Praeloquium.

IF M^r Leys and M^r S. his Books were both of a price, and ordinary Readers would not he such truants at their Books, as to be best pleased with the shortest lesson, there might now (as M^r Salt­marsh stiles his last Pamphlet) be an end of one controversie, (this one betwixt M^r Ley and him,) and he should now have (that which he often striveth for) as well the last word as the first, in quarrels of this kinde: But since M^r Leys Book is twelve times as dear as his, and more then twelve times as bigg, it cannot be expected that the number of buyers, or Readers of both their writings will be equall, and so both truth and innocence may suffer under a common pre­judice, if this last Pamphlet of M^r S. should seal up the differ­ence betwixt them to perpetuall silence.

I shall therefore briefly and faithfully set before the Reader some particulars or importance, whereby he may the better judge which of these two Antagonists carrieth his cause with clearest evidence of truth and sincerity, and the summe of what I shall say shall be reduced to these two heads.

1. An Apologeticall answer to M^r S. his objections a­gainst M^r L.

2. A fresh charge of objections against M^r Saltmarsh. Wherein I shall distinctly consider in M^r S. his paper,

• 1. The Title page.
• 2. His Letter.
• 3. His Summary accompt of M^r Leys
  • 1. Epistle.
  • 2. Treatise.
• 4. His Answer to it.
• [Page 2]5. His reinforcing of Salmasius his Testimony.
• 6. His Descant on C. D. his Defence of M^r L. against the Newsmonger.
• 7. His self-commending Conclusion.

1. For his Title page.

J. S.

An end of one Controversie.

L. M.

The end of one Controversie, as you use the matter, may be the beginning of another. If you had meant it should have been an end of the Controversie, you would not have taken leave of M^r Ley, with such an abuse of his Book, and reproach of his person, as could not be passed by with silence of him­self or his friends; unlesse the most did agree with the wi­sest in the censure of the sleightnesse and insufficiency of your Answer, as unworthy to receive any reply, but such a one as is unseemly for him to make.

Title.

J. S.

Being an Answer or Letter to M Leys Large last Book.

L. M.

So short an answer to so large a Book? sure you never meant to make any Reader (that could judge as well as read) beleeve that your sheet and half could be a satisfactory An­swer to M^r Leys Book, which you summe up to 17 sheets of paper, (besides the Treatise of C. D.) unlesse your hasty return make up a great part of the summe, as in the accompt of the or just steward, fifty measures of oyl, quickly written down, stood for 10 [...]. as Luk. 16.6.

Title.

J. S.

In which the summe of his last Book, which relates to the most materiall passages in it, are gathered up and replyed to.

L. M.

The summe is soon taken, as of the number of sheets, and you might do most of that without so much as reading of the [Page 3]Book; for M^r Ley summed up each section into short con­tents, presently after the Epistle Dedicatory; but for your Reply unto it, it is so poor, impertinent and unsatisfactory, that you had done your self more favour if you had been alto­gether silent, then in acting the part of such a prevaricate Re­plicant as you have done.

Title.

J. S.

By John Saltmarsh: not revolted (as M^r Ley saith) from a pastorall calling, but departed from the Antichristian Ministery by Bishops and now Preacher of the Gospel.

L. M.

You have given over your publike Ministery at Brasteed, and if you have forsaken as Antichristian, that is more then M^r Ley charged you with, in the Title page of his Book; whence it may be probably conjectured, that you either have, or will renounce your Baptisme, since it was administred by one ordained by a Bishop, and so in your dialect an An­tichristian Minister; and upon this ground many, who know not how to distinguish of Ministeriall Acts, will haply be induced to suspect their parents marriage by such a Mi­nister to be Antichristian: and that will call in question the legitimacy of the children: but none of these consequences can trouble those, who hold, as the Lords and Commons in their Ordinance for Ordination of Ministers have declared, viz. That although the Title of Bishop hath been by corrupt cu­stom appropriated to one, and that unto him ascribed, and by him assumed (as in other things, so in the matter of Ordination) which was not meet; Ordination notwithstanding being performed by him, a Presbyter, joyned with other Presbyters, We hold for substance to be valid, and not to be disclaimed by any that have received it. And that Presbyters so ordained, being lawfully thereunto appointed and authorized, may ordain other Pres­byters.

2. The places of Scripture misapplied.

J. S.

Isa. 5.20. We be to them that put darknesse for light.

L. M.

This Scripture in the sense of it, maketh as much for M^r Ley as for you; and in the letter more; for he put not dark­nesse for light, but light for smoke.

J. S.

Acts 19.32. Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the Assembly was confused, and the more part knew not where­fore they were come together.

Vers. 41. And when he had thus spoken he dismissed the As­sembly.

L. M.

Because M^r Ley is stiled one of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, you take occasion to abuse the Assembly; and that you may abuse them, you abuse the Scripture, by misap­plying the Text to them, which was spoken of a tumultuary meeting of Demetrius with his company, and the Idolatrous worshippers of Diana, confusedly come together they knew not why: And to make your meaning the more apparent, you write Assembly in greater letters then the rest. With what discretion can you fall upon them, who did not meddle with you at all, though you did what you could to provoke them? with what conscience can you compare a learned, religious and Reverend Assembly of Divines (who were cal­led together by the Parliament, for causes known, not only to themselves, but all the Kingdom over, who neither meet nor part without religious addresses to the throne of grace) to such a superstitious, ignorant and mutinous multitude?

But you meant not only to disgrace them, but to threaten them with dismission also, or at least you intimate your minde to have it so, and all of your way have such ill will unto it, that your first desires were to prevent it, your next to disturbe it, and delay the proceedings of it, and now out of the same disaffection to it you desire to dissolve it. But why you, M^r S. should bring in the Assembly in such a malignant manner, is a matter much noted by some, and though they know not the [Page 5]reason, they conjecture at these two causes thereof; the one is, the pride of your spirit, like that of Haman, who thought scorn to lay hands upon Mordecai, and therefore sought to de­stroy the Jews, Esther 3.6. though those that know M^r Ley and you, say, there is impar congressus betwixt you, by the ad­vantage on his side, though Haman like you had not set up­on the Assembly; yet as if he were not good enough alone to be your match, you fetch that venerable Synod within the verge of your reproof; such a giant you are now grown to be, by being leader of a schisme, who had been but a pygmie still, if you had continued among the Presbyterians; just as Au­gustine observed of Primianus and Maximinianus, that were jolly fellows in a faction, else, said he, Primianus might have been Postremianus, and Maximianus, Minimianus.

The other conjecture is this, you have honoured the As­sembly too much, for you almost adored them, and made ap­plications of Scripture to them, which had a strong savour of Idolatry and flattery, little below the height of blasphemy, and now you, declining that extreme, stay not your self untill,Dam vitant stu [...]i vitia is contraria cur­rum. Wiseman like, you arrive at the contrary.

2. The second particular is your Letter, wherein you say,

J. S. p. 3.

I thinke not the truth I defended so weak as to need a new Trea­tise to bear it up; I see it is otherwise with you, who dare not let your former Books stand by themselves, without another to support them.

L. M.

If M^r Ley had made none answer at all, you would have taken his silence for consent; his silence after such a charge as you laid upon him, for a confession of guilt, and now he hath answered you, make that an argument of a weak cause that adjective-like needs a substantive support of another book, when that was not the weaknesse of the former book, but your waywardnesse against it, whereby you hoped to wrangle your self into some reputation, by out wording your adversary, as it were all one to be able to answer, and unable [Page 6]to hold ones peace; and whereas you say, that you call the truth needs no new Treatise, what, I pray you, call you this you have last written? You call your former Book an Answer, so do you this; you call this a Letter, so do you not that; yet you make M^r L. his Epistles, whereof the one conteineth 3 leaves, the other 9, a competent Treatise of themselves; and yet of your sheet and half you say, that he that writes any thing of truth, more properly writes much, rather then he that writes against it, though in more paper: That's your Aphorisme framed and applied in favour to your self, but you must not be your own judge.

The Letter.

J. S. p. 3.

It is indeed the way of the Popish schools, to fill the world with volumes and Tomes, and rather to astonish then convince.

L. M.

And is it not the way of the Protestant schools, to make up the fullnesse of that world with volumes and Tomes? have not Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, Gualter, Zanchius, Chamier and others, made many and great books? will you make that their fault which was their vertue; their blame, which is their glory and the Churches gain?

Letter.

J. S. p. 3.

How hath truth been carried out of sight from the Reader in the labyrinth of Replyes and Rejoynders, your selfe gives us an ex­periment in this book; for how are you puzled to let the Reader know what was yours, and what was mine after that, and what is yours again?

L. M.

M. Ley was not puzled, but that the Reader might not be puzled, nor mistaken by your imperfect, unfaithfull and confu­sed Answers, he brought as much both of his Text and yours also, as might sufficiently clear the truth to his under­standing.

Letter.

J. S. p. 3.

I hope I shall write you as much, if not more, in one sheet and half, as you have wrote me in seventeen.

L. M.

Belike you have some such art of couching much matter in a little room, as he thatPlin. nat. bist. l. 7. c. 21. p 35. comprised Homers Iliads in a nut­shell; or you return the paiment in gold which you received but in silver, or but in farthing tokens; that as much in value, this more in weight and more troublesome, because longer in telling; but, Sir, they that have read M. Leys book, and your sheet and half, say, your return unto him is after the manner of poor bankrupts, or below that, not paying of the debt you ow him, so much as two sh [...]llings in the pound; and they take your comparison and prelation of your self in this parti­cular, to be but a very vain vaunting of your self, which be­wrayeth your want both of truth and modesty.

The third Particular is, Your summary accompt of M. Leys Book. And first of the Epistles, p. 4.

J. S.

Your Epistles, which are a competent Treatise of themselves, and the very cisterne of your reasoning, from which you fill all the other pages of your Book; the parts of my Treatise, with your Answer, or rather much of your former Reply, which in things of most weight is no refutation, but a reference to other Divines who have writ of the same subject.

L. M.

You presume the most of those who read your papers, are the fewest of those that read M. Leys book; but there are so many learned and judicious persons, who have read them both, that there cannot but be many witnesses of your foul and unfaithfull dealing with him, and with your Readers in this imputation.

Sumons. p. 4.

J. S.

It seems you have a common stock of learning among you, [Page 8]or an argumentative treasury, to which you refer us with much ease.

L. M.

How doth it seem that Presbyterians have a common stock of learning among them, or an argumentative treasury? is it because, when one man hath copiously and exactly discussed a point of weight, a reference is made unto him for further satisfaction then can be expected in a discourse of so many particulars as you shuffle and jumble together in your darke and smoky Treatise? and is the book he cited any more his treasury then yours, or any mans else that will buy it, and use it? Did you manage any matter of difference like a scholar, by stating of the Question, proposing of proofs by Scripture and reason, to which he hath not returned a punctuall An­swer? Indeed you took upon you to put tasks upon him, which he did not undertake, and yet held your self free to leave your own worke undone, and you give him causeLight for Smoke. Sect. 4. p. 8. & Sect. 5. p. 11. & Sect. 16. p. 42. divers times to complain of this partiality.

Summe. p. 4.

J. S.

But I cannot take this for good paiment, to be put over to another man, when you are bound to pay me your self.

L. M.

Is there any either law, or conscience, or reason, that he should pay you any thing who owes you nothing? or any reason why you should complain of non-payment, when M. Ley is far before hand with you, as any indifferent auditour betwixt him and you will give in the accompt? And yet if he ought you any thing, it is sufficient if you be paid, whether it be by his hand or by another; and I hope before you and I part, to pay you somewhat in his stead, while he is imployed in matters of greater moment.

Summe. p. 4.

J. S.

I could turn you over thus to as able Divines as you do me, to M. Tho. Goodwin, M. Joh. Goodwin, M. Nye, M. Tomes, M. Prinne, M. Burroughs, M. White, M. Eaton, M. Den, M. Knolls, &c.

L. M.

M. Ley turned you over to none for any argument you brought in the difference betwixt him and you; but when you would put upon him in transitu, the handling of a large Con­troversie, (wherein you had not engaged your self by under­taking the proof) he referred you to M. Rutherfords book. Now whereas you say you could turn him over to as able Divines as he doth you, viz. to M. Thomas Goodwin, M. John Goodwin, M. Nye, M. Tombes, M. Prinne, M. Burroughs, M. White, M. Eaton, M. Denne, M. Knolls, you make your comparison very unequall; for, first, M. Rutherford for his great learning, and gravity, and seniority, may well be your Master; whereas you will not say the same of those you have named with respect to M. Ley. Secondly, Some of them you name have written very little, so little, that no great satisfa­ction is to be expected from them in any point. And thirdly, Some of them are erroneous dogmatists, of no more learning or authority then your self. Fourthly, in your list of Divines you bring in M. Prinne, who is by his profession not a Divine, but a Lawyer, (though I confesse he hath more divinity in him then divers of those you have named with him:) But with what face can you bring him in, as on your side rather then on the Presbyterians, who hath written so much, and so emphatically against the Independents? and in that he wri­teth concerning the Sacrament, wherein he and the Presby­terians are at difference, it is as much against the Independent opinion and practice as theirs, and more too, though such be their subtilty in that, as well as in other things, that wherein the Presbyterians and they agree, they will not joyn with them, because they would have all the offence of the op­posite party to fall upon the Presbyterian party alone, and none upon themselves.

