THE ANABAPTISTS MERIBAH: OR, Waters of Strife.  
BEING A Reply to a late insulting Pamphlet, written by Thomas Lamb, Merchant, Intitulled, TRUTH prevailing against the fiercest Opposition; OR, An Answer to Mr. John goodwin's Water-dipping, no firm footing for Church-Communion.  
WHEREIN The impertinency of M. Lamb's Answer, and the validity of M. Goodwin's Water-dipping, etc. are manifested by I. Price a member of the Church of Christ, whereof the said Mr. Goodwin is Pastor.  ISA I. 44.20. He feedeth on ashes, a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand? GAL. 1.6.7. I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. 
LONDON, Printed by T. Lock for Henry Eversden, and are to be sold at his shop at the Sign of the Greyhound in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1656.   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.  
To the Reverend, my honoured and beloved PASTOR, Mr. JOHN GOODWIN, and the Church of Christ, walking with him in the Order of the Gospel, usually meeting together in Coleman-street, in London.  
Honoured, and Beloved:  
ALthough the separations, rents, and divisions, together with the Distempers and Distractions lately made by our Brother Lamb, and some few others, from, and in, the Church, were of a very sad and dangerous import, threatening not to leave one Stone of God's Building upon another, which should not be thrown down; yet, God, (whose only prerogative it is, to bring Light out of Darkness, and Good out of Evil) hath graciously produced a very comfortable, orderly, and regular settlement out of that Chaos and confusion, in so much, that as the false Doctrines concerning the necessity of Circumcision unto Justification (as some now speak little less of Baptism, and that according to their way and manner) introduced by false Apostles amongst the Churches, in the first plantation of the Gospel, did occasion several Epistles to be written by the Apostle Paul, and others, for the vindication and clearing up of the truth, as it is in jesus, not only in that particular, but also in many other Truths of rich and high concernment, and a firm establishment of the Churches in the Doctrine of Faith, towards God, and love amongst the Brethren: Even so these late and unhappy differences (through God's blessings and goodness) have had the like success amongst you, setting both Pastor and people upon a diligent and studious inquiery into, and discovery of the Truth, and establishing them therein. So that out of this Eater hath come Meat, the weak are made strong, and the strong stronger; they that seemed to stagger, do now stand, and the feet of them that stood are now established, none being in such danger (as formerly) to be turned out of the way: but those things which formerly hindered being removed out of the way, Faith and love, Piety and charity, will (as they do) go on and prosper, yea run and be glorified in the midst of you; you did lament and mourn, but your sorrow is turned into joy. God hath taken away your Sackcloth and Ashes, and girded you with joy and gladness: The foundations of your building did seem to be removed out of their places, and the pillars thereof did tremble; but the Highest himself hath established you, and will guide your feet in the way of truth and peace. And as for our brethren, have they stumbled (indeed at ceremonies, as the jews did) that they should fall? God forbidden. But if through their fall establishment be unto you, shall not their restoration belife from the dead? And let every one of us that stand, take heed lest we fall. If we ponder the paths, of our feet, our ways will be established: 
Prov. 4.26.  Though I am not able to add unto your spiritual stature, or increase in knowledge in the business in controversy, who are so richly instructed herein, and that very lately by our honoured and beloved Pastor, and others; yet if I do but put you in mind of the things which you know, after mine own wont Dialect and plain manner, (being moved hereunto by some of yourselves) I doubt not its Christian acceptance with you; and who knows whether God may not make five loaves and two fishes, (I mean a little of mean fare) to be as a feast of fat things unto you. My heart's desire and prayer unto God for you all is, that henceforth none of you may stumble and fall, 
Isa. 8.15. 2 Coll: 8. 2 Tim. 3.6, 2 Pet. 2.3. 2 Cor: 11.20:  and be broken, and snared and taken; that no man may spoil you (as sheep-stealers, snatching you away from the fold or flock of Christ) nor take you prisoners, nor make merchandise of you, nor bring you into bondage, but that you may flourish in the Courts of the house of our God, running without weariness, and walking on without fainting; that it might be with you yet after many, and many years to come, as it was with Moses in his old age, whose sight did not was dim, neither was his natural strength abated; that as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so ye might walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as you have been taught; that your hearts may be comforted by daily refresh from the presence of the Lord, being knit together, yea rooted and grounded in love, increasing still with the increasings of God, and thriving in all riches of spiritual understanding, to the perception and acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, that every one of you may be made up of God amongst his jewels, and be found on the right hand of Jesus Christ among his sheep at that great day, and may live and reign with him for ever, and ever. Amen. So prayeth,  
The meanest of you all J. Price. Septemb. 24. 1655.   

THE ANABAPTISTS MERIBAH: OR, Waters of STRIFE.  

SECT: I.  
THe injuries which David received from his enemies were much more tolerable, than those which he suffered from his friends. The lifting up of the heel of his own familiar, the man whom he trusted; this was a sword piercing through his soul. And (doubtless) it was none of the least of Christ's sufferings, that one of his Family, his society, of his own Disciples, should betray him into the hands of sinners. That Julius Caesar should be slain by his own Son Brutus among the rest, this pierced him worse, than any poniard It was Queen Elizabeth's complaint, that she had found Treason in Trust. How unkindly, unnaturally, and unchristianly Mr. 
Mr: Lambs a buse of Love.  Lamb in his late Book hath dealt (shall I say) with his old Friend (nay) his spiritual Father, and Pastor, Mr. John Goodwin, whom (by his own acknowledgement) God hath made seventy times seven times a Messenger, and Angel of light, life, and peace unto him; is not only the observation, but the very astonishment of all that know him, there being not many leaves, pages, or paragraphs therein, not importing rancorous, and malign reflections upon him, as if to prey upon his honour, and feed upon the blood of his reputation; were the firstborn of his desires, and the longing of his soul, as after the first ripe summer fruits. Thence it is, that this division (which he loveth) he so eagerly hunts after his pen (2s it were) scenting the tract of his former writings, 
Mr: Lambs unkindness.  that it might by't him (if it were possible) at every turn and ever and anon he spends an arrow out of his Quiver, seeking to hit him, and fears not. And having (as he supposeth) sped in his sport, what a merry meeting is in Gath; 
He rejoiceth Mr: goodwin's adversary's:  and feast made herewith in Askelon? whereat the Daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, and the Daughters of the Philistines triumph Well, Offences will come— How cruelly the man of his contention hath been dealt withal by the world; yea, and by men of better pretensions, and that for the many good works which he hath done amongst them, and for them, is not unknown unto him. But alas, these are but the mint and cummin of his troubles, 
He grieveth M: Goodwin  the molehills in his way. But that his own Disciples, and Scholars should be his executioners, and that for nothing, but his very judgement, and conscience, in, and about the matters of his God, that the sheep of his Flock, yea the Lambs thereof should convert into Lions, and Tigers against him; that his most hopeful, and choicest trees and Vines, should yield the apples of Sodom, Grapes of gall, and bitter closters, that his pains and labour for their peace should at last prove not only vanity, but vexation of spirit; that (like the Bird supposing it her own egg, and in hopes to bring forth in her own likeness) he should hatch up even Serpents eggs, that strive to sting and devour him; these cannot be but the great things of his affliction, the mountains of grief threatening to bring his grey hairs with sorrow to the grave; That those who were his late joy, and crown of rejoicing, while they stood fast in the Lord, should now prove a Crown of briars, goads in his sides, and thorns in his eyes; what can this be, but the very anguish of his soul? But because Mr. Lamb pleads the glory of God, the good of men, the service of the truth, in all that he hath written, let us with all readiness of mind search the scriptures, and see whether those things are so or no, which (with little less than even an Apostolical authority) he would obtrude, and impose upon our Judgements, and Consciences, for the Oracles of God, and for that end let us consider the Title (with all that follows)  
The title of his Book runs thus in capital letters: 

TRUTH PREVAILING AGAINST THE FIERCEST OPPOSITION: 
M: Lamb  OR  
AN ANSWER TO Mr: JOHN goodwin's WATER-DIPPING, etc.     

