An After-Reckoning with Saltmarsh

Praeloquium.

I F 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 controversy, (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 kind: 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 equal, 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 perpetual 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 sum of what I shall say shall be reduced to these two heads.

1. An Apologetical 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.
• 5. His reinforcing of Salmasius his Testimony.
• 6. His Descant on C. D. his Defense of M ^r L. against the Newsmonger.
• 7. His self-commending Conclusion.

1. For his Title page.

J. S.

An end of one Controversy.

L. M.

The end of one Controversy, as you use the matter, may be the beginning of another. If you had meant it should have been an end of the Controversy, 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; unless 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) believe that your sheet and half could be a satisfactory Answer to M ^r Leys Book, which you sum up to 17 sheets of paper, (besides the Treatise of C. D. ) unless your hasty return make up a great part of the sum, as in the accompt of the or just steward, fifty measures of oil, quickly written down, stood for 10 • . as Luk. 16.6.

Title.

J. S.

In which the sum of his last Book, which relates to the most material passages in it, are gathered up and replied to.

L. M.

The sum is soon taken, as of the number of sheets, and you might do most of that without so much as reading of the 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 yourself more favor 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 pastoral calling, but departed from the Antichristian Ministry by Bishops and now Preacher of the Gospel.

L. M.

You have given over your public Ministry 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 Baptism, since it was administered 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 Ministerial 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 Lord's 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, joined 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 darkness 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 darkness 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 styled 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 mind 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 disturb 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 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 schism, 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 honored the Assembly too much, for you almost adored them, and made applications of Scripture to them, which had a strong savor of Idolatry and flattery, little below the height of blasphemy, and now you, declining that extreme, stay not yourself until, Wiseman like, you arrive at the contrary.

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

J. S. p. 3.

I think 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 weakness of the former book, but your waywardness against it, whereby you hoped to wrangle yourself into some reputation, by out wording your adversary, as it were all one to be able to answer, and unable 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 containeth 3 leaves, the other 9, a competent Treatise of themselves; and yet of your sheet and half you say, that he that writes anything of truth, more properly writes much, rather then he that writes against it, though in more paper: That's your Aphorism framed and applied in favor to yourself, 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 fullness of that world with volumes and Tomes? have not Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, Gwalther, Zanchius, Chamier and others, made many and great books? will you make that their fault which was their virtue; 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, yourself gives us an experiment in this book; for how are you puzzled 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 puzzled, but that the Reader might not be puzzled, nor mistaken by your imperfect, unfaithful 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 that comprised Homers Iliads in a nutshell; or you return the payment 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 yourself in this particular, to be but a very vain vaunting of yourself, 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 cistern 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 unfaithful 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, 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 dark and smoky Treatise? and is the book he cited anymore his treasury then yours, or any man's 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 punctual Answer? Indeed you took upon you to put tasks upon him, which he did not undertake, and yet held yourself free to leave your own work undone, and you give him cause divers times to complain of this partiality.

Sum. p. 4.

J. S.

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

L. M.

Is there any either law, or conscience, or reason, that he should pay you anything 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 auditor betwixt him and you will give in the accompt? And yet if he ought you anything, 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 employed in matters of greater moment.

Sum. 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 Controversy, (wherein you had not engaged yourself 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. Den, M. Knolls, you make your comparison very unequal; 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 yourself. Fourthly, in your list of Divines you bring in M. Prinne, who is by his profession not a Divine, but a Lawyer, (though I confess 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 subtlety in that, as well as in other things, that wherein the Presbyterians and they agree, they will not join with them, because they would have all the offense 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 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 counsel 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 employed, as he professeth towards the end of his Epistle Dedicatory, entreated the Gentlemen to whom he dedicated his book, to bestow some of their discreet counsels upon you, for better employment of your parts and pen, then (he saith not in disputing down, but) in crying down that discipline and government as terrible and tyrannical, which the prudent Senators of both the Honorable Houses of Parliament in part have set up and further endeavor 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 public authority. But you, bringing in the speech to the topicke of yourself-conceit, would have it imply some masterfull power in your pen, before which the Presbytery cannot stand; You think, as by the parable of the fly 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 terror (as to some it is, because of the brags 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 puissance, take so much boldness 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 believe you cannot provoke them so much as may make them to take any notice of so weak and worthless an adversary) go on as you have begun, to make yourself a litigious Ishmael, with your hand against every man, until every man's 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 parochial, &c. assumes such power as the Prelatical: To which you answer by another Question; Is Presbytery, because Parochial, Classical, Provincial less Tyrannicall then Episcopacy, because many rule in that, in this but one, or rather not more tyrannical, 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 behalf; 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 Episcopal Sea may be compared) into 360 channels, meant to make it passable by women on foot, and did so; such is the Division of Ecclesiastical power into a plurality of Presbyters, which being so lessened and limited as they are like to be, are more like a dried channel, then a devouring flood.

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; unless 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 throughout the whole Kingdom, and I doubt not will be so, when the Parliament will be pleased to permit them to be public, which without their leave the Assembly may not do.

J. S. pag. 5.

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

L. M.

If so, there is more error 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 forgiveness of sin 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 forgiveness 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 Zacchaeus, 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 heresy: the profane used to reproach the piety of the first Table by the name of Puritanism; and many Sectaries, nowadays, 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 term as much as any.

J. S. pag. 5.

Fifthly, You say, I would have men believe as they list, I would only have men not forced to believe 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 unsettled in your judgment, so sedulous to prepare a patronage for all wild and wicked fancies, that everyone may believe what he list. The fault M. Ley finds 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 conqueror, 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 greatness 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 think 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, then a formidable enemy; and though you monopolize truth to your cause, he chargeth you, in the same place, with holding old error under the name and notion of new truth.