Next after your Catalogue, you fall upon the Appendix, pag 4. and come to it again, pag. 10, 11. where I will take what you say into consideration, and will answer to both. And then you bring in a Breviat of M. Leys two Epistles, and make an Answer to them; in which since what is in the [Page 10]Breviat is comprehended, they may both receive satisfaction at once

Fourthly, Your Answer to the Epistle, pag. 5.

J. S.

1. You bring in M. Ley, desiring the Gentlemen to whom he dedicates his Book, to counsell you not to cry down the government: To this you Answer by a Question: Are you in such fear of your government, that you make friends to me to be silent? is it so weak that it may be cried down?

L. M.

You blame M. Ley for repeating what he hath said, when you put a necessity upon him so to do, by your misunderstand­ing, or misapplying of his speeches, as in this particular: He out of pity to see you so ill imployed, as he professeth towards the end of his Epistle Dedicatory, intreated the Gentlemen to whom he dedicated his book, to bestow some of their discreet counsels upon you, for better imployment of your parts and pen, then (he saith not in disputing down, but) in crying down that dis­cipline and government as terrible and tyrannicall, which the pru­dent Senatours of both the Honourable Houses of Parliament in part have set up and further endeavour to advance.

By crying down here cannot reasonably be meant a vigo­rous opposition, but a clamorous contradiction; especially since it is of a private person, as you are, against that which is set up by publike authority. But you, bringing in the speech to the topicke of your self-conceit, would have it imply some masterfull power in your pen, before which the Presbytery cannot stand; You thinke, as by the parable of the flye on the wheel, you raise all the dust in the motion, when your per­formance in polemicks is so poor and impotent, that if the Independent party had no other agents for it then you, it would quickly turn from a terrour (as to some it is, because of the braggs and threats of some armed Sectaries) to a very scorn, as is said of the sythed chariots in the Ignatian Con­clave: Therefore I pray you, Sir, cry still against the Presby­terian cause, be the Independent posthorse, to scrible against the Presbyterians every day; in the confidence of your [Page 11]puissance, take so much boldnesse and insolence upon you, as to provoke the ablest champions, yea a whole Assembly of learned and venerable Divines to be your An [...]gonists; (though I beleeve you cannot provoke them so much as may make them to take any notice of so weak and worthlesse an adversary) go on as you have begun, to make your self a liti­gious Ishmael, with your hand against every man, untill every mans hand be against you; and it will never trouble M. Ley, (but in Christian compassion to you, and zeal to the truth) that you vent the vanity of your spirit, and bewray either your ig­norance or ill conscience in such contestations.

J. S. pag. 5.

Secondly, That no Presbytery parochiall, &c. assumes such power as the Prelaticall: To which you answer by another Question; Is Presbytery, because Parochiall, Classicall, Provin­ciall lesse Tyrannicall then Episcopacy, because many rule in that, in this but one, or rather not more tyrannicall, because one tyrant was not so much as many together, evil in a community is stronger and more diffusive then in unity.

L. M.

Where is your ingenuity, M. Saltmarsh, or your sincerity in this allegation and Answer? I appeal to the Reader, (if but of ordinary apprehension, and not wholly possessed with In­dependent prejudice) whether in the Epistle Dedicatory, pag. 2, 3, 4. there be not so much evidence brought in clearly contradictory to your conceit, as might have prevented the exception you make, and may presently remove it upon the reading of M. Leys observations on that behalfe; whereto there needeth no other addition, save the English of a little of Seneca his Latin, quoted in the margin of the fourth page, which is, that Cyrus by dividing the river Gyndes (which in its full stream drowned a white horse of his that drew his chariot (to which the Episcopall Sea may be compared) into 360 chanels, meant to make it passable by women on foot, and did so; such is the Division of Ecclesiasticall power into a plurality of Presbyters, which being so lessened and limited as they are like to be, are more like a dried chanel, then a de­vouring floud.

J. S. pag. 5.

Thirdly, If the Question were rightly stated, &c. Is not the Question of the Presbytery yet stated?

L. M.

It is not rightly stated by all that meddle with the matter? and though it be rightly stated by the Assembly, that's no­thing to common information; unlesse the debates, resolu­tions and proofs of the Assembly therein were printed, which might be to the advancement of the truth, and great satisfa­ction of many, both Ministers and people thorowout the whole Kingdom, and I doubt not will be so, when the Parlia­ment will be pleased to permit them to be publike, which without their leave the Assembly may not doe.

J. S. pag. 5.

Fourthly, That I should restore such Tythes, if unlawfull, as I formerly received, because the sinne till then is not remitted, you say, I have done it.

L. M.

If so, there is more errour in your understanding, in mi­staking the tenure of Tythes, then in your conscience, for this particular.

J. S. pag. 5.

But take heed, say you, how you put forgivenesse of sinne upon re­stitution, for that is not only Popery, but like the Pape you would sell pardons only to the rich, and none to the poor, and you would put more upon sacrifice then upon mercy.

L. M.

Though forgivenesse be not set upon restitution, yet is it not therefore not requisite to Christian justice, but necessary either in fact, where a man is able, or in affection, where he is not: and this doctrine is as meet for a poor man as a rich; and M. L. cited the saying of Augustine in his fifth Epistle ad Macedon. as many learned Divines have done before him; and so have they cited the example of Zacheus, Luk. 19.8. to the same purpose; but take you heed you do not condemn Christianity for Popery. The Papists were wont to blast e­very Protestant Truth, with the name of heresie: the profane [Page 13]used to reproach the piety of the first Table by the name of Puritanisme; and many Sectaries, now adaies, brand many duties of justice and charity, which are branches of the second Table, by the name of Popery; and you are one that misapplieth that terme as much as any.

J. S. pag. 5.

Fifthly, You say, I would have men beleeve as they list, I would only have men not forced to beleeve as others list.

L. M.

M. Ley said in the last page but one of his Epistle Dedica­torie, that he was sorry to see you so unsetled in your judge­ment, so sedulous to prepare a patronage for all wilde and wicked fancies, that every one may beleeve what he list. The fault M. Ley findes with you, is not that you held forth such a licentious faith, (nor on the contrary can he acquit you of such a con­ceit) but that your apologizing for all sorts of Sectaries, as you do, would prepare a patronage for such a latitude of belief.

J. S. pag. 5.

Sixthly, That he was wished rather to a silent neglect of me, then to a loud conquest over me; Truth is not conquered when the man is trampled upon; It is not your being great can make you a con­querour, no more then your calling by Bishops a true Presbyter.

L. M.

The former part of this paragraph in thesi is true, in hypo­thesi false, as the parts are applied to M. L. and you; for neither is truth on your side, nor any greatnesse on his set to oppose it, or to domineer over it. For the later part, it is answered before.

J. S. pag. 6.

Seventhly, That he had rather confute Bellarmine, then my new-sprung notions. And for your desire rather to deal with Bellarmine then me, I did not thinke I had been so formidable an enemy.

L. M.

If the Reader look upon the place in M. Leys Epistle, pag. 2. he will see that he took you rather for a contemptible, [Page 14]then a formidable enemy; and though you monopolize truth to your cause, he chargeth you, in the same place, with holding old errour under the name and notion of new truth.

J. S. pag. 6.

To the eighth: Nor am I lesse a disputant in Divinity because against forms of art and Logick, as you say.

L. M.

M. Ley saith nothing of that, but what your self hath said, and he cited your own words out of your book, viz. your pro­fessed dislike of Logick, forms of art, and methods of reason, and renouncing of prudence, and consequences, as the great engines of will-worship, for which he cited, pag. 16. and 60. of your book of Smoke.

J. S. pag. 6.

I may dispute in Christs school, though refused in the school of Tyrannus.

L. M.

I thinke, Sir, you know little of the school of Tyrannus, but as a Divinity school, wherein Paul the great Doctor of Chri­stians disputed daily in the cause of Christ, Act. 19.9. And if it were a school of Philosophy before, (as it is like it was) you are such an artist in Philosophy, that you say interminis, if M. Ley will challenge you in any point of Philosophy, you will not refuse him in Logick, or forms of art; where in ef­fect you challenge him to dispute; which the Learned will look upon as a bragge, and it may be also a boasting of a false gift, Prov. 25.14. that is, fasly boasting of a gift which you have not; and it M. Ley refuse either to make, or entertain a challenge with you in matter of Philosophy, it will not (by any competent Judges) be conceived that he hath any cause to fear, but rather to scorn a monomachie with you in that kinde, since his learning in Philosophy hath been eminently witnessed by his Lectures on the whole first chapter of Gene­sis, which divers Learned men have earnestly desired for the Presse, and hope to see their desires satisfied therein in time convenient.

J. S. pag. 6.

They are formes only for the wisdom of men, not of God; nor dare I make my discoveries of Christ from reason.

L. M.

You mean that matters of Religion (which all of them have reference to Christ some way or other) should not be set forth in forms of art, nor managed with any mixture of no­tions or dictates of reason.

A Learned man, and conversant in Scripture (as you would seem to be) may, if he seriously minde and marke it, observe in it (besides the principall theme and scope of it, Divinity) much both of Logick and Philosophy; I could give you ma­ny instances of both, but I may not measure by the long ell (as Comminaeus calls the pike) while you manage the quarrell with a bodkin.

And whereas you say, you dare not take any discoveries of Christ from reason. You might know by Scripture, that Reli­gion disdains not discoverie of sense, Mat. 19.34. (much lesse of reason) concerning Christ, as is clearly evidenced, Job. 21.29. Acts 1.3, 9. Acts 9.3, 4, 5, 1 Ep. John 1. [...]. And of both reason and sense the Protestants make very good use against the Papists, as in many other particulars (which are to be seen in the book of Martyrs, and Chamierus Paustratia Catho­lica) so especially in the point of transubstantiation; and is there not a discovery of Christ by sense in the Sacraments, where by outward and visible signes and seales, his invisible graces ateropresented unto us? And do not you your self un­dertake to prove the Gospel to be undeniably the word of God, without miracles, to assure us of the particular duties in it? and are not your proofs taken from topicks of reason? you cannot deny it, and if you doSmoke of the Temple, pag. 20, 21, 22, 23. your own papers will reprove you to your face; testimonies of the Ancients, though you ig­norantly or inconsiderately begin your Catalogue of witnesses with a Counterfeit Authout and Treatise, viz. Dionys. Areo­pagim de divinis nominibus.

J. S. pag. 6.

I allow learning in its place, any where in the Kingdom [Page 16]of the world, but not in the Kingdome of God.

L. M.

It is no great matter what you allow or allow not, unlesse your learning were more, your judgement sounder, & your dealing more sincere. But if there were any weight in your word, it would be prejudiciall, & disadvantagious to Religi­on, & would gratify the adversaries of the truth, who by the Arts, Philosophy, & other secular learning in sound Christi­ans, may be more soundly confuted in their errours against the Christian Religion; and thus many of the Ancient Fathers ap­prove of them, asClem. Alex­and. strom. Clemens Alexandrinus, Orig. l. 1. c. [...]. Homil. 31. in Lucam. Origen, Obrysost. Ho­mil. 3. in Epist. ad Titum. Chry­sostom, Hieron. Ep. 8. Hieron. August. de Doctrin. Chri­stian. l. 2. c. 40. Augustine, & Hieron. Ep. 14. Hierom, compareth the use of them in this way to the cutting off Goliahs head with his owne sword, 1 Sam. 17.11. &August. ubi supra. Augustine to the spoyling of the Egyptians, Exod. 12.36. This the subtle Apostate Iuli­an knew well enough, & therefore in craft & spight he for­bad the instruction of the Children of Christians in the arts and literature of the heathens, asAmmian, Marcell n. Rerum gesta­rum. lib. 22. & 25. Ammianus Marcellinus both observes and censures, as an unjust edict, though but an heathen by religion, and a souldier by profession.

J. S. page. 6.

The ninth. For my being an ubiquitary in beliefe, and your proofe of this from the severall opinions stated in my booke, Can you bee so unfaithfull to that Booke? can you, who would bee counted an orthodox and a Divine, thus force and compell those opinions upon mee, or rather upon the paper onely where they are printed? because I stated the opinions of men, am I therefore a man of all those opinions? The best is, the world may convince you of this, and of my purpose in that. And now you are thus unfaithfull in a little, I may suspect you for more. Are you one of those who pretend to be in the mount with God to give laws for religion? Can we trust you in the more excellent mysteries of the Father, while you trifle thus and deceive the Brethren?