SECT: II.  
Mr: Lamb having built, and trimmed, and rigged his ship, Reply: and (as he supposeth) rightly freighted her, ventures her to sea, hoiseth up all his sails, mainsail, and foresail, main topsail, top-gallant sail &c: not doubting but he shall ride it over the proudest waves in all storms, or tempests, or fiercest oppositions that have, or can be made against him. At his first launching and setting of her forth, here is the discharging of gun upon gun, and gun after gun, as if he would scare all the inhabitants of seas, and shores with the thundering noise thereof: Harken, Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition; there's one. Or An Answer to Mr: goodwin's Waterdipping, &c: there's another. Wherein the invalidity of his (Mr. goodwin's) 23 Considerations, etc. there are 23 in one volley together. Together with a discovery of his great mistakes in the exposition of eight chief Scriptures &c: What a noise is here, as if great fleets of arguments under the government of the most able Generals in the world, must all vale, and strike sail at this one Vessel The truth is, 
M: Lamb highly conceited of his Book:  the Title of his book is like a glittering gloworm, seemingly full of light and heat; but if you touch it, it hath neither. Apothecaries boxes have sometimes goodly titles, when there is never a good drug, nor any thing medicinal in them. It is like the name of a Nunnery, on the out. side upon the walls over the gates, pretending nothing but Virginity within doors, but a little search may discover (as once to Gregory the great) thousands of infant's skulls cast into fish ponds; which did argue foul doing, under fair shows. We have here Truth in the Title: and all that is within must be of the same denomination (doubtless) How often is God entitled to that which his soul abhors! 
1 Sam: 23.7  God hath delivered David into my hands (saith Saul) because he was in Keilah; therefore he bears an alarm to all the people to march thither to take him. Zecharie speaks of shepherds that slay the flock, fleecing them instead of feeding them; and yet entitle God to the benefit that came thereby. 
Zach: 11.5 Deut 23 18.  They say, blessed be God for I am rich. We read of the hire of an Whore brought into the house of the Lord: and I have heard that in Rome, a Jewish Maid might not be admitted into the stews of Whoredom, unless she should be first baptised: 
2 Sam. 11 45  David would not commit folly with Bathsheba until she was purified. I have paid my vows (said the Whore at her doors in the Proverbs) an holy Whore, as Edward the 4th; was wont to call one of the Nuns, who attended him at pleasure out of the Nunnery. Here is truth in the Title, without truth in the Pamphlet; like a window cushion, beautiful without, but rip it up, you 〈◊〉 find it stuffed up with nothing but trash and trumpery. Let us but examine what is within these great swel●ing words, in his Epistles, and their Retinue.   

To the Reader:  
SECT: Reply. 
An apt similitude, setting forth Mr, Lamb's conceit of truth, without truth on his side.  III.  
UPon the perusal of the prescripts, and manuscripts, and postscripts of the book, I called to remembrance a story, that I have heard of some devout papists, who through the cunning, and cheating artifice of their ghostly fathers, were charmed into very large and bountiful offerings, unto a certain pretended holy relic, wrapped up in several embroidered and rich mantles and laid up in a certain place in a chapel consecrated for that purpose. Among the troops of those zealous Votaries, some (diseased with the itch of curiosity) were very importunate to see the said relic so famously spoken of abroad in the world, & were willing to purchase the same at a very considerable rate. This relic being depolited in the hands of ●he reverend Father the keeper thereof, upon a certain day appointed for that purpose, he came to give them a Vision of it; and causing them to stand at a convenient distance from it, having prepared and raised up the devotion of their minds, with much gravity of speech, at last with very low genuflections once and again, and the third time also, with all reverence he took off one mantle, and then (with the like ceremony) he took off another; and another, until he came to the very last, which was of very rich scarlet. When he came to that, he required them with all serious devotion of mind, and thought, to gather up all their visive faculties; and to look steadfastly, and fixedly upon the said Relic, when he should unfold that last mantle, which he said he was to do and to sold it up again, with all holy celerity and expedition; and having most nimbly opened the said mantle, and with the like speed folded it up again, he demanded whether they did not see it. Some held their peace, others said they faw nothing. How? (said the Priest,) what, saw you nothing? did you shut your eyes? are you wilfully blind? Pray Sir, said some of them (having a little more courage than the rest) pardon us; but tell us what it was, What it was (said the priest?) I am sorry that you have eyes, and cannot see, or (which is worse) you will not see; but i'll tell you what it was; marry it is the breath of the Ass upon which Christ road to Jerusalem, when the people cried Hosanna unto him. At which they that were silent before, did profess they saw it very plainly and wondered that the rest did not see it; and so they departed very thankful, very much satisfied, and well paid at their bargain. In like manner Mr Lamb hath filled the ears of the World round about him with the mighty noise of the great truth of God concerning baptism on his side, that it is most apparently evident in his book, and by the light thereof, that the baptism of believers at age, in opposition to Insant baptism, is the great truth of God, and that the separation from such societies, as are not of the same saith, and practice therein, is justifiable by the Word or God; that the baptism of such persons only (and that by dipping them under water) is the initiating Ordinance into Church-fellowship: that all Congregations (otherways gathered) are little betterthen the Synagogue of Satan, though they call themselves Jews (I mean) the Churches of Jesus Christ; that it becomes all men and Women that would be accounted visible christians, to become devout Voraries hereunto. And this grand Truth is as visible in hi● book, that ever and anon Heaven and Earth, God. Angels, and me● are called to Witness men's downright wilfulness, in shutting their eyes when they might see the same, and do homage thereunto: We have the talk of Truth in the Title truth in the trunk or body, truth in the tail of the book truth in the praescripts, truth in the grand-scripts- truth in the postscripts; but though you unfold mantle after mantle seaf after leaf, page after page, paragraph after paragraph; all which (I confess) are richly trimmed embroidered, and laced with many holy scriptures, and devout expressions; yet though you should gather up all your visive capacities, and abilities of ingenuity, knowledge and Wisdom, you will find nothing of that which you seek for in this kind, but mere air and breath: yea sometimes breath of a very loathsome savour, proceeding from distempered and ulcerated Lungs. Nay the truth is, if an ingenious Reader should dismantle his book 1. Of all the impertinent passages. 2: 
M. Lambs Book filled, and stuffed with impertinences.  Of all the Quotations of scriptures irrelative to the business for which they were quoted. ●l: Of all the vain flourishes and displaying, of his colours after his conceited Victory, expressed in such words as these, Good Reader judge &c: again; What man is he that doth not glory in men; whose faith and practice standeth not in the wisdom of men, &c: but must conceive &c: again, be astonished therefore O ye Heavens, and horribly afraid O earth &c: again, good Reader what sayest thou? hath not Mr: Goodwin the wrong end of the staff &c: again, I appeal to the Conscience of the judicious Reader etc. again Heavens, Earth judge; with many more of the same kind: 4ly: Of all his unbrotherly and unhandsome reflections upon M: Goodwin; let his book (I say) be dismantled of these, and their likes; he shall find it a mere skeleton, a starved carcase like one of pharao's lean kind not having so much spirit, life and strength of argument to the business he pretends unto; as to be able to crawl up & down in the considerations of any out blind Votaries, that can discern & offer sacrifice unto mere air and breath folded up in many sheets of paper: For the eviction whereof let us consider that that follows in the next place viz▪ his Epistle to the Reader; which gins thus:  Good Reader: 
M: Lamb.  GOd knoweth with what regrett of spirit I publish this Answer to M: goodwin's Book, etc.  

