most of the Fathers put together they are not much to be blamed But I must needs say that Presbyterians is now become a term that I understand not every Nonconformist who is not Congregational is in some mens mouths a Presbyterian though he never declared any dislike of Episcopacy yea though he vehemently protest that his judgment is for Episcopacy even for all and every part of Primitive Episcopacy In Dr. Heylins late History of Presbyterians a Presbyterian is sometimes one that would have the Lords day observed as a Sabbath one that thinks election and non election to be absolute and if a Presbyterian be such a one sure it would be no difficult task to prove that there were such men in the world long before Culvins name was ever heard of With other mâ—n a Presbyterian is the same with the old Non conformist and against such a Presbyterian it is that Mr. Scrivener seems to have laid his action but besides that he hath laid his Action coram non Judice I think that when the merits of the cause come to be examined he will quickly be non-suited For it will be impossible for him to prove either that such a Presbyterian is a Schismatick or that if he be a Schismatick his Schism is novel The old Non-conformist was one that could not think a Bishop to be by Divine institution an Officer of a superior Order to a Presbyter sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was the block he could never get over In matter of worship he could not satisfie himself to practise the Ceremonies retained and prescribed in the Church of England That the Ministers ordained in England were not true Ministers or that they might not be submitted to as such he never thought He could and did give and receive the Sacrament only sometimes he both Preached and Administred the Sacrament in private to such as were of his own opinion and perswasion If every such man must be accounted an Arian and a Schismatick he may comfort himself in this that he hath many among the Ancients who if they had lived in these days must needs have been called by the same name If such a one decline tryal by the Fathers it is only because he hath not had the good hap to read the Fathers or because he foresees the tryal will be too tedious and chargeable and might sooner be ended if only Scripture were made the Rule Mr. Scrivener is not sure such a stranger in our Israel as not to know how hard the Diocesans are put to it when the Fathers are brought against them He can tell no doubt who they be that are wont to call St. Hierom a discontented Presbyter and St. Cyprian a Popular Bishop He knows who they be that have undertaken to ruine Diocesan Episcopacy by Clement and Ignatius And it is possible he hath heard of those who did undertake to overthrow our English Hierarchy by Dr. Hammonds dissertations for Episcopacy He knows that when two were appointed to dispute against Dr. Preston in the five points the Dr. presently divided and set them at variance betwixt themselves and cannot chuse but think it very easie for the present Non-conformists if they were brought to a conference with the Prelatical to make them do execution one upon another To deal a little more closely with Mr. Scrivener he hath in the name of the Church of England and his own laid an action against a Novel Schism If the Non-conformists upon summons made shall think meet to appear to this Action doubtless they will plead not guilty they will not confess themselves guilty of causing any new schism but will averr that they proceed upon the same Principles that were laid down by the great instruments of our reformation here in England It will be replied that they oppugne Bishops they will rejoyn in the words of Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 385. That they doubt not to make it evident that the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine right but the convenience of that form of Church government to the state and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation and that they for their parts were never asked whether Episcopal government was suitable to the condition of this Church when it was at first reformed but whether it be founded on Divine Right Now to answer them here the words of the declaration they are to make must be scanned and the particulars of those Books they are to assent and consent to must be searched if from them it do appear that he who doth without quillets declare assent and consent must receive Bishops as an higher order of Officers than Presbyters and that by Christs institution how will they be found guilty of Novellism or Schism unless Wickliff and Cranmer c. be found guilty also But perhaps it will go harder with them in the matter of Ceremonies Really it will and if for these they separate from the Church I am content they be cast for certainly it is against the whole rule of charity and humility to break off communion in all Ordinances because some one Ordinance is administred with some such ceremony as I account inexpedient or unlawful If any Church make the approving of the expedience or lawfulness of that Ceremony a necessary condition of my holding communion with her then she and not I causeth the Schism But to speak to the matter in issue The present Non-conformists are not the first that scrupled the use of the English Ceremonies Sundry of those who were martyred in Queen Maries days would never be brought to use them most of those who then fled into forreign parts both in their exile and at their return either durst not or did not care