L. M.

What a piece of exaggerating Rhetorike is here, to smoke over M. Leys sincerity with a suspition of such prevarication, as is but too frequent in your owne practice, not at all in his? [Page 17]and if any heterodox conceipts be cast upon you, which are not yours, you may thank your selfe, for you set downe oppo­site Tenets so ambiguously, that it is hard to say what opini­ons you owne among them; and therefore M. Ley spake of them with words of caution, as Pag. 3. of his Epistle to your selfe. you seeme to me, Ibid. In your exceptions against Presbytery, and I must rather take your Tenet to be against, then among the Presbyterian positions, Ibid. pag. 4. In the Dis­covery of Independency you deliver downright Anabaptisme, without any word of exception, or caution to your Reader. Ibid. pag. 5. Such opinions as those, which you seeme rather to confirme then to con­fute. And if any man take you for a favourer of such erroneous Tenets as you repeat without a word of refutation or reproofe, is it not your owne fault rather then his? your courting of all sects, and compliance with them, might justly occasion a suspition of your unsoundnes in R [...]ligion.

J. S. page. 6.

10. That I am an Antinomian, and deale with some late Di­vines as some with Luther; and hereof you seeke to purge your selfe by asserting some sentences of Scripture, which you thinke may cleare you from Antinomianisme.

L. M.

But that will not serve your turne, the accusation is lately set closer upon you, by aM Gataker in his late Booke against M. Sal. called, A mis­take or miscon­struction re­moved. Reverend Divine of the Assembly, then that you can shake it off by so poore an Apology; and for that layd to your charge by M. Ley, what answer do you make? none but such an one as aggravates your guilt, by set­ting one falshood upon the shoulder of another, whereby it becomes the more conspicuous; for you say, you have not mis­quoted any. Have you not, Sir, when you have so cited one part of an Author for your sense, and left out the next words, which clearly for forth his judgement in contradiction to your opinion? Have you not done so by M. S. Bolton? were you not plainly convinced of it by M. Ley in his epistle to you? and yet you shew not a spark of ingenuity, or grace, in ac­knowledging your witting and wilfull false dealing in that allegation; but wash your hands with Pilate (as if you were innocent) and spit the reproaches in his face, which justly be­long unto your owne.

You say, as by way of excuse, and (which is more, and worse) by way of justification of your selfe, That you but singled out that truth from many in one leafe, before they spoyled it in the next, and like Pilate, who, asking onely what truth was, would not tar­ry by it, but departed. And doe not you (Pilate-like againe) turne away from the truth of a Testimony, when you admit of part to serve your turne, and reject another part, though contiguous unto it, because it is contrary to your Tenet?

Amongst other flourishes of falshood, you say, that M. L. and his associated Brethren pretend themselves to be in the mount, to give lawes for religion; where finde you this? how can you prove it? did you ever read it in any of their writings, or heare it from their lips? I am sure you did not: how then can you object it? have you the inspection of their hearts? If you take that upon you, you have got above fifteene cubits higher, then the top of Sinai, or Horeb, even to Gods tribunall, by whom alone the hearts of all men are to be judged.

And for that you say, of making lawes for religion, you know they have no power, nor doe they take any upon them, save onely by way of humble advice to present the result of their debates, and votes to the Parliament, concerning such matters as from either of the Honourable houses are sent unto them.

And now, S^r, to pay you in your owne coyne, and returne your owne words upon you, Can you bee so unfaithfull to that Booke, can you who would be counted an orthodox Divine, en­lightened above the measure of other Ministers, so grossely falsify so plaine, and perspicuous a sentence? The best is, the world (while his Booke and your Pamphlet are extant) may convince you in this, and now you are thus unfaithfull in a little (or rather in much) J may suspect you for more. Can we trust you in the more excellent mysteries of the Father, while you trifle thus, and deceive the Brethren? page. 6.

J. S: page. 7.

That J am unstable, To the eleventh. For my unstablenesse, if to bee sometimes darknes, and now light in the Lord, &c.

L. M.

I will put off this to another place, where I shall have occa­sion [Page 19]to bring it in, that I may not trouble the Reader with a needlesse repetition of the same passage.

J. S. page. 7.

To the twelfth. Nor doe I glory, I hope, in the quicke dispatch of what I doe; but doe not you as well over-deliberate, as I over-dispatch, and glory in that?

L. M.

Whether you glory in quick dispatch or no let the Reader judge, upon evidence produced to that purpose. page. 11. 12. of M. Leys Epistle to you; but you cannot object the like of his deliberations, since he hath not told his Reader how long he was about any Book, as you have done how short a time you took for yours. For that you speake in disparagement of humane learning, it is an old humour of the Anabaptists, who at first rejected all Books but the Bible, and after that grew so wise as to be religious enough without that also, and last of all they came to blaspheme that blessed Book, as a dead let­ter, and a beggerly element; and such proficients are some of our sublimated sectaries.

But however you slight all secular learning, you must not assume to your self, or your party, (as you seeme to doe) a propriety either of interest, or exercise in the word, or spi­rit, or power of Christ, wherein those whom you looke upon with an oblique spirit have as good right, and as fair evidence as those of your party, who take upon them to be most spiri­tuall. For that you conclude withall, concerning the brewer, in a forme of affected gravity, saying, I desire not to shew so much of the old man or former corruptions, as to sparkle so lightly with you. Me thinks you should haue brought in a young man, rather then an old man, so lightly sparkling as will not be­come your gravity to answer him. Or if you meane by the old man, that part of humane nature, which remaines unrege­nerate, that (though you may intend a reproach upon senio­rity of yeares) may be, and for the most part is more predo­minant in a young man then in an old, as M. Ley hath obser­ved in the tenth Section of his last Book against you.

J. S. page. 7.

To the thirteenth, My interposing being no delay to the go­vernment, as you say, why then do you call my Booke a Remora, and say my Quere was to retard the government? I pray you now be friends with your self, &c.

L. M.

No doubt he is so, and so was, when he wrote those words, for you might intend your Book and Querie for a Remora, and yet it might, and I hope it will prove otherwise. Inten­tions and events are many times very contrarie, as Joseph sayd to his Brethren, You thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to passe as at this day, to save much peo­ple alive, Gen. 50.20.

J. S. page. 7. 8.

To the fourteenth, That he may be better imployed then in writing; they are your friends indeed that wish so, you cannot be worse imployed then in speaking evil of your Brethren, in advance­ing your selves, Lording it over the heritage, &c.

L. M.

As you have often set upon the Presbyterians with such slanders, so you have beeneSee light for smoke Sect. 6. pag. 13. &c & Sect. 18. pag. 51. 52. and Sect 19 pag 54. &c. often answered both directly, and by way of just recrimination; which may be a superse­deas for my further Reply in this place.

J. S. pag. 8.

For others undertaking me, as many as please, for I feare not an host, nor a multitude of penmen.

L. M.

You are so bold all men may see, (some unmannerly fellow haply would say, so impudent) that you dare contend with many together, who taken single were able to crush you in any encounter that is to be managed with learning and inte­gritie; and after the rate you write, you need not care how many you undertake, nor they neither, who are undertaken by you, since you doe but with an impotent malignity nibble at the heele, when you give them faire opportunity to break your head, unlesse they choose rather to kicke you off with scorne, then to make a serious and setled busines of combating with you.

J. S. pag. 8. and 9.

The summe of M. Leys treatise and Answer to it.

L. M.

You have an excellent faculty first in contracting, then in contradicting and confuting, your adversarie; for you have reduced the summe of M. Leys Booke of seventeene sheets to lesse then a single page, and confuted them all, as you pre­tend, in lesse then a leaf; would it not bee fit such an able and nimble champion as you are should be set upon those great An­tichristian Goliahs, Baronius, Bellarm. Suarez, Ʋasques? how would you enervate, and shrinke up their many vast and cor­pulent volumes into a poor, dry, and saplesse sckeleton? O for Bellarminus enervatus of your composing! That of Amesius to it would be but as a rude steeple clock to a most curious pock­et watch. But to the particulars.

J. S. pag. 9.

That the graduall subordination of Assemblies is made good by M. Rutherford. Is this reasoning, or reference? and this you have done all along, referred us either o your selfe, or some o­ther to answere for you.

L. M.

Vpon your finding fault with classicall, provinciall, and Nationall Assemblies as no wholesome words, M.Light for smoke, page. 2. Ley told you, that the graduall subordination of Assemblies, against the Independency of Congregationall meetings, was made good by a large and learned Book of M. Samuel Rutherford; of which reference I see not what may offend you, unlesse your idlenesse mislike the word large, and your ignorance the word learned, for it is an usuall and commendable course of many worthy writers, for the husbanding of time, that they may not actum agere, to make references for satisfaction to larger Treatises then the present occasion will permit. And to finde fault with M. Ley for this, shewes you rather a wran­gler then a Reader.

But whereas you say, that he hath dens so all along, it is not your unwitting mistake, which might easily be pardon­ed, but your wilfull slander, which you should heartily re­pent [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22]of; and of this I doubt not but there are as many witnes­ses, as there be ingenuous and conscientious Readers of his Booke and your loose sheets. And I dare challenge you, on his behalfe, to make proofe of any one reference, either to his owne Books, or any other, for which there was not just occa­sion given, approvable in the judgement of judicious men. And if references come too often, it is most like to be your owne fault, whose importunate, or impertinent iterations of the same particulars put him to it.

J. S. pag. 9.

That your Presbyteries are not so singular, more free, conve­nient, more peaceable, more Apostolicall, more authorized then other Churches; and then you say, these are good commendati­ons; but had half so much been proved by the word, your govern­ment had passed before this.

L. M.

Here you put him to a necessity of reference to his first Book, (unlesse he should make a needlesse repetition of a whole section,Sect. 5. pag. 11, 12, 13. to confute your cavill) where he hath given full and cleare evidence, (such as no rationall man can deny) how Classicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Assemblies are more warrantable then the gathered Churches of Inde­pendents.

J. S. pag. 8, 9.

That Tithes are spoken against by those that scruple not at slander, or sacriledge, that they usurp upon God, and his Mi­nisters that alienate them from his worship and service. Having made this the summary of M^r Ley his eighth section, you adde as an Answer to it; For that of sacriledge and usurpation upon God in alienating Tithes, never did Prelate, no nor Bi­shop Mountague plead an higher Title for Tithes.

L. M.

You had condemned Tithes as Popish and Jewish undenia­bly, Smoke, pag. 25. which gave M^r Ley occasion to speak the more fully and freely in the refutation of your over-confident assertion; yet did he not advance the Tenure of Tithes above that which M^r Nye (a Classicall Authour with you, though against the [Page 23]authority of classes) hath affirmed of them, and he named him to you, yet you are silent concerning him, and take up a clamour against M^r Ley, as more Jewish and Popish then a Prelate, yea then Bishop Mountague: what partiality is this?

J. S. pag. 9.

What, sacriledge and usurpation to deny Tithes? Where are you, in the Covenant or no? is it not a Parliament Ordinance you take them by? Will you set up a divine right over that now? Sure­ly they may justly now withdraw their Ordinance for Tithes, and leave you to your Divine right, and see what the people will pay you.

L. M.

M. Ley did not call it sacriledge to deny Tithes,Light for smoke, pag 19. though it may be true, but said, there was a clamour taken up against them by such as made no conscience, either of slander or of sacriledge; and such are many worldly Mammonists, and erroneous Dogmatists: and what is this to the Covenant?

And to that you ask, is it not a Parliament Ordinance you take them by? It may be acknowledged with humble thanks to the Parliament, that their Ordinance is an help to recover the right of Tithes; but the right of Tithes is much more ancient then that Ordinance; for there are many sta­tutes that entitle Ministers to them, and allow them to sue for them by course of Law: nor will the opinion of divine right in some, be sufficient ground to abrogate the payment of Tithes to all, though you would cry down their Tenure, to fright the conscientious out of their duty, to encou­rage the covetous in their parsimony, and all to scrue up your own pensions to the higher proportion. Because while they are to pay Tithes, as of right, to Parochiall Pastours, there will be the lesse latitude in the matter, and lesse light somnes in the man to make an allowance of courtesy to content you their Independent Doctours. But enough of this. I had thought to have made none Answer, but a reference to the eighth section of M^r Leys Book, which is well worth the reading, and sufficient of it self for your full refutation.

J. S. pag. 9.

To that of your commending old men and age, I reverence age, but not the old man in them; and for dreams being more excellent then visions, it is a curious speculation.

L. M.

Vpon your preferring young men so much before old men, as to say, surely we may more safely hearken to the younger, that see visions of Reformation, then to the elder, that dream dreams of it only. M^r Ley made an elaborate comparison, and resoluti­on of both in the tenth section of his Book, from pag. 23. to the 28. inclusively, which I dare commend to the perusall of any judicious Reader, and doubt not but he will think M^r Saltmarsh should not have mentioned it without appro­bation of the discourse, and thanks to the Authour.

J. S. pag. 9.

Why are you so much in defence of jesting, and so serious in your Scripture proofs for it?

L. M.

Because you carped at him more then once for a pleasant re­proofe of your misapplication of Scripture, which gave him just occasion to shew how, and in what cases a taunting speech may be allowed, which he hath so done, Sect. 15. pag. 39. &c that the most Readers, (your Life for one) may re­ceive instruction by his discourse, and so be engaged to be gratefull to him, not reproachfull, as you are.