SECT: FOUR  
THou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him gu●●●ese that taketh his Name in vain. Reply. How desirous are you to preach into us a strong belief of your great candour of spirit unto Mr: 
Mr. Lamb pretends much candour of spirit to M: Goodw:  Goodwin; that ever and anon throughout your Book, after you have given him a rap (as you suppose) you fall a stroking him again. First (strapado-like) you lift him up, then down with him again, then up again: Doth not this argue there was a sore contest between your conscience, and concupiscence in the writing thereof, and the Victory is deplorable? If you have bitter envyings, and strife in your hearts (saith James) glory not. 
Mr. Lamb perplexed in his conscience about writing his Book: James 3: 14. Rev: 8: 11.  Were you not under the malign influence of the star called Wormwood (mentioned by John) when you wrote that book against Mr: Goodwin, which makes more than the third part thereof so bitter against him? do you not believe it? Then let me tell you. How a man may know conscience from concupiscence, and when he is acted by the corrupt principles of the flesh, viz: (popularity, spiritual pride, and vanity of mind even in seemingly devout, and religious performances, preaching, praising, printing; discoursing about good things,) and when by the holy Spirit of God, is a Question; the answer whereunto would be more profitable, & fit for you, and me to study, and to understand; then to contend and make war with the chariots, and horsemen of Israel in, and about the controversy in hand. And were I to give my opinion in the question, I should think it would not be an impertinency to offer this for one answer, viz: that in cases disputable, and controversal among the godly, 
The spirit of God doth not compel in controversal points  learned, and most judicious Christians, the true spirit of God doth not use to compel (that is your own word to the Reader) the more weak, & injudicious, the milksops, or babes in Christ (as you must give me leave to judge you to be, in comparison of those you contend withal, viz. Mr: Goodwin, M: Baxter) to rise up with that majestic confidence in, 
Mr: Lamb a child of under: standing in comparison with M Goodwin, and Mr: Baxter against whom he writes.  and of their own strength: as if they could make the mountains of arguments, levied against them, to skip like rams, and the little hills thereof like lambs, in the presence of their, even of their mighty pens, and parts, as if they were able to thrash the mountains, and make the hills like chaff before the breath of their mouth, and that all difficulties, contradictions, and the most able strong, and fiercest oppositions, should be as dust unto their sword, and driven stubble unto their bow. And my proof should be Rom: 12: 3: And I say through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of Faith; and the like Philip. 2: 3: Let nothing be one through strife, and vaing ory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. The confident, and conceited man in doubtful cases, hath seldom the truth on his side With the low●● is wisdom; grace is given to the humble, bashful, shamefaced, that thrust not themselves into observation. The odoriferous Violet grows low to the ground-ward, hangs its head downward, hides itself with its own leaves: and the spirit of God is not a spirit of compulsion in doubtful cases, but of illumination.  
But to proceed.  
As pure Conscience (at first) separated me from that society whereof he (Mr: Goodwin) is Pastor, 
M: Lamb to the Reader.  so now it compelleth me to make Answer to that Book, not only to defend the truth, & cs   