to use them Some of them for Non-conformity refused preferment some were turned out of that they had some took up with very small preferment where no eye could envy them I have sometimes thought upon it who they were that in Queen Eliz. Reign did the Church most service in disputing and writing against the Papists and I find them to have been such as either did not conform or conformed heavily and by halves I have heard it censured as an error in policy for a Court not to regard those in a time of peace whom they were forced to make use of in a time of war Let Mr. Scrivener consider whether the Conformists have strength and number sufficient to look the Papists and other adversaries in the face unless they take in the Non-conformists if they have not is it prudence to be at odds with those that must joyn with them in the day of Battel If he say they have number and strength enough let him then consider whether it may not be that some of them will prove false and treacherous or at least make a dishonourable peace I could here shew that sundry of them who most rigorously pressed conformity in Q.
their hands As for what His Majesty is made to say pag. 36. That it suits neither with the Authority nor decency of Confirmation that every ordinary Pastor should do it and that there was as great reason that none should confirm without licence from the Bishop as none Preach without his licence I doubt the Relator hath both wronged the King and the Bishops cause The King for we can scarce conceive he should have such high thoughts of the Authority or decency of confirmation as to imagine that either was lessened by being administred by those by whom Baptism is administred And the Bishops cause also for it will not serve their turn that Presbyters should not confirm without their Licence as they do not Preach without their Licence unless it be also made appear that none can be licensed to confirm but themselves Before I pass from this I must also advert That the Relator makes the King to tax St. Jerome for asserting that a Bishop is not Divinae ordinationis and the Bishop of London to insert That if he could not prove his ordination lawful out of the Scriptures he would not be a Bishop four hours Wherein I observe the policy of the Bishop who reserved power to himself to continue a Bishop if he could prove his ordination lawful by the Scriptures he knew well enough that his Ordination might be lawful and vet a Bishop not be Divinae Ordinationis That is lawful by Scripture which no Scripture Law condemns or forbids but he that should say that every thing not prohibited is Divinae ordinationis would have much a-do to prove that he himself had any meetness to be consecrated a Bishop I suppose I can prove that it is lawful for me to wear a Beaver but when I had so proved should I not be ridiculous if I should say that a Beaver was Divinae ordinationis Besides if Dr. Reynolds had chanced to gravel the Bishop with an argument about the lawfulness of his Ordination he to keep his Bishoprick would presently have replied that he was ordained to be a Presbyter but he was only consecrated to be a Bishop and by that means he might have kept his lands and his credit too Let us now proceed with Dr. Reynolds who is made to say that the words in the 37th Article The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land be not sufficient unless it were added nor ought to have It is like the Doctor had observed that the Oath of Supremacy runs to that or the like effect And he had never heard it is as like that the King and his Council heartily laughed at the framers of that Oath and therefore scarce expected to be told that a Puritan was a Protestant frighted out of his wits for propounding that the Article might be as fully worded as the Oath yet it seems he had the hap to be laughed at for his honest well-meant motion so the Relator acquaints us p. 37. P. 38. The Dr. moved that this proposition The intention of the Minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament might be added unto the Book of Articles the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential Had it been told him that if he would name those men who so Preached they should be suspended till they had recalled so false and uncomfortable an opinion or that there was enough in the Articles to infer that the intention of the Minister is not essential to the Sacrament it had been sufficient but to say that His Majesty utterly disliked this motion for two reasons and to name but one of the two and to stuff up that with a story concerning Mr. Craig was to put the world under a temptation to think too meanly of their King It is unfit to thrust every position negative into the Book of Articles for that would swell the Book into a volume as big as the Bible and also confound the Reader therefore I may not insert this short position the Ministers intention is not of the essence of the Sacrament into the English Articles This is made to be the Kings argument to which whether Dr. Reynolds could reply nothing others may judge Here we might also speak of the Nine Articles of Lambeth put into the Irish Confession not long after this Conference but never put into ours though it seems the Doctor moved twice they might be put in For my part I am not sorry they are left out for some honest men may question the truth of them and not be able in faith to subscribe them and so the Church lose the benefit of their parts As for Latitudinarians they would have subscribed them in a sense of their