ACcording to your Desire, I have sent you here my Thoughts concerning the Proceed­ings of the three Absolving Clergymen, at Sir J. Friend's and Sir W. Parkins's Executi­on, together with some short Remarks on Mr. Col­lier's [Page 4] two Papers in which he has endeavour'd to justify those Proceedings.

I shall consider 'em, First, With Relation to the Church; and Secondly, With relation to the State.

As they are considered with Relation to the Church; I take 'em to be irregular and unwarrantable on seve­ral accounts.

For, 1st. Such an Imposition of Hands, as those Clergy-men made use of in the Absolution, is by no means warrantable. Mr. Collier endeavours to shew that the giving of Absolution, with imposition of Hands, was the general Practise of the Antient Churches, particularly in St. Cyprian's Age, and that the per­formance of this Ceremony was allow'd to Priests, and sometimes to Deacons as well as Bishops.

Suppose all this, Yet this Practice of those Anti­ents does not at all justify Mr. Collier's Proceedings in this Point, and that for these two Reasons.

1st. The Absolution in which those Antients made use of Imposition of Hands, was not such an Absolution as that in which Mr. C. was concern'd; but an Absolution of Persons Excommunicated, or such as had deserted the Communion of the Church. It was customary in the Antient Church to Ex­communicate such as had committed any very grie­vous and notorious Crime, and after they had given the Church Satisfaction, and were again to be re­conciled [Page 5] to it; they were Absolv'd from the Cen­sure of the Church by the Imposition of Hands. What they meant in this Case by the Laying on of Hands, Ep. 74. p 213. we may learn from S. Cyprian. They look't upon those that were out of the Church, to be depriv'd of the Holy Ghost, and (as he saith) not to be truly Christians. And, as now in our Ordinations, we make use of the Imposition of Hands; so the Anti­ents frequently made use of the same Ceremony for restoring to the Communion of the Church, such as before were Excommunicated.

For the same cause it was that they that were Baptiz'd either by Hereticks or Schismaticks were not among them receiv'd into the Church, but by Imposition of Hands; for tho they own'd the Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks to be valid, yet they did not believe that any so Baptised, could be endued with the Holy Ghost, till the Church had laid their Hands on 'em. For the same reason the Imposition of hands was made use of when any one that had turn'd He­retick, or Schismatick, was again reconcil'd to the Church; as also in the Absolution of the Lapsi, that is, such as in the times of Persecution, had Sacrificed to the Heathen Gods; and by doing so, had thrown themselves out of the Communion of the Church.

The Examples and Authorities produced by Mr. C. are all of this kind; neither can he (if I am not much mistaken) produce any one instance of the Im­position of Hands in Absolution, except in the Recon­cilement [Page 6] of Offenders to the Church. His Albaspinae­us will hardly be able to supply him with any that are pertinent to his purpose. But,

2dly. Could he shew that in the Antient Church, this Ceremony of Imposition of Hands was made use of in Absolution, in other cases besides that mention'd; yet his Proceedings, (who professes himself to be a Member of the Church of England, and to Govern himself by the Orders of it) could not be Justified by any such Instances of those times.

It is Tertullian's Observation, Lege fi­dei manente caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt no­vitatem cor­rectionis. De Virg. Ve­land, c. 1. That the Law of Faith remaining intire, other things belonging to Dis­cipline and Conversation, admit alteration according as circumstances require.

And accordingly our Church hath declared, That every particular, or National Church hath Authority to Ordain, Change, and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church,Art. 34. Ordained only by Man's Authority, so that all things be done to Edifying.

Now since the laying on of Hands in Absolution, is acknowledged to be only a Ceremony, and not to be necessary to it; it must be in its own Nature change­able, and so may be used or laid aside as the Church shall see meet.

[Page 7] And since it is a Ceremony not retained in the Church of England, it's being in use heretofore in another Church or Age, cannot warrant the use of it in any particular Officer of this Church, no more than it will the standing on the Lord's Days be­tween Easter and Whitsontide, the Trine Immersion, and several other Rites, too many to be here re­peated.