J. S. pag. 9.

And for other Church-governments not coming under the triall of Parliament, nor coming out by sheir Authority, &c.

L. M.

If the Reader please to compare M. Leys nineteenth Section (wherein the Independents and Presbyterians are compared for modesty, and humility,) with this paragraph, marked with the number six, he will casily perceive how feeble, and frivolous a Reply this is, to that which M. Ley hath written. And the like conviction he may meet withall, if he take into comparative consideration M. S. his next paragraph of gos­pell-governments, pag. 10. and M. Leyes 21 Section, from pag. 60 to pag. 63.

Thus far for your Answer to M. Leyes, which is such a one, so short, so slight, so false, and yet to a silly and partiall reader so Fallacious, that he that reads both will finde cause to marvel that a pretender to wit should deale so weakly, and to grace, so wickedly in a cause of this kinde.

That which next followeth in M. S. his pamphlet, is the Testimony of Salmasius, which being heterogeneal from all the rest, I will assigne to the last place, as he did in his former an­swere, where that cometh in as a Postscript, and concludeth the Booke.

M. S. his causelesse and unchristian reproach of M. Ley, taken (without oc­casion given) out of C. D. his Defence of M. L. printed with his Book of Light for Smoke, brought in in this manner.

J. S. pag. 10.

C. D. his Treatise printed with M. Leys Book, in M. Leys commendation, whether made by himself or some other he best knowes.

L. M.

VVHether it were made by himselfe, or some other, it was not made against you, but against a scurrilous Newsmonger, as the Title sheweth, and therefore herein you meddle where you should not, and deserve to suffer as a busi­body in other mens matters. 1 Pet. 4.15. And you make it your busines to reproach M. Ley, as if he were vainglorious, in five particulars.

1. In affecttaion of Titles.

2. In mentioning of his Books printed and to be printed.

3. In printing an honourable Anagram made upon his Name.

4. In giving the signification of his Name in Hebrew and Spanish.

5. In publishing some letters written in his commenda­tion.

Whereto I shall returne you Answer, 1. In generall, and then 2. In particular.

In generall, I say you have dealt very foully and unfaithful­ly herein, in that you have concealed from your Reader the occasion, and scope for which those particulars (selected by you out of the Treatise) were brought in; which was, not so [Page 27]much for commendation of M. Ley, as for necessary vindica­tion of him from notorious contempt, put upon him in the Newsbook of that contumelious Scribler; who beginneth thus with him.

There came out this day a Book of 106 pages, written by John Ley, so is the Title, whether it was of the Lees French or Spanish, J Leave it to others to enquire.

Upon these words [So is the Title] C. D. tells him, that in the Title page of M. Ley his Book he might have knowne him as one of the Assembly of Divines; and if he had enquired as the Assembly of what account he was with his Reverend Brethren, he might have knowne that he was by them chosen, &c.

And because he made a disgracefull descant on M. Leys name, the greek Epigram made on it and him (when he was President of Syon Colledge, about an yeare and halfe be­fore) was in part repeated.

This might be warrant enough for him to have righted himselfe from such reproach, by reporting any truth that might releive his reputation in that behalfe; which though with such as knew him might be needlesse, yet to most who knew him not it might be necessary, and as lawfull as neces­sary: for,

Though it be good advice which Solomon giveth, Let ano­ther man praise theo, and not thine owne mouth a stranger, and not thine own lips; Pro. 27.2. (and the counsell holds as well in praise of the pen, as of the mouth,) yet when a man is injuri­ously vilified, especially a Minister of note, and publique em­ployment, he may doe such an act of justice and charity to his owne good Name, as well as to another mans.

S^t. Paul was as wise, as modest, as humble a Christian as could be, and yet (when his adversaries put him to it) he made his owne Apology, with comparative praise of him­selfe with others, and prelation above others; 2 Cor. 11.16.22.23. and those not only the false Apostles, who were emu­lous of his glory, and envious at it, but he compares himselfe with the cheif Apostles, saying, In nothing am I behinds the cheif Apostles, 2 Cor. 12.11. and tells the Cariuthiaus, to [Page 28]whom he wrot, that he ought to have been commended by them, in the same place.

If then M. Ley had written that of himselfe, which you mention as an immodest vindication, it being true, and utter­ed it upon just occasion, and had owned it in his owne name, he had not for that deserved either reproach or reproofe from you, or any one else; and if he did it with concealment of his name, he had the warrant of the same Apostle for that con­cealment, who, when he spake of his rapture into the third heaven, and his hearing words unspeakable, which was a matter of glory, brought it in as in a third person. 2 Cor. 12. v. 4.5.6.

2 Whereas you sayPag. 4. that he who speaks so much in M. Ley his praise, stands a little too neere him; I must tell you you are a man of small reading, if you have not met with some scores of Authors, of good account, who have printed with their owne Books elogia or laudatory Prefaces, or poems of other men; not as C. D. came in, on the back side of M. Ley his book, when all was done, but in, or very neer the frontispice, that they might come first in view, and be most like to be read, what ever was not.

And though your example be of little worth and weight for Answere to another mans objection, yet against your selfe (asOpinor tuum testimoniü quod in alienâre leve esset, id in tua, quum contra te est, gravissi­mum debet esse. Cicer. Orat. 1. pro P. Quintio pag. 13. Cicero sayd of Nevius, an unworthy and wicked fellow) it is sufficient conviction; and your selfe have published a Book of verses, with as high scrued commendation, both up­on your selfe and them, in the next leafe before your Book begun, and next after your Epistle Dedicatory, as could be set before the Poem of Homer in Greek, or Virgil in Latine, Bartas in French, Quarles, or Sandis in English. Your pro­logical Encomiastes cals your bookEst pius, est doctus, quod vo­co, plura, tuus. In t [...]to mini­mum non cerno corpore naevum. Ni naevus nae­vum non ha­buisse fiet. Pag. 13. 14. pious and learned, and makes as if it were the compendium of all prayse to call it yours; and yet afterwards adds, that in the whole body of it he sees not the least mole, or freckle, or blemish, unlesse it be a blemish to want a blemish. And yet, by his leave, your Po­eticall Meditation on The Song of Songs deserves to be chasti­sed, in the judgement of pious and judicious Criticks, for [Page 29]some want on expressions of, heathen Poetry upon that sacred Sonnet.

And whereas M. Ley desires no more of the Licensers hand then a bare Imprimatur in the written Copy for his Book, you bring your Licenser in print, with some solemne attesta­tion, either of praise, or of Apology on your behalfe, witnesse Jo. Bachilers approbation of your Smoke in the Temple, as more then ordinarily usefull in those times; and his aprobation of your last Pamphlet, or Letter to M. Ley, as agreeable to the laws of nature, and of grace; wherein they who impartially peruse what is written on both sides, will in the finall account re­solve that he hath not so much honoured you, as shamed him self.

Thus much for Answer to the imputation in Generall, now for the particulars.

1 For the Titles you mention, there was just cause and oc­casion of their repetition, because the malevolent New mon­ger brought in M. Ley as some obscure and unworthy Levite, who was not knowne by any other Title then that which belonged to him from his baptisme; whereas he might have seene in the Title page of his first book against you, that he was a member of the Assembly of Divines; and that being re­membred, the other particular Titles, being all of them of use for repulse of his contempt, occasionally drew in one ano­ther; and to a fellow of his condition the Answere was very sutable, because he was most capable of such a conviction.

But for M. Ley himself, he is so farre from a vain affecta­tion of Titles of prelation, that when, many years ago, he was importuned by many great friends in the Vniversity, and out of it, to take the degree of Doctour in Divinity, he re­fused, upon this reason, (as many worthy witnesses well re­member) because he was then in contestation with a Gen­tleman of his parish, with whom he desired to be at peace, and he would not take such a title, and degree upon him, as might perhaps provoke him to anger or envy, (though he were so Religious, that being dead he hopes he is in Heaven) by reason of the nominall preeminence, and personall prece­dence, [Page 30]which (whether by right, or long-received custom, or both, I cannot tell) is assigned to Theologicall graduates of that denomination.

And for your scoffing close, or conclusion of that titular objection, pag. 11. I remember not any of the Apostles in such Offices and Titles; It is a very poor, and empty jeer. For,

• 1. Many things have been, which you never read, nor heard of.
• 2. You remembred not that any one of them were stiled Academicall graduates, as either Batchelers, or Masters of Art, Batchelers, or Doctours in Divinity, Professours of Di­vinity, Provosts, Prefects of Colledges, Vice-chancellours: which titles you give to Henry Smith, to whom you dedi­cate your book; and yet you will not say they are either to be denyed, or derided.
• 3. Nor do you remember, I am sure, that any one of them played the Poets, nor took upon them the Title of Mercu­rius Britannicus, and under that title minted, and vented news for popular Information, as (if good Intelligencers be not mistaken) you have sometimes done.
• 4. Your exception herein is but a negative testimoniall argument in a matter of no necessity, either of existence, or cognizance.
• 5. There are many particulars wherein the Apostolicall times and after ages do not agree, and yet the dissent is no fault on either side; of this you may read an Epistle of
  Doctour Hall. 5. Decad. of Epist. Ep. 2. pag. 164.
  Do­ctour Hall, before he was Bishop, I say before he was Bi­shop (that you may not startle at the testimony, as if it were Antichristian) wherein he sheweth by many instances, the difference of the present Church from the Apostolicall, and needlesnes of out conformity thereto in all things; to which observations of his it is easy to adde much more then he hath said, to the same purpose.

The second particular is, the mention of his books printed and to be printed; which served to the same end, viz. further to confute the conceit of the scurtillous Novellist concerning [Page 31]M. Ley, whom he so named, as to make his Reader believe he was a man unknown untill he appeared against his misin­forming passages; wherein it is observable, that C. D. left out some books of M. L. partly printed, and partly licensed for the Presse, and you (out of what motive you best know) leave out some which he hath mentioned. But to the ap­probation given of them, you say, give them leave to speak them­selves in this point, pag. 11. If you mean this of the books, as you use that phrase after wards, they have spoken as much as others say of them; if of the Readers, they will speak or write their judgement of them, as some have done allready; whereof sufficient proof may be produced, when just oc­casion requireth.

The third Exception you take is, at the Anagram and Epi­gram on M. Ley his name, made when he was President of Syon Colledge, about a year and an half age, which was in part Printed in Greek, as it was penned by one learned man, and rendred in English by another, (both Masters of Art, and Divines of many years standing) because it very well served to oppose the reproach of the Pamphleters Etymology, or rather pseudology of his Name, from the Lets of wine, French or Spanish; but it was so contracted, and turned, by M. Leys direction, as might well have prevented M. S. his im­putation. For

First. The epigram consisted of twelve Greek verses, and he would not su [...]er so much as two of them in the Transla­tion to be printed.

Secondly, He caused the second verse in English to be broken off, before the words— [...], because he would not have them translated, as speaking more in his praise then his modesty would admit.

Thirdly, In that second verse be put out the word rare, and put in the word now, in stead of it; and so farre abated the ho­nour of that Epithete, as to make it no more thon such an ad­dition as might be applyed to any person, thing, or action, though as meane and contemptible as his adversary, or his scandalous and scurrilous Queres put out against them.

Fourthly, This modesty hath been imputed to him as a fault from the hand of a learned Friend (who had a sight of the verses in a M S) with a request that he would prefixe them entirely before the next Booke of his that commeth forth, and there is one ready for the Presse of his transcri­bing) that words are part of a latine letter lately written to M. Ley, which for the learned Readers satisfaction I have set inƲtinam in­tegrum epi­gramma subje­ctsset Novello mastix (vir cruditus & ingeniosus) nec solum distichon lectori donam, celasset Illas laudes, quibus nemo te neseen­tium, modò pro­bus sit, & Graeculus, non libentissimè subscripsisset; etsi autem mu­tilumin praesen­tiâ Novello­mastix edide­rit (quod tuo nimto mode­stiae tribuen­dum est) sore tamea non de­spero ut perse­ctum aliquando prodeat. Te (que) oratum habeo, ut libro tuo, quicunque fit quem proxime in lucem emit­tis, praefigere ne graveris Dated, April. 23. 1646. the margine.

The fourth particular cavill is made at the signification of M. Leys name in Hebrew, the grace of God; and in Spanish, law: which was so pertinently brought in to confute that fond E­tymologist, that being true, it could not with discretion have been omitted.

The fifth note of vain boasting implicitely imputed by you to M. L. is the recitall of some letters of commendation, pag. 19, 20, &c. where still you conceal the occasion with an unsin­cere subtlety, not becoming a Christian, much lesse a Mini­ster of the Gospel, least of all one of so refined a Reformation as you pretend unto. The occasion you know was this, The scurrilous novellist had suggested M. Leys book stuck up­on M. Meredith the Stationers hand, to his losse, and that therefore he was to make him a recompence, and this, with a sensles absurdity too, he wrote for news of the same day when M. Leys book came out; which being made known to M. Meredith, he wrote a letter of confutation of that folly, and falshood, and in that said the book sold very well, and that he had severall Letters (from such as were able to judge) in approbation of it, as worthy both to be bought and read; and he presently sent him that which came next to hand, the writer whereof, a godly and learned Divine, saith thus, I pray you present my respects to Reverend M. Ley, I blesse Gad for him, and for his learned and faithfull labours, especially his last in Answer to Saltmarsh his Query, and in vindication of the Cities and Ministers Petition.

