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 Bishops 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.

[Page 2]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 Antient Church. The Animadverter grants the Proof of this Point, but disputes the Application. The Absolution (says he) in which those Antients made use of Imposition of Hands, was not such an Absolution as that in which Mr. C — was concern'd: 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 An­tients.
• Secondly, That supposing all my Instances of Antiquity did relate to Excommunicated Persons, &c. 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 confin'd to the Occasions he men­tions, without great Reflection upon the Antients.

The Animadverter affirms, That the Fathers look'd upon those to whom this Ceremony was applyed, as deprived of the Holy Ghost. But that the Antient 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, [Page 3] and gave an Admission to the Priviledges of the former Allyance. Now in many cases this Satisfaction could not be made without running through a long Course of Pennance, 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 publick 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 Carefullness did it work in them? What clearing of them­selves? What Indignation? What Fear? &c. 2 Cor. vii. 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-denyal, and not be under the Conduct of a Divine Influ­ence? This is to deny the necessity of Grace; to make the Soul [...] in Vertue, and to give away the Antients to the Heresie of Pelagius. 'Tis true, the Antient Church did use Imposition of Hands as a Mark of Authority, and a Circumstance of Paternal Benediction: She believ'd with­out doubt this Application a Recommendation to God's Fa­vour, and that the Communications of his Spirit were en­larged upon such an Expedient. This Perswasion is agree­able to the Doctrine and Practise 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 Antients always look upon those they Absolved with Imposition of Hands, under such an uncom­fortable [Page 4] 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 refus'd them the releiving Ceremony, till Pennance was over, and Satisfaction made, as the Animadverter asserts.

2dly, Supposing all my Instances from Antiquity did re­late to Excommunicated Persons, &c. 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 Antients forbad Imposition of Hands, or at least forbore it, in all other Ca­ses of Absolution, besides those above-mentioned: But this he has not in the least attempted. I have sufficiently pro­ved, that giving Absolution, with Imposition of Hands, was the general Practise of the Primitive Church. Does it not therefore lie upon the Animadverter to prove, That this Ceremony was appropriated to the more solemn and publick 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 alledged 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 Antients, 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 practise 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 [Page 5] antient Liturgies are most of them lost. That little which stands upon Record, was in all likelyhood most remarka­ble; by which we have reason to believe the more com­mon Instances were regulated. Churches 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 applyed to those who were not under Censure.
• Thirdly, That private Pennance was perform'd with the same Rites with that which was publick.

1st, That Imposition of Hands was given before Satisfa­ction, as well as after.

It was used at the beginning of Pennance, 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 Schisme 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 [Page 6] Hands, in order to be made a Bishop, and then we will put him under Pennance with this Ceremony. Lib. 2. This Father elsewhere complains of these Schismaticks, for pat­ting the Clergy under Pennance, by Imposition of Hands: That herein they contradicted the Practise of the Catholick 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 Pennance, and sometimes for Reconciliation, as the Reader may be informed if he pleases.

That it was given at the beginning of Pennance, 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 eis manus tanquam poenitentibus, vel tanquam Fidelibus Laicis imponatur, i.e. Let not Hands be laid on them, either as Penitents, or as Faithful Laicks. From hence I shall observe two things.

First, That Imposition of Hands was introductive to a Course of Pennance; 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 Pennance; and Pennance, besides the rigour of the Discipline, would have barr'd them the Pri­vileges of Communion. Now this would have been pu­nishing twice for one Fault, which was contrary to the Apostles Canons, and the Practise 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 reckon'd a Pu­nishment, [Page 7] 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 sence of Antiquity, are two ranks of Chri­stians contradistinguish'd, 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 receiv'd by the Faithful, was an Absolution-Imposition, and had some Confessionary reference, I prove thus in a word. Ei­ther this Imposition, &c. 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 Pennance was perform'd with the same Rites with that which was Publick.

The difference between these two consisted only in the Abatement of the Solemnity: In some circumstances which were to be perform'd 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 Pennance 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 [Page 8] 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 publick 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 above-mention'd, cites 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, Publick and Private. That is called Publick, which is pub­lickly perform'd 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 practis'd in other Cases besides those which relate to the publick Re­concilement of Offenders.

The Animadverter goes on, and endeavours to shew, that the Plea of Antiquity, tho' never so well furnish'd with resembling Cases, will not justifie 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 chang'd or abolish'd, as Circumstances require, at the discretion of every Particular or National Church. For this he cites 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 easie to determine. I never asserted the Necessity of Imposition of Hands, or that Absolution was imperfect without it: Neither does [Page 9] my Practise suppose any such thing. Well! But this Ce­remony is not retain'd in the Church of England; and there­fore the Practise of the African Church, tho' never so Pri­mitive, is no sufficient Warrant; — For good Order and Vniformity 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. &c. This Sentence looks somewhat artificial, and seems de­sign'd to mislead 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 Practise 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 Ru­brick 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 Rubrick and Act of Vniformity menti­oned by the Animadverter, provide only against Innovati­on in stated, and publick Administrations. 'Tis in Churches, and Church-Appointments, that the Rubrick condemns ad­ding or diminishing. But this is none of the present case. For the Church has not prescrib'd 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 publick, the Choice and Occasion are private, which makes it fall under ano­ther [Page 10] Denomination. The selected Office in this case, is like Coyn melted into Bullion. The publick 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 condemn'd the Ceremony thus applyed, 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 Rubrick, and takes notice of it only by way of Practise and Approbation: When Matters stand thus I say, her Non-prohibition implies Allowance in private Ministrations; and in cases no ways determined by her self. 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 concern'd. 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 pull'd 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 Inferiour 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 Antient 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 [Page 11] an Execution? Does the Church either in her Rubrick, 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 prescrib'd, 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 antient Gesture (practis'd 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 assign'd 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 resign'd 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 observ'd. For the Animadverter cannot deny that Imposition of Hands in Absolution, is a significant, solemn, and antient 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 swell'd to such an Aggra­vation; because there was no breach made in any publick Order or Constitution. I don't mention this, as if the Pra­ctise needed an Excuse, but only to shew the Right to such a Plea, if there had been occasion.