SECT: V.  
I Think here you speak more true than you are ware; Reply. 
Error of judgement often called by the name of purity of conscience.  for by what light, law, or rule from God's Word is that Conscience guided that compelleth men to separate themselves from the societies of the Saints where they have often seen the face of God viz. the light of his countenance, received daily and constant refresh from his presence; where the visions of life, and immortality have been brought to light, where they have had most excellent experience of the presence of Christ in the midst of them, and have been rapt up (as it were) into the third Heavens, receiving, and partaking of joys unspeakable, and glorious? I say where is that Conscience instructed from the Oracles of God, to withdraw and separate from such a Church, and society of Saints, and that merely because they durst not sin against the light of their judgements, and consciences; 
M: Lamb separated from the Church, because they keep in a good conscience.  because they cannot submit unto such practices (as parts of Gods instituted Worship, and service) whereof they see not the least hint, or glimmerings of light, in the holy scriptures for their justification; because they do that (viz: baptise their children) which they judge themselves bound in conscience to do, and forbear to do that (viz: submit to rebaptisation, or to be baptised again, they supposing themselves baptised already) which they believe in their consciences they should offend their Lord and master Jesus Christ, if they should do? And is not this our very case? you call us holy and be l●veà, Brethren of like precious faith with yourselves, a Church: and yet you are compelled in Conscience to withdraw, and separate from us; and why? not because you question our Saintship, God's love to us, our love to God, not that you think the effectual grace, presence, and spirit of God is not with us in our assembling together from day to day; not that you think that the truth as it is in Jesus, at least in respect of the great things of faith and love, is not amongst us; or that the blessed endowments and gifts of the spirit are not vouchsafed unto us; but merely because we will not deny our Insant-baptisme, and submit ourselves to be baptised again in your way: both which we profess in the presence of Almighty God, who knoweth our hearts, we dare not do, as fearing we should offend against his majesty, and provoke his Jealousy against us, not having (as we conceive) upon serious perusal of his holy Word, and several men's writings of piety, & ability, of different apprehensions in the subject in hand, the very lest ground of the truth, to justify ourselves, if we should do so. And we likewise call Heaven and Earth to record, that in the study of these things, we have renounced all hidden things of dishonesty, all carnal, and worldly considerations, byassing us in the least herein, as if it were to avoid the cross, or to share with any earthly interest, which steers us in our Judgement, or practise; and that it would be a vision of much peace, satisfaction, and contentment unto us (if we eaten out of the way) to be better instructed: and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who is blessed for ever more, 
The Church from which M. Lamb separated, could allow him his liberty in the business of baptism, but he will not allow them theirs.  knoweth that we lie not This is our case; we that are the greater part of the Church by many degrees, can bear with you, and permit you to enjoy your own liberty; but you cannot bear with us, but have rend, and torn yourself from us, and entitle the same unto the Word of God, as justifying you therein. These we shall examine, when we come to your allegations of those Texts urged by you; having already perused them again and again, and the third time also, and see not the least breathe of the spirit of God therein for your justification in your separation. We find the great Apostle Paul in his writing to Churches, calls them The beloved of God, called to be Saints, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 
Mr: Lambs sepeperation against the current of the scriptures.  to the Saints in Achaia, to the Saints at Ephesus, to the Saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, to the Saints, and faithful Brethren in Christ at Colosse; I say we find the Apostle (writing to these) provokes them to love, to good works, to edify one another, to frequent the assembling of themselves together, to bear with one another in love, to watch over one another, to be knit together in love, to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, to take heed of rents, divisions, and separations one from another, &c: You judge us (or else why have you written us) the beloved of God, a Church of Christ, Saints in Christ Jesus, holy, and beloved, 
Mr: Lambs separation merely because the whole Church will not bow to his dictates.  faithful Brethren; and where, in what Book, chapter, or Verse in the holy scriptures, do you find the least thing that justifies your withdrawing from such persons; and that because they will not call you Father, and master? because they will not bow down their Judgements, and consciences against their Judgements, and consciences, unto your Judgements, and consciences (being a lesser part of our Curch, and society) we also believing in our Judgements, and consciences that you are in an error? Have we not several directions from the Oracles of God very express of a contrary nature? 14 Rom: 13. Him that is weak in the faith, receive; let not him that eateth, judge him that eateth not, because God hath accepted him. Him that is weak, viz: not throughly persuaded in all things pertaining to christian liberty, but judging himself bound still to the observations of ear-ring, or not eating, meats, according to Moses Law. receive, viz. into your bosoms affectu charitatis, with the affection of love: receive him into your Assemblies bear with his weaknesses. Bucer rejected none, though differing in some opinions, in whom he found aliquid Christi, any thing of Christ, whose weaklings are to be tendered with all sweetness: Do not judge, censure, and despise one another, in case you have grounds to believe that God hath accepted him Do not you think that God accepteth Saints, holy Brethren, faithful Brethren, visible Saints? why then do you reject them? If you say, they are not visible unto you, except they be baptised after your manner, why then do you call them so? if you say the Apostle there viz: Rem: 14: speaks of things indifferent, but baptism is a known gospel command. I answer, (if you consider the reason, and ground why the Apostle would have them receive him that is weak in the Faith; it is, not because the matters in controversy are small, and things indifferent, but because God hath accepted him: if you believe in your consciences that God hath accepted him, why should not you accept, and receive him?  
2ly: Though baptism be a gospel command, yet many things may be doubtful in, and about baptism, which may be reckoned of as mean a nature, and consideration, as the eating o● meats there spoken of, was, as viz: when, how, by who●, upon whom, or unto whom, baptism is to be administered; if in these things there be different apprehension, some saying this, some that, why let not him that saith this despise him that saith that, let not him that saith that, ●udg him that says this, for God hath accepted him Do you not think that God hath accepted us? that he doth accept us, that he will accept us, so long as we are found faithful unto him, in following him fully, as we can see him going before us? Would he accept us if we did do what you would have us do (though it should be granted it was his mind) while we see it not? nay, while we think ●n our consciences we should sin, and provoak him in so doing? would he bless us (think you) if we should condemn ourselves in doing the things, that we allow not? Will not he accept us doing all, whatsoever we understand he hath commanded us? if you being a small part of the Church will take liberty to break away from us, 
Mr: Lambs pretended grounds for seperationare a foundation of all divisions in all the Churches of Christ.  being seven times mere than yourselves in number, in conjunction with our Pastor, and several of the Officers, (the major part of them also) because they do not come over to your opinion; doth not this lay a foundation of breaking up all Churches, and societies of Saints in the world. For if (suppose) ten, should be of one opinion in a Church, and one hundred should be of a contrary judgement therein; if those ten should judge that opinion a great truth of Christ, &c: and the hundred judge it a mere mistake, a small matter, an outward ceremony in comparison of the great things of God; shall the ten separate, and be justified therein? what Church can then hold together long? if you say if the thing (wherein those ten differ from the one hundred) be essential I to a Church, without which the consciences of those ten be fully persuaded the one hundred are no church, than they ought to separate. I Answer, First, This is not the case here for you call us a Church in your writing, nay a Church of ho●ly, and beloved brethren. 2ly: Who shall judge touching this matter, the one hundred, or the ten? If you say the ten must judge for themselves, and be able to satisfy themselves in their own peronal walking, I answer, that in such a case there should be many thoughts upon thoughts, and considerations upon considerations, much patience, wisdom, sobriety. These should be exercised long time before the separation be made: that should be the last remedy. See what the Apostle saith in such a case, Phil. 3.15, 16. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God sh●● reveal ●ven this unto you Nevertheless whereto ye have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing; if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, if any among you differ from other in any particular thing, there is no reason that this should cause divisions, and separations For, though at present ye are not, yet hereafter ye may be instructed in all things needful for you, and become of one mind, and in the mean while whereunto we have already attained, that is:  
1. Wherein we have mutual apprehension of mutual duty, let us mutually walk together, comfort and edify one another Let us walk by the same rule, line, or path, never stepping over, or out of it, lest we lose all, For this was one of the laws of those Grecian Races, that they must not only strive and run, but strive and run lawfully, this (I say) being one of the laws of their running, viz. that they were to keep themselves in a certain path; line, or chalked way, out of which they were not to step; if they did, they lost the game. Some say that they were bounded with swords on the one side of the path, and a great & deep river on the other side, so that they did not only lose the prize, but exposed themselves, either to ruin by the sword, or by the river, If they did not keep their path. See here, let us walk by the same rule, not running over, or stepping aside, separating ourselves from the common path, lest we be dipped, yea drowned by the river on the one hand, or destroyed by the sword on the other hand, It is not to be expected that our light and apprehensions in all things should be the same; especially should be the same at all times, and together, God at sundry times, 1 Hebr: 1 that is, by piece meals, Somewhat now, and somewhat at another time, speaks unto his people. Whether I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me HEREAFTER said Christ to Peter, 13 John 36. But to return to my dear friend, the Antagonist; how many Exhortations have we in scripture, to love, to edify one another, to build up one another in our most holy Faith? can these things be done by separations, and departing away one from another? How many dehortations are there against schisms, rents, and divisions against forsaking the fellowship of the Saints, and the Churches of Jesus Christ which you have owned us to be by your pen, and I know You cannot without violence offered unto Your soul and conscience; yea, You dare not deny it. And had your Conscience, judgement, & affections been enlightened, and heated by the fire of God's sanctuary, you would have better considered then so suddenly, and rashly, have rend yourself from us, and written so impertinently for the justification thereof. But to proceed You tell your Reader the several reasons why you wrote that Book:  
As pure Conscience etc. so now compelleth me to make Answer to that Book, etc. not only TO DEFEND THE TRUTH to the therein opposed, etc. 
Mr: Lamb to the Reader    

SECT: VI.  
TO defend the truth opposed by Mr: Goodwin. 
Error always defended under the notion of truth.  Everymen way is right in his own eyes. The Turks style themselves the only Mausulmen, or true believers in the world. The Papists the only Catholics; the Jew the holy Nation, the peculiar people, the gnostics of old, the only knowing men, 
* The Manachees derived their name from Manna, as if what they taught was to received as the only food that came down from Heaven.  what Sect, party, or faction professing any Religion, but doth it under the pretence and notion of Truth; and withstand their opposites, as do those that defend the truth? the very Banters, Shakers', Quakers, do they not all plead truth? do you defend the truth with untruths by scandalising & abusing the defenders of the truth, as you have M. Goodwin; whereof you must hear, & know before we have done with your book? but do you defend the truth with the mere name of truth without any spirit, or power of truth? Let any man that hath as much ill umination, inspection, or ability as to discern truth from untruth in the ABC things of the scriptures; he shall see, that your greatly conceited swords, spears & darts, which You have prepared in your Book to defend the truth (as you call it) are but straw, stubble, & rotten wood to those against which you contend. And indeed you make use of them as these Egyptians do of their darts, which they shoot against the sun, that scorcheth them: But alas, it is out of their reach; scorch them it will, will they, will they, and their darts fall down again, upon their own heads, But you say, you wrote your book, not only to de-defend the truth, but first  
To vindicate yourself with some others from the heavy charge therein given to the whole world against you, as faith, and trust-hreakers, sacrilegious Church-breakers, etc.   