And this is all, Sir, you were pleased to remember of C. D. his Treatise, whereas there are many things in it of more weight, of which you seem to take no notice. Doubtlesse [Page 33]your intent was to cast a dead fly of vain ostentation into the ointment of his good name, that a little folly might cause a stinking savour on him, who is in reputation for wisdom and ho­nour, Eccles. 10.1. and your motive to this (as it is to be fear­ed) was envy at his approbation and praise, which made you rather point at the letters, then report their contents, or the occasion of their writing and Printing.

J. S. pag. 11.

Thus I have gathered up all in your book that concerns you materially, and your friend printed on the back side of yours.

L. M.

Thus I have gathered? Even so, Sir, as you gather Churches, with so little sincerity, that all may gather by your dealing that you make no conscience of scandalous suggestions, or of fraudulent reservations.

But if you dare be so bold with sinne, me thinks you should not be so blinde in judgement, as to think such grosse miscarriage in the cause in difference can be secured with all the subtilty you have, from shamefull infamy.

And I wish you did but hear what judicious and wise men, both Divines, and others, have said of you, since they have read the reciprocall writings betwixt M. Ley and you. Truly, Sir, whatever you think of your self, they take you (for such gatherings and severings as you make of clear and plain words) to be little better then salt that hath lost its sa­vour, good for nothing but to be troden under feet, Matth. 5.13. and some of them who are men of note for pie­ty, and prudence, and who are so farre from conceiving you come off with credit in the cause, that they think you should not go away without punishment, at least that you cannot escape shame for your wilfull falsehood, and abuse of your Reader.

J. S. pag. 11.

And for other particulars more substantiall, your Bookes and mine are both abread, let them speake for themselves.

L. M.

And why may they not speake for themselves in matters of lesse moment, as well as more substantiall? but whether for ei­ther, or both, M. Ley desires nothing more, then that all who read the one would read the other. But you cannot without hypocrisy pretend so much syncerity, when you doe all you can to delude your Reader by subtile concealments, and mis­intimations; and make it a fault in M. Ley, In the first page of your letter to M. Ley. fairly and freely to informe the Reader of such alternate passages betwixt him & you, as make for the clearing of the difference betwixt you.

J. S. pag. 11.

The Readers must now judge in the spirit, what we both have written in the Letter.

L. M.

What you meane by the spirit I know not; I doubt you meane some new, giddy, wavering fancy, such as sets you on scrib­ling you care not what. But if they will, as they ought, judge righteous judgement, Iohn 7.24. neither M. Ley nor C. D. will have any cause to be afraid of their definitive sentence, in the triall before them.

J. S. pag. 11.

I intend not to puzzle the world with any more of this contro­versy.

L. M.

This is one of the wisest, and honestest passages in your An­swere, if you be true to what you tell your Reader; for it im­plieth a confession (of that which you injuriously object to M. Ley in the beginning of your Letter) of puzling the world, your Readers, your simple Readers, you should say, for neither the world, nor the wise in it will be puzled with such poore trifles as you present, and send abroad; and a pro­mise that you will offend in that kinde no more; wise and good men will be glad to take you at your word: but I doubt you will not be so good a man, as to make them believe you will take up a controversie, unlesse you may have the last word.

J. S. pag. 11.

Some truth may be seene, and what is more is but you and I.

L. M.

More truth might have beene seene, if you had used such plaine dealing as your duty required. What you meane by What is more is but you and I, I doe not clearly understand; whether what is more then truth, or then that truth which is already seene, is but you and I, that is, our adverse assertions, yet there is a truth in them on one side, or other; but for this, Si non vis intelligi debes negligi.

J. S. pag. 11.

S^r, I was unwilling to set your failings before you, and the world.

L. M.

It seemes so in fact, because you have set none but your owne faylings of truth and honesty before the world; but sure your affection was to make others believe you have made such discoveries of him as might disgrace him. But are you so blinded with selfe-love, as to believe that any wise Reader of M. Leys writings and yours will thinke you meant to have any mercy on his reputation, if he had justly incurred the re­proach of your penne?

J. S. pag. 11.

But since you printed them once over in mistake, I thought I might print them over in a clearer letter.

L. M.

Not so cleare, S^r, but that there is more Smoke then Light in the words you use. For what meane you by M. Ley his printing of his faylings by mistake? you meane sure to be mistak­en, else you would not wrap up your meaning in such intri­cate expressions; and when your minde is knowne, it will re­solve into the mistake of your last words in your 11. pag. as they follow.

J. S. pag. 11.

That you may see things for errours, which before you tooke for truths.

L. M.

You must be a Thaumaturgus, M. S. and change the nature [Page 36]of things, as Moses did when he turned a rod into a serpent, be­fore you can make either M. Ley, or any judicious man be­lieve that errour is his, and truth yours in the controversie be­twixt you. But that you should conceive that such a little broken, darke and dulky glasse should make him see any such change as you talke of, is such a fiction in your owne fancy as will never thrive to a fallacy in any other that is not wholly yours already.

J. S. pag. 12.

Conclusion.

Thus I have replyed to your positions, not to your passions, nor reproaches, wherein you are something larger then I had thought becomes an orthodox Divine.

L. M.

Your Conclusion, S^r, is but Collusion, wherein you have many wayes uncharitably abused M. Ley. and fallaciously endeavour­ed to make your Readers misdeem the difference betwixt him and you, as if by such small snipps, and snatches at M. Leys last large Book (as you call it) you had given a good and just account of it to competent Iudges. You would make them believe that M. Ley was impotently passionate, and re­proachfull in his passions, and that your self were a man of a better mould and temper then Elias was, Iames. 5.17. made up meerly of Evangelicall mildnes: when indeed M. Ley hath been so passive under you, and patient towards you, as hath put him to make his Apology to some of no meane place, for such an immoderate moderation, as is at further distance from just severity, then from partial indulgence. And if any of his language seem harsh unto you, it is but the correspon­dence of his character to your carriage, he doth but make his expression according to the print of your provocations.

J. S. pag. 12.

For the dire you cast in my face, I have onely wiped it off, with­out casting it back on yours.

L. M.

M. Ley hath cast no dirt upon your face, but onely set a looking-glasse and Light before your eyes, that you might see [Page 37]your spots and wash your face. And for that wining off the dare you speake of, it is but like the adulteresses wiping of her mouth (saying, she hath done no wickednes, Pro. 30.20.) which was the more foule, by such an hypocritical clearing of her selfe; and such is yours in this place.

J. S. pag. 12.

For your revilings, slightings, and raylings, if they trouble not your selfe to write, the Presse to Print, the Reader to read, I pro­mise you they trouble not me.

L. M.

For slighting of your papers you cannot justly blame M. Ley, since there is so litle in them to instruct, or edifie a Rea­der, that I doubt not but every prudent and impartiall man, that hath had the patience to peruse them, and to compare them with M. Leys Books, hath taken his leave of them with extreme dislike for their slightnes and emptities; as a man would doe at the offer of chaff for wheat, leaves for fruit, Smoke for Light; nay you your selfe have slighted them, in a sudden and extemporary obtrusion of them to the Presse, with­out due consideration of them before they came thither, or considerate review of their errata when they came thence.

But for revilings and raylings, you cannot object them to him without reviling and railing, and I dare challenge you, on his behalfe, to shew any expressions of his, which you take to come under so contumelious a Title, and I will make proof that there is warrant for them in your owne words; and that there is not one letter of aggravation in them above the de­gree of your guilt; and therefore, S [...], they should Trouble you, and humble you, because you have deserved them, and not M. Ley, whose words, if they be taken at the worst, are but meet and even with your merit.

J. S. pag. 12.

And though I am much below many, yet I am in this above you, that I can forgive you, by how much he that can pardon is greater them he that offends.

L. M.

Who they be, and how many, or few they be whom you [Page 38]acknowledge your self to be below I cannot tell; but in as­suming such a lamb-like lenity, as without any trouble to take notice of such, and so great injury as you complain of, and yet to be so ready to pardon, as you pretend, and (as you brag in the next paragraph) to thank your adversary for his ill usage of you, is to climbe much higher in self-exaltation then M. Ley had done, if he had said ten times more in his own commendation of that kinde which you objected to him. For it is the highest degree of Evangelicall grace, a­bove Angelicall cloquence, Propheticall intelligence, miraculous confidence (even to removing of mountains) above most profuse benificence, giving all a mans goods to feed the poor, above the patience of martyrdom, of willing martyrdom, under the hottest torments, giving the body to be burned, as Paul sets it out, in the thirteenth chapter of his former Epistle to the Corinthians.

And whereas, out of your superabundant grace, you say, you can pardon him, why do you not do it? why did you not forbear further to abuse him in this last paper of yours? that so, according to the ambition of your minde, you might be above him in benevolence. But if you had made none o­ther returne to his last book, then your Diploma of indulgence unto him, and pardon of him, under your hand and seal, he might have scorned to accept it, as a Bull or a pardon from the Pope, sub annulo piscatoris; since, though you were such a pardoner asIs (scic Te­celius) inter a­lia docebat, se tantam habere potestatem a pontifice, ut e­tiamsi quis vir­ginem matrem vitiasset ac gravidam se­cisset, condona­re crimen ipse posset, inter­ventu pecuniae: deinde, non mo­ddjam commis­sa, verumeti­am sutura pec­cata condona­bat. Sleidan Comment. l. 13. fol. 209. pag b. Tecelius boasted himself to be, he is no of­fender against you, to put you to the practice of patience towards him, or him to the purchase of a pardon from you.

J. S. pag. 12.

I thank you for your ill usage, you cannot do that against [...] which works not for my good.

L. M.

What are your rebukes, when your thanks are such re­proaches? wherein you magnify your self, and vilify your adversary as much as may be. And if you think as you say, he cannot do that against you which works not for your [Page 39]good, I hope it will do you good, and it's my desire to dis­cover your hypocrisy, by setting your profession and pra­ctice in a posture fit for a mutuall and reciprocall aspect from the one to the other.

J. S. pag. 12.

For I am learning to blesse those that curse me, to pray for those that despightfully use me?

L. M.

You are learning? with such profciency in charity, as the silly women made in knowledge, of whom Paul said, that they were ever learning, and never came to the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tim. 3.7.

J. S.

Learning to blesse: To blesse in that sense wherein Jobs wife spake to her husband, Iob. 2.9. Blesse God and die, for so the word Barech in the primary signification of the originall must be rendred, though sometimes by a figure, called Eu­phemia, it be put for cursing, as in that place.

J. S. pag. 12.

And to pray for them that despightfully use me.

L. M.

Charity is the chief of evangelicall graces, 1 Cor. 13.1. and you pretend to the highest degree of it, the returning of blessing for cursing, prayers for reproaches, and despightfull usages, to be a friend to your enemies, when you play the enemy with your friend. Such an one you had just cause to accompt M. Ley, who first appeared in profession, and per­formance of respect unto you, before you shewed your self any way well affected to him: and (excepting his engage­ment to the truth, which did as much oblige him to be an adversary, as Christianity did to be no enemy) he was wil­ling to continue an ingenuous correspondence with you even to the last; and therefore in a friendly manner he sent you his last book, as well as his first that he wrote against you: But you, for all your fair shews of Evangelicall lenity and love, have been very bitter, and splenative towards him, endeavouring to render him to the Reader an indiscreet and [Page 40]vain boaster, a shifting tergiversator, a slanderer, a rayler, a reviler, and persecutour, and many times you have with an Ishmaelitish jeer, like a venemous pill wrapt up in leaf-gold, endeavoured to taint, and poyson his reputation, so farre as your credit would reach, to the ruine of it.

It is true (and obvious to the observation of any intelligent man, that marks the temper and complection of your Ge­nius) that you affect such expressions of your rancor and reproach, as the Psalmist noteth of an hypocriticall malig­nant: The words of his mouth are smoother then butter, but war was is his heart; his words were softer then oyl, yet were they drawen swords, Psal. 55.21. and like a dogPurch Pilgr. of Relig. of Congo, to bite, though you bark not.

J. S. pag. 12.

And truly this advantage I shall make of your taxing me for faults which I have not, to tax my self for many other faults which I have indeed, which you and the world sees not.

L. M.

You have not, nor can you truly object any charge un­truly imposed upon you by Master Ley. And for taxing your self for faults, which Master L. and the world see not, you will see ere long perhaps that M. Ley hath been chary of your credit, when you shall read in black and white from another hand, that which may make you pale with guilt, or red with shame; whereof there may be pregnant proof, though neither he, nor the world were eye witnesses of your faults; and which he was not willing to upbraid you with, though he were confidently informed of it, and seriously sollicited to make it a part of his recrimination against you.