J. S. pag. 6.

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

L. M.

M. Ley saith nothing of that, but what yourself hath said, and he cited your own words out of your book, viz. your professed dislike of Logic, 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 Christ's school, though refused in the school of Tyrannus.

L. M.

I think, 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 Logic, or forms of art; where in effect you challenge him to dispute; which the Learned will look upon as a brag, and it may be also a boasting of a false gift, Prov. 25.14. that is, falsely 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 kind, 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 Press, and hope to see their desires satisfied therein in time convenient.

J. S. pag. 6.

They are forms 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 mind and mark it, observe in it (besides the principal theme and scope of it, Divinity) much both of Logic 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 quarrel 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 discovery of sense, Mat. 19.34. (much less 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 signs and seals, his invisible graces ateropresented unto us? And do not you yourself 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 do 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, anywhere in the Kingdom of the world, but not in the Kingdom of God.

L. M.

It is no great matter what you allow or allow not, unless your learning were more, your judgment sounder, & your dealing more sincere. But if there were any weight in your word, it would be prejudicial, & disadvantageous 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 errors against the Christian Religion; and thus many of the Ancient Fathers approve of them, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Chrysostom, Hieron. Augustine, & Jerome, compareth the use of them in this way to the cutting off Goliath's head with his own sword, 1 Sam. 17.11. & Augustine to the spoiling of the Egyptians, Exod. 12.36. This the subtle Apostate Julian knew well enough, & therefore in craft & spite he forbad the instruction of the Children of Christians in the arts and literature of the heathens, as Ammianus Marcellinus both observes and censures, as an unjust edict, though but an heathen by religion, and a soldier by profession.

J. S. page. 6.

The ninth. For my being an ubiquitary in belief, and your proof of this from the several opinions stated in my book, Can you be so unfaithful to that Book? can you, who would be counted an orthodox and a Divine, thus force and compel those opinions upon me, or rather upon the paper only 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 unfaithful 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 Rhetoric is here, to smoke over M. Leys sincerity with a suspicion of such prevarication, as is but too frequent in your own practice, not at all in his? and if any heterodox conceits be cast upon you, which are not yours, you may thank yourself, for you set down opposite Tenets so ambiguously, that it is hard to say what opinions you own among them; and therefore M. Ley spake of them with words of caution, as you seem to me, In your exceptions against Presbytery, and I must rather take your Tenet to be against, then among the Presbyterian positions, In the Discovery of Independency you deliver downright Anabaptism, without any word of exception, or caution to your Reader. Such opinions as those, which you seem rather to confirm 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 reproof, is it not your own fault rather then his? your courting of all sects, and compliance with them, might justly occasion a suspicion of your unsoundnes in R • ligion.

J. S. page. 6.

10. That I am an Antinomian, and deal with some late Divines as some with Luther; and hereof you seek to purge yourself by asserting some sentences of Scripture, which you think may clear you from Antinomianism.

L. M.

But that will not serve your turn, the accusation is lately set closer upon you, by a Reverend Divine of the Assembly, then that you can shake it off by so poor an Apology; and for that laid to your charge by M. Ley, what answer do you make? none but such an one as aggravates your guilt, by setting one falsehood 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 judgment 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 show not a spark of ingenuity, or grace, in acknowledging your witting and willful 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 own.

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

Amongst other flourishes of falsehood, you say, that M. L. and his associated Brethren pretend themselves to be in the mount, to give laws for religion; where find you this? how can you prove it? did you ever read it in any of their writings, or hear 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 fifteen cubits higher, then the top of Sinai, or Horeb, even to God's tribunal, by whom alone the hearts of all men are to be judged.

And for that you say, of making laws for religion, you know they have no power, nor do they take any upon them, save only 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 Honorable houses are sent unto them.

And now, S ^r , to pay you in your own coin, and return your own words upon you, Can you be so unfaithful to that Book, can you who would be counted an orthodox Divine, enlightened above the measure of other Ministers, so grossly falsify so plain, and perspicuous a sentence? The best is, the world (while his Book and your Pamphlet are extant) may convince you in this, and now you are thus unfaithful 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 be sometimes darkness, and now light in the Lord, &c.

L. M.

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

J. S. page. 7.

To the twelfth. Nor do I glory, I hope, in the quick dispatch of what I do; but do 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 speak in disparagement of human learning, it is an old humor 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 beggarly element; and such proficience are some of our sublimated sectaries.

But however you slight all secular learning, you must not assume to yourself, or your party, (as you seem to do) a propriety either of interest, or exercise in the word, or spirit, or power of Christ, wherein those whom you look 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 spiritual. For that you conclude withal, concerning the brewer, in a form of affected gravity, saying, I desire not to show so much of the old man or former corruptions, as to sparkle so lightly with you. Me thinks you should have 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 mean by the old man, that part of human nature, which remains unregenerate, that (though you may intend a reproach upon seniority of years) 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 Book a Remora, and say my Quere was to retard the government? I pray you now be friends with yourself, &c.

L. M.

No doubt he is so, and so was, when he wrote those words, for you might intend your Book and Query for a Remora, and yet it might, and I hope it will prove otherwise. Intentions and events are many times very contrary, as Joseph said to his Brethren, You thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass 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 employed then in writing; they are your friends indeed that wish so, you cannot be worse employed then in speaking evil of your Brethren, in advanceing yourselves, Lording it over the heritage, &c.

L. M.

As you have often set upon the Presbyterians with such slanders, so you have been 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 fear 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 integrity; and after the rate you write, you need not care how many you undertake, nor they neither, who are undertaken by you, since you do but with an impotent malignity nibble at the heel, when you give them fair opportunity to break your head, unless they choose rather to kick you off with scorn, then to make a serious and settled business of combating with you.