SECT: VII.  
YOu wrote your book, not only to defend the Truth, but also (you might have said, chief) to vindicate yourself, &c: I remember when Christ said unto his Disciples, that one of them should betray him, he that was guilty, was forward to demand, Master is it; You writ your book to vindicate yourself from the heavy charge therein, viz: in Mr. goodwin's book given against you. Are you so much as once named in that book? do not you expose yourself by name to be that man of an abused and distempered fancy, of disingenuity, of a wonderful and strange alteration, for the worse, which by name you were never charged to be? Did you not plight your faith to walk with them whom you call holy and beloved Brethren, as a member of that Church, whom you style a Church? can this he done by your separation from them? have not you broken trust and promise with them? And could this arise from any thing, but a (most miserably) abused and distempered fancy? Have not you endeavoured to divide Pastor from people; and people from pastor? to demolish, and tear up by the roots, as thriving, as loving, as well governed a Church, a Church as full of charity, and good works, as beautiful an edefice, where Jesus Christ hath dwelled, and manifested his delight therein, by the comfortable influences of his truth, and presence upon the hearts of yourself; and Brethren, as eyes beheld: is not this sacrilege? Return, return O blacksliding Islamite: remember from whence you are fallen, and repent. Your second reason of writing your book, is in these words,  
2ly: 
M● Lamb to the Reader.  To make the world Judges whether we are at Mr: Goodwin represented us, persons of a misused, and distempered sancie, of stupifled Judgements, to whose understanding common sense is a mystery inaccessible, wit● abundance more to the s●me purpose.   

SECT: VIII.  
HEre is (I fear) in this reason also more of the secrets of your heart than you well consider. Reply. 
M● Lamb greatly conceited of his own abilities manifested in his Book.  For what is the meaning of it? is it not to make the wo●ld Judges, that you are men of solid Judgements, great parts, strong abilities? Why let them look upon your book, and then let the world be Judges, whether men of such abilities, parts, and reason as are evident, and conspicuous therein, are such men as Mr: Goodwin doth thus undervalue? Let the world be Judges (if they will but read your book whether that one of your arguments, doth not chase ten, and five, an hundred, and an hundred of yours, put ten thousand of Mr: goodwin's to flight: That every one of your reasons, is as a King, against whom there is no rising up: that when your sun of light appeareth; all Mr; goodwin's twincling stars must hid their heads. Hence it is, that you so often invite the Heavens, and the Earth, and the world to behold, and look upon you, and Ms Goodwin, upon a public Theatre in print, and see, how handsomely you handle your sword, and hit, and thrust M: Goodwin therewith ever and anon; how you can fight with him with arguments, fight with him with scriptures, nay, fight with him with his own weapons, his own Writings; how you can wrestle with him and give him fall upon fall, and fall after fall, and make good sport for the spectators. Remember Solomon's council, Be not wise in thine own eyes: and Pau●● direction, he that would be wise, must be a fool that he may be wise. A conceit of wisdom, bars out wisdom. If M: Goodwin, or any others, by pen, or other way, should so much injure the happiness of the world, as to hid you from them, that they cannot behold your glory, this is a cup that you are not able to drink of, a baptism, that you cannot be baptised withal. Your glory you will let no man take from you: this is as the well of Bethlem, for which you will fight with the best friend you have in the world. It was the saying of one concerning some over-weeners of themselves, that they might have proved excellent scholars, if they had not been persuaded that they were such already, Themistocles listened to nothing so willingly, as to his own commendations. The Emperor Adrian oppressed some, and slew others, that excelled in any art, or faculty, that he might be held the only skilful. And it is said of Aristotle, that he burned the books of many ancient Philosophers, that he might be the more admired. 
Prov: 16.5.  Every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the Lord. When a wall swells, it is near breaking: it is no small art, to conceal art, nor is it a small glory, to conceal glory. Empty casks sound loudest, and purses with a very little money jingles more, than those that are top full. They that best deserve praises, do most desire concealment; Moses shone, and knew it not. Christ had all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in him; but they were hid in him: he did not fret, when he was obscured. The best of men were most modestly conceited of themselves. Jacob said he was less than the least of God's mercies: David, a worm, and no man: Agur, more brutish than any man. Great Pau● the least of Saints, the greatest of sinners. They that think themselves rich, and full, able, and strong, know not that they are poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked. They conceive their mole hill, a mountain, their kestril, an eagle, their goose a swan, poring upon, and blessing themselves in their own beauty, while they gaze upon themselves (as you seem to do over the banks of your baptissmal waters) until they fall into the River, and are drowned thereby. But to proceed to your third reason of publishing your Book.  
3ly: To let the world see that our baptism hath not metamorphosed us, 
Mr: Lamb to his Reader.  from Lambs to Wolves, Tigers, or Serpent, which is insinuated by M: Goodwin in his last, etc.   

SECT: IX.  
INdeed if the world had not seen your Book, Reply. 
Mr: Lamb renders himself in his Book a visible instance of what he seems to withstand; and implead therein,  they might have suspected the due applicablenes of such an insinuation unto yourself; but he that shall see, and read the same; knowing what once you were, and what that book represents you now to be (if your spirit be in your writing, may be astonished at the metamorphoses. Have you not rendered yourself as sad an instance of such an alteration, and grown as great a proficient in the black art for rendering evil for good, (your time, and all things else, considered) as any of that mystery of iniquity, that ever I knew? Have you not (with all love, care, and tenderness) been treated withal by your ancient Pastor, as a sheep and lamb of Christ under him, 
Mr: Lambs ingratitude, and unkindness to Mr: Goodwin.  as dear unto him, as Jonathon to David, nay as Benjamin to his old father Jacob, the apple of his eye, the signet on his arm? Were you not unto him (you above any other Member) as John the Evangelist unto Christ Jesus, always (as it were) in his bosom, I had almost said his fondling? And have not you heretofore answered, at least seeminglie) nay I think I may say really) his kindness with kindness, his love with love. And now have you not (Absolom like) rallied up what strength You can against him? Did you not as yesterday strive to keep the Flock of Christ, whereof you were (more than a common) member, 
Mr: L. changed for the worse since his separation.  in a strait hand of unity, & love improving your parts, abilities, and opportunities to keep them as close together, as the scales of the Leviathan? And have you not, not only withdrawn yourself, but with an high hand striven to bring off others into the same condemnation with yourself, endeavouring to tear up our foundations, and encouraging, all you had any hope to engage a 'gainst us and our Church, as the enemies of Jerusalem encouraged one another against it, race it, race it even to the ground. Did not the language of your deportment to our Church, pastor, and people speak as Peter to Christ, though all men would be offended with thee, yet will not I? But have You not like Orpah in the 1. of Ruth 14. not with so much as a parting salute, turned Your back upon them, and like the Isralites in the Wilderness, started aside like a broken bow? and with Peter withdrawn away from us, as if you never knew us? Yea eager, and Tiger●y made at the face of your faithful pastor in the eyes of all men? Did ever any of the Church lift up such Hosannah●, 
Mr: Lamb once the greatest admirer, now the chiefest slighter of M: G:  spread his way with such palm branches, and garments of praise, and commendations, before his very face, and the face of the whole Church, to the frequent offence both of himself, and the Church, as You have done? And hath any one of them, yea of them that have departed from us, lifted him (up indeed but it is) unto the Cross to be crucified in the sight of the world, as Yourself in this book? You seem (indeed) with Jael in your book to speak smooth words, soft and pleasing language, to spread over him mantles of love and kindness: but your hammer and nail are ready in your hands to strike him through the very Temples; rejoicing thereby not the armies of Israelites, 
Mr: Lamb first crowns, then kills Mr: goodwin's reputation.  but of the Canaanites; dealing with him as Xerxes did with his steersman, crown him in the morning, and cut off his head in the afternoon of the same day. Or like the fickle Isralites, that with great zeal fought but very lately for David, and a little after cry out, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son o● Jessie, every man to his tents O Israel: and now all the cry is for Sheba the son of B●●ri; is not here a change? However you proceed with a very oily lip, thus,  
Had not the truth been dearer to me then any man, 
Mr: Lamb to his Reader:  I had rather choose to lose my right hand, than set it to a Book that frowneth on him (Mr: Goodwin) whose credit always was and still is right, dear, and precious in my sight.   

