who takes upon him affirmatively and distinctly to answer that question and it is d Palacius 2. de Bapt. c. 33. Palacius a Papist who sayth he baptized him thus I baptize thee in thine owne name who wast to come Wherein being so punctuall in his resolution he was too presumptuous Yet on the other hand they are as far out who say as e Marsilius Paludanus apud Lorin in Act. c. 19. v. 4. p. 705. col 2. Bellarm l. 1. de Bapt. c. 20. Tom 3. p. 35â— some doe that Iohn used no form of words at all in the Baptisme of Christ Fourthly f Magdeburg Centur. 1. l. 2. cap. 6. Chamier Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 13. p 277. Some learned Divines hold that Iohn did at least sometimes baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy ghost although some g Bellarm. l 1. de sacra Bapt. c. 23. Papists do with such confidence deny it h Lorin in Act Apost c. 10. v. a. p. 704. col 2. as to hold it impudence to affirm it And they hold so the rather to maintain their Tenet against the Protestants of the essentiall difference of the Baptisme of John from the Baptisme instituted by Christ according to his command and commission given to the Apostles Matth. 28.19 But it is probable enough that he did in his Baptisme make mention of the Trinity because 1. He had the same warrant of divine authority for what he did which the Apostles had Iob. 1.33 2. Because i Sic argument Chamterus loce citato he was an orthodox Divine and acquainted with the Doctrine of the Trinity 3. Because at the baptisme of our Saviour there was a most cleare manifestation of the Trinity the father acknowledging his Sonne from heaven and the holy ghost lighting on him in the likenes of a Dove And therefore it is like he made mention of the Trinity at least after Christs Baptisme at Iordan by way of supplication or of sacramentall application though ordinarily he baptized In the Name of Christ Iesus or of the Messias which was to come But whether he used the one or the other form before the act or instantly with the act of Baptizing as our manner is at this day is very uncertain The third Querie Of the severall Formes of Baptisme which is the chief The cheif forme for authority and perpetuity and community is that whereof Math. 28.19 is the ground I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy ghost And though it be not necessary to conceive that ministers are bound formally expressaly and precisely to apply these words to the act of baptizing yet since no sence is assigned to them when they are so applied but what is very congruous to the act of the Minister it cannot but be a very safe way explicitly to mention them in the baptismal action For whether we meane by I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy ghost I baptize thee by the power authority or commission from God as Acts. 3.6 and Acts. 4.7 who is owne in substance three in persons Father Sonn and Holy ghost or whether by those words we imply a prayer for the blessing of the Trinity upon the baptized person or engage him to the profession of the fayth and worship of the blessed Trinity or what other orthodox sence we assigne unto the words they may well be taken in that sence when sprinkling water upon the party baptized or dipping him in the water we say I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy ghost For this forme of Baptisme there is very good warrant of scripture reason and practicall example 1. For scripture the Text forecited out of Math as it is expounded is plaine and pertinent to which may be added the forecited illustrious testification of the Father to the Sonne and the apparition of the Holy Ghost in the forme of a dove at our Saviours Baptisme in the river Jordan Mat. 3. 2. For reason we say that in baptisme there is a concurrent operation of grace towards the party baptized who is within the Covenant k Gerard. Loc. Com. Tom. 4. p. 488. ¶ 91. whereby the Father receiveth him for a Sonne the Sonne for a Brother the Holy Ghost for a Temple 3. For practicall example we have first the Apostles who received a Commission from our Saviour to Baptize In the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost which appeareth to have been the Apostolicall practize by the passage betwixt Paul and the Disciples found at Ephesus for when Paul had put the question to them Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they beleeved and they had answered that they had not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Ghost or no he replyed with a question Vnto what thou were yee baptized as it were wondring that they that were baptized should not have