J. S. pag. 8. and 9.

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

L. M.

You have an excellent faculty first in contracting, then in contradicting and confuting, your adversary; for you have reduced the sum of M. Leys Book of seventeen sheets to less then a single page, and confuted them all, as you pretend, in less then a leaf; would it not be fit such an able and nimble champion as you are should be set upon those great Antichristian Goliath's, Baronius, Bellarm. Suarez, Uasques? how would you enervate, and shrink up their many vast and corpulent volumes into a poor, dry, and sapless sckeleton? O for Bellarminus enervatus of your composing! That of Ames 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 gradual 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 yourself, or some other to answer for you.

L. M.

Upon your finding fault with classical, provincial, and National Assemblies as no wholesome words, M. Ley told you, that the gradual subordination of Assemblies, against the Independency of Congregational meetings, was made good by a large and learned Book of M. Samuel Rutherford; of which reference I see not what may offend you, unless your idleness mislike the word large, and your ignorance the word learned, for it is an usual 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 find fault with M. Ley for this, shows 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 willful slander, which you should heartily repent 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of; and of this I doubt not but there are as many witnesses, as there be ingenuous and conscientious Readers of his Book and your loose sheets. And I dare challenge you, on his behalf, to make proof of any one reference, either to his own Books, or any other, for which there was not just occasion given, approvable in the judgment of judicious men. And if references come too often, it is most like to be your own 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 Apostolical, 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, (unless he should make a needless repetition of a whole section, to confute your cavil) where he hath given full and clear evidence, (such as no rational man can deny) how Classical, Provincial, and National 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 sacrilege, 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 add as an Answer to it; For that of sacrilege and usurpation upon God in alienating Tithes, never did Prelate, no nor Bishop Montague plead an higher Title for Tithes.

L. M.

You had condemned Tithes as Popish and Jewish undeniably, 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 Classical Author with you, though against the 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 Montague: what partiality is this?

J. S. pag. 9.

What, sacrilege 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 sacrilege to deny Tithes, 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 sacrilege; 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 screw up your own pensions to the higher proportion. Because while they are to pay Tithes, as of right, to Parochial Pastors, there will be the less latitude in the matter, and less light somnes in the man to make an allowance of courtesy to content you their Independent Doctors. 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 itself 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.

Upon 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 perusal 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 Author.

J. S. pag. 9.

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

L. M.

Because you carped at him more then once for a pleasant reproof of your misapplication of Scripture, which gave him just occasion to show 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 grateful to him, not reproachful, as you are.

J. S. pag. 9.

And for other Church-governments not coming under the trial 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 withal, if he take into comparative consideration M. S. his next paragraph of gospel-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 partial reader so Fallacious, that he that reads both will find cause to marvel that a pretender to wit should deal so weakly, and to grace, so wickedly in a cause of this kind.

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

M. S. his causeless and unchristian reproach of M. Ley, taken (without occasion given) out of C. D. his Defense 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 knows.

L. M.

WHether it were made by himself, or some other, it was not made against you, but against a scurrilous Newsmonger, as the Title showeth, and therefore herein you meddle where you should not, and deserve to suffer as a busibody in other men's matters. 1 Pet. 4.15. And you make it your business 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 honorable 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 return you Answer, 1. In general, and then 2. In particular.

In general, 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 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 inquire.

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

And because he made a disgraceful descant on M. Leys name, the greek Epigram made on it and him (when he was President of Zion College, about an year and half before) was in part repeated.

This might be warrant enough for him to have righted himself from such reproach, by reporting any truth that might relieve his reputation in that behalf; which though with such as knew him might be needless, yet to most who knew him not it might be necessary, and as lawful as necessary: for,

Though it be good advice which Solomon giveth, Let another man praise theo, and not thine own mouth a stranger, and not thine own lips; Pro. 27.2. (and the counsel 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 public employment, he may do such an act of justice and charity to his own good Name, as well as to another man's.

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 own Apology, with comparative praise of himself 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 himself with the chief Apostles, saying, In nothing am I behinds the chief Apostles, 2 Cor. 12.11. and tells the Cariuthiaus, to whom he wrote, that he ought to have been commended by them, in the same place.

If then M. Ley had written that of himself, which you mention as an immodest vindication, it being true, and uttered it upon just occasion, and had owned it in his own name, he had not for that deserved either reproach or reproof 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 say that he who speaks so much in M. Ley his praise, stands a little too near 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 own 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 near 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 Answer to another man's objection, yet against yourself (as Cicero said of Nevius, an unworthy and wicked fellow) it is sufficient conviction; and yourself have published a Book of verses, with as high screwed commendation, both upon yourself and them, in the next leaf before your Book begun, and next after your Epistle Dedicatory, as could be set before the Poem of Homer in Greek, or Virgil in Latin, Bartas in French, Quarles, or Sandis in English. Your prological Encomiastes calls your book pious and learned, and makes as if it were the compendium of all praise 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, unless it be a blemish to want a blemish. And yet, by his leave, your Poetical Meditation on The Song of Songs deserves to be chastised, in the judgment of pious and judicious Critics, for 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 solemn attestation, either of praise, or of Apology on your behalf, witness Jo. Bachilers approbation of your Smoke in the Temple, as more then ordinarily useful 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 final account resolve that he hath not so much honored you, as shamed himself.

Thus much for Answer to the imputation in General, 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 known by any other Title then that which belonged to him from his baptism; whereas he might have seen in the Title page of his first book against you, that he was a member of the Assembly of Divines; and that being remembered, 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 Answer was very suitable, because he was most capable of such a conviction.