The Church of England has as much Power and Authority, as to the Institution or Abolition, the Use or Disuse of any particular Ceremonies, as St. Cyprian's own Church had; and a Minister of the Church of England, is not to govern himself herein by the usage of the Church of Carthage, but by his own. And therefore it is not sufficient for Mr. C. to shew Imposition of Hands in Absolution to be a Cere­mony used in the African Church that will justify his Practice; for then by the same Reason all Ceremonies of those Churches, and of all other Orthodox Churches in that time, or before, would become obligatory; But, (as a Member of the Church of Carthage would then) he must be a­ble to prove it to be the Injunction or practice of his own Church. What say the Articles, or Rubricks, or Canons, or Offices of the Church where he Officiates? What they injoyn, he must use; what that uses he may Practice: But he cannot be a Rule to himself. He is no more to add▪ than he is to injoyn or alter, for they all belong to the same Authority. So impertinent is that which [Page 8] he alledges in his own defence, viz. ‘That as the Ce­remony of Laying on of Hands is not prescribed in the Rubrick of Absolution; so neither is it Prohibited.’ For if the not being Prohibited, could be a sufficient warrant for a particular Person's Practice, we might return to the condition the Church was in, in St. Au­stin's Time, which he complains of; nay, to the Ce­remoniale of the Church of Rome; and so the Ru­brick of our Church concerning ceremonies, why some are abolished, and some retained, be altogether in vain. Good Order, Uniformity and Decency require, that, as those Ceremonies which the Church Ordains, should not be omitted at pleasure by particular Mini­nisters; so They should not make use of any but what the Church and Law amongst us do Prescribe; of which Mr. C. may be convinced, if he peruse the Act of Uniformity, XIV. Car. 2. or the Rubrick of Cere­monies, why some be abolished, and some retained.

Secondly, It is contrary to the Practise of the Church of Christ in general, and against the Directi­on of our Rubrick in particular, to Absolve a Person, or to assist in the Absolution of a Person, whose Confes­sion and Repentance are known no otherwise than by the Testimony of others; as Mr. Collier assisted in the Absolution of Sir I. Friend; and Mr. Snatt, and Mr. Cook in that of Sir W. Parkins. 'Tis requir'd by the Rubrick in the Visitation of the Sick, that before the Absolution there shall be a Confession of Sins to the Minister that Absolves, and that after the Confession, the Penitent shall desire Absolution from him.

[Page 9] It runs thus: Here shall the sick Person be mov'd to make a special Confession of his Sins, if he feel his Conscience troubled with any weighty Matter. After which Confession, the Priest shall Absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort, &c. The Instances brought by Mr. C. to justifie his Practice, from the Custom of the Ancient Church, of admitting Strangers to Communion, by Virtue of a Certificate given by the Bishop under whom they formerly lived; and from the Custom of our Church of conferring Holy Or­ders on such as are not personally known, upon the Recommendation of others, is by no means sufficient. For as to the former, he passes by the main point, and doth not so much as venture to give one Instance of Persons Absolved after that Manner, by a joint Act of several Presby­ters; and by the Major part of such as had no Personal knowledge of the State of the professed Penitent. And the Instances he gives, are not at all parallel; since those Ancients never gave those Certificates to such as were not Personally known to them, or whose Case they were not privy to; and much less to such as stood Condemn'd for Notori­ous Crimes. As to the latter, [the Practice of our Church,] he is guilty of a gross mistake; for Orders amongst us are never Conferr'd upon such as are not Personally known. The Law and Canons in­deed require, That the Person to be Ordained should be recommended by some approv'd Presbyters, that [Page 10] give him Credit as to his Behaviour and other Qualifications by a Certificate. But notwith­standing, he is further to be particularly Examined by the Arch-Deacon, the proper Offsicer deputed by the Law and the Church for that Service;V. Office for Ordi­nation. who is to Enquire of him, and Examine him, and is to give an Account of the Candidate's Qualifications, and to declare Publick­ly and Solemnly to the Bishop before his Ordi­dination, that the Person whom he presents, is apt and meet for the Ministry. But were it so, that Orders are Conferred upon others Recom­mendation, yet it is supposed to be what the Law and the Canons of the Church allow and appoint. But to absolve or to assist in the Absolution of a Person, whose Confession and Repentance we are not immediately acquainted with, is contrary to the Directions of the Church; neither is there any Necessity that can justifie it, or if it could, it had no place here. For it had been sufficient and re­gular also, if He that receiv'd the Confession had given the Absolution without any Assistant.