A Review of the Testimony of Sal­masius, cited by M^r Saltm. the second time, with much ignorance, or little conscience, touching the form of Baptisme, and the Right of Presbytery.

J. S.

FOR Salmasius his Testimony, with the Baptisme in the Name of the Lord? Jesus Christ: and his testi­mony that the Presbytery is but of humane, and po­sitive right, not of divine; He is mine, and not yours: and all your pains, and quarelling, and after-quotations cannot make him more yours, or lesse mine; and it is no little disadvantage to you, that one so great a Scholar at your whole Assembly affords my, hath thus witnessed with the truth, which so many Scholars oppose.

L. M.

It was too much unfaithfulnes, especially in such a spiri­tuall penman as you would be reputed, that you did once en­deavour to delude your Reader with a misallegation of the Learned Salmasius; but now again (after you have been de­tected in your ill dealing) and there are as many witnesses of your falsehood therein, as there have been indifferent Readers of the writings betwixt M. L. and you) to resume the same Testimony, and not only to misapply it to the pa­tronage of your erroneous opinions, but to call an ingenu­ous and clear confutation of you, quarrelling, and to glory that Salmasius is so much yours, that it is no little disadvan­tage to our side, that one so great a Scholar as the Assembly affords any, hath so witnessed with the truth in your sence, and this upon your bare affirmation, without so much as a [Page 42]pretence of proof, as if your word were an oracle in your own cause, all these ill qualified ingredients, made up into an entire Dos, amount to such an excesse of immodesty, as without an overcourteous charlentismus cannot properly be called by any term or title on this side impudence.

Howsoever, your evil dealing (by an overruling provi­dence, which produceth good out of evil) may bring forth this good effect; viz. That the truth may be further cleared, and you more abundantly convinced, and consequently the more ashamed of your confident boasting of your partly for­ged, and partly feigned attestation of Salmasius for your Te­nets, in point of Baptisme and Independencie.

1. Of Baptisme.

Whereof you mention two particulars, the one of the matter of it, the other of the forme. For the matter of it, as you bring it to, it is river water, and of that for matter of fact, there is no doubt but that the first Baptisme in the New Testament was in river water, and at the river Jordan, Matth. 3.6. afterwards some were Baptized inHieron. de locis Hebr. fountains, as the Eunuch, Act. 8.38. Some in rivers, as Lydia, Act. 16.15. Some in particular houses, as the Gaiter in the prison, ver. 33. of the same chapter.

And for matter of right, no orthodox Divine hath held any of them unlawfull.

But for the form of Baptisme, there is much question a­bout that; which, if M. Saltmarsh had said nothing at all, may deserve a diligent discussion. But I shall do somewhat the more in it, for the discovery of his either ignorance, or inconsideration in the cause, For the clearing whereof we are to observe, that the Sacrament of Baptisme hath been di­versly administred by acts,

• 1. Preparative, and
• 2. Executive.

First, For preparation, such as were new converts to true Religion, and were competently endowed with qualificati­ons intellectuall and morall, prepared themselves, byIngressures Baptismum o­retronibus cre­bris, jejunijs & geniculati­onibus, & por­vigilsij orare portet, & cum confessione omnium retrò delictorum. Tertul de Baptism. fre­quent prayers, fastings, kneelings, watchings, with confession of their former sins.

Secondly, For acts excentive for the performance of the Sacrament, the manner hath beenPro diverso fidelium statu potuit sacra­mentum Initi­ationis varia­ri, Gerard. Job. Vossij, Thes. 30. pag. 405. various in the severall ages of the Church; As when Iohn Baptized, there was a confession of sins made by those who were of years, when they were made partakers of the Sacrament; And no doubt, though it be not expressed set down, they made profession of their faith also, because it is said by our Saviour, He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be­leeveth not shall be damned, Mark. 16.16. and of their repent­ance also, because Iohns Baptisme was called the Baptisme of repentance, Mark 1.4. Act. 13.24. & chap. 19. ver. 4. And the Baptisme of the Apostles was therein agreeable to the Baptisme of John: For those they baptized were bapti­zed into Jesus Christ, Rom. 6.3. which could not be without saith, nor could the faith be known but by profession; and repentance was required to be professed as well as faith in their Apostolicall administration of Baptisme, and there­fore Peter joyns them both together, Repent and be Bapti­zed, Act. 2.38.

Afterwards to these particulars some others were added, as the renunciation of the Devil, with his pomps and Angels, mentioned by diversOrigen. Hom. 12. in Num. Bas [...]. lib. de spit. sonct. c. 11. Chrysost. Hom. 21. ad pop. Antlech. Greek, andTertul. de Sp [...]. c. 1. Cyprian. [...]. [...]. de [...] [...]ar [...]y [...]l [...]. Ambros. l. 1. de Sacramentis c. 2. & l. 2. c. 7. Hieron. in c. 6. Amos. August. de symb. ad Catechumenos c. 1. Latine Fathers, and ex­pounded in^d Concilic Parisiensi, which were reduced to In­terrogatoties, as in the Baptisme of the Eunuch by Philip, Act. 8. which^e Grotins turns into an interrogatory thus: Doest thou beleave with all thine beart? But the words are, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be Baptized, and he answered and said, I believe that Josue Christ is the Son of God, ver. 37.

Which, though it suited well with those times, (where­in such as were of full age, were able to answer for them­selves) was very impertinently, if not absurdly applied to the Baptisme of children, both in the Popish Missall, and in the [Page 44]English Service book, either to the childe, or to them that presented it to Baptisme, as in the childes name and stead; for so it was meant, as is manifest by the last Question, wilt thou be Baptized in this faith? Though to those that brought the childe to be Baptized such a question might be put, as we finde it in the form of administration of Baptisme in the Church of Geneva, set out in Calvins Opuscula, where also we sinde the recitall of the Creed, the Lords Prayer, end the Imposition of a name on the Baptized, whereof we finde no footsteps in the Apostles time, thoughMartinus Cantapetren­sis, 5. lypo­typ. c. 1. some conceive (but cannot prove out of Scripture) that Sauls name at his Bap­tisme was changed into the name Paul; much lesse can the Papists prove their manifold additions, which reckoned all together, make up the number of 22. ceremonies,Bel. de Sa­crament. Bapt. l. 1 c 25 Tom. 3. p 368. twelve before Baptisme,Ibid. c. 26. five with it,Ibid c. 27. and five after it.

But that which most concerns our present inquirie is, The form of words wherewith it is principally to be administred, whereofAccedat ver­bum ad elemen­tum, & fit Sacramentum. Aug. Tract. in Johan. 80. Aug. saith, Let the word be added to the element, and they two make up the Sacrament. Where we will not take up the Question betwixt Protestants and Papists, concerning theChamier de Sacrament is in Genere l. 1. c. 15. Tom. 4. Ponstrat p. 32. &c. consecratory and concionatory word, for we may resolve in brief, that the same form of words, though they be con­cionatory, as containing publike instruction to those that are present at the Sacrament, (and if they be not so, they are no meet words for that sacred service) may be consecratory to the Institution, and Administration of the Sacrament; and that's the speciall use for which they are to be rehearsed. Taking the words in this sence, we may divide the whole Question into these particular Queries.

1. Whether there be any form of words for the administration of Baptisme at all?

2. If so, Whether there have been one certain and constant form observed in the Scripture, and what difference of forms may be collected out of it?

3. Among divers forms; which is the chief?

4. Whether any one be so necessary that it is not lawfull to va­ry from it?

5. If any variation be lawfull, What may be admitted without marring the Sacrament, what not?

1 Querie.

Whether there be any for me of winds for administration of Bap­tisme at all? This question is occasioned byBellarm l. 1. de Bapt. c. 20. Bellarmine, who, following Durand the schooleman, holds that Iohn bap­tised without any for me of words. But 1Barth. Medi­na in tertiam partem Th. q. 38 art. o. p. 803. Barth, Medina, another schoolman of great note, for he was Doctour of the Chaire in the Universitie of Salmanen, holds the contrary. And secondly as a learnedGerard, Loc. Com Tom. 4. p 450. num. 46. Lutheran Answereth, To admi­nister the Sacrament without any for me of words, were to make the Sacrament a dumbe shew. Thirdly, whereas Bellarm: pretends for a reason of his opinion, that if Iohn used any form; it was In the Name of the Messias to come, and that he used the same forme to all alike (to Christ as well as to others) whom he baptised,Etiam Chri­stum baptiza­vit Iohannes coritu quo ca­teros, & certe ridiculum ju­isset Christum baptizasse in nomine ventu­ri. Bellarm. ubt supra p. 352. But it would be ridiculous to say (saith he) that he baptised Christ in the Name of him that was to come. To this it may be replyed, and the Reply will be proved in the resoluti­on of the next Doubt, That Iohn did not use one forme unto all, (that is, to Christ and to all the Christians he baptised) For it had been rather ridiculous to have made no difference in words, where there was so great difference in persons, and times, then to varie with respect unto them, as we shall seasonably observe in the clearing of the next ensuing Quere.

2 Querie.

The Second Querie is. Whether we find one certain, and con­stant forme of Baptisme, either prescribed or observed in the Scrip­ture, and what difference of forms may be collected out of it?

I shall draw down the resolution of his doubt by certaine graduall propositions.

First, It is certain that Iohn did not baptize in his owne name, no more then Paul, 1 Cor. 1. Were yee baptized, sayd he, in the name of Paul, v. 13. I thanke God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gajus, lest any should say that I baptized in mine own Name, ver. 14, 15. for he bare witnesse of Christ, Ioh. 1.7. as comming after him, yet indeed preferred before him, ver. 15. and though as the Sun of man a little after him, as [Page 46] the Son of God so far before him, as to be stiled the ever lasting Father, Esay 9.6. and so farr above him, as that he professed, when he baptized him, he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of his shoe, ver. 27. and he confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not that Christ, ver. 20. And being usked, What then? art thou Elias? he sayd, I am not; Art thou that prophet? and he an­swered, No, ver. 12. and being further demanded, Who art thou, what sayest thou of thy selfe? ver. 22. he sayd, I am the voyce of one crying in the wildernes, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. ver 23.

Thirdly, Not baptizing in his own Name, these Texts doe intimate that he baptized in his Name, who was so far above him, and whose forerunner he was, to prepare the way for him. And it is manifest that he baptized In the Name of the Lord Iesus, Acts. 19.6. for those words are to be referred to Johns baptisme, which is repeated in the story of Luke, not to any rebaptization of the disciples by the Apostle, who before were baptized with the Baptisme of John, as theBellarm. de Sacr. Bapt. lib. 1. c. 22. Tom. 3 p 359. Lo­ranus in Act. 19 v. 5. p. 506. Estius in lib. Sent. 4. dist­inct. 2. p. 38. Papists contend, that they may prove a great difference betwixt the baptisme of Iohn, and the baptisme of Christ and his Apostles. And I am sorry to read the like exposition for rebaptization in the Annotations of so orthodox a Divine as Deodat; for Iohns Baptisme was a true, and sufficient Baptisme, and there­fore there was no need of a rebaptizing of those whom he baptized before; nor were they baptized again, but hands im­posed on them, and their baptisme thereby approved. For though the supper of the Lord be administred often, 1 Cor. 11. ver. 25.26. because we have need to be often spiritually, as wel as corporally fed; yet Baptisme, which is the meanes of our ingraffing into Christ, of our admission and entolment into the Church of Christ, and of our now birth, is done but once, as we are born but once.

Thirdly, The mention of Christ by Iohn was not only ser­mon wise, asTantum adma­muisse populum, ut crederent in venturum Mes­siam. Bell. l. [...]. de Bap. c. 20. Bellarmine would have it, who sayth that Iohn did only admonish the people to believe in Christ who was to come; But he used some words of Christ in the administration of Baptisme Sacramentally, as all orthodox Divines doe unani­mously agree.

Fourthly, For the words used by Iohn at his Baptisme, though we cannot be certain of them, because we finde no ex­presse scripture for them, asVoss. Thes. de Bapt. 8. p. 393. Ʋesseus warily asserteth, yet it is very probable that they wereVess. Thes. 30. p. 405. varyed, according to the dif­ferent condition of persons whom he baptized, and of the time wherein, & the state of him in whose Name he baptized.

First, Before Christ was manifested the Messias who was expected, (which was illust riously set forth at his baptisme in the river Iordan,) Iohn Baptized in his Name as yet to come, as may be collected out of Act. 19.4. Hence divers, both of the ancient Fathe [...]s, and of the Schoolmen, have concluded that John baptized in this form,Baptizo te in nomine venturi Messiae; sic Hi­cron in Ioel chap. 2. Am­bros l 1 de S. S. c. [...]. & in epist, de Ʋniu [...] [...]xorts v [...]ro. Alexander. Alensis 4. part. quest. 9. monit. 2. Lumbard. sen [...]ent l. 4. dist. 2. pag 697. Aquinas in 4. lib. sent. dist. 2. Barth. de Medina in 3. part. Thom q 38 art. 6. p. 801. I baptize thee in the Name of him who was, or is to come; and with them agreeth^b Gerard. Ioh. Ʋossius.