SECT: IX.  
YOur pen stumbles at Truth, Reply: and speaks of nothing more than truth without Truth, being (indeed) more accustomed to articulate, then to argue out Truth And as for that Truth that you so much pretend unto in your book; we may as soon find grapes on thorns, and figs on thistles, as find it there. He that thinks to be led by the light that shines therein unto Dothan, shall find himself at last abused by an ignis fatuus, and conducted into Samaria, in the midst of mistakes Sands his relation mentioneth a profane Sect not long since in Arragon, who affecting in themselves a certain angelical purity, fell suddenly to the very counterpoint of justifiing beastilitie; and yet called themselves the illuminati as if they only had been in the light, and all the world besides in darkness. The Jesuits boast that the Church is the soul of the world; the Clergy of the Church, and they of the Clergy. Well, but the Truth is dearer unto you, than any man; that is, your opinion, than any man. How apt are men to assert their own opinion for tryth? Though the Pharises, and the Saducees were of one faith touching their opposition against Paul, while they knew not of whose Judgement he was, yet when he had discovered himself to be a pharesee, all the Pharise: stuck unto him 23 Act. 9 
Jer: 14, 14.  How often are the brats of men's own brains, a 〈◊〉 vision and divination, a thing of nought, a deceit of their heart; insisted upon, as the great Truth of God? Yea urged and prosecuted with a violent opposition of the palpable and manifest truths of God? The Truth is dearer unto you then any man; that is, your apprehensions that children must not be baptised, that men, believers at age only aught to be baptised, (though they were baptised in their infancy, that being a nul●tie,) Where can we find this great Truth in all the writings of God's Word? it is indeed a serted by yourself and several others of the like authority. But (alas?) must we receive the writings of S. 
The scriptures know no such truth as Mr: Lamb so magnifieth as the great truth of the gospel  Dominick: with the same honour and credence, as those of S: Paul? Reading the bible (said a Jesuit) will sooner make a man a Luthern-Heretick, than a Roman-Catholick. And at a public Assembly of the States of Germany, one Albertus (a Bishop) by chance lighted upon a bible, and reading therein, one of the counsellors asked him what book that was? I know not (said he) but this I know that whatsoever I read in it is utterly against our Religion. So John Bishop of Misnia confessed that reading the holy bible, he found there in a Religion much differing from that, that was then established) being popery.) Certainly an ingenious, and impartial reader of the holy scriptures, Old, and new Testament, shall find so many expressions importing the grace and favour of God through Jesus Christ unto children, as that it will hardly enter into his belief, that it should be the will and pleasute of God, that henceforth, viz: after Moses administrations are dead & buried) they must no more be numbered, or reckoned among the family of God, but all cast out as illegitimate. And when you handle the scriptures about this point, how miserable do you (like the camel with his feet before he drink of the clear waters, lest he should see his deformity) trouble, and muddifie the waters, disturbing the plain sense and meaning thereof, (as we shall manifest when we come to examine your allegations of Scripture for your purpose.) But to proceed, you tell us that  
Mr: 
Mr: Lamb to his Reader.  goodwin's credit always was, and still is right dear and precious in my sight.   

SECT: X.  
THis clause puts me in mind of what I have heard of two Philosophers: 
Mr, Labms pen stumbles at his duty, but vents the contrary.  the one knocking at the others door, and demanding of a Maid (that came to the door) whether her master was within, her master bid her say, that he was not within; and the Philosopher that was at the door heard him; with which answer the man went away seemingly satisfied. After a while, the other Philosopher came unto his door, and knocking, the master of the house himself asked him what he would have; I would speak with you said he: I am not within said the Philosopher. Not within (said He) why you speak to me from within. With that said the Philosopher (that was within) thou clown, wouldst thou have me believe thy maid, when she said thou wert not within? and wilt thou not believe me myself, when I say I am not within? He would have him believe a most appatent untruth; what ever Mr: goodwin's credit was, is it still RIGHT dear and precious in your sight? What means then your injurious, and unchristian reflections upon Him? What? the same fountain send forth both sweet, and bitter Waters? It is said of the Jesuits, as of false physicians Officiosè occidunt: they kiss, and kill familiarly. Squire being sent out of Spanie to muther Queen Elizabath, was taught to anoint the pummel of her saddle with poison and to cry aloud in the hearing of the people (when he clap it there on with his hand, God save the Queen. But as Christ said to Him that betrayed Him with a kiss, friend for so thou wouldst be esteemed by a kiss, wherefore art thou come, as friend? or as a foe? if a friend, what mean these swords, if a foe, what means this kiss? so say I to you, is Mr: goodwin's credit still right dear and precious in your sight? what means then your Edwardizing H●m, your gangreninizing Him, your six-book-sellerring him, your unhandsome and capricious handling him from place to place? His Credit seems to be as right dear and precious in your sight when you wrote that book, as the honour of jesus Christ was unto them that Crowned him (indeed, but) with a Crown of Thoms; put a Reed into his hand instead of a Sceptre, & did bow the knee, unto him with Hail, King of the jews: Just as King Richard the second, who, when he was to be deposed, was brought forth in Royal Array, whereof he was presently despoiled. But you justify your present adversariness against Mr. Goodwin, because it is for the Truth's sake, and bring in Paul reproving (and that sharply too) his beloved Brother, Peter, for his dissembling, 2 Gal. 11. But is the case like this? Can you with the authority of Paul charge Mr. Goodwin with the dissembling of Peter? Or are you persuaded in your conscience that Mr. Goodwin argues against his conscience? Paul charged Peter to his face for his unmeet contemporizing with the jews and Gentiles, to please both, against his conscience: Therefore Mr. Lamb may charge Mr. Goodwin in print, before the face of the whole world, because he will not contemporize with him and those of his judgement, and comply with the Church to please them also; Peter was justly reprovable by Paul, for sinning against the rational ducture of his Light; therefore Mr. Goodwin is justly reprovable by Mr. Lamb, because he will not sin against the guidance of his Light. Is not here strange texting it? After this rate of reasoning are the rest of the Scriptures quoted by you, insomuch, as he that reads you seriously, and knew the School of your spiritual instruction in the things of the scriptures, might well say, you have too long been a Discontinuant: Gods gifts groan under dis-use, or misuse. Well, Remember your own Law, we shall have occasion to use it: Thus you give it out;  
HE who spotteth the beautiful face of Truth, 
Mr. Lamb to the Reader.  though ignorantly (much more if presumptuously) must expect a stain in his own credit, and be content to suffer so much, as to make the Truth whole.   