3. Another thing that I look upon to be Irregu­lar, is, their pronouncing Absolution in Publick, when there was not any publick Confession. What Example of this kind does Mr. Collier meet with in the Antient Church? In a Case where the Crime had been Publick and Notorious, and the [Page 11] Penitents were reconciled to the Church and ad­mitted to Communion, the Absolution indeed was publick, but so was also their Repentance and Con­fession: But in such a case to give a Publick Abso­lution, upon a secret Confession and private Repen­tance, is peculiar to these Persons, and what they have the Honour to be the first Inventers of. But this I shall have farther occasion to touch again on by and by, when I come to consider their Pro­ceedings with relation to the Civil Government.

Neither 4thly, can their concurring all Three together in the Absolution, be sufficiently excus'd. For tho' perhaps in it self it carries nothing of ill with it, yet 'tis no small Presumption in the Clergy, to pretend to do a thing so unusual in the Church, without any Church-Rule, or any former President in the Church, especially, in that which they stand related to.

Mr. Collier would perswade us, that such things as these which I have condemn'd as Irregularities, are left by the Church to the Prudence and Discretion of those that Officiate, tho' they are but of the inferiour Clergy. No such matter. It is not the Inferiour Clergy to whose Prudence and Discretion such things as these are left. There are many things left to the Prudence and Discretion of the Bishops, the Fathers and Go­vernours [Page 12] of the Church: But the Inferiour Cler­gy, are to act according to the receiv'd Rules and Directions; they are not to Innovate in any thing without the permission and leave of their Superiours. Mr. Collier might have learnt from St. Cyprian, (to whom, as he acknowledges, we are principally obliged for the Remains we have of the Discipline and Government of the Primitive Church,) a better and truer Notion, concerning the Obe­dience and Subjection of the Inferiour Clergy to their Diocesans, and the Honour that is due to the Episcopal Order. There never was any Bishop that paid greater deference to his Inferiour Cler­gy, than that Great Man did: Yet would he have suffered his Clergy to alter the Rules and Customs of the Church without his Consent? Would he have thought well of such forward and presuming Presbyters? It was usual with him to consult with his Clergy, for the Government and good Order of his Church; but he knew better things, than to suffer them to make use of their Prudence and Discretion, in opposiion to, or diffe­rently from the Customs and Rules of his Church. He expresses in many of his Epistles, a very great dislike of the Proceedings of some of his Clergy, in using their own Discretion, in admitting the Lapsi to Communion without his Know­ledge and Consent. He asserts his Episcopal Authority, and he strictly charges them not to take upon them after that manner, and [Page 13] not to Absolve for the future, till he himself should return and judge of the sufficiency of the Confession and Repentance of those that were to be Reconciled, and together with the Clergy lay his Hands upon them. He tells them roundly, that in the Time of his Prede­cessors, no Presbyters durst do such things, thatQuod enim non periculum me­tuere debemus de offensâ domini; quando aliqui de Presbyteris, nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum domini judi­cium, neque nunc sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nun­quam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est, cum contumeliâ & contemptu Praepositi, totum sibi vindicent? Ep. 16. their Proceedings were an Affront to his Authority; andInde per temporum & succes­sionum vices, Episcoporum or­dinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio de­currit, ut Ecclesia super Episco­pos constituatur: Et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Prae­positos gubernetur. Ep. 33. that all the Acts of the Church ought to be governed and directed by the Bishops of the Church. And it plain­ly appears from his Eigh­teenth Epistle, that his Regular Clergy did not dare in his absence to Absolve the Lapsi, even in a Case of Necessity, when they lay on their Death-beds, till he himself had Writ to them, and given them a Commission to do it without him.

