I Once thought to disengage from this Dispute, and pursue my Defence no farther: But this Author appearing of a higher Class than some of the rest, I shall pay him the Civility of an Answer. I perceive this Director of Absolutions was resol­ved to distinguish himself, and promise something more than ordinary, at his first setting out: What else could make him clap Mr. Cranburn in his Title-page, with Sir William Perkins, and Sir Iohn Friend, and then point it all against Mr. Collier? I would gladly know how Mr. Collier is concern'd with Mr. Cranburn, unless it is because he never saw him; and was for­ced to abscond, some Weeks before the other was Executed? I'm confident these are some of the Director's most plau­sible Reasons for placing Mr. Cranburn to my Account. And therefore he never so much as mentions his Name in a­ny part of his Paper. What then could be the fancy of Gar­nishing his Title with Mr. Cranburn? Truly the Reason is pretty obvious. We are to observe then, that Mr. Cranburn [Page 2] when he suffer'd, left some Disobliging Sentences behind him. Now the common People who don't use to carry much Chro­nology in their Head, by seeing him joyned in Print with the Executions of Sir Will. Perkins and Sir Iohn Friend, would be apt to conclude that they all three died together, or at least were Absolved by the same Persons: And then according to the Logick, and Charity of some People, it would probably fol­low, that whatever they thought Exceptionable in Mr. Cran­burn, might be thrown upon me.

I'm sorry to see Calumny stand thus in the Front of a Paper, and am afraid those who begin without Conscience, will end without it too. The Director in the entrance upon his Sub­ject flies out into some passionate, and very uncourtly Lan­guage. The Apology he makes for't is somewhat surprizing, he tells his Friend, You know my way, and therefore will, I hope, take the less Offence at the roughness of the Expressions. (Absolut. p. 2.) It seems Prescription in Misbehaviour is a good Ex­cuse with some Men; and an old Fault is enough in all consci­ence to justifie a new one. If he keeps to his Maxim, may he have the credit on't.

This Director has the ill luck to miscite me at his first Quo­tation; he makes me say, My Presence, and Officiating at Ty­burn, has been too hotly censured, &c. But, by his favour, my Words run thus: My being present, and in some measure officia­ting at the place of Execution, has been censured with a great deal of Heat. (Defence, p. 1.) Now the first way of wording the matter, is stiff, Pedantique, and Disrespectful; the other, Common, and Inoffensive. He that does not see the diffe­rence of these two Turns of Expression, has an ill Palate for Sense: And he that does see't, and misquotes the worst, must lie under a harder Imputation. The Director has fallen into this Mistake more than once, as may be seen by comparing Page 6. line 14. and P. 8. l. 26, 27, of his Paper, with P. 4. l. 17, 18; and P. 5. l. 26, &c. of my Defence. And where­ever his Memory fails him, 'tis always for some unlucky Pur­pose or other: 'Tis either to ridicule the Expression, or wea­ken the Argument, or provoke the Reader. And yet after all, [Page 3] this Gentleman has the Resolution to complain of Shifting and Disingenuity! And why am I charged with Shifting, &c? (P. 7.) For this wise reason: Because I defended myself with Queries, and did not think fit to expose my Conduct, or fail in my Duty. The Director may please to take notice that the Questions were used to put the Objectors upon the Proof; to prevent breaking into the Confession, and acting against the Canon. Were a Man never so well prepared, he is not bound to inform against himself, to declare away his own Safety, or violate his Conscience. If nothing but the Knowledge of for­bidden things will serve the turn, Curiosity must be ungratifi­ed. When People will press thus unreasonably close, the way is to hold them at a Distance, and Dispute at the Arms end. Nothing can be more defensible than such a Method, while it keeps within the compass of Truth. This our Director may call Fencing, and Evasion if he pleases. But I hope 'tis no harm to Fence against Aggression and Design, and to Evade playing the Fool, or the Knave. 'Tis presum'd by the Director, &c. That Sir William acquainted me with his being privy to the in­tended Assassination; and that I ought not to have given him Absolution, without publick signs of Repentance. But how does the necessity of such a supposition appear? 'Tis possible Sir William might keep some part of his Conscience to himself. The plainness of a Case, or the niceness of Discovery, may sometimes lead Persons towards such a Reserve. Our Church does not insist upon particularities, nor make the entireness of Confession necessary to Absolution. She Absolves upon gene­ral Repentance at the daily Confession: And in the Rubrick of the Visitation of the Sick, the Minister is directed to Examine the Sick Person, whether he repents him truly of his Sins: But the Rubrick does not say, the Enquiry must reach into every single Circumstance and Miscarriage; and the Penitent be o­bliged to lay his whole Memory before him. If we will collect the sence of the Church from her practise both at the Sacra­ment, and daily Confession, a general Declaration of Repen­tance seems sufficient. And may not such Considerations as these perswade a Penitent, That 'tis lawful for him to trans­act [Page 4] part of his Repentance between God and his own Soul; e­specially if we reflect on the natural aversion there is in Man­kind, to discover their Failings?