heard of the holy Ghost which he had no cause to do unlesse there had been practicall example to baptize with mention of the Holy Ghost And if the Holy Ghost were named at Baptisme it is not probable that either the Father or the Sonne were omitted But whether the Apostles constantly kept to that forme is uncertain Popish Authors confidently contradict each other in this point for lPetr Lombard in Sent. l. 4. Distinct 3 p. 699. Peter Lombard resolveth that the Apostles baptized in the Name of the Trinity mEstius in l. 4. Sent. dist 3. ¶ 4. p. 40. col 2. Estius avereth that the Apostles alwayes baptized In the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and he renders this reason Because of one Sacrament there should be but one forme especially after a forme is prescribed as it was to the Apostles Mat. 28.19 Others n Aurâ—olus in 4. Sent. Dist 3. Francis Long. in Annot. in Can Apost 40. p. 136. Harding de Cor. sabutra quespec art 2. say that they had for a time a dispensation to baptize In the name of Christ Iesus for speciall honour to that person and Name which was most exposed to contempt But if that had been a sufficient reason why the Apostles should baptize In the Name of Christ and not of the Trinity it is like our Saviour would have given his order of Baptisme under that form For the times after the Apostles we finde many testimonies for Baptisme In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not only in the writings of suppositious or suspected Fathers as o Clem. Constit l 3 c. 16. l 7. c. 22. Clemens Romanus but in such as are acknowledged for legitimate as p Just Mart. Apot. 2. ad Anton. Pium an 150. Justin Martyr in his second Apology and in the book of confession or exposition of right faith which goeth under his name and if it be not his as there is q Bellar. de Eccles Scriptorib p. 64 Scultet medul patr part 1. c. 9. p. 34.
to be observed This opinion a Bell. de Bapt l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 3. p. 272. Bellarmin imputeth to Luther Zuinglius and Brentius as their errour 2. For the formes that are found in Scripture that Baptisme In the Name of Christ or of Christ Iesus was lawfull when John so baptized for it is recorded in the Scripture as before hath been shewed and no where reproved nor those so baptized by him rebaptized as hath been also shewed beofre 3. b Bell l. 1. de Sacr. Bapt. c. 3. p. 276. Francise Longus in Can. Apost 49. p. 136. Some teach that the Apostles baptized lawfully In the name of Christ though without the addition of these words which was to come as well as In the name of the Trinity 4. That it is lawfull for Ministers so to baptize at this day for the reason rendred by c Basil de spirit sanâ—c 1â— Basil because in one person all three are vertually included as in the name of Christ signisying anointed the person anointing the father is imploied and the person by whom he is anointed the holy Ghost So as d Fred. Span. hem dab Evang part 3. in Matth. 28. p. 79. Spanhemius saith John Baptized In the Name of the Trinity implicitly though not explicitely 5. For Baptisme In the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost e Apul Suares loco sub citato 〈◊〉 some hold that termes of equivalence or equpollence bearing the same sence will serve for the forme of Baptisme as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Constit l. c. 23. In the name of the sending Father or the Father that sendeth In the name of the Sonne that is come and In the name of the witnessing Comforter or g Suarez in 2. part Tham. Tom 3. qui est primas de sacram disp 2â— q 66. sell 4. p. 21â— In the name of him that begetteth of him that is begotten and of the spirit proceding from them both But the neerer the words come to those of the 28. of Matth. 19. the more assuredly lawfull as if one should baptize In the name of the Father the word and the holy Ghost 1 Iohn 5.7 Nor is that thought unlawfull to name each person with a word of explication added as h Egote haptizo in no nine atris in geniti filij genht S S. abu troque procedentis Lomb. 4. Sent. dist 3. I baptize thee In the name of the Father that begetteth and of the Sonne that is begotten and of the holy Ghost which proceedeth from them both These propositions may have a speculative truth in them and there may be warrant for them for it seemes reasonable to think that as though our Saviour said After this maner pray ye Matth. 