But for M. Ley himself, he is so far from a vain affectation of Titles of prelation, that when, many years ago, he was importuned by many great friends in the University, and out of it, to take the degree of Doctor 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 nominal preeminence, and personal precedence, which (whether by right, or long-received custom, or both, I cannot tell) is assigned to Theological 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 remembered not that any one of them were styled Academical graduates, as either Batchelers, or Masters of Art, Batchelers, or Doctors in Divinity, Professors of Divinity, Provosts, Prefects of Colleges, 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 denied, 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 testimonial argument in a matter of no necessity, either of existence, or cognizance.
• 5. There are many particulars wherein the Apostolical 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 Doctor 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 showeth by many instances, the difference of the present Church from the Apostolical, and needlesnes of out conformity thereto in all things; to which observations of his it is easy to add 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 M. Ley, whom he so named, as to make his Reader believe he was a man unknown until 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 Press, 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 judgment of them, as some have done already; 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 Zion College, about a year and an half age, which was in part Printed in Greek, as it was penned by one learned man, and rendered 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— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, instead of it; and so far abated the honor of that Epithet, as to make it no more thon such an addition as might be applied to any person, thing, or action, though as mean 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 prefix them entirely before the next Book of his that cometh forth, and there is one ready for the Press of his transcribing) that words are part of a latin letter lately written to M. Ley, which for the learned Readers satisfaction I have set in the margin.

The fourth particular cavil 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 implicitly imputed by you to M. L. is the recital of some letters of commendation, pag. 19, 20, &c. where still you conceal the occasion with an unsincere subtlety, not becoming a Christian, much less 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 loss, and that therefore he was to make him a recompense, and this, with a senseless 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 falsehood, and in that said the book sold very well, and that he had several 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 bless Gad for him, and for his learned and faithful labors, 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. Doubtless 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 savor on him, who is in reputation for wisdom and honor, 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 sin, me thinks you should not be so blind in judgment, as to think such gross miscarriage in the cause in difference can be secured with all the subtlety you have, from shameful 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 reciprocal writings betwixt M. Ley and you. Truly, Sir, whatever you think of yourself, 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 savor, good for nothing but to be trodden under feet, Matth. 5.13. and some of them who are men of note for piety, and prudence, and who are so far 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 willful falsehood, and abuse of your Reader.

J. S. pag. 11.

And for other particulars more substantial, your Books and mine are both abread, let them speak for themselves.

L. M.

And why may they not speak for themselves in matters of less moment, as well as more substantial? 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 sincerity, when you do all you can to delude your Reader by subtle concealments, and misintimations; and make it a fault in M. Ley, fairly and freely to inform 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 mean by the spirit I know not; I doubt you mean some new, giddy, wavering fancy, such as sets you on scribbling you care not what. But if they will, as they ought, judge righteous judgment, John 7.24. neither M. Ley nor C. D. will have any cause to be afraid of their definitive sentence, in the trial before them.

J. S. pag. 11.

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

L. M.

This is one of the wisest, and honestest passages in your Answer, 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 puzzling the world, your Readers, your simple Readers, you should say, for neither the world, nor the wise in it will be puzzled with such poor trifles as you present, and send abroad; and a promise that you will offend in that kind 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 controversy, unless you may have the last word.

J. S. pag. 11.

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

L. M.

More truth might have been seen, if you had used such plain dealing as your duty required. What you mean by What is more is but you and I, I do not clearly understand; whether what is more then truth, or then that truth which is already seen, 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 seems so in fact, because you have set none but your own failings 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 self-love, as to believe that any wise Reader of M. Leys writings and yours will think you meant to have any mercy on his reputation, if he had justly incurred the reproach of your pen?

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 clear, S ^r , but that there is more Smoke then Light in the words you use. For what mean you by M. Ley his printing of his failings by mistake? you mean sure to be mistaken, else you would not wrap up your meaning in such intricate expressions; and when your mind is known, 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 errors, which before you took for truths.

L. M.

You must be a Thaumaturgus, M. S. and change the nature 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 error is his, and truth yours in the controversy betwixt you. But that you should conceive that such a little broken, dark and dulky glass should make him see any such change as you talk of, is such a fiction in your own 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 replied 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 ways uncharitably abused M. Ley. and fallaciously endeavored 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 Judges. You would make them believe that M. Ley was impotently passionate, and reproachful in his passions, and that yourself were a man of a better mould and temper then Elias was, James. 5.17. made up merely of Evangelical mildness: 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 mean 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 only wiped it off, without casting it back on yours.

L. M.

M. Ley hath cast no dirt upon your face, but only set a looking-glass and Light before your eyes, that you might see your spots and wash your face. And for that wining off the dare you speak of, it is but like the adulteresses wiping of her mouth (saying, she hath done no wickedness, Pro. 30.20.) which was the more foul, by such an hypocritical clearing of her self; and such is yours in this place.

J. S. pag. 12.

For your revilings, slightings, and railings, if they trouble not yourself to write, the Press 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 little in them to instruct, or edify a Reader, that I doubt not but every prudent and impartial 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 do at the offer of chaff for wheat, leaves for fruit, Smoke for Light; nay you yourself have slighted them, in a sudden and extemporary obtrusion of them to the Press, without due consideration of them before they came thither, or considerate review of their errata when they came thence.

But for revilings and railings, you cannot object them to him without reviling and railing, and I dare challenge you, on his behalf, to show 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 own 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 acknowledge yourself 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 climb much higher in self-exaltation then M. Ley had done, if he had said ten times more in his own commendation of that kind which you objected to him. For it is the highest degree of Evangelical grace, above Angelical cloquence, Prophetical intelligence, miraculous confidence (even to removing of mountains) above most profuse beneficence, giving all a man's 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 mind, you might be above him in benevolence. But if you had made none other return 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 as 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 yourself, 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 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 mutual and reciprocal aspect from the one to the other.