I shall say no more of these matters, but on­ly take notice how briskly and triumphantly Mr. C. lays about him sometimes in the open Air without any Adversary to oppose him. You [Page 14] would think the Bishops, according to his Re­presentation, (if you had not read their Declara­tion) were to be very easily refuted, and guilty of strange mistakes. But when you compare the Declaration and the Answer together, you will have occasion to wonder, who it is Mr. C. is pleased to write against. The Bishops never denied that the laying on of Hands was often­times used by the Antients in Absolution: But they understood (I presume) that it was not made use of in such an Absolution as Mr. C. was concerned in. They never denied but that in reconciling to the Church a Person that was out of its Communion, even Presbyters them­selves did sometimes Officiate alone with that Ceremony. But they do not allow that they should take upon themselves to alter the Esta­blished Rules and Customs of the Church, or to add any to them which are not already Esta­blished. They do not deny, but that a Malefactor condemn'd to die, if he appears to be truly Pe­nitent for all his Sins in general, and particular­ly for that for which he stands condemned, and does humbly and earnestly desire Absolution, may be allow'd that Benefit and Comfort; but they do not approve of its being perform'd in Publick without as publick a Confession, much less by such Imposition of Hands; neither do they allow that any such Clergy-man should Absolve, [Page 15] who is not immediately and particularly acquaint­ed with the Condition of the Person.

There is one thing more which ought not to be passed by without an Animadversion, and that is Mr. Collier's disingenuity in laying to the Charge of the Bishops, that they blame the Ab­solving Clergy-men for pronouncing a Form of Ab­solution. With submission (says Mr. C.) a Form is better than no Form. He adds, that he is sorry to see the solemn Offices of Religion mention'd, with such seeming Coldness and Abatements of Ex­pression. I hope Mr. C. will, on second Thoughts, be sorry for so false an Accusation, and think himself oblig'd to ask pardon of the Bishops for Expressions so unbecoming towards Persons of their Character and Station. And that you may be able to judge what reason he has to do so, I shall here produce their Words.

Lastly, For those Clergy-men that took upon them to Absolve these Criminals at the place of Execution, by laying all three toge­ther their Hands upon their Heads, and publickly pronouncing a Form of Absolution: As their manner of doing this was extreme­ly [Page 16] Insolent, and without Precedent, either in our Church or any other that we know of; so the thing it self was altogether ir­regular. By which it appears, that They do not disapprove of their using a Form of Absolution, but of their using it with such Circumstances, and on such an Occasion.

I come now to consider the Proceedings of the Absolvers with relation to the State.

As this matter is considered with relation to the State, I cannot call it by a softer Name than that of a daring—I do not love to use hard Words; I hate it in others, and I would not do it my self; yet I cannot but call it a daring piece of Insolence. Mr. C. is pleased to tell us, That if he had been permitted to wait upon Sir W. Parkins in Prison the Morn­ing that he was Executed, he had given him Absolution, not in publick, but in private.

[Page 17] In Answer to which, I must beg your leave to observe Three Things. 1. That Mr. Snatt and Mr. Cooke were permitted to be with Sir John Friend so long, that they might have Absolv'd him in private, if they had not chosen to do it in publick. 2. That after Mr. C. was prohibited, there was another Non-jurant Minister, one Mr. Bell, allow'd to wait upon Sir William Parkins, by Sir William's own desire: Now, why did not that Gentleman Absolve him there in private? What reason can be given for that, except it be that the Absolution was intended to be publick? Was it because Sir William desired to be Absolv'd by Mr. Collier? Why would not the Other's Absolution sa­tisfie him; especially considering that he was of his own choosing? 3. It is to be observ'd, that (as Mr. C. himself informs us) upon the same oc­casion at the Execution of Mr. Ashton 1690. the Absolution was pronounced by a Non-jurant Mini­ster in Publick, at the same place, and in the same manner. Would not this alone (were there no­thing else to be said) give us too much reason to suspect, that it was not Mr. Collier's being un­capable of pronouncing the Absolution in Private, that made him do it in Publick, but that he had all along intended to perform it in Publick. He that seriously considers that the same was done be­fore at Mr. Ashton's Execution, and with the same Circumstances, and what I before observ'd, will be very apt to believe, that it was the Resolution of those of the Non-jurant Clergy who have for­saken our Assemblies, to Absolve their Friends af­ter that manner. I might add, that Mr. Collier's [Page 18] Inclination to perform the Absolution in Publick, does sufficiently appear from his forwardness in joining with the other two Gentlemen in the Abso­lution of Sir John Friend, with whom he had not been at all concern'd.

Mr. C. is a Gentleman whom I know not, and I'm sure I do not hate: And I would rather ex­cuse him if I saw any way to do it, than aggra­vate his Crime. I will for the present force my self even against my reason to yield to what he says. Let the matter therefore stand thus, as to him: Yet it cannot be denied, but that the Resentment which the Government has express'd on this occa­sion is highly reasonable and just.