own devising though they had thought them false in the sense of the framers and imposers of them or they would have said that by subscribing they did not declare the assent of their minds to the truth of the Articles but only their purpose not to publish their dissent to them so as to make a disturbance in the Church about them A Jesuit Papist and a Latitudinarian Protestant will stick at no subscription whatsoever As for the Dean of Paul his discourse to vindicate himself I am not concerned to contradict him in it but I think he contradicts himself if Dr. Barlow doth him no wrong p. 41 42. The motion made by the Dr. and related p. 43. concerning a Catechism produced a very considerable addition to the old Catechism which was all he aimed at in it also he succeeded in his motion that a straiter course might be taken for reformation of the general abuse and prophanation of the Sabbath day for that the Relator saith found a general and unanimous assent So that the Bishops then did not think it Judaism to call the Lords day Sabbath nor to provide for its sanctification Nor did he miscarry in his motion for a new Translation of the Bible for not long after the Conference a new one was published which hath been generally used ever since to Gods glory and the Churches edification As for his Majesties profession that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English and that the Geneva Translation was the worst of all I believe his Majesty repented of it or else he had not given leave to Dr. Morton to defend the two places in the Geneva Notes that he took particular exception to Dr. Reynolds for conclusion of what concerned doctrine moved That unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed at least restrained and imparted to a few This a man might think would have been entertained with a general assent and consent but contrariwise the Bishop of London supposing himself to be principally aimed at answereth to what he was never accused of and saith but without any proof That the Book De Jure Magistratus in subditos was published by a great disciplinarian but named him not and the King is said to tell the Doctor that he was a better
that are more skilful in Church-History than this Monsieur P. 103. The Church of England is be-lied for of her it is said that she holdeth subordination of Ministers in the Christian Church to be of Apostolical nay of Divine Institution having as she conceiveth for grounds of this her judgment beside Scripture the practice of the holy Apostles in their times of the Universal Church ever since until this latter age and which is more of Christ himself who ordained the Apostles and the Seventy in an imparity as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church yet notwithstanding she doth but simply assert the lawfulness of her own Government Certainly this man doth not pretend to know the conceptions of our Church till they be discovered and the Church hath no where declared her conceptions to be these That subordination of Ministers beside Scripture is grounded on the practice of the Apostles and of Christ himself The practice of the Apostles and of Christ is not beside Scripture but recorded in Scripture nor doth the Church any where say that Christ instituted the Apostles and the Seventy as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church if she do then Dr. Hammond did not know her mind or else plainly contradicts her P. 144. contains no fewer than four calumnies against Presbyterians which must be manifested in their order 1. The Presbyterians had no set-forms nor indeed would receive any whether for Common-prayer or for administration of Sacraments Matrimony c. I believe some Presbyterians had set-forms for all these and I am sure they do not account it unlawful to receive set-forms for any of these only they may and some of them do judge it inexpedient to have Ministers so tied up in all these as never in the least to vary either by addition or substraction I never heard of Presbyterian that administred Baptism in any other form of words than those appointed in the Liturgy I baptize in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost nor the Lords Supper in any other form of words but what is Scriptural nor Marriage but in a set-form either that in the Common-prayer-book or that in the Directory 2. For a long time many of them had left off the use of that very form our Lord hath taught us p. 37. He had said That most if not all Directorians had left out of their Service for a long time that most complete most divine form of prayer Mr. Paget Mr. Ball Mr. Hodges have printed Apologies for the use of the Lords prayer hundreds of those who now suffer deprivation have thousands of witnesses that they have used it in their Churches and in their Families on Sundays on fasting-Fasting-days and yet they must have this filth thrown into their dish However on this occasion let us try what Mr. D. can say Suppose some Presbyterians had never used this prayer in the Pulpit but only at the Lords Supper had they not president in the ancient Church to justifie them in so doing yea suppose some should say that it were no sin never to use this prayer provided a man took it as the pattern of his prayer how would Mr. D. stop their mouths and prove them transgressors In his Sermon p. 26. he brings the words Luke 11. When ye pray say and this place is commonly urged but perhaps is not so strong as some imagine it to be at least when managed as they manage it for I ask What is