Secondly, When he was come, and gloriously manifested by a visible signe, and glorious acknowledgment from heaven, Mat. 3. then he did not say, as before, I baptize thee in the name of him that was, or is to come, but in the Name of him who is come, and hath been among you, in the midst of you.

Thirdly, When he baptized our Saviour Christ, it was not like that he would use such words to him, as he used to others; For to others Baptisme was a washing away of sin, and he had none, and therefore Baptisme was not necessary to him; for, asBaptizari­vis Domine Iesu? quid tibl opus suct bap­tumate? nun­quid san [...] [...]p [...] est medicina, ac mundatione mundo? unde tihi peccatum ut baptisma sit necessari [...]? nanqui la patre? patren quidem babes, sed De­um, & ae qualis es illi, Deus de Deo, Lunen de Lumine; Nam in Deum peccarum cadere non passe qui [...] nesc [...]? an verb le matre? nam & matrem babes, sed oirgo est — Quam maculan potest babere agum sine maculd? — Iohannes baptizavit aguum & aquas Idvit. Bern. sermon. 1. in epiphan. Dom. col. 76. B. C. Bernard hath it in his patheticall Apostrophe to Christ, Lord Iesus wilt thou be baptized? why, what need hast thou of Baptisme I doth the sound stand in need of a physitian, or the cleans of washing? whence hadst thou any sinnne thai should be washed away by baptisme? hadst thou any sinne from thy Father? why he was God, and thou art equall to him, God of God, Light of Light, and who knowes not that in God there can be no sin? or hadst thou sin from thy mother? amother indeed thou hadst, but she was a virgin. [Page 48]He should have added, and though not altogether with­out sin, her seed was sanctified by the holy Ghost at his concep­tion; He goeth on, What staine could be found in him who was a lambe without spot? Iohn baptized the lambe (saith he,) and by that baptisme washt the waters. He was baptized then not as guilty of sin, and so not as needing baptismall regeneration, but to fulfill all righteousnes. Math. 3.15. to submit himselfe as under the law, comming in the forme of a servant, Phil. 2.7. though he were the Law-maker; and therefore he was cir­cumcised, as well as baptized, to honour his owne Ordinance with his owne example, and to be conformable to man in all things, sin only excepted.

Nor was it fit to baptize him in the Name of him that was to come; How then, or with what forme of words was he bap­tized? I haue met with no Authour but one, who takes upon him affirmatively and distinctly to answer that question; and it isPalacius 2. de Bapt. c. 33. Palacius a Papist who sayth, he baptized him thus, I baptize thee in thine owne name, who wast to come. Wherein, be­ing so punctuall in his resolution, he was too presumptuous. Yet on the other hand, they are as far out who say, asMarsilius & Paludanus apud Lorin. in Act. c. 19. v. 4. p. 705. col. 2. Bellarm l. 1. de Bapt. c. 20. Tom 3. p. 35 [...]. some doe, that Iohn used no form of words at all in the Baptisme of Christ.

Fourthly,Magdeburg. Centur. 1. l. 2. cap. 6. Chamier. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 13. p 277. Some learned Divines hold that Iohn did, at least sometimes, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy ghost; although someBellarm. l 1. de sacra. Bapt. c. 23. Papists do with such confidence deny it,Lorin. in Act Apost. c. 10. v. a. p. 704. col. 2. as to hold it impudence to affirm it. And they hold so the rather, to maintain their Tenet against the Pro­testants, of the essentiall difference of the Baptisme of John, from the Baptisme instituted by Christ, according to his command, and commission given to the Apostles, Matth. 28.19.

But it is probable enough that he did in his Baptisme make mention of the Trinity; because,

1. He had the same warrant of divine authority for what he did, which the Apostles had, Iob. 1.33.

2. BecauseSic argument. Chamterus lo­ce citato. he was an orthodox Divine, and acquainted with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Because at the baptisme of our Saviour there was a most cleare manifestation of the Trinity, the father acknow­ledging his Sonne from heaven, and the holy ghost lighting on him in the likenes of a Dove. And therefore it is like he made mention of the Trinity, (at least after Christs Baptis­me at Iordan) by way of supplication, or of sacramentall ap­plication, though ordinarily he baptized In the Name of Christ Iesus, or of the Messias which was to come. But whether he used the one, or the other form before the act, or instantly with the act of Baptizing (as our manner is at this day) is very uncertain.

The third Querie.

Of the severall Formes of Baptisme which is the chief?

The cheif forme for authority, and perpetuity, and com­munity is that whereof Math. 28.19. is the ground, I bap­tize thee in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy ghost. And though it be not necessary to conceive that ministers are bound formally, expressaly, and precisely to apply these words to the act of baptizing, yet since no sence is assigned to them when they are so applied, but what is very congruous to the act of the Minister, it cannot but be a very safe way explicit­ly to mention them in the baptismal action. For whether we meane by I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy ghost, I baptize thee by the power, authority, or commission from God (as Acts. 3.6. and Acts. 4.7.) who is owne in substance, three in persons, Father Sonn, and Holy ghost; or whether by those words we imply a prayer for the blessing of the Trinity upon the baptized person, or engage him to the profession of the fayth, and worship of the bles­sed Trinity, or what other orthodox sence we assigne unto the words, they may well be taken in that sence, when sprinkling water upon the party baptized, or dipping him in the water, we say, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father. Sonne and Holy ghost.

For this forme of Baptisme there is very good warrant of scripture, reason, and practicall example. 1. For scripture, the [Page 50]Text forecited out of Math, (as it is expounded) is plaine and pertinent, to which may be added the forecited illustrious testification of the Father to the Sonne, and the appariti­on of the Holy Ghost in the forme of a dove, at our Saviours Baptisme in the river Jordan. Mat. 3.

2. For reason, we say that in baptisme there is a concur­rent operation of grace, towards the party baptized, (who is within the Covenant)Gerard. Loc. Com. Tom. 4. p. 488. ¶ 91. whereby the Father receiveth him for a Sonne, the Sonne for a Brother, the Holy Ghost for a Temple.

3. For practicall example, we have first the Apostles, who received a Commission from our Saviour to Baptize In the name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost; which appeareth to have been the Apostolicall practize, by the passage betwixt Paul and the Disciples found at Ephesus; for when Paul had put the question to them, Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they beleeved, and they had answered that they had not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Ghost or no, he replyed with a question, Ʋnto what thou were yee baptized? as it were wondring, that they that were baptized, should not have heard of the holy Ghost; which he had no cause to do, unlesse there had been practicall example to baptize with mention of the Holy Ghost; And if the Holy Ghost were na­med at Baptisme, it is not probable that either the Father, or the Sonne were omitted.

But whether the Apostles constantly kept to that forme is uncertain, Popish Authors confidently contradict each o­ther in this point; forl­Petr. Lom­bard. in Sent. l. 4. Distinct. 3 p. 699. Peter Lombard resolveth, that the Apostles baptized in the Name of the Trinity;m­Estius in l. 4. Sent. dist 3. ¶ 4. p. 40. col 2. Estius aver­eth, that the Apostles alwayes baptized In the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, and he renders this reason, Be­cause, of one Sacrament there should be but one forme, espe­cially after a forme is prescribed, as it was to the Apostles Mat. 28.19.

OthersAur [...]olus in 4. Sent. Dist. 3. Francis Long. in Annot. in Can Apost. 40. p. 136. Harding. de Cor. sabutra. quespec art. 2. say, that they had for a time a dispensation to bap­tize In the name of Christ Iesus, for speciall honour to that per­son, and Name, which was most exposed to contempt. [Page 51]But, if that had been a sufficient reason why the Apostles should baptize In the Name of Christ, and not of the Trinity, it is like our Saviour would have given his order of Baptisme under that form.

For the times after the Apostles, we finde many testimo­nies for Baptisme, In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not only in the writings of suppositious, or suspected Fathers, asClem. Con­stit. l 3 c. 16. & l 7. c. 22. Clemens Romanus, but in such as are acknow­ledged for legitimate, asJust, Mart. Apot. 2. ad Anton. Pium an 150. Justin Martyr in his second Apo­logy, and in the book of confession, or exposition of right faith, which goeth under his name, and if it be not his, as there isBellar. de Eccles. Scrip­torib p. 64 Scultet medul. patr. part. 1. c. 9. p. 34. good reason at least to doubt of it, yet is it very ancient, and that in the judgement both ofIbid. Protestant and Popish Authours;Origen. in Rom 6. anno 226. Origen, Greg. Nazi­anz. Orat. 40. in Sanct. Bapt. an 370. Greg. Nazianzen, ^t Epiphanius, ^u Am­bros. Mediolanensis, ^w Gaudentius Brixiensis, ^x Augustine, ^y Cyrillus Alexandrinus, ^z Gennadius Massiliensis, ^a Fulgen­tius, ^b Primasius; All these were in the first five hundred years after Christ; In the sixth Century was Gregory, sir­named the Great, of whom the saying is, he was the last of the good Bishops of Rome, the first of the bad; and from him such as were held most Orthodox in all age, both taught, and administred Baptisme only In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

After the Fathers, rose up a race of Divines, called School­men, of whom the first, and as it were the Father of the rest, wasPetr. Lom­bard. l. 4. sent. dist. [...]. p. 701. an. 1145. Peter Lombard, called the Master of the Sentences, be­cause he collected the sentences of the Divines of former a­ges, and drew them into questions under severall titles, in four books, whereof the first is of the Unity of God-head and Trinity of persons; And in the fourth book, where be treats of the Sacraments, he affirmeth that the Apostles [Page 52]Baptized both before, and after the passion of our Saviour, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy ghost; and according to him, in this particular, have the schoolmen that came after him resolved for the constant us: of Baptisme in that form, whereof to give in a Catalogue, with their testimo­nies, in a Chronologicall order for the times wherein they wrote, would be a long labour, and of little use; since (though universall consent of all sort of Authors make much for the honour, and estimation of any truth, yet) in this case it is needles, because there is no learned Reader will doubt of it, and the ignorant will receive little satisfaction by a list of their names and Testimonies who are altogether unknowne unto them.

If we draw neerer home for time, and place, and confor­mity in religion, we shall find the Doctrine and practise of the Reformed Churches concurring in this forme of Baptiz­ing In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy ghost; which is a thing so well known by the Harmony, and Syntagma of Confessions, and by the observation of such as have lived a­mong them, that it were a superfluous paynes to produce the proofe of them in particular.

Unto plain and expresse Testimonies by words, we may adde a reall testimony by action, for baptizing In the name of the Trinity, which is the practice of Baptizing by trine-im­mersion, or thrice dinning, and washing;Petr. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. p. 70 [...]. ex Greg. Ep. 41. Leandro E­pisc. whereof two reasons are rendred by Gregory, the one with signifi­cant relation to the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead; the other to the sepulture of our Saviour for three dayes space; but the principall is the former. And this man­ner of Baptizing is very ancient, for we find it the practice of the Church inDehinc ter­mergitamur. Tertul. de Co­rona milit. c. 5. Ter ad singula nomina in per­sonu singulu mergimur Idem advers. Praxeam c. 26. Tortullians time; so ancient that divers of theAmbros. l. 2. de Sacram c. 7. Hieron advers Luciscrum. August. Serm. 29. & 201. de Tempore. Fathers take it for an Apostolicall tradition, and some have put it into an Apostolicall Canon to be observed upon a penalty, in these words.

Si quis epis­copus aut Pres­byter non tri­nam immersio­nem unius my­sterij celebret, sed semel mer­gat in baptis­mate, (quod dari videtur in Domini morte) deponatur, &c. Can. Apost. 50. If any Bishop or Prosbyter do not celebrate the mystery of Trine immersion, or thrice dipping, but dippe but once in baptisme (which seemes to be given in the death of the Lord) let him be de­posed; [Page 53]for the Lord said not, Baptize ye in my death, but going teach all nation, baptizing them In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy ghost.

But these Canons are not Canonicall; Orthodox Divines reject them as a parcell of Apocrypha, and theVid Petr. Sete Praesat in Ca­ranz. Sum. Concil. Papists them­selves admit of them but in part; and though if any should baptize but once out of an hereticall misapprehension of the blessed Trinity, such a single immersionTheodoret. l. 4. de haereti­cor. fab. might be condem­ned, as it was in the Eunomians, who in opposition to the Doctrine of the Trinity dipped but once, yet there is no doubt but such as baptize in a sound sence and judgement of the unity of the Godhead, and Trinity of persons, though they do it but once, doe not amisse;Petr. Lomb. l. 4. sent. dist. 3. p. 702. for both are lawfull, and as the Schoolmen determine, either of them may be used accor­ding to the various custome of orthodox Churches: and for this the fourth Councell of Toledo Concil. Tole­tan. 4. in some Edit. Can. 5. Tom. 4. Con­cil. p. 583. col. 1. Edit. Bin. 1636. made an expresse Canon, decreeing for a single or simple dipping, against another sort of hereticks, who by a trine immersion professed more then a personal distinction of the Father, Sonne, and holy ghost, as if they were of three distinct natures, not three distinct per­sons onely; and by this decree they endeavoured to take a­way a scandalous difference of Baptisme in Spain, while some baptized with a single, and some with a three fold immersi­on, or dipping; and by once dipping and thrice nameing of God by the Trinity of persons, there was an Antidote pro­vided against both sorts of heresies,Bonavent. in 4. Seat. dist. 3. part. 2. art. 2. q. 1. and the manner was this; At the first dipping the Father was named, at the second the Sonne, at the third the holy ghost.