For First it ought to be consider'd, that to Ab­solve a Person condemn'd for High-Treason, if he owns the Fact, and does not shew himself sorry for it, is plainly to declare that we look on that Fact as no Crime. And therefore though the Ab­solution be pronounced in private, yet if it be known that there was such an Absolution, the Government has reason to look upon the Absol­ver as an Enemy, and accordingly to proceed a­gainst him; how much more when the Party Ab­solv'd is not only condemn'd for High-Treason, but for the horridest part of it, a Design to As­sassinate a King! When I first lookt into Mr. Col­lier's Papers, I was in hopes he would have given the World an Assurance, that he thought Sir Wil­liam Parkins, whom he had Absolv'd, truly Peni­tent [Page 19] for the Crime for which he was condemn'd, and that he was surpriz'd to find afterwards by the Speech, which he left behind him, that he was not really so. If he had said this, he had said something material. But instead of that, you will meet with nothing but what will abundant­ly convince you, that when he Absolv'd him, he did not look upon him to be sorry for that Fact in particular: And therefore since he Absolv'd him, he justified the Fact. Mr. C. tells us, that he did not see Sir William Parkins's Paper till after the Execution. But did he not know by his Con­fession how far he was engaged in the Crimes he was condemn'd for, and how little sorry for it? He says he is not obliged to reveal any part of his Confession. But why will he not? One Reason may be, because it will make, not for him, but against him. If Sir William denied, that he was any ways concern'd in that of which he was ac­cus'd, and for which he was condemn'd, or if he repented of it; why will not Mr. C. tell us so? To say the Truth on't, Mr. C. seems here to be at a loss; whilst at one time, he saith, Sir William gave him the State of his Conscience, and upon which he judged him fit for the most solemn A [...] ­solution of the Church; and yet another while, he would have his Reader believe, that Sir William did not acquaint him with the intended Assassination. But because this was a little too gross to impose upon his Reader in, he shuffles it off again; and would have it understood, that if he was acquain­ted with it, it was in Confession; and then he is [Page 20] obliged to conceal it. What else can be the meaning of what he saith? Pray did he confess it to me, and have I revealed any part of his Confes­sion? Then I had been guilty of High Misdemeanour indeed. I had broke the 13th Canon, and been pro­nounced irregular by the Church, &c.

Mr. C. must have been in some distress, or else one of his capacity could not but have seen into the inconsistency of this. For

1. If Sir William gave him a State of his Con­science, he must give him an account of his ac­quaintance with the intended Assassination. For that was a Crime could not escape his Penitent's cogni­zance; and being of such an heinous nature in common estimation, the least that can be supposed of Sir William is, that he would know his Casuist's Judgment of it; whether it was a Crime or no Crime.

2. If Sir William did not acquaint him with it; yet the Confessary was bound to lay it home to his Conscience, if he himself knew it, and judged it to be a Crime; and for which the Confessary had a great advantage and a fair opportunity offer'd to him; because, he saith, Sir William seem'd very desi­rous of absolution at his hands.

3. The Confessary was bound not to be ignorant of this; for who would go to a Criminal, and be prepared to give him Absolution, and yet know nothing of the Crime he stood condemned for? [Page 21] This is contrary to common Sense, and to the whole Form of proceeding according to the Ru­brick in the Office; and what no Man in his Wits can believe of Mr. C. Nor indeed could he be here­in ignorant, unless he had led the Life of an Her­mit; and been carried directly from his Cell to Newgate, to hear his Confession.

And yet when he talks of the Committee, and the Votes, &c. its after as loose a way; and what none that know the circumstances of the Confessary can imagine.

4. However there remains a terrible Cast be­hind; for he suggests that he should be chargeable with no less a Crime than betraying Confession, if he should discover it; and if he had owned that Sir Wil­liam acquainted him with the Intended Assassination.