If 'tis objected, That 'tis very improbable Sir William should conceal that from me, which he confessed to the Committee. To this I Answer: That Artificial Questions, and Surprize, some­times extort Confessions, which would not have come of their own accord. I don't say any thing of this happen'd, but the possibility of it is enough for my purpose. Farther: 'Tis pos­sible Sir William might be straiten'd in point of time. I had scarcely two Days of private Conversation with him: He ve­ry much desired this freedom might have been longer conti­nued, but it was not thought convenient. Now might not the Examination of private Life, the Interruptions of Compa­ny, and the Business of Devotion, employ the Visits of a Day or two? The Priest is not tyed to any stated Method, or Or­der of Questions; but may begin and proceed, at what Heads of Confession he pleases: Might not therefore the publick part be refer'd to a farther opportunity, since the Execution was at a distance, and neither of us under any Apprehensions of the Denial of Privacy? If these unexpected Restraints prevented him in speaking his Mind at length, I desire the blame may not lie at my Door. If 'tis urged, that where there is ground to suspect a Confession imperfect, Absolution should be refu­sed. I Answer; That if the usual Liberties of Access had been unrestrained, there had been some colour in the Objecti­on; but when the Penitent is bar'd the advantage of Privacy, deny'd the Conversation of the Priest, and wants leizure to lay the whole of his Practise before him, the case is otherwise. No Man ought to suffer for unavoidable Accidents, for things which were utterly out of his Power to prevent. If a Person gives fair Indication of Sincerity, and Christian Temper, if there appea [...]s a hearty regret for what has been done amiss, and he repents as far as he discovers; why should the inter­ruptions of Force, and the involuntary Defects of a Confession, deprive him of the Benefit of Absolution? In such Circum­stances, I desire to know whether the Priest is not bound to go [Page 5] upon Presumptions of Charity, and to reason from the regu­larity of Behaviour; to conclude that the Penitent has compleated his Repentance by himself, and confess'd that to God, which he could not do to his Minister? What fault can the Director find in such Proceedings as this? If he would know whether these Probabilities I have mentioned, were mat­ters of Fact; I ask his excuse: I am not obliged to answer that Question. The likelyhood, or possibility of things comes up to my point. For from thence he must grant, 'tis by no means certain, that there was either Negligence in my En­quiry, or over-indulgence in the Absolution. And then with submission, why should a Man fall under Severities at all Ad­ventures? Why should the Punishment be certain, where the Fault is not so? Are the Interests of Liberty and Fortune to lie at the Mercy of Suppositions, and be over-ruled by Con­jecture and Surmise? Besides, the supposed mismanagement is never to be made out. If there was Truth, there can be no Evidence, without which 'tis somewhat hard to punish. The Matter passed only between Sir William and my self. From him there can be no Account, neither is there any reason to expect it from me. He that turns Informer against him­self, has a very slender share of Discretion. Besides, if I were never so well furnish'd and enclined for such a Prosecution, the Canon would stop it. (Can. 113.) This the Director calls ma­king Black, White, (p. 6.) and gives us a great deal of Flourish and Declamation about it. But by the way; I think making Black, White, is a better natur'd Undertaking, than the con­trary, at which this Director seems to have no ordinary Ta­lent. However, I shall prove against this Gentleman that I have represented the Matter in its natural Complexion, and made use of no Varnish or false Colouring. This will appear by inspecting the Canon; in which 'tis positively decreed, That if any Man confess his secret Sins to the Minister.—We strait­ly Charge and Admonish Him, that he do not at any time reveal, and make known to any the Crime committed to his Secrecy, under pain of Irregularity: Except they be of such Crimes as by the Laws of this Land his own Life may be question'd for concealing; or as the [Page 6] Latin has it, of which the Concealment is a Capital Offence, Can. 113.

That this Canon is full for the point I cited it, I shall make good by removing two Objections.

First, It may be objected, That Sir William's being privy to the intended Assassination was no Secret.

Secondly, That the Life of the Priest may be question'd for concealing a Design of this Nature, and by consequence the Case falls under the Exception of the Canon.