the meaning of When ye pray say Is the meaning When ye pray say after this manner or say these words 〈◊〉 but after this manner then the sword is not long enough to reach Mr. Ainsworth and his disciples for they pretend to say after that manner and not to conceal any part of the truth the Syriack translation in Luke requires it to be rendred sic or ad hunc modum estote dicentes but let the words mean say these words then I ask Whether the words in St. Matthew or St. Luke If the words that occur in Luke then we have no precept for the Doxology as it is in Matthew And really I have wondred what they meant who were wont to say at the conclusion of their Pulpit-prayers In his name and in his words we further pray saying as he hath taught us and yet had never satisfied themselves that the Doxology which they constantly in that case used was of our Lords own inditing There is reason saith Dr. Hammond to believe that the words of Doxology came in out of the Greek Liturgies and that the ancientest Greek Copies have them not Pract. Cat. lib. 3. sect 2. Grotius had said as much before Those who believe these two Learned men had need alter the form of words with which they usher in the Lords Prayer 'T is not safe to ascribe to Christ any thing but what is his but how shall a man know that the copies in which the Doxology is wanting are the most ancient Erasmus saith he found the Doxology in all the Greek Copies Lucas Brugensis that it was in all the Greek Parisian Copies but one And if one look into the various readings collected in our late Polyglot Bibles he shall find the Copies that want these words of Doxology to be but few wherefore Grotius hath got no credit by saying Seeing that they are not extant in the most ancient Greek Copies but are extant in the Syriack Arabick and Latin Context we may learn not only that the Arabick and Latin Version but also the Syriack was made after that the Liturgy of the Churches was brought into a certain form For the Doxology is not in some Arabick Versions not in that which is inserted into the Polyglot Bibles If the Syriack and Arabick which Grotius saw had put in the Doxology out of the Greek Liturgies why did they not also put it in in the Gospel of Luke unless it could be made appear that the Greek Liturgies varied I know not how he can answer this question Let me add this caution to young Scholars that they be not too hasty to give credit to every Copy that some men magnifie That Syriack Translation which is followed in the New Testament in our Polyglot Bibles if it were the ancientest would be a good argument of the Antiquity of Festivals or Holy-days but the Translation which Immanuel Tremelius followed for ought I know may be much ancienter and in it there appeareth no such distinction of days To return to St. Luke if his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import that we must use his very words in Greek or words in our language as near as may be to his then must we not follow our Liturgy for though it sometimes inserts the Doxology and sometimes omits it yet it never translateth the Lords Prayer according to St. Luke Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us is not to translate but paraphrase on St. Luke It is
Colledg-man than Statesman and by this means no course was taken to prevent such Commentaries both in Philosophy and Divinity as came into England from beyond the Seas to the corrupting and poisoning of young students in the University The motion about Pastors resident and learned pag. 51 52 53 is handsomly avoided by the King with an answer that he had consulted with his Bishops about that whom he found ready and willing to second him in it c. yet all that Kings days and ever since the Nation hath groaned under the burden of an unlearned and non-resident Ministry if the Law of the Land admit of very mean and tolerable sufficiency in any Clerks why have not the Bishops petitioned that the Law be altered so as to require greater sufficiency And if the Lay-Patrons are to blame who present very mean men to their Cures are Ecclesiastical-Patrons to be excused who present Clerks every way as mean Now come the Bishop of Londons motions to be considered in number Three 1. That there might be amongst us a praying Ministry he meant a Ministry that might read the Common-Prayer-Book to which very little learning indeed would suffice but I suppose there was then no want of such a Ministry nor is there now so that the motion might have been spared The Second motion was that till a sufficient and learned Minister might be placed in every Congregation godly Homilies might be read and the number of them encreased This motion sure was not liked for unto this day neither is a learned Minister setled in every Congregation nor the number of Homilies encreased His last motion was that Pulpits might not be made Pasquils wherein every humorous fellow or discontented might traduce his superiors This the King graciously accepted and so did the complaining Ministers as I suppose for that the Pulpit should be made a Stage is certainly a very lewd custom but obtains too too much among I know whom Proceed we with Dr. Reynolds to Subscription as to which we find him only desiring that Ministers might be put upon it to subscribe according to the Statutes of the Realm viz. to the Articles of Religion and the Kings supremacy to subscribe otherwise they could not because among other things the Common Prayer-Book enjoined the Reading of some Chapters in which were manifest errors directly