J. S. pag. 12.

For I am learning to bless those that curse me, to pray for those that despitefully 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 bless: To bless in that sense wherein Jobs wife spake to her husband, Job. 2.9. Bless God and die, for so the word Barech in the primary signification of the original must be rendered, 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 despitefully use me.

L. M.

Charity is the chief of evangelical graces, 1 Cor. 13.1. and you pretend to the highest degree of it, the returning of blessing for cursing, prayers for reproaches, and despiteful 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 shown yourself 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 shows of Evangelical lenity and love, have been very bitter, and splenative towards him, endeavoring to render him to the Reader an indiscreet and vain boaster, a shifting tergiversator, a slanderer, a railer, a reviler, and persecutor, and many times you have with an Ishmaelitish jeer, like a venomous pill wrapped up in leaf-gold, endeavored to taint, and poison his reputation, so far as your credit would reach, to the ruin 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 hypocritical malignant: The words of his mouth are smoother then butter, but war was is his heart; his words were softer then oil, yet were they drawn swords, Psal. 55.21. and like a dog 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 myself 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 yourself 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 solicited 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 Baptism, and the Right of Presbytery.

J. S.

F OR Salmasius his Testimony, with the Baptism in the Name of the Lord? Jesus Christ: and his testimony that the Presbytery is but of human, and positive right, not of divine; He is mine, and not yours: and all your pains, and quarreling, and after-quotations cannot make him more yours, or less 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 spiritual penman as you would be reputed, that you did once endeavor 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 sense, and this upon your bare affirmation, without so much as a 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 excess 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 Baptism and Independency.

1. Of Baptism.

Whereof you mention two particulars, the one of the matter of it, the other of the form. 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 Baptism in the New Testament was in river water, and at the river Jordan, Matth. 3.6. afterwards some were Baptized in 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 unlawful.

But for the form of Baptism, 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 Baptism hath been diversely administered by acts,

• 1. Preparative, and
• 2. Executive.

First, For preparation, such as were new converts to true Religion, and were competently endowed with qualifications intellectual and moral, prepared themselves, by frequent prayers, fastings, kneelings, watchings, with confession of their former sins.

Secondly, For acts excentive for the performance of the Sacrament, the manner hath been various in the several ages of the Church; As when John 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 Savior, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark. 16.16. and of their repentance also, because John's Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance, Mark 1.4. Act. 13.24. & chap. 19. ver. 4. And the Baptism of the Apostles was therein agreeable to the Baptism 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 Apostolical administration of Baptism, and therefore Peter joins 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 divers Greek, and Latin Fathers, and expounded in Concilic Parisiensi, which were reduced to Interrogatoties, as in the Baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, Act. 8. which Grotins turns into an interrogatory thus: Doest thou beleave with all thine heart? 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 Baptism of children, both in the Popish Missal, and in the English Service book, either to the child, or to them that presented it to Baptism, 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 child to be Baptized such a question might be put, as we find it in the form of administration of Baptism in the Church of Geneva, set out in Calvin's Opuscula, where also we find the recital of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, end the Imposition of a name on the Baptized, whereof we find no footsteps in the Apostles time, though some conceive (but cannot prove out of Scripture) that Saul's name at his Baptism was changed into the name Paul; much less can the Papists prove their manifold additions, which reckoned all together, make up the number of 22. ceremonies, twelve before Baptism, five with it, and five after it.

But that which most concerns our present inquiry is, The form of words wherewith it is principally to be administered, whereof 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 the consecratory and concionatory word, for we may resolve in brief, that the same form of words, though they be concionatory, as containing public 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 special use for which they are to be rehearsed. Taking the words in this sense, we may divide the whole Question into these particular Queries.

1. Whether there be any form of words for the administration of Baptism 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 lawful to vary from it?

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

1 Query.

Whether there be any for me of winds for administration of Baptism at all? This question is occasioned by Bellarmine, who, following Durand the schooleman, holds that John baptized without any for me of words. But 1 Barth, Medina, another schoolman of great note, for he was Doctor of the Chair in the University of Salmanen, holds the contrary. And secondly as a learned Lutheran Answereth, To administer the Sacrament without any for me of words, were to make the Sacrament a dumb show. Thirdly, whereas Bellarm: pretends for a reason of his opinion, that if John used any form; it was In the Name of the Messias to come, and that he used the same form to all alike (to Christ as well as to others) whom he baptized, But it would be ridiculous to say (saith he) that he baptized Christ in the Name of him that was to come. To this it may be replied, and the Reply will be proved in the resolution of the next Doubt, That John did not use one form unto all, (that is, to Christ and to all the Christians he baptized) 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 vary with respect unto them, as we shall seasonably observe in the clearing of the next ensuing Quere.

2 Query.

The Second Query is. Whether we find one certain, and constant form of Baptism, 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 certain gradual propositions.

First, It is certain that John did not baptize in his own name, no more then Paul, 1 Cor. 1. Were ye baptized, said he, in the name of Paul, v. 13. I thank 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 witness of Christ, John. 1.7. as coming after him, yet indeed preferred before him, ver. 15. and though as the Sun of man a little after him, as the Son of God so far before him, as to be styled the ever lasting Father, Isaiah 9.6. and so far 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 said, I am not; Art thou that prophet? and he answered, No, ver. 12. and being further demanded, Who art thou, what sayest thou of thyself? ver. 22. he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. ver 23.

Thirdly, Not baptizing in his own Name, these Texts do 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 Jesus, Acts. 19.6. for those words are to be referred to Johns baptism, which is repeated in the story of Luke, not to any rebaptization of the disciples by the Apostle, who before were baptized with the Baptism of John, as the Papists contend, that they may prove a great difference betwixt the baptism of John, and the baptism 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 John's Baptism was a true, and sufficient Baptism, 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 baptism thereby approved. For though the supper of the Lord be administered often, 1 Cor. 11. ver. 25.26. because we have need to be often spiritually, as well as corporally fed; yet Baptism, which is the means of our engraffing 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 John was not only sermon wise, as Bellarmine would have it, who saith that John did only admonish the people to believe in Christ who was to come; But he used some words of Christ in the administration of Baptism Sacramentally, as all orthodox Divines do unanimously agree.