The fourth Querie.

Whether any forme of baptisme be so necessary that it is not lawfull to vary from it.

The resolution of this Querie is very various. For

1, Besides that we have observed before out of Bellarmine, concerning Johns baptisme without any forme of words, we are to observe,

1, That some hold there is no set forme of Baptismeset downe in scripture which is necessary to be observed; This [Page 54]opinionBell. de Bapt l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 3. p. 272. Bellarmin imputeth to Luther, Zuinglius; and Bren­tius as their errour.

2. For the formes that are found in Scripture, that Bap­tisme In the Name of Christ, or of Christ Iesus was lawfull, when John so baptized, for it is recorded in the Scripture, as before hath been shewed, and no where reproved; nor those so baptized by him rebaptized, as hath been also shewed beofre.

3.Bell l. 1. de Sacr. Bapt. c. 3. p. 276. Francise. Longus in Can. Apost. 49. p. 136. Some teach, that the Apostles baptized lawfully In the name of Christ, though without the addition of these words (which was to come) as well as In the name of the Trinity.

4. That it is lawfull for Ministers so to baptize at this day, for the reason rendred byBasil de spi­rit. san [...]c 1 [...]. Basil, because in one person all three are vertually included, as in the name of Christ, signisy­ing anointed, the person anointing, the father is imploied, and the person by whom he is anointed the holy Ghost. So, asFred. Span. hem dab. E­vang. part 3. in Matth. 28. p. 79. Spanhemius saith, John Baptized In the Name of the Tri­nity implicitly, though not explicitely.

5. For Baptisme In the Name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, Apul Suares loco sub citato [...]. some hold, that termes of equivalence, or equ­pollence, bearing the same sence, will serve for the forme of Baptisme; as [...] Clem. Constit. l. c. 23. In the name of the sending Father, or the Father that sendeth. In the name of the Sonne that is come, and In the name of the witnessing Comforter, orSuarez. in 2. part Tham. Tom 3. qui est primas de sa­cram disp 2 [...]. q 66. sell. 4. p. 21 [...]. In the name of him that be­getteth, of him that is begotten, and of the spirit proceding from them both. But the neerer the words come to those of the 28. of Matth. 19. the more assuredly lawfull; as if one should baptize In the name of the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, 1 Iohn 5.7. Nor is that thought unlawfull to name each person with a word of explication added, as,Egote hapti­zo in no nine atris in geni­ti, filij genht, & S S. abu. troque proce­dentis Lomb. 4. Sent. dist. 3. I baptize thee In the name of the Father that begetteth, and of the Sonne that is begotten, and of the holy Ghost which proceedeth from them both.

These propositions may have a speculative truth in them, and there may be warrant for them; for it seemes reasonable to think, that as (though our Saviour said After this man­er pray ye, Matth. 6.9 and when ye pray say &c. Luke 11.2. yet) when we pray, it may be lawfull to use another forme, [Page 55]or that forme with some expository variation; so it may be lawfull, in respect of the thing it selfe, to use the same words, or others of the like sense and meaning; and this the rather, because we finde not that any other Sacrament, in the old or new Testament, had any set forme of words, wherewith it was by a prescript order or any peremptory rule to be admi­nistred: but to be practically lawfull at this time, after so an­cient, and so generall a use and custome of most orthodox Churches is another thing; For to depart from those words, having so generall warrant, not onely from Scripture, but from universall observation, cannot be done without scandall, and so cannot be lawfully done, though the thing it selfe, in it self and in thesi be lawfull; as though it be lawfull for a Preacher to keepe on his hat while he speaketh to the peo­ple, and in the thing it selfe more congruous to his condition then to the peoples to be covered at Setmon, yet since it hath been so long a received custome in our Church, for the Prea­cher not to weare his hat though the people doe, he that should preach with his hat on his head, would occasion a scandall, and give men occasion to conceive. That he were ei­ther very proud, or very vaine and fantasticall.

The fifth Querie.

If there be any variation from the forme in Matth. 28.19, what may be admitted without violation of the Sacrament, what not?

In answere wherto we say,

First, That some words in this forme are not so necessa­ry and considerable as others, as

1. It is not necessary to say, I baptize thee, in the first per­son; for theNon nega­mus, quia & per illa verba, [Baptizetur talis servm Chri­sti in nomine patris, filij, & spir, saucti, vet baptizetur ma­nib [...] meis ta­lis] verum per­ficiatur Bap­tisma, Con­cil. Florent. de­cretum super unione Iaco­binorum & Armeniorum. Franc. Long. Sum. Concil. p. 888. col. 1. Greeks, baptizing in the third person, Let this servant of Christ be baptized, or baptized by my hands, in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Gholst, are acknowledged to have a true baptisme.

Secondly, It is not necessary to say Baptize, for a man may perform true and sufficient baptisme by the word wash, or sprinkle, as well as by the word baptize.

Thirdly, It makes no great difference to say in the name, [Page 56]or into the name, for as in the name may note the authority of Baptisme, and the holy influence of the Authour going a­long with it, so to be baptized into Christ, Rom. 6.1. or into the name of Christ, may note the effect and benefit of Baptis­me, incorporating the baptized into the mysticall body of Jesus Christ; and though we read the words, Matth. 28.19. In the name of the Father; the Greek [...], may more exactly in the grammaticall sence of the words be rend­red into the name; and the like we may resolve of the same phrase, 1 Cor. 1.13. but to be Baptized in the name, is pro­perly the true English of [...], Act. 2.38. and of [...], Act. 10.48. ButIn nomine u­tique art, non in nominibus, ut unitas essen. tiae ostendatur, per tria verò que supposuit tres esse perso­nas declaravit. Ambros. de si de ad Gratian cap. 1. Ambrose observes in the Name in the singular number, as importing the unity of substance in the Trinity of persons of the God­head.

Secondly, But for the expresse mention of all the persons of the Trinity, it is held by many to beAquin. in 3. part. q. 66. art. 5. ad 7. & in 4 sent. dist 3. art. 2. questi uncula 2. ad [...]. Bonarent. art. q. 3. Scotus quest 2. art. 3 num. 16. Paludanus q. 1. art. 3. necessary, bothSuarez. in 3. part. Thom. Tom. 3. qui est primus de Sa­cramentis disp. 21. q. 66. Sect. 4 p. 220 col. 2. because of the words of Christ, Matth. 28.19. the custom of the Church, and the scandall which would be occasioned if any of them should be omitted. And upon this ground it is held by some insufficient to baptize in the name of the Trini­ty, or of three persons,Suar. 2. Ibid. yea though in this form. I baptize thee in the name of the first, second, and third person, or if there be an expresse mention of any two persons, and an omission of any one, it is resolved to be no Baptisme.Sic in Epist. Zach. pap 1. ad Bonisac. Tom. 5. Con­cil p. 488. c. 2.

Here may come in the Question about the baptisme of an ignorant priest, which was, Whether pronouncing the words of Baptisme in In nomine patria, stita & spiritua sancta. Aventin An­nal. Boior. l. 3. p 297. & Tom 5. Concil. p 48. col. 2. false Latine made a nullity of the Baptisme? Bo­niface the Bishop of Mentz had commanded a child so bap­tized to be rebaptized; Virgilius Bishop of Saltsburge, and Sydonius another Bavarian Bishop would not agree to that, for they allowed of the Baptisme theologically, though gram­matically erroncous; The resolution referred to Pope Zacha­ry, he decreed for the validity of the baptisme, though there were such an incongruity in the Priests pronuncia­tion.

Sixthly, The forms of Baptisine (swarivng from the [Page 53]words of our. Saviour, Matth. 28.19.) invented and used by Hereticks, for intimation of some corrupt and hereticall doctrines; especially prejudiciall to the honour of the Tri­nity, do make a nullity of the Baptisme; whereof there are many sorts.

1. That ofOsander, Centur. 2. fol. 42. Irenaeus ad. vers. baeres. l. 2 c. 18. Mark the heretick, who baptized in the name of the unknown Father of all things, into the truth the mother of all things, and in the name of the descondent upon Jesu.

2. That of theAthan. Serm. 3. contra Aria not. Arrians, who baptized in the name of the Father the onely true God, of Jesus Christ a ereature, and of the holy Ghost the servant of them both.

If it be said, that the baptisme of the Arrians was held suf­ficient by the Catholike Church, asBin. A [...] in Can. 7. Coucil. Laod. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 306. Binius noteth upon the seventh Canon of the Councell of Laodicea and Framisc. Francise. Long. summa Concil. Annet. in Concil. Laod. c. 7. p. 194. Long his plagiary (for he steals his Annotations word for word, for many lines together, without a word of mention of him) It may be answered, that the Arrians did not all of them, or not alwaies baptize in one form, for sometimes they baptizedIn nom ne pa­tris per futum in spiritu san­cto. Sozom. histor l. 6. c. 26. in the name of the Father, by the Son, and in the holy Ghost; which form (though not so bad as the former) was thought to be so displeasing unto God, that he miraculously disappointed the Arrian Minister, who meant to have Ba­ptized one in that manner, byIbid. causing the water sodainly to vanish out of his sight, by which the baptisme was prevented.

3. That of theEpiphan. ha­res. 76. Eunomians, who baptized in the name of God uncreated, of the Son created, and of the holy Ghost the san­ctifier, and a creature of the created Sonne; Theodoret. lib. 4. baret. sabt lar. who out of an hereticall conceit against the Trinity opposed the mannar of trine immersion.

4. That of the Photinians, whose form of Baptisme (as their faith) wasSee Bin. in Coned. Laod. Can. [...]. Tem. 1. p. 300. worse then that of the Arriams; so much worse that the Arians themselves could not endure either them or it, and therefore did they excommunicare them; so that though some baptisme of the Arrians were held sufficient (as hath been noted) the baptisme of the Photinians was held not onely guilty of impiety, but a meet nul­lity.

5. That form of baptisme which joyns the creature in commission with the Creatour, as

1. That of the Pepuzians, orBasil. prima jua epist. ad Amphiloch. I­conij Episc. can. 1. Montanists, who baptized into the Father, Sonne, and into Montunus, or Priscilla.

2. That of some superstitious andGerard Loc Com. Tom. 4. col. 410. § 93. idolatrous Papists, who to the Trinity of persons added the name of Mary the per­petuall Virgin.

3. That whichNeque enim Ecclesiaslicam contemplisse formam, sed ex devotione quadam festi. nantis fidei in banc voce eru­pisse videtur. Bern. Epist. 340. Henrico Archiacono col. 1648. Bernard mentioneth of a childe whom be­ing newly borne, and in imminent danger of death, a lay man baptized on the sodain, In the name of God, and of the holy and true Crosse; which Bernard alloweth for sufficient baptisme, and excuseth the man, as doing it not out of contempt of the Ecclesiasticall forme, but of a sodain devotion; wherein he determineth the doubt as a Papist, according to such prin­ciples as Protestants deny; and therefore they may deny that baptisme, both in respect of the Agent, a meer lay-man, and in respect of the form, as wanting what it should have, the Name of the Trinity, and having what it should not, the mention of the Crosse, a great Idoll with the Papists, (espe­cially with the ignorant) though he labour to force a better sence out of his words, then it is like the man himself ever meant.

But what if a childe were baptized, not by a lay-man, but by a Minister, whether Popish or Evangelicall, and the words were formally used, which are the usuall forme, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, doth the addition of the Virgin Maries name make void what was done by the words precedently spoken? The ad­ditionBellarm. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 25, 26, 27. of exorcisme, exsuffiation, salt, spittle, oyl, and other ceremonies doth not make a nullity of the Sa­crament, and therefore they were not rebaptized by Pro­testants who were superstitiously Baptized by Popish priests.

To which I answer, 1. That there may be more cause to condemne a baptisme whose forme is corrupted, as that where the Virgin Maries name is added to the name of the Trinity, then where ceremonies, though superfluous, and [Page 55]superstitious, which Papists themselves do not account of the essence of Baptisme, are superadded unto it.

2. If any doubt or scruple yet remain, it must be resolved either by comparing the danger of such a corrupt baptisme with the errour of rebaptizing in such a case, and so resolving either certainly to allow, or disallow the Baptisme, or else by making a conditionall rebaptization, as in a doubtfull [...] is prescribed in the Cashiered Servicebook, in the manner of private Baptisme in this form, If thou be not already baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost; which form with water (which is the matter) are there made essentiall parts of Baptisme.