That Sir William's being privy to the Assassination was no Secret, may be pretended,

First, Because this Charge was Sworn against him at his Tryal: And,

Secondly, Because he owned it in his last Paper. To the

First, I answer, That tho I intend not to object against the Witness, yet I must say in general, That to infer the truth of the Fact, from the Oaths of the Evidence, is no good reason­ing. I grant where other Circumstances are unexceptionable, the Legality of the Sentence may be concluded from thence: But to be positive any further, is to argue from a false Princi­ple. As long as Men have Defects in their Memories, and Ir­regularities in their Wills, there is no depending upon their Infallibility. I desire not to be understood in a sence of Re­ference and Reflection. However, it seems Sir William con­ceiv'd himself misreported with relation to the Commission. This Commission the Witness lays a singular stress upon, points it upon Person and Design, and swears it in proof of the As­sassination. On the other hand; Sir William's Paper owns no more than a general Authority to make War, without any par­ticular, extraordinary Application. Thus I have related this matter of Fact, without interposing my Opinion.

[Page 7]Secondly, If home Swearing is a sufficient proof of the re­ality of things, to what purpose is the Prisoner allowed to go on in his Plea of not Guilty, to defend himself, and weaken the Credit of a Testimony?

But Sir William own'd his being privy to the intended As­sassination in his Paper. He did so. And for all that it might be a great Secret before. The Paper was not publick till af­ter the Execution; and then the Absolution was over. In a word, 'Tis ridiculous to make any Inferences from the Paper upon me, unless they can prove me pre-acquainted with it.

Secondly, It may be objected, That the Life of the Priest may be question'd, for concealing the intended Assassination, and by consequence the Case falls under the Exception of the Canon. This is the Opinion of the Director, who after he has quoted the Canon, puts this triumphant Question to his Friend: What can any one see here, that should compel Mr. Collier to conceal what Sir William confess'd to him of the Assassination? In an­swer to this Question, tho I don't say, Sir William confess'd the Assassination to me, yet for the Director's satisfaction, I shall give him all the liberty imaginable. And since Supposi­tions neither affirm nor deny any thing, I shall go upon the largest, and the Director may make his Advantage.

Put the Case therefore, that a Person Condemn'd should own to his Confessor, that he had been privy to a Design of Assassinating the King, and had his share in the Concert: Granting this, I say, the Priest's Life cannot be question'd for concealing the matter; and if not, the Canon obliges him to Secrecy. This I shall prove from the Reasons following,

First, Because the bare Concealment of Treason, without any thing of Engagement, or Consent, is not always Trea­son: Especially if the Acknowledgment implies only a past Resolution, and not any intention for the time to come. For the purpose. If a Man tells me, That he once was in a De­sign to kill the King: In such a case the omission of a Discove­ry [Page 8] amounts to no more at most than Misprision of Treason, and there the Forfeiture reaches no higher than Liberty, and Estate.

Secondly, There are several Circumstances peculiar to a con­demn'd Person, which alter the common Case. For

1st, There is no danger that the Penitent will discover his own Confession, neither if he should, is he a legal Witness without a Pardon: And this Favour he is in no likelihood of receiving only for the Merit of being False to his Confessor. But not to insist upon this, I argue,

Thirdly, That the Law is founded upon Reason, and there­fore no Punishment ought to be stretched beyond the reason of the Case, and the clear Intention of the Legislators. Now the reason why the Concealing a Practice which is Treason in the Design, is made Criminal, is because by such Conceal­ment, the Guilty Person may be left in a Condition either to execute the Design, or escape being punish'd. But neither of these Inconveniences can happen from a condemn'd Person. Such a one is disabled from finishing his Design, though his Inclinations should continue: And being under Restraint, he may be punish'd at pleasure.

So that nothing either of danger or impunity can follow from such a Concealment. And when a Plot is perfectly broken, and most of the Persons concern'd either Executed, or in Prison, the reasons for discovering such a Confession, sink still lower if 'tis possible.