Fourthly, For the words used by John at his Baptism, though we cannot be certain of them, because we find no express scripture for them, as Uesseus warily asserteth, yet it is very probable that they were varied, 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 baptism in the river Jordan,) John 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, I baptize thee in the Name of him who was, or is to come; and with them agreeth Gerard. John. Uossius.

Secondly, When he was come, and gloriously manifested by a visible sign, 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 Savior Christ, it was not like that he would use such words to him, as he used to others; For to others Baptism was a washing away of sin, and he had none, and therefore Baptism was not necessary to him; for, as Bernard hath it in his pathetical Apostrophe to Christ, Lord Jesus wilt thou be baptized? why, what need hast thou of Baptism I doth the sound stand in need of a phycisian, or the cleans of washing? whence hadst thou any sinnne thai should be washed away by baptism? hadst thou any sin from thy Father? why he was God, and thou art equal to him, God of God, Light of Light, and who knows 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. 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 stain could be found in him who was a lamb without spot? John baptized the lamb (saith he,) and by that baptism washed the waters. He was baptized then not as guilty of sin, and so not as needing baptismall regeneration, but to fulfill all righteousness. Math. 3.15. to submit himself as under the law, coming in the form of a servant, Phil. 2.7. though he were the Law-maker; and therefore he was circumcised, as well as baptized, to honor his own Ordinance with his own 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 form of words was he baptized? I have met with no Author but one, who takes upon him affirmatively and distinctly to answer that question; and it is Palacius a Papist who saith, he baptized him thus, I baptize thee in thine own name, who wast to come. Wherein, being so punctual in his resolution, he was too presumptuous. Yet on the other hand, they are as far out who say, as some do, that John used no form of words at all in the Baptism of Christ.

Fourthly, Some learned Divines hold that John did, at least sometimes, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy ghost; although some Papists do with such confidence deny it, as to hold it impudence to affirm it. And they hold so the rather, to maintain their Tenet against the Protestants, of the essential difference of the Baptism of John, from the Baptism 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 Baptism make mention of the Trinity; because,

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

2. Because he was an orthodox Divine, and acquainted with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Because at the baptism of our Savior there was a most clear manifestation of the Trinity, the father acknowledging his Son from heaven, and the holy ghost lighting on him in the likeness of a Dove. And therefore it is like he made mention of the Trinity, (at least after Christ's Baptism at Jordan) by way of supplication, or of sacramental application, though ordinarily he baptized In the Name of Christ Jesus, 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 Query.

Of the several Forms of Baptism which is the chief?

The chief form for authority, and perpetuity, and community is that whereof Math. 28.19. is the ground, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, 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 sense 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 mean by I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy ghost, I baptize thee by the power, authority, or commission from God (as Acts. 3.6. and Acts. 4.7.) who is own 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 faith, and worship of the blessed Trinity, or what other orthodox sense we assign unto the words, they may well be taken in that sense, when sprinkling water upon the party baptized, or dipping him in the water, we say, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father. Son and Holy ghost.

For this form of Baptism there is very good warrant of scripture, reason, and practical example. 1. For scripture, the Text forecited out of Math, (as it is expounded) is plain and pertinent, to which may be added the forecited illustrious testification of the Father to the Son, and the apparition of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, at our Savior's Baptism in the river Jordan. Mat. 3.

2. For reason, we say that in baptism there is a concurrent operation of grace, towards the party baptized, (who is within the Covenant) whereby the Father receiveth him for a Son, the Son for a Brother, the Holy Ghost for a Temple.

3. For practical example, we have first the Apostles, who received a Commission from our Savior to Baptize In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which appeareth to have been the Apostolical practice, 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 believed, and they had answered that they had not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Ghost or no, he replied with a question, Unto what thou were ye baptized? as it were wondering, that they that were baptized, should not have heard of the holy Ghost; which he had no cause to do, unless there had been practical example to baptize with mention of the Holy Ghost; And if the Holy Ghost were named at Baptism, it is not probable that either the Father, or the Son were omitted.

But whether the Apostles constantly kept to that form is uncertain, Popish Authors confidently contradict each other in this point; for Peter Lombard resolveth, that the Apostles baptized in the Name of the Trinity; Estius avereth, that the Apostles always baptized In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and he renders this reason, Because, of one Sacrament there should be but one form, especially after a form is prescribed, as it was to the Apostles Mat. 28.19.

Others say, that they had for a time a dispensation to baptize In the name of Christ Jesus, for special honor to that person, and Name, which was most exposed to contempt. 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 Savior would have given his order of Baptism under that form.

For the times after the Apostles, we find many testimonies for Baptism, In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not only in the writings of suppositious, or suspected Fathers, as Clemens Romanus, but in such as are acknowledged for legitimate, as 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 is good reason at least to doubt of it, yet is it very ancient, and that in the judgment both of Protestant and Popish Authors; Origen, Greg. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ambrose. Mediolanensis, Gaudentius Brixiensis, Augustine, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Gennadius Massiliensis, Fulgentius, Primasius; All these were in the first five hundred years after Christ; In the sixth Century was Gregory, surnamed 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 administered Baptism 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, was 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 several 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 Baptized both before, and after the passion of our Savior, 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 Baptism 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 labor, and of little use; since (though universal consent of all sort of Authors make much for the honor, 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 unknown unto them.