6.9 and when ye pray say c. Luke 11.2 yet when we pray it may be lawfull to use another forme or that forme with some expository variation so it may be lawfull in respect of the thing it selfe to use the same words or others of the like sense and meaning and this the rather because we finde not that any other Sacrament in the old or new Testament had any set forme of words wherewith it was by a prescript order or any peremptory rule to be administred but to be practically lawfull at this time after so ancient and so generall a use and custome of most orthodox Churches is another thing For to depart from those words having so generall warrant not onely from Scripture but from universall observation cannot be done without scandall and so cannot be lawfully done though the thing it selfe in it self and in thesi be lawfull as though it be lawfull for a Preacher to keepe on his hat while he speaketh to the people and in the thing it selfe more congruous to his condition then to the peoples to be covered at Setmon yet since it hath been so long a received custome in our Church for the Preacher not to weare his hat though the people doe he that should preach with his hat on his head would occasion a scandall and give men occasion to conceive That he were either very proud or very vaine and fantasticall The fifth Querie If there be any variation from the forme in Matth. 28.19 what may be admitted without violation of the Sacrament what not In answere wherto we say First That some words in this forme are not so necessary and considerable as others as 1. It is not necessary to say I baptize thee in the first person for the k Non negamus quia per illa verba Baptizetur talis servm Christi in nomine patris filij spir saucti vet baptizetur manibâ—â— meis talis verum perficiatur Baptisma Concil Florent decretum super unione Iacobinorum Armeniorum Franc. Long. Sum. Concil p. 888. col 1. Greeks baptizing in the third person Let this servant of Christ be baptized or baptized by my hands in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Gholst are acknowledged to have a true baptisme Secondly It is not necessary to say Baptize for a man may perform true and sufficient baptisme by the word wash or sprinkle as well as by the word baptize Thirdly It makes no great difference to say in the name or into the name for as in the name may note the authority of Baptisme and the holy influence of the Authour going along with it so to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6.1 or into the name of Christ may note the effect and benefit of Baptisme incorporating the baptized into the mysticall body of Jesus Christ and though we read the words Matth. 28.19 In the name of the Father the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may more exactly in the grammaticall sence of the words be rendred into the name and the like we may resolve of the same phrase 1 Cor. 1.13 but to be Baptized in the name is properly the true English of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.38 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 10.48 But l In nomine utique art non in nominibus ut unitas essen tiae ostendatur per tria verò que supposuit tres esse personas declaravit Ambros de si de ad Gratian cap. 1. Ambrose observes in the Name in the singular number as importing the unity of substance in the Trinity of persons of the Godhead Secondly But for the expresse mention of all the persons of the Trinity it is held by many to be m Aquin. in 3. part q. 66. art 5. ad 7. in 4 sent dist 3. art 2. questi uncula 2. ad â— Bonarent art q. 3. Scotus quest 2. art 3 num 16. Paludanus q. 1. art 3. necessary both n Suarez in 3. part Thom. Tom. 3. qui est primus de Sacramentis disp 21. q. 66. Sect. 4 p. 220 col 2. because of the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 the custom of the Church and the scandall which would be occasioned if any of them should
be omitted And upon this ground it is held by some insufficient to baptize in the name of the Trinity or of three persons o Suar. 2. Ibid. yea though in this form I baptize thee in the name of the first second and third person or if there be an expresse mention of any two persons and an omission of any one it is resolved to be no Baptisme p Sic in Epist Zach. pap 1. ad Bonisac Tom. 5. Concil p. 488. c. 2. Here may come in the Question about the baptisme of an ignorant priest which was Whether pronouncing the words of Baptisme in q In nomine patria stita spiritua sancta Aventin Annal Boior l. 3. p 297. Tom 5. Concil p 48. col 2. false Latine made a nullity of the Baptisme Boniface the Bishop of Mentz had commanded a child so baptized to be rebaptized Virgilius Bishop of Saltsburge and Sydonius another Bavarian Bishop would not agree to that for they allowed of the Baptisme theologically though grammatically erroncous The resolution referred to Pope Zachary he decreed for the validity of the baptisme though there were such an incongruity in the Priests pronunciation Sixthly The forms of Baptisine swarivng from the words of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 invented and used by Hereticks for intimation of some corrupt and hereticall doctrines especially prejudiciall to the honour of the Trinity do make a nullity of the Baptisme whereof there are many sorts 1. That of r Osander Centur. 