SECT: XII.  
I Hope you will not deny to undergo the Doom and Sentence of your own law, Reply. but accept of the punishment of your sin and transgression thereof, if found guilty. Whether you have not bespotted the beautiful face of truth, I am sure very arrogantly, though ignorantly, especially in some things ascerted by you, concerning Mr. Goodwin; yea, and in, and about the controversy beetweens us, will appear in due season.  
THe same person may des●ve at the same time both Thanks, 
Mr. Lamb to the Reader.  and Reproof: To return the one, is a point of gratitude; to administer the other in love, and in the Majesty of God's word, a point of Faithfulness.   

SECT. XIII.  
TO that of Gratitude, Reply. it well becomes you to be thankful to Mr. Goodwin: To that of Reproof, it doth as ill become you to reprove him as you do, to lash him with the Scourge of your Pen, as a puny-Boy; to jerk him as the Bishops and their shavelings did Henry the second, 
Mr. Lamb conceited of his majestic Pen.  of England, until they made him, bleed. But whereas you presume that your pen is clothed with the Majesty of God's Word, as if it dwelled in Light, and were like the bright Morningstar, or rather the Sun at Noon in his Majesty: Consider, Pride is a piece of maduess; and many poor creatures clothed in Rags, being distempered in their heads, have conceited themselves Kings and Queens, and their Rags to be Robes: I have heard of a Merchant at Athens, who being distracted by great Losses at Sea, and undone, thought that all the goods that came to the City were his; and busy was he from day to day, at the waterside to look after his Goods: And several Merchants agreeing together to use the best means they could to have him made whole again, it was at last accomplished; and then the poor man seeing his poverty, and feeling the smart thereof, wished the Merchants had not undertaken his cure. For then (said he) I had all things, every man's Goods were mine; but now I see I have nothing at all, but am a poor miserable man. Thou knowest not, thou art poor blind, and naked (said God to the Church of Laodicea.)  
IF in this Contest thou findest any passages savouring of too much sharpness, 
Mr. Lamb to the Reader.  though in Answer to Mr. goodwin's Highest Provocations, look upon me as disowning them, and mind the Reason of the place.   

SECT. iv  
What is the meaning of this? Reply. 
Mr. Lamb at contest with his Conscience.  What strive and contendings were there between your pen and your conscience in writing this Book? Why did you suffer yourself to he overcome of your own evil, and did not rather strive to overcome your evil with good. Was not Conscience and concupiscence hard at combeate in your thoughts? Did not the Flesh lust against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh? Did not your heart smite you when you began to dip your inconsiderate pen in the blood of Mr. goodwin's Reputation? Did not your hands tremble when (like Mezentius the Tyrant, that did use to tie the living with the dead) you bond Mr. Goodwin, and Mr. Edward's together with the same Cord of dishonour and snacie, when you chained him with the disingenuous and froward six Booksellers in the Postscript? Will you not own those sharp Passages? Who must own them? But it is worth our observation, 
The highest provocation that ever Mr. Goodwin gave Mr. Lamb.  that Mr. goodwin's Water-dipping, etc. (the Book of your quarrel) you confess to be the highest Provocation that ever he gave you, wherein, notwithstanding you are not so much as once named, no not so much as with the two first Letters of your name: The Provocation only was because he cannot bow to your Baptism, but writes against it. Nebuchadnezers' heart was hotter than his Oven against those Worthies that would not bow down to his Image. Remember, He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly. Alexander in his hot blood stewed his dearest friends, whom he would have revived again with his heart blood if he could. To be angry with a Brother without a cause, is dangerous. Is it a Provocation of the highest nature to write against your way, and show unto the world the undue behaviour of the Professors thereof, without the least whisper of your Name therein? Is this like that meek, that mortified temper and disposition, which appeared in you when you walked with us? Is not here a fearful Metamorphosis?  
CHrists Counsel is not to resist evil, 
Mr. Lamb to the Reader.  but whosoever will smite me on the right Cheek, to turn the other to him. But besides, it becometh me to hear much evil from that hand, by which I have received so much good.   

SECT. XV.  
HOw easy is it to preach and hard to practise truth: 
Mr. Lamb acteth contrary to his knowledge of Christ's command.  Have not you endeavoured to buffet Mr. Goodwin on both his cheeks, who hath not so much as lifted up his little finger, against either of yours? Have you taken two blows for one? Nay, have you not given ten for none? Do you know your Masters will and practise it no better? Is not the knowledge of Christ's will a great dispositum, a rich Talon? and do you improve it thus? You confess you have received much good from him, and it becometh you to bear much evil from him: Have not you requited the good you have received very unkindly? Much good you have received from him; for which of those good works have you thus written against him? I know you will be ready to say (with those jews) for the good he hath done me, I have not written against him, but because he hath blasphemed the Doctrine of Baptism and the professors thereof. Those jews were holy persecutors (in pretence at least) Maximinian thought the blood of Christians an acceptable sacrifice, to his Gods. And so did the Popish persecutors hold the same Opinion of the blood of the Protestants, in all times, since the name of Protestantism was heard amongst them. Do you think such a sacrifice as the spoils of Mr. goodwin's reputation, God will be so well pleased with? that the first fruits of your Pen (being so bitter against your great Benefactor in the things of jesus Christ) should be so acceptable unto him? Do not you think in your conscience that God will call many to account for the injury that they have done that man in his name and reputation, for his service in the Gospel? And will not you be ashamed of yourself to be found amongst them at that day? Well, take heed of haltering up that conscience of yours, that tells you, you have received much good from him, and cannot but be sore of the wounds you have given it, by your thus writing against him.   

SECT. XVI.  
IN the close of your Epistle to the Reader, you commend your book to his serious consideration, with an ingenious praycr for his illumm●ation to discern the truth, or mistakes therein contained, and that he might choose that that is good, and refuse the evil thatshal appear unto him in the perusal thereof.  
To your Prayer I can hearty say Amen, and do believe that he, to whose understanding the very Grass-Hopper of an Argument is not a burden, will be able to go on his way (contrary to yours, in respect of the point in controversy) rejoicing, and be no more troubled at the great noise of your loud pen, than men of understanding are at the popping off of children's Gun-pots.   

SECT. XVII.  
HAving finished your Epistle to the Reader, as your first Ourt-gate, you lead us through another before we come to your building: and that is, another Epistle to the Church from whence you have rend yourself; and this, indeed, is (like Sampsons' Hair) that wherein your strength lies; which being clipped off, I hope you will appear, even to yourself (though now you seem to have the strength and confidence of seven men that can render a reason,) to be as weak as other men are. This Epistle you thus superscribe,  
TO my worthy Friends and Brethren of like precious Faith, walking with Mr. John Goodwin, 
Mr. Lamb in his second Epistle.  in the right Faith, though not in the right Order, of the Gospel.   