If we draw nearer home for time, and place, and conformity in religion, we shall find the Doctrine and practice of the Reformed Churches concurring in this form 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 pains to produce the proof of them in particular.

Unto plain and express Testimonies by words, we may add a real 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; whereof two reasons are rendered 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 Savior for three days space; but the principal is the former. And this manner of Baptizing is very ancient, for we find it the practice of the Church in Tortullians time; so ancient that divers of the Fathers take it for an Apostolical tradition, and some have put it into an Apostolical Canon to be observed upon a penalty, in these words.

If any Bishop or Prosbyter do not celebrate the mystery of Trine immersion, or thrice dipping, but dippe but once in baptism (which seems to be given in the death of the Lord) let him be deposed; 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 Canonical; Orthodox Divines reject them as a parcel of Apocrypha, and the Papists themselves admit of them but in part; and though if any should baptize but once out of an heretical misapprehension of the blessed Trinity, such a single immersion 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 sense and judgment of the unity of the Godhead, and Trinity of persons, though they do it but once, do not amiss; for both are lawful, and as the Schoolmen determine, either of them may be used according to the various custom of orthodox Churches: and for this the fourth Council of Toledo made an express Canon, decreeing for a single or simple dipping, against another sort of heretics, who by a trine immersion professed more then a personal distinction of the Father, Son, and holy ghost, as if they were of three distinct natures, not three distinct persons only; and by this decree they endeavored to take away a scandalous difference of Baptism in Spain, while some baptized with a single, and some with a threefold immersion, or dipping; and by once dipping and thrice naming of God by the Trinity of persons, there was an Antidote provided against both sorts of heresies, and the manner was this; At the first dipping the Father was named, at the second the Son, at the third the holy ghost.

The fourth Query.

Whether any form of baptism be so necessary that it is not lawful to vary from it.

The resolution of this Query is very various. For

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

1, That some hold there is no set form of Baptismeset down in scripture which is necessary to be observed; This opinion Bellarmine imputeth to Luther, Zwingli; and Brenz as their error.

2. For the forms that are found in Scripture, that Baptism In the Name of Christ, or of Christ Jesus was lawful, when John so baptized, for it is recorded in the Scripture, as before hath been shown, and nowhere reproved; nor those so baptized by him rebaptized, as hath been also shown beofre.

3. 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 lawful for Ministers so to baptize at this day, for the reason rendered by Basil, because in one person all three are virtually included, as in the name of Christ, signisying anointed, the person anointing, the father is employed, and the person by whom he is anointed the holy Ghost. So, as Spanhemius saith, John Baptized In the Name of the Trinity implicitly, though not explicitly.

5. For Baptism In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, some hold, that terms of equivalence, or equpollence, bearing the same sense, will serve for the form of Baptism; as In the name of the sending Father, or the Father that sendeth. In the name of the Son that is come, and In the name of the witnessing Comforter, or In the name of him that begetteth, of him that is begotten, and of the spirit proceeding from them both. But the nearer the words come to those of the 28. of Matth. 19. the more assuredly lawful; as if one should baptize In the name of the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, 1 John 5.7. Nor is that thought unlawful to name each person with a word of explication added, as, I baptize thee In the name of the Father that begetteth, and of the Son 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 seems reasonable to think, that as (though our Savior said After this manner pray ye, Matth. 6.9 and when ye pray say &c. Luke 11.2. yet) when we pray, it may be lawful to use another form, or that form with some expository variation; so it may be lawful, in respect of the thing it self, to use the same words, or others of the like sense and meaning; and this the rather, because we find not that any other Sacrament, in the old or New Testament, had any set form of words, wherewith it was by a prescript order or any peremptory rule to be administered: but to be practically lawful at this time, after so ancient, and so general a use and custom of most orthodox Churches is another thing; For to depart from those words, having so general warrant, not only from Scripture, but from universal observation, cannot be done without scandal, and so cannot be lawfully done, though the thing it self, in itself and in thesi be lawful; as though it be lawful for a Preacher to keep on his hat while he speaketh to the people, and in the thing it self more congruous to his condition then to the people's to be covered at Setmon, yet since it hath been so long a received custom in our Church, for the Preacher not to wear his hat though the people do, he that should preach with his hat on his head, would occasion a scandal, and give men occasion to conceive. That he were either very proud, or very vain and fantastical.

The fifth Query.

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

In answer whereto we say,

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

1. It is not necessary to say, I baptize thee, in the first person; for the Greeks, baptizing in the third person, Let this servant of Christ be baptized, or baptized by my hands, in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Gholst, are acknowledged to have a true baptism.

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

Thirdly, It makes no great difference to say in the name, or into the name, for as in the name may note the authority of Baptism, and the holy influence of the Author 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 Baptism, incorporating the baptized into the mystical body of Jesus Christ; and though we read the words, Matth. 28.19. In the name of the Father; the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may more exactly in the gramatical sense of the words be rendered 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 2.38. and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 10.48. But 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 express mention of all the persons of the Trinity, it is held by many to be necessary, both because of the words of Christ, Matth. 28.19. the custom of the Church, and the scandal 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, yea though in this form. I baptize thee in the name of the first, second, and third person, or if there be an express mention of any two persons, and an omission of any one, it is resolved to be no Baptism.

Here may come in the Question about the baptism of an ignorant priest, which was, Whether pronouncing the words of Baptism in false Latin made a nullity of the Baptism? Boniface the Bishop of Mainz 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 Baptism theologically, though grammatically erroncous; The resolution referred to Pope Zacharias, he decreed for the validity of the baptism, though there were such an incongruity in the Priests pronunciation.

Sixthly, The forms of Baptisine (swarivng from the words of our. Savior, Matth. 28.19.) invented and used by Heretics, for intimation of some corrupt and heretical doctrines; especially prejudicial to the honor of the Trinity, do make a nullity of the Baptism; whereof there are many sorts.