2. fol. 42. Irenaeus ad vers baeres l. 2 c. 18. Mark the heretick who baptized in the name of the unknown Father of all things into the truth the mother of all things and in the name of the descondent upon Jesu 2. That of the Å¿ Athan. Serm. 3. contra Aria not Arrians who baptized in the name of the Father the onely true God of Jesus Christ a ereature and of the holy Ghost the servant of them both If it be said that the baptisme of the Arrians was held sufficient by the Catholike Church as t Bin. Aâ—â—â— in Can. 7. Coucil Laod. Tom. 1. Concil p. 306. Binius noteth upon the seventh Canon of the Councell of Laodicea and Framisc u Francise Long. summa Concil Annet in Concil Laod. c. 7. p. 194. Long his plagiary for he steals his Annotations word for word for many lines together without a word of mention of him It may be answered that the Arrians did not all of them or not alwaies baptize in one form for sometimes they baptized * In nom ne patris per futum in spiritu sancto Sozom. histor l. 6. c. 26. in the name of the Father by the Son and in the holy Ghost which form though not so bad as the former was thought to be so displeasing unto God that he miraculously disappointed the Arrian Minister who meant to have Baptized one in that manner by x Ibid. causing the water sodainly to vanish out of his sight by which the baptisme was prevented 3. That of the y Epiphan hares 76. Eunomians who baptized in the name of God uncreated of the Son created and of the holy Ghost the sanctifier and a creature of the created Sonne z Theodoret. lib. 4. baret sabt lar who out of an hereticall conceit against the Trinity opposed the mannar of trine immersion 4. That of the Photinians whose form of Baptisme as their faith was a See Bin. in Coned Laod. Can. â— Tem. 1. p. 300. worse then that of the Arriams so much worse that the Arians themselves could not endure either them or it and therefore did they excommunicare them so that though some baptisme of the Arrians were held sufficient as hath been noted the baptisme of the Photinians was held not onely guilty of impiety but a meet nullity 5. That form of baptisme which joyns the creature in commission with the Creatour as 1. That of the Pepuzians or b Basil prima jua epist ad Amphiloch Iconij Episc can 1. Montanists who baptized into the Father Sonne and into Montunus or Priscilla 2. That of some superstitious and c Gerard Loc Com. Tom. 4. col 410. § 93. idolatrous Papists who to the Trinity of persons added the name of Mary the perpetuall Virgin 3. That which d Neque enim Ecclesiaslicam contemplisse formam sed ex devotione quadam festi nantis fidei in banc voce erupisse videtur Bern. Epist 340. Henrico Archiacono col 1648. Bernard mentioneth of a childe whom being newly borne and in imminent danger of death a lay man baptized on the sodain In the name of God and of the holy and true Crosse which Bernard alloweth for sufficient baptisme and excuseth the man as doing it not out of contempt of the Ecclesiasticall forme but of a sodain devotion wherein he determineth the doubt as a Papist according to such principles as Protestants deny and therefore they may deny that baptisme both in respect of the Agent a meer lay-man and in respect of the form as wanting what it should have the Name of the Trinity and having what it should not the mention of the Crosse a great Idoll with the Papists especially with the ignorant though he labour to force a better sence out of his words then it is like the man himself ever meant But what if a childe were baptized not by a lay-man but by a Minister whether Popish or Evangelicall and the words were formally used which are the usuall forme I Baptize thee in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost doth the addition of the Virgin Maries name make void what was done by the words precedently spoken The addition c Bellarm. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 25 26 27. of exorcisme exsuffiation salt spittle oyl and other ceremonies doth not make a nullity of the Sacrament and therefore they were not rebaptized by Protestants who were superstitiously Baptized by Popish priests To which I answer 1. That there may be more cause to condemne a baptisme whose forme is corrupted as that where the Virgin Maries name is added to the name of the Trinity then where ceremonies though superfluous and superstitious which Papists themselves do not account of the essence of Baptisme are superadded unto it 2. If any doubt or scruple yet remain it must be resolved either by comparing the danger of such a corrupt baptisme with the errour of rebaptizing in such a case and so resolving either certainly to allow or disallow the Baptisme or else by making a conditionall rebaptization as in a doubtfull 〈◊〉 is prescribed in the Cashiered Servicebook in the manner of private Baptisme in this form If thou be not already baptized I baptize thee in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost which form with water which is the matter are there made essentiall parts of Baptisme Conclusion To winde up all into a Conclusion The discussion and resolution of these Questions I have thus farre
good reason at least to doubt of it yet is it very ancient and that in the judgement both of * Ibid. Protestant and Popish Authours r Origen in Rom 6. anno 226. Origen Å¿ Greg. Nazianz Orat. 40. in Sanct. Bapt. an 370. Greg. Nazianzen t Epiphan haeres 62. Sabell an 370. Epiphanius u Ambros Mediolanens de spir Sanct. l. 1. c. 4. an 374. Ambros Mediolanensis w Gaudent Brixiens Tract seu serm 14. an 390. Gaudentius Brixiensis x August l. 13. contra Maxim c. 13. an 420. Augustine y Cyril Alexand. lib de recta fide ad Theodos Imperat. c. 32. an 430. Cyrillus Alexandrinus z Gennad Massil lib. de Eccles Degmat c. 52 an 490. Gennadius Massiliensis a Fulgent lib contra objectiones Arianorum in epileg object 10. lib de Trinit ad felicene Notar c. 2. an 500. Fulgentius b Priâ—sius in cap. 22. Apocalyps an 545. Primasius All these were in the first five hundred years after Christ In the sixth Century was Gregory sirnamed the Great of whom the saying is he was the last of the good Bishops of Rome the first of the bad and from him such as were held most Orthodox in all age both taught and administred Baptisme only In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost After the Fathers rose up a race of Divines called Schoolmen of whom the first and as it were the Father of the rest was c Petr. Lombard l. 4. sent dist â— p. 701. an 1145. Peter Lombard called the Master of the Sentences because he collected the sentences of the Divines of former ages and drew them into questions under severall titles in four books whereof the first is of the Unity of God-head and Trinity of persons And in the fourth book where be treats of the Sacraments he affirmeth that the Apostles Baptized both before and after the passion of our Saviour In the name of the Father Son and Holy ghost and according to him in this particular have the schoolmen that came after him resolved for the constant us of Baptisme in that form whereof to give in a Catalogue with their testimonies in a Chronologicall order for the times wherein they wrote would be a long labour and of little use since though universall consent of all sort of Authors make much for the honour and estimation of any truth yet in this case it is needles because there is no learned Reader will doubt of it and the ignorant will receive little satisfaction by a list of their names and Testimonies who are altogether unknowne unto them If we draw neerer home for time and place and conformity in religion we shall find the Doctrine and practise of the Reformed Churches concurring in this forme of Baptizing In the Name of the Father Son and Holy ghost which is a thing so well known by the Harmony and Syntagma of Confessions and by the observation of such as have lived among them that it were a superfluous paynes to produce the proofe of them in particular Unto plain and expresse Testimonies by words we may adde a reall testimony by action for baptizing In the name of the Trinity which is the practice of Baptizing by trine-immersion or thrice dinning and washing d Petr. Lomb. l. 4. Sent. Dist 3. p. 70â— ex Greg. Ep. 41. Leandro Episc whereof two reasons are rendred by Gregory the one with significant relation to the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead the other to the sepulture of our Saviour for three dayes space but the principall is the former And this manner of Baptizing is very ancient for we find it the practice of the Church in e Dehinc termergitamur Tertul. de Corona milit c. 5. Ter ad singula nomina in personu singulu mergimur Idem advers Praxeam c. 26. Tortullians time so ancient that divers of the f Ambros l. 2. de Sacram c. 7. Hieron advers Luciscrum August Serm. 29. 