[Page 12]The Animadverter proceeds in his Articles of Impeach­ment, and objects, That 'tis against the Practise of the Church in general, and against our own Rubrick 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 maintain'd. Here he tells us, That by the Rubrick in the Visitation, &c. special Confession of Sins is required, and after that, the Priests 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 Practise clash with the Directions of the Rubrick? The Church for the right Application of the Keyes, 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 mention'd is al­ways condemned! This is extraordinary arguing! Under favour, we may much better collect the sense of the Ru­brick by the Practise of resembling Cases. And here I al­ledg'd both the Antient, and our own Church in my De­fence. My Instance from the Antient Church, was a ge­neral Custom of admitting Strangers to Communion, by Vertue of a Certificate given by the Bishop from whence they came. To this the Animadverter makes two Excep­tions.

[Page 13]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 Antients 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 Priviledges 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 Priviledges, 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 Antients 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 receiv'd 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. [Page 14] The Animadverter himself observes, That our Laws and Canons require, That the Person to be Ordain'd 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 discharg'd 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 affirm'd, 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 confer'd 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 Arch-Deacon 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 Practise. 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 Or­dain'd? 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 Arch-Deacon (says he) is to enquire of the Candidate's Qua­lifications, Ibid. and to declare publickly to the Bishop, That he believes the Person presented, apt and meet for the Ministry. Now I would gladly understand, why the Arch-Deacon should tell the Bishop all this, if he knew it be­fore? Information always supposes Ignorance in the Per­son inform'd, or at least that 'tis lawful for him to be so. To acquaint the Bishop with what he was bound to know by immediate Tryal, and Experiment, would be extreamly untoward. The Church don't use to trifle at this rate in [Page 15] her solemn Offices. In short, the Functions of the Arch-Deacon are Demonstrations, that the Ordainers are not obli­ged to personal Knowledge of the Ordained. This is so plain, that I'm amaz'd the Animadverter shou'd 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 publick, when there was not any publick Confession. I am surprized the Animadverter should object this to me: Have I not told him I was deny'd 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 publick 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, &c. 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 [Page 16] the 3d place, That Absolution was sometimes publick among the Antients when Confession was private. I have already proved, That Absolution was frequently given at the begin­ning of Pennance, and the Animadverter grants it at the end of it. The proving therefore publick Pennance assign'd to private Confession, proves Absolution was publick, tho' Confession was not so. Because without Absolution, Pen­nance could not be regularly compleated, nor the Person restored to the Peace of the Church. Now that those who confessed privately were order'd to do open Pennance, 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 Pennance. 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, publick Pennance 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 deliver'd 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, Confess'd to none but the Priest, tho' she was at the same time openly Penitent. [Page 17] For tho' Confessions were private, yet Pennance was then publick, 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 joynt 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 Peoples 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, &c. I have already shown this Practise 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 tyed 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 Practise, 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 my self, tho' if any thing I have offer'd 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 publish'd an Adver­tisement on purpose to prevent all possibility of mi­stake.

[Page 18]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 my self. 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 Antients 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 consider'd, without relation to Place, Ceremony, or Words. This I have di­spatch'd 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 publickly pronoun­cing a Form of Absolution. The Imposition of Hands, the joynt Absolution, the publick pronouncing a Form, are all Branches of the Manner, in the Bishop's Description. This, [Page 19] these Reverend Prelates are pleas'd 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 Prelates justice, I don't think them averse to a Form of Absolution; neither did I affirm it. I said no more than that 'twas mention'd 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 Reprizal on the Declaration when it lay fair. And this I perswade my self 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 Judgment out of Good Nature, and be Civil against Sense, and Reason? Who could desire a Friend to go far­ther? [Page 20] 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-fashion'd 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 allow'd 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 Complement, 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 publick. How does the Animadverter make out this? Because I had inform'd him that Mr. Ashton was publickly 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, [Page 21] or good Nature that makes them so forward. Mr. Ashton was publickly Absolved by a Non-jurant Cler­gy-man, therefore all the Clergy of that Perswasion, 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 resign'd 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 ought 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; betray'd and discouraged Confession: I had been guilty of a Practise 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 justifie the whole Practise. 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 Satyr, 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 guess at the reason of his Civility. And, tho' the Animad­verter has not answer'd what I offerd 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, [Page 22] &c. 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 publick Execution? Would he have had us Whisper'd 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 mutter'd 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 pronounc'd, 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 publick place, to perform it in a con­scious and clancular manner. Ibid. But by pronouncing the Absolution, we look'd upon the Fact as no Sin: Just on the contrary. He may be assured if we had not believ'd some Facts of those Gentlemen to have been sins, we had never Absolv'd 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 A [...]solv'd him as such, then surely Sir William did express his Repentance for being concern'd in the intended Assassination. Page 27. I have ful­ly satisfied this point in my Reply, &c. and thither I refer the Animadverter. There the Reader also may see his State-Objections answer'd more at large; my Adversary in that Paper having proposed the chief of them be­fore.

[Page 23]And by this time, Pag. 26. I suppose, the Animadver­ter's Harangue may be inoffensive, and the edge of his Satyr rebated. He may now, take down his Tri­umphal Arch, recant his Censures, and recal 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 proportion'd.