This I own would be the best Argument if it were true, or had any thing to support it. But how sacred and inviolable soever, the Seal of Con­fession is; and which our Church has obliged all Guides of Souls to preserve in cases secret, and that concern the private State of a Man's Soul: Yet there is an exempted case, as Mr. C. acknowledges, in which the obligation doth not hold; and that is, when the Crimes are such as by the Laws of this Realm, the Minister's own Life may be called in question, for concealing the same. Can. 113. And what Crime is there that more apparently falls un­der this exception, than Treason, and the Assassi­nation [Page 22] of a Prince? A Crime which indeed had at the time of making this Canon, some Patrons in the World; but none till now in our Church. And now I leave it to every Impartial Person's Judgment (but amongst them in this Argument, I am afraid I cannot promise Mr. C. will be one) to observe, whether the Exception in the Canon doth not reach the case in hand, even upon the largest sup­position, as Mr. C. affirms.

Upon the whole I know not by what Principles these New-fashioned Guides proceed; nor to what Church they are so near a kin, as that on the o­ther side the four Seas: Such Principles are as un­intelligible to me, as the Methods of Murder he talks of. And if after all, Mr. C. can Absolve without knowing the Case of the Penitent (as, he did not know it, if he was not acquainted with Sir William's Concernment, or Charge at least, in the Assassination) or can judge him to have aright to all the Privileges of Communion, that as far as he seems to know, died Impenitent as to the highest Charge; then such a Confession and such an Absoluti­on, and I may add such Confessaries too, are the first, for ought I know of that sort and, I pray, God they may be the last that shall trouble the World in this kind.

The Government is throughly perswaded, that Mr. C. and his Absolving Brethren did believe the Persons Absolv'd were concern'd in those things for which they were condemn'd, and that they did not repent of 'em. Is the Government mistaken [Page 23] in this Opinion, or not? I would ask Mr. C. &c. that one Question. They dare not say that it is: They must therefore excuse it, if it look a little hard upon them and express a Resentment suita­ble to their Faults.

But 2dly. Should we grant that Mr. C. inten­ded to pronounce the Absolution in private, if he could have been admitted to the Prisoner the last day, yet when he came to give it at the Place of Execution, he did it (as well as Mr. Snatt and Mr. Cook) in such a manner and with such Circum­stances, as shew, that he design'd to make it as publick and notorious as possibly he could. It plainly appears that they all three had con­certed and agree'd that Matter before-hand. If they needs would Absolve them, why did they not en­deavour to conceal it from the People? No, that would not serve their turn. They were not content to pronounce the Absolution, unless it were known to all the Hearers and By-standers that it was an Absolution. And because there were many Spectators, who were not also Hearers, they con­trive by using an unusual Ceremony to make it be seen where it could not be heard, and to make it as more notorious, so also more memorable. And lest it should be suspected that they were not all of the same mind, they all join their Hands to­gether in the Absolution of both Persons. As they shew by pronouncing the Absolution, that they look upon the Fact as no Sin, so by doing it after that manner, with such unusual Circumstances, [Page 24] they bid the World take notice that they do not think it a Sin.

And after all this, can they think the Govern­ment so stupid as not a little to rouse itself up at so publick and daring a Defiance? They may call these Proceedings, if they please, an innocent Con­duct; they may think of the Government as they please; they cannot but know, that whatever they think of the Government, It thinks (upon good grounds) very well of itself; and of consequence they must acknowledge, that it had Reason to re­sent their Carriage and Behaviour as extremely in­solent, and to endeavour, by shewing itself sensible of this Affront, to secure itself from the like for the time to come.

Mr. C. tells us, that when at Mr. Ashton's Exe­cution, Absolution was given in the same manner with Imposition of Hands, at the same place, and upon the same occasion, and a justifying Paper left by the Per­son that suffer'd; at that time there was no Excep­tions made either to Manner or Thing. The Perfor­mance was so far from displeasing, that the Sheriff gave his Thanks for the Solemnity of the Office. There was no Complaints either at Lambeth, or Whitehall, no publick Invective, no seizing of Body and Goods; in short, no Signs of the least dissatisfaction. And who (says he) could imagine, that the bare repeating of an Action, should raise such a Storm upon us now, which was perfectly inoffensive before? To punish in this manner without Warning, or Precedent, without [Page 25] Canon, or Law, is (with submission) somewhat unin­telligible. I have Reason to believe that what was done of this nature at Mr. Ashton's Execution, was never made known to the Governours either of the Church or State: And how could they pu­nish a Person for that which they never heard of? If a single Example of this kind be made use of as a Precedent, it is fit the Government should take care that there may be no more such Precedents. But saith he the performance was so far from displea­sing, that the Sheriff gave his thanks for the Solemnity of the Office? What for the Office of Absolution, without declaring his Repentance for the Crime he was condemn'd for? He might as well have said, that the Sheriff thought well of Mr. Ashton's justifying Paper, because he was so civil as to re­ceive it; and well of the Cause he died in; be­cause he would not interrupt him in his last Hours. Both alike probable, and both alike true. But a­mong some Men Civility will pass for approbation; and every Man that is not rude shall be of their Party, or a well-wisher to it. The Worthy Person that at that time bore that Character is alive, and the best Relater of his own Actions: But he knows nothing of this matter; and saith it is no other than a Fiction; or at best a gross mistake.