Thus I have argued from the largest Grounds, and Suppo­sitions, and made it evident that the Canon did not oblige me to reveal the Assassination-part of the Confession, provided I had been acquainted with any such Thing. And as I obser­ved in my Second Paper, what the Canon does not oblige me to Discover, it obliges me not to Discover. And if I was bound up to Silence in this point, I desire to know which way I could publickly press Sir William to an Acknowledgement, without laying open the Secret, and breaking the Canon? 'Tis true such a Violation seems to sit lightly upon the Director's Spi­rits. He tells us very entertainingly, That he who falls under [Page 9] that Curse, is for ever uncapable of giving any more Ab­solutions, (Absolut. p. 6.) I own I have not the Director's Courage. I dare not say any thing that looks like Burles­quing the Authority of the Church, and Drolling upon the Power of the Keys. I believe the Church a more Noble Society than the State: that her Original is as Divine, her Commission as Unquestioned, her Powers as Significant, and the Ends of her Institution more Important: I say more Important, as much as Time is outstretched by Eter­nity, and Heaven is better than an Estate, and Hell is more dreadful than the Gallows. For these Reasons I shall al­ways desire to have a great Regard for Ecclesiastical Laws, and the Orders of my Spiritual Superiours. Besides, the Canons are Ratified by the King, and can't be broken with­out insulting the Civil, as well as the Sacred Authority. However, the Director thinks it somewhat extraordinary, that a Man who stood Sentenced as a Contriver of the most Barba­rous and Ungenerous Design, &c. should receive so easie and so glorious an Absolution! (p. 2.) I have already given him a Reason why the Absolution was so Glorious as he calls it, (First Defence, p. 2.) Therefore if he pleases he may Ex­postulate upon this Head with some Body else. And as for the Easiness of the Absolution, how comes he to know that? No Person ought to accuse without Certainty: That is the lowest requisite. Well! He guesses at it because there was no publick Abhorrence of the Intention, &c. This Director sure has not seen the Report of the Committee, Apr. 2d. The not minding of which, he charges as a great omission upon me: The Votes of that Day tells us, That Sir William con­fess'd himself privy to the intended Assassination, and thought 'twas a fault that he approv'd it. I hope the Director will not dispute the Testimony of the Committee: And if not, the two main Articles of his Charge must be drop'd. For,

First, This Confession implies Repentance, as to the As­sassination part. For when a Man thinks he is in a Fault, [Page 10] he must repent of course, if he is in earnest. I say he must do this unless he is an Atheist, and such People don't use to press for Divines to Visit them.

Secondly, Here is publick Repentance too; and I suppose such a one as the Director will not be so hardy as to except against. Will he deny the Committee to represent the Com­mons, or the Commons the Kingdom? If not, which way could an Acknowledgment be made more publick, or con­vey'd with better Advantage? Is Confession good no where but at the place of Execution? Let him produce any Law of Church or State for such an Assertion. If he can­not, the Objection is at an end, unless he prefers the Au­thority of the Crowd, to that of St. Stephen's Chappel. If the Director replys, That what Sir William own'd to the Committee, can do me no Service, because I endeavour to represent my self Ignoramus, as he decently expresses it. (Pag. 7.) My Answer once more is, That this is conclu­ding too fast. I grant I did say, in my first Defence, That I never saw Sir William after his Examination, till Friday Noon; nor the Votes that mentioned it, till after that Time. And upon this I asked, How I could know what Sir Wil­liam had confess'd? And what of all this? The direct Af­firmations are all Truth: And for the Question, it can be no disadvantage, for it asserts nothing. Questions don't al­ways imply a determined sence. They are sometimes put to silence an over-inquisitiveness, and check an unreasonable Accusation. Tho I did not see Sir William after his Exa­mination, till the time he Suffer'd, yet there are other ways of Communication, besides Visiting. I never affirm'd I had no Correspondence with him by Letters, or Message, after I was refused to see him. So that notwithstanding any thing that appears, Sir William might acquaint me with what passed between him and the Committee; he might re­peat the regret he had there acknowledged, and receive Absolution upon that Score. The case might happen thus for ought the Director knows to the contrary. For my part I affirm nothing: My Office does not give me leave, nei­ther [Page 11] does my Defence require it. But Sir William made no Reparation in one respect, but what he was forced to, which made up his Resignation, and compleated his Penitence. (Absolut. P. 5.) Most Divinely said! This Man seems to re­lish an Execution extreamly, what else could make him in­sult the last Misfortunes of Gentlemen, and play upon the Agonies of the Dying? These are Excesses of Charity, and admirable stroaks of Humanity and good Nature! His saying that I Absolved both without, and against Au­thority, (Pag. 8.) is like the rest. To argue upon the Director's Principles. I desire to know, Whether the Priesthood is not a sufficient Authority for Absolution? Had the Apostles their Power of Binding and Loosing, from the Civil Establishment? If not, where lies the Necessity of a Lay-permission? If the Church is not sui juris in mat­ters purely Spiritual, and Independent in the Exercise of the Keys, Christianity lies at the Mercy of the State, and may be extinguish'd at pleasure. Call you these Directi­ons according to the Church of England? God forbid! This Divinity comes from Selden, or Erastus, or else from Hobbs's Leviathan; and makes Religion look like a Court-inven­tion, and a Politique Design.

And now at parting I should call the Director to an ac­count for his ill Language, and return him his Present: But I hope I have learned Religion to better purpose; and be­sides, I scorn the Meanness of such a Contest.

In short, If the Director thinks it worth his while to Misreport, and Inflame, and Sharpen the Edge of Severity, I shall never envy him the Advantage, but heartily wish him a better Employment.