201. de Tempore Fathers take it for an Apostolicall tradition and some have put it into an Apostolicall Canon to be observed upon a penalty in these words g Si quis episcopus aut Presbyter non trinam immersionem unius mysterij celebret sed semel mergat in baptismate quod dari videtur in Domini morte deponatur c. Can. Apost 50. If any Bishop or Prosbyter do not celebrate the mystery of Trine immersion or thrice dipping but dippe but once in baptisme which seemes to be given in the death of the Lord let him be deposed for the Lord said not Baptize ye in my death but going teach all nation baptizing them In the Name of the Father Son and holy ghost But these Canons are not Canonicall Orthodox Divines reject them as a parcell of Apocrypha and the e Vid Petr. Sete Praesat in Caranz Sum. Concil Papists themselves admit of them but in part and though if any should baptize but once out of an hereticall misapprehension of the blessed Trinity such a single immersion f Theodoret. l. 4. de haereticor fab might be condemned as it was in the Eunomians who in opposition to the Doctrine of the Trinity dipped but once yet there is no doubt but such as baptize in a sound sence and judgement of the unity of the Godhead and Trinity of persons though they do it but once doe not amisse g Petr. Lomb. l. 4. sent dist 3. p. 702. for both are lawfull and as the Schoolmen determine either of them may be used according to the various custome of orthodox Churches and for this the fourth Councell of Toledo h Concil Toletan 4. in some Edit Can. 5. Tom. 4. Concil p. 583. col 1. Edit Bin. 1636. made an expresse Canon decreeing for a single or simple dipping against another sort of hereticks who by a trine immersion professed more then a personal distinction of the Father Sonne and holy ghost as if they were of three distinct natures not three distinct persons onely and by this decree they endeavoured to take away a scandalous difference of Baptisme in Spain while some baptized with a single and some with a three fold immersion or dipping and by once dipping and thrice nameing of God by the Trinity of persons there was an Antidote provided against both sorts of heresies i Bonavent in 4. Seat dist 3. part 2. art 2. q. 1. and the manner was this At the first dipping the Father was named at the second the Sonne at the third the holy ghost The fourth Querie Whether any forme of baptisme be so necessary that it is not lawfull to vary from it The resolution of this Querie is very various For 1 Besides that we have observed before out of Bellarmine concerning Johns baptisme without any forme of words we are to observe 1 That some hold there is no set forme of Baptismeset downe in scripture which is necessary
carryed 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 worthles shreads and snips as are good for nothing his Antagonist will not deal with him in trading with such petty parcels but will rather endeavour 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 novell posision of his fully confuted and his rashnes and presumption checked who having so little learning or reading in the state and story of the Churches dispensations through severall ages of the world in these dayes 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 e Smoke in the Temple first Numb and second Edit p. 13. that Mat. 28.18 rather 19. Mark 16. c. are rather and farr more probably to be expounded of the Spiries baptisme or of the baptisme of the Holy ghost And that the forme by which they baptize viz. I baptize thee in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy ghost is a forme of mans devising a tradition of man a meer consequence drawn from supposition and probability and not a forme left by Christ to say over them in the water If Christ had sayd When you baptize them say this over them I baptize thee In the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy ghost and unlesse lesus Christ had left this forme thus made up to their hands they practise a thing made up by themselves and drawn or forced out of Iesus Christs words in Mat. 28.19 And if that forme were not made up by Christ how will he prove that the forme of Baptisme In the Name of the Lord Iesus 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 f Baptisma in aquis perenne bus Apostolici inftituti moris sed non invocatio Trinitatis saper baptizatum cum Apostoliin solo nomine tesu Baptiza runt Salmas in Apparatu ad lib. de primatu papae fol. 193. a matter of Apostolicall practice will inferre that Salmasius is a Dogmaticall opposite to baptisme 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 Sonne and holy Ghost he meaneth doubtles 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 minde in that point whose names he citeth not because he brought in that manner of baptisme 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 onely as hath been before declared and the reason is because though there be â—o clear proof of their practise of either in the Scripture yet the words of our Saviour Matth. 