repugnant to Scriptures instancing particularly in Ecclesiasticus 48.10 where the words inferr That Elias in person was to come before Christ and if so Christ is not yet come Now let us take notice of what is answered 1. Bishop Bancroft answers That the most of the objections against the Books of Apocrypha were the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome in his time who was the first that gave them the name of Apocrypha which opinion upon Ruffinus his challenge he after a sort disclaimed the rather because a general offence was taken at his speeches in that kind This I must needs say was a politick answer for first we are told that not all the objections but some of the objections against these books are the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome 2. We are told that St. Jerome was the first that called these Books Apocryphal which opinion after a sort he reclaimed upon Ruffinus his challenge What can any man reply to such an answer should one bring an objection against these books that the Jews never would have brought he would have been told That not all objections against them but only some are Jewish cavils Should one say that Jerome disclaimed not his opinion concerning books Apocryphal he would be told That he did not indeed disclaim his opinion absolutely but yet after a sort he did and how far 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or after a sort may reach no one can tell Nor have we the least reference to any place of Jerome's Works in which this disclaiming of his opinion is recorded whether St. Jerome disclaimed his opinion he who hath not St. Jerome's Works by him may find discussed in Dr. Cosens his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture I say it cannot be imagined why the Jews should less esteem the Apocryphal books than they deserved they retain the Canonical books of the Old Testament which make more against them than the Apocrypha Nor is St. Jerome the first who called the Apocryphal books by the name of Apocrypha others before him had given them that name or one equivalent as I can make appear Indeed the Ancients of the Church have so blasted some especially of the Apocryphal Writings that I cannot but wonder how they came to be read in our Churches The History of Susanna was accounted a Fable even by Julius Africanus contemporary to Origen and yet our newest Calendar appointeth it to be read as also the story of Bell and Dragon There is a common saying in mens mouths that these books are Canonical not for the confirming of our faith but the regulating of our manners but he who shall make all Apocryphal books a rule for his manners may chance to set more on his Doomsday-book than he will quickly get off again As for him who shall make them a rule of Faith he will undoubtedly become a Heretick Dr. Reynolds his instance the Bishops would not meddle with but the King who was not in conference to be contradicted p. 62. is made 1. To argue and demonstrate That whatsoever Ben Sirach had said Ecclus. 48.10 of Elias Elias had in his own person while he lived performed and accomplished 2. To check Dr. Reynolds for imposing on a man that was dead a sense never meant by him 3. To use a pleasant apostrophe to the Lords VVhat trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus By my soul I think he was a Bishop or else they would never use him so 4. Yet after all to will Dr. Reynolds to note those chapters in the Apocrypha-books that were offensive and bring them to the Lord Archbishop on VVednesday following Had the Relator consulted the Kings honour he had not inserted one of his Jeers managed with an Oath into a Conference concerning Religion nor would he had he regarded his own reputation have called a sarcasm in which was an oath an unnecessary oath a pleasant apostrophe To the place it self I say the Greek copies Ecclus. 48.10 much differ among themselves and as much from the Latin Translation our English Translations also greatly vary but I could never yet meet with any Copy or Translation from which at least an unwary Reader or hearer would not â—ollect that Elias was to come before the day of 〈◊〉 Lord either first or second Junius saith the place argueth the ignorance of the author blind in the promises concerning the Kingdom of Christ Grotius acknowledgeth little less The Syriack and Arabick Translatour carry it clearly for Elias his being to come before the day of the Lord to turn the hearts of the children to the Parents as may be
a little odd that in the whole Liturgy the Lords Prayer should never be put in the same words that are used in all our Translations of the Bibles that were authorized whether new or old Will Mr. D. say If Christ bid us use these very words that we may use other of like nature and import and yet that if the Church bid us use her words that we must use them and no other The Brownist will say the Church may well allow as much liberty as she taketh Besides what assurance can Mr. D. give the Brownists what words the Lord Jesus used when his disciples desired him to teach them how to pray Grotius the great saith It is credible that several things are thrown into the Greek copies of St. Luke out of St. Matthew and the things he supposeth to be thrust in are all that are left out of the old Latin copies if so the Lords Prayer must be made much shorter than ever it is made in our Liturgy we must not say which art in heaven nor thy will be done as in heaven so on earth nor but deliver us from evil The Brownist hath not yet