1. That of Mark the heretic, 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 the Arians, who baptized in the name of the Father the only true God, of Jesus Christ a ereature, and of the holy Ghost the servant of them both.

If it be said, that the baptism of the Arians was held sufficient by the Catholic Church, as Binius noteth upon the seventh Canon of the Council of Laodicea and Framisc. 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 Arians did not all of them, or not always baptize in one form, for sometimes they baptized 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 Arian Minister, who meant to have Baptized one in that manner, by causing the water suddenly to vanish out of his sight, by which the baptism was prevented.

3. That of the 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 Son; who out of an heretical conceit against the Trinity opposed the mannar of trine immersion.

4. That of the Photinians, whose form of Baptism (as their faith) was 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 baptism of the Arians were held sufficient (as hath been noted) the baptism of the Photinians was held not only guilty of impiety, but a meet nullity.

5. That form of baptism which joins the creature in commission with the Creator, as

1. That of the Pepuzians, or Montanists, who baptized into the Father, Son, and into Montunus, or Priscilla.

2. That of some superstitious and idolatrous Papists, who to the Trinity of persons added the name of Mary the perpetual Virgin.

3. That which Bernard mentioneth of a child whom being newly borne, and in imminent danger of death, a lay man baptized on the sudden, In the name of God, and of the holy and true Cross; which Bernard alloweth for sufficient baptism, and excuseth the man, as doing it not out of contempt of the Ecclesiastical form, but of a sudden devotion; wherein he determineth the doubt as a Papist, according to such principles as Protestants deny; and therefore they may deny that baptism, both in respect of the Agent, a mere 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 Cross, a great Idol with the Papists, (especially with the ignorant) though he labor to force a better sense out of his words, then it is like the man himself ever meant.

But what if a child were baptized, not by a lay-man, but by a Minister, whether Popish or Evangelical, and the words were formally used, which are the usual form, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, doth the addition of the Virgin Mary's name make void what was done by the words precedently spoken? The addition of exorcism, exsuffiation, salt, spittle, oil, 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 condemn a baptism whose form is corrupted, as that where the Virgin Mary's name is added to the name of the Trinity, then where ceremonies, though superfluous, and superstitious, which Papists themselves do not account of the essence of Baptism, 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 baptism with the error of rebaptizing in such a case, and so resolving either certainly to allow, or disallow the Baptism, or else by making a conditional rebaptization, as in a doubtful 〈◊〉 is prescribed in the Cashiered Servicebook, in the manner of private Baptism in this form, If thou be not already baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; which form with water (which is the matter) are there made essential parts of Baptism.

Conclusion.

To wind up all into a Conclusion, The discussion and resolution of these Questions, I have thus far carried on, not so much for confutation of M. Saltmarsh, who hath said nothing that might deserve such a scrious disquisition, and determination, but that there might be something presented with an Answer to him that might be worthy of the view of an Intelligent Reader, who will hereby understand, that though M. Saltmarsh set forth such trifling fancies, and worthless shreads, and snips, as are good for nothing, his Antagonist will not deal with him in trading with such petty parcels, but will rather endeavor (by proposing that to the judicious Reader that may some way improve his knowledge) to make some amends for his extemporary emptynes.

And hereby (notwithstanding) 1 is that novel posision of his fully confuted, and his rashness and presumption checked, who (having so little learning or reading in the state and story of the Churches dispensations through several ages of the world) in these days wherein all manner of knowledge doth so abound (though many of his new lights be but the flashes of an ignis fatuus durst averte and publish in Print, that Mat. 28.18. rather 19. Mark. 16. &c. are rather and far more probably to be expounded of the Spiries baptism, or of the baptism of the Holy ghost. And that the form by which they baptize, viz. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son and Holy ghost, is a form of man's devising, a tradition of man, a mere consequence drawn from supposition and probability, and not a form left by Christ to say over them in the water: If Christ had said, When you baptize them say this over them, I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy ghost, and unless Jesus Christ had left this form, thus made up to their hands, they practice a thing made up by themselves, and drawn or forced out of Jesus Christ's words in Mat. 28.19.

And if that form were not made up by Christ, how will he prove that the form of Baptism In the Name of the Lord Jesus was made up by him? if not, why should that be made an exception against baptizing In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and not against baptizing In the Name of Christ?

2. His missallegation of the saying of the learned Salmasius is further convinced; who, because he reporteth a matter of Apostolical practice, will infer that Salmasius is a Dogmatical opposite to baptism, In the Name of the Father, Son, and boly Ghost. If that be his meaning to have Salmasius supposed to hold with him in his opposition against Baptizing In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, he meaneth doubtless to put an absurd paradox upon him, which he would seriously disavow, if he knew it; if that be not his meaning, he citeth him to no purpose; and though there be some other learned men of Salmasius his mind in that point, (whose names he citeth not, because he brought in that manner of baptism not ex instituto, but obiter, not of purpose, but occasionally) yet there are who with much confidence affirm that the Apostles did baptize In the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and not In the Name of Jesus only, as hath been before declared; and the reason is, because though there be • o clear proof of their practice of either in the Scripture, yet the words of our Savior, Matth. 28.19. are more express and plain for baptizing In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, then any text is for a rule of any other form.

For his testimony produced and pretended to be in favor of Independency of Churches, I will desire to trouble the Reader no further, but to review what M. L. hath written in answer to it already, and oy that he will see that M. Saltm. in this controversy is destitute both of a good cause and of a good conscience; of a good cause, for his eppealing to Salmasius as to a patron of Independency is at least a belying of him; and of a good cousciouce, because that being discovered, he still opposeth and outfaceth it as much as he can, against an evident conviction.