28.19 are more expresse and plain for baptizing In the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost then any text is for a rule of any other forme For his testimony produced and pretended to be in favour of Independency of Churches I will desire to trouble the Reader no further but to review what M. L. hath g In his book of Light for smoke a p. 53. â—ad 97. 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 patrone 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 A brief Animadversion upon the mad Pamphleter composer of the Persume c. who out of two letters C. D. by a rare spel of Daemonology hath raysed Cerberus Diabolus yet withall to give the devil his due A word of Apology for him against the posted reproach put upon him by Iohn Saltmarsh and Giles Calvert THe unsavoury Pamphlet called a Persume came out with such a stinck that those that had not lost their sence of smelling cryed Fye upon is stopped their noses at it and if it had been written against me I would have thought it worthy of none other Answer then such as I finde in Elian which the Ephori of Lacedaemon made to the Clazomenians when with soot they had soyled their seats of Iudgment which was that they caused to be proclaimed throughout the City that h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—elian var. hist l. 2. c. 15 p. 5â— it should be lawfull for the Clazomenians to doe undecent things Yet though neither I non C. D. who hath so foundly scourged him that it could not be but he must snarle and howle like a dog under the whippe meddle with him any more he cannot passe without a last from the hand of a Moderate adversary the Moderate Intelligencer who though they be both of one trade viz. Newsmongers is in his weekly Intelligence as farr above this Perfumer the scribler of miscalled Perfect Passages and Perfect Occurrences as the most artificiall tayler is above the most bungling botchet in the City And he hath shaped him a Censure in these termes i Moderat Intell Numb 59. p. 405. A pamphlet came out on Monday last called A perfume against the sulpherous c. sayd in the title to be written by Iohn Saltmarsh is put out wrongfully in his name and is none of his Shall we never be ridd of these Mountebanks and Imposters who when they have not braynes to publish any thing of worth feign frothy titles when no such thing is in the Book but to put the name aforesayd to so ridiculous a peice as this argues the Author to have needed long since to be cut of the simples For feare lest this k Brevibus Gy aris carcere dignus worthy writer M. Iohn Saltmarsh should receive reproach by such a senselesse pamphlet or Giles Calvert his Stationer sustain losse by disreputation of his papers in time to come this Antidote was posted up in severall places for publike view A pamphlet came out on Monday April 19. 1646. called A persume against the sulpherous c. sayd in the title to be written by Iohn Saltmarsh is put out wrongfully in his name and is none of his Giles Calvert Which is enough for a supersedeas to any ingenuous man for any further Reply unto it for such a one may very wel disdain to answer that which such an Author disdaynes to own Yet to say the truth both M. Saltmarsh and M. Calvert did the fellow wrong and because I see he is so silly that he cannot tell how to make his own defence himself I will helpe him out He sayth for himself that M. Saltmarsh can blears him shat he writ his name and Title and with that it was licensed and that the Printer acknowledged his fault The more unwise man he and no wiser are they M. Saltmarsh and M. Calvert not excepted who so grossely mistook the title page of the Pamphlet which makes not M. Saltmarsh the Author of the Perfume for his name is not brought in till the letter end of the page presently upon the Smoke in the Temp. which was written and Printed with the name of John Saltmarsh and is acknowledged both by himself and his Stationer to be his So you see here is need of more Light to dispâ—ll the darknes of this Perfume now as well as of his Spoke before FINIS