done with Mr. D. but will ask him how often he is bound to say the Lords Prayer by virtue of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 27. of his Sermon he tells them that this and another reason by him there mentioned obliged those Protestants which follow the Augustane Confession and those of the Reformed Churches of Holland to say it ordinarily before and after meals at the end of their Graces Had these men reason to think themselves obliged to this custom If they had then is Mr. D. obliged also and sins every time he doth not use the Lords Prayer before and after meals if it were their mistake to think themselves obliged how will he give security that he is not mistaken in counting himself obliged to say a Pater noster every time that he bends his knee to God in prayer either in the beginning or middle or end of his prayer If he plead a command of Christ as he doth in that Sermon he must prove the quoties which it will be hard for him to do and if he talk of Christs sanctifying a form with his own mouth he must give us either the very words Christ spoke or else a juster translation of them than any he will find in the Common-prayer-book Finally If we have not received the grace of the Gospel in vain we must look on Christ as risen from the dead ascended into heaven confirmed the Universal Priest Intercessor and Advocate so could not the Disciples look on him when Christ taught them to pray which may be the reason why he told them that hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name Joh. 16.24 wherefore though it be lawful and expedient to use the Lords Prayer as we commonly use it and though the things to be prayed for cannot be better summed up or more briefly comprised yet vulgar people will be in great danger not to say the Lords Prayer in the Lords name not to think of his merit and intercession unless they have prayers so formed as to force them to a more distinct apprehension of Christs propitiation than the Lords Prayer doth Let it be observed whether the Doxologies made or mentioned to be made after Christs ascension into heaven do not lead us distinctly and particularly to offer and ascribe praise unto God in the name of Christ or by Christ or unto God and the Lamb or unto Christ Ephes 3 2◠1. Tim. 6.16 Rev. 5.13 The more pains that Dr. Lightfoot and others do take to show us the Lords Prayer in the Jewish Liturgies the more do they unawares strengthen men in a persuasion that it was not intended to be a pattern to us to form our prayers unto any more than as to the matter or things to be prayed for It cannot be that the Jewish and Christian Liturgy should not differ much in the manner of our addresses unto God it will be hard to find the Holy One called the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ or his God and our God his father and our father by any Jew and yet no expressions more meet for the mouth of a Christian I pass to the third calumny in Mr. D.'s p. 144. Most of them wholly neglected the Lords Supper for many years Neglect is when a Minister hath opportunity to administer and doth not administer Did most of the Presbyterians thus neglect the administration of the Eucharist Who doth not know that many of them administred it oftner than by the Liturgy is required Hath Mr. D. never heard of their Associations either printed or not printed in order to the exercise of discipline Doth not the Directory say The Lords Supper is to be administred often If any secluded any one from that Ordinance who was of an orderly life and understood the first principles of the Oracles of God he did it not from Presbyterian principles but I remember that p. 44. he taxeth the Universities of this Kingdom and saith That the Vniversity of Oxford had no Communion for above twelve years Yet the Ministers are known who did frequently administer the Communion in the Churches and Chappels of that University in those twelve years But it may be he meant that in twelve years time the Vniversity as an Vniversity had no Communion To which I say If that were a fault it will not much concern the Presbyterians for the four Vicechancellors of Oxford during those twelve years were not Presbyterians and perhaps the University as an University is not a Church for if it be who is Pastor of it or who hath power to censure those who be disorderly Both Chancellor and Vicechancellor may be lay-men The Communions appointed to be at St. Maries at the beginning of the Terms were lately appointed and the penalties appointed for those who neglect to come to them are not Ecclesiastical penalties and I believe the twentieth part of the University never was at any one of them was it meet to make such a clamour about the omission of them A fourth Calumny is That in the Presbyterians Congregations there was a great irreverence at prayer very few kneeling many not so much as pulling off their hats Of this irreverence he saith he is an eye-witness Was he not well employed the mean while Could he find nothing else to do when in a Christian Congregation but only to tell how many kneeled and who had their hats quite off and who half off and who never uncovered their head at all In how many Congregations was he to make this observation if as is probable but in a few what unrighteousness is it to measure all Congregations by a few And is he sure that the men whom he observed to be so irreverent were Presbyterians Why might they not be some of his own perswasion who did come to put an affront on Presbyterians Prayers Either kneeling or