Mr. C. thinks it somewhat unintelligible to punish in this manner without Warning, or Precedent, without Canon, or Law. To me it is not only somewhat but very unintelligible, that to punish for such a Proceeding is to punish without Warning, or Precedent, or Canon, or Law. Are not Men suf­ficiently [Page 26] warn'd not to do any thing that may reasonably be construed to be a Defiance to the Government? Is there no Law or Canon of the Church to Admonish such Presbyters as presume of themselves to act contrary to the Rubrick, and openly to use such Ceremonies as are not cu­stomary? Is there no Law to punish and chastise such Persons as declare, by their Actions, in the face of the whole World, that they think it no Crime to bring in a Foreign Power; (whose busi­ness it has been to extirpate the Protestant Religion in his own Country, as well as to trample under his Imperious Foot the native Privileges of his People?) Is there no Law to call such Persons to account; that violate the Laws of Nations, and that combine to assassinate one whom the Nation after the most solemn manner has owned to be their King; and who enjoys the Crown by the surest of Tenures, the affe­ctions of his People, as well as the Consent of the Estates of the Realm? Is there no Law, nor Canon to punish such Confessaries, as Absolve those that imbrue their hands in the Blood of Princes, and that dye without declaring any particular Repentance for what they stand condemned for, and a Repentance as open and notorious as their Crime? By this new sort of Casuistical Divinity, They may dye as innocent as the Child unborn, who combine to call in and join with a Foreign Force; that should they have had Success answerable to the design, would have laid the whole Nation desolate, and made it a Field of Blood. These are the Persons that are absolv'd. But how are they absolv'd? Mr. C. [Page 27] peaks for the rest, I, saith he, absolv'd Sir William as a Penitent. Thus indeed it should have been, if the nature of Absolution had been heeded; for that (as Mr. C. rightly observes) supposes both sin and repen­tance in the notion of it. And if Sir William died as a Penitent, and Mr. C. absolv'd him as a Penitent; then surely Sir William did express his Repentance, and his Repentance, especially, for being concerned in the intended Assassination. Here Mr. C. cautiously slips this over (as he always doth, when it comes in his way) For, saith he, as to the matter of Sir William's Repentance, that is never likely to be known from me. A caution that is indeed fit to be observ'd (as has been before said) in cases secret and that belong to the Closet. But what's this to Sir William's Case, who was condemned for a Crime as notorious as heinous; and what he confess'd himself to have been guilty of? Now can Mr. C. be supposed to receive his Confession, and that this should not be a branch of it? Then it would have been a defective Confession indeed. But, saith he, supposing I received a defective Confession, am I accountable for it? Yes surely, accountable to God for suffering him that was ready to receive the fatal stroke, to dye Impenitent; for so Sir William did, if he neither charged himself with it, nor was charged with it by Mr. C. And accountable he is to the State, nay to all Mankind for absolving him as a Penitent, that died guilty in design, of an execrable Assassina­tion; which is in Mr. C. a fair step to the justifying of it. So that as to the World Sir William is thought to dye Impenitent; and if not so to Mr. C. he must dye as to him a Martyr.

[Page 28] I shall add but a word or two more, and that is to tell you, that I think the Non-jurant Clergy are obli­ged both in Conscience and Honour, and as they de­sire the Protection of the Government, to Protest a­gainst these Proceedings of their Brethren, Mr. Col­lier, Mr. Snatt, and Mr. Cook; and not by Silence or Connivance, much less by direct and avow'd Appro­bation, to consent to their Irregularities, and to make their mere being of the Party, a sufficient Qua­lification, how uncanonical soever they were in giving Absolution to others, to obtain from them their Own.