all the World. Vid. 113. Can. If it be Objected that in case of a Treasonable Conspiracy which the Penitent confesses, the Sin-absolver is not bound to conceal it, it may be answered, that in the Case of Sir I. F. and Sir W. P. there was no treasonable Conspiracy so pretended or laid to their charge, but what was discovered and made public, and which they were Convicted of.  
VII. Suppose, that after the Death of the Absolved Penitent, who dies in his Bed by the Visitation of God, a Paper should be published under his own Hand (which the Sin-absolver knew nothing of) whereby it appears that he was Guilty of Heresy in the Church, and Treason in the State, and that he justified both the one and the other: Shall this affect the Sin-absolver, and make him a Criminal in giving Absolution? If not, then, with Submission, neither could the Paper left by Sir I. F. and Sir W. P. with the Sheriff, and afterwards published, which the absolver's were altogether Strangers to, any ways affect the said absolver's, or render them Criminals in giving them Absolution.  
VIII. Suppose that Sir I. F. and Sir W. P. had left no Paper with the Sheriff, and none had been published after their Death; 'tis presumed then that the absolver's would not have been Questioned, or Censured for giving them Absolution.  
IX. Nay farther, suppose that Sir I. F. and Sir W. P. had left a Paper with the Sheriff, which he had afterwards published, acknowledging their Gild, and signifying their Repentance as to that particular Crime which they were Convicted of; then 'tis presumed that the Absolution would have been so far from being Censured for giving them Absolution, that it would have been generally agreed to be a Charitable, regular and lawful Act. And if it was in itself a lawful Act at the time of the Performance of it, no subsequent Act or Circumstance whatsoever, which the absolver's were Strangers to, would make it unlawful. Nothing could make it unlawful à parte post, which was a lawful Act à parte ante. But if it was in itself an unlawful Act at the time of the performance of it, no subsequent Act or Circumstance whatsoever; how grateful soever to the Government, as in the before mentioned instance, could make it lawful.  
FINIS   

LONDON: Printed in the Year 1696.