AN ANSWER TO THE Animadversions ON TWO PAMPHLETS Lately Publish'd By Mr. COLLIER c. 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 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 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 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 'T is 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 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 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 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 Hands in order to be made a Bishop and then we will put him under Pennance with this Ceremony 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 't is 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 'T was 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 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 't is prohibited in the Canon by way of Moderation and Abatement of Rigour But Confirmation was always thought a Privilege not a Punishment 'T is 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 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 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 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 't will 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 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 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 't is 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 'T is 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 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 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 't was 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 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 'T is 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 't is 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 The Animadverter proceeds in his Articles of Impeachment and objects That 't is 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 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 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 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 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 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 't is against himself The Arch-Deacon says he is to enquire of the Candidate's Qualifications 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 't is 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 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 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 'T is 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 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 't is 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 Farther 'T is 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 and receive their Confessions To this Office Sozomen tells us 't was customary to appoint some Priest eminent for his Prudence and regular Behaviour 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 For tho' Confessions were private yet Pennance was then publick and by consequence Absolution too The Animadverter objects in the 4th Place 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 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 'T is 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 I speak for the rest Since I have fully declared the contrary and publish'd an Advertisement on purpose to prevent all possibility of mistake At last the Animadverter objects That I combat an Adversary of my own making 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 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 't was 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 ' T was both irregular in the Thing and insolent in the Manner 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 'T is Absolving at the place of Execution 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 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 't was 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 'T is 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 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 He would rather excuse than aggravate my Crime as he phrases it Nay for once to be courteous He will even force himself against