SECT. XVIII.  
WE suppose ourselves in the right Order, Reply. as well as in the right Faith of the Gospel, and that you have disorderly and unduly departed from us; and that your concluding yourself in the Right, and us in the wrong (the matter being sub judice, and not yet determined) is nothing but a flourish before the Battle; and a boasting even before your putting on your Armour, as if you were putting it off. But before you beat us out of the Field, it will cost you hot water, as well as cold. But you court us thus.  
HOly and Beloved, I have been long your Debtor: 
Mr. Lamb to the Church.  it is fit I should now pay you your own with Interect, by Answering the substance of Mr. goodwin's Water-Dipping no firm footing for Church-Communion, &c,   

SECT. XIX.  
HOly and beloved; and yet not Holy enough, nor Beloved enough for your company; Reply. and therefore you have withdrawn your● self from us, as more Holy than we.  
I confess you have been long our Debtor, even ever since your undue departing from us, having broken your promise made at your first joining with us, and by neglecting your Office, being chosen an Elder amongst us, thereby betraying your Trust, which with all readiness of mind you took upon you at your Ordination and inauguration into your Office, withdrawing from us, not only without, but against the leave, liking, and Vote of the Church. But I presume this is not the Debt of your meaning, but the Book you wrote was the Debt you meant.  
How you became a Debtor to us, in that respect I know not: Most certain I am, if you had never paid it, it had never been demanded: And now we have it, we are not two Mites the richer for it, except it be by the discovery of yourself, and not of God, unto us. You have paid us (I confess) with a witness, if not with a vengeance, by paying our honoured & beloved Pastor, for the blessed Commodities of life and peace, which you have received from him, in such Coin, which bears the I mage & superscription of the Prince of Darkness upon it, (scandals and reproaches) rendering him evil for good (doubtless) to the great trouble and disquiet of his soul. You have paid the Church also, the Covenants and bonds which you made, signed, sealed, and delivered unto them in the presence of God, Angels, and men, with Cain, out of the same treasury, viz. by separations, rents, and divisions, being (it seems) the Commodities of the Countries where you have traded, since your departure from us. In the next place,  
YOu go to unfold the Riddle of your departing from us which you call (at least by insinuation) a strangeact: but as Christ Jesus, 2 john 15. did a strange act contrary to his genius, to the amazing of his Disciples, viz. whip the Buyers and Sellers, etc. out of the Temple. Yet when they called to mind that that was written, 69. Psal. 9 The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up; this satisfied them In like manner you bid us (wondering at your sudden departure from us) to do as they did, viz. To Plough with the heifer of the Scriptures, and then we shall understand the Riddle, etc.   

SECT. XX.  
JConfess your sudden departure from us was a Riddle, and is still as anigmaticall as ever, (all your writings, notwithstanding) as for your instance of Christ's whipping the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and the satisfaction that the Disciples had touching that strange act by calling to mind what was written of him, etc. What Ointment can we draw from hence to anoint our eyes to perceive this Riddle? Help us to draw the parallel.  
Christ whipped the buyers and sellers of Doves, Sheep, Oxen, etc. out of the Temple; Even so Mr. Lamb left, departed, and rend himself from that Church of Christ whereof Mr. john Goodwin is Pastor: What an apt and concinne Analogy this is?  
The Disciples of Christ wondered at this strange act; Even so the Members of the said Church wondered at Mr. Lambs strange act of separation from them.  
The Disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; Even so must we Plough with the Heifer of the Scriptures, and then we shall easily understand this Riddle, viz. of Mr. Lambs leaving of the Church of Christ, whereof Mr. john Goodwin is Pastor.  
Where is the man that shall read this, unto whose understanding common sense is not a mystery in-accessible, but may now easily understand this Riddle?  
But yet there is more truth in the writing, 
Mr. Lambs separation is a full filling of Scripture Prophecies, john 12.51.  than happily was meant in the writer. The High Priest prophesied (when he spoke he knew not what) that Christ should die for that Nation of the Jews: Even so Mr. Lamb in this saying, viz. that if we Plough with the Heifer of the Scripture, we shall understand the Riddle of his departing from us, stumbles and falls at the very truth; and like a blind man with a flaming Torch in his hand, gives us light to see him walking in darkness. Let us therefore go and plough with the heifer of the Scriptures. 2 Pet. 2.15. We have a prophecy that there shall be some that shall forsake the right way, and go astray. Heb. 10.25. We read of men's forsaking the assembling of themselves together. Rom. 16.17. We read of men making divisions and offences contrary unto the true Doctrine which they formerly received. 1 Cor. 1.10. We have a caution (which implies a danger) against divisions; an exhortation to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, etc. Implying, that men are apt to divide, first, in judgement; next, in practice; Act. 15.1. we read of some that did put life and salvation in an outward Ceremony, urging that except men were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they should not be saved, (circumcision itself not being forbidden, until the necessity thereof unto justification, was maintained:) In many places more we read, that those persons that did with such importunity, and upon penalty of life and salvation, insist thus upon any thing but true faith in Christ Jesus, did separate, and proved very sore enemies unto their Opposites, (the true believers.) It is an easy matter to take several yokes of the Old Oxen of the Old-Testament, as well as the Heifers of the new, to plough in this field. There we read of Cautions, Exhortations, Dehortations, Instances and Examples, about forsaking the Covenant of God, the Law of God, the house of God, etc. and ploughing thus with the heifers of the holy Scriptures, we may find out the Riddle of your departing from us.   

SECT. XXI:  
In the next place you charge us for misjudging you, 
Mr. Lamb in his second Epistle.  and bring in this as your consolation, that Paul and john, and other holy men of God suffered in this kind, and why not you?  
Where have we judged you? What hath been declared by the Church against you? It is true, your separation from us was voted by the Church, to be in their judgements and consciences an undue act, which you could not but expect the Church should do, otherways they should do little less than justify you. But what ever your person all deportment hath been unto them (whereof I delight not to make mention) yet you know theirs unto you have been friendly and christian, and that your company and jousts, yea, and very countenance, have been very welcome to them.  
YOu tell us that no worldly thing separated you from the Church; 
Mr. Lamb.  and complain that some body dreamt such a thing.   

SECT: XXII:  
YOu say some dreamt of such a thing of you: But is not this a dream of your own brain? Reply. If some body did dream so, how came you to the knowledge of it? Did they ever tell you the dream? If they did dream it, it was but a dream; and will you be offended at men's dreams? How come you to be so touchy? However we see your mighty care to be well thought of. You will divide from us, break your faith and trust with us, seek to extirpate and root us up; scandalise our Pastor in the eyes of all men, rendering him evil for good, and yet would not have any man so much as dream any thingamiss of you. We cannot dream waking, whatever we do while we sleep. Well, it was no outward thing caused you to quit your former standing: but say you,  
THe truth concerning it, 
Mr. Lamb in his second Epistle.  (viz. Baptism and your standing, etc.) struck my conscience, and the light shone into my Judgement with that clearness, that I could by no means a●oid it with peace.   

SECT. XXIII:  
TRuth struck your conscience! Reply. Striking implies violence, and suddenness. God's ordinary way in giving Light, is by gradations, causing it to shine more and more unto the perfect day, making men to grow in grace, 
The spirit of God not violent in enlightening men's judgements.  and in the knowledge of jesus Christ. jacobs' getting Venison so suddenly, which was not ordinarily gotten but by much labour and pains (though pleasure) in hunting, gave his father just cause to suspect that it was but some counterfeit Venison. For my part I ever suspect sudden flashes. God is not usually in the Earthquake, nor in the rushing wind, but in the soft and still voice. Clearness of judgement in cases controverted among the godly learned, is not quickly attained. This is Venison usually gotten after (and by means of) much Hunting. I believe you have made it one of your observations, that in these latter days some persons have been Planetstruck, blinded and blasted, when they have thought themselves Truth-struck. You say the Light (viz. in the Doctrine of Baptism) shone into your judgement, with clearness. 
Isa. 28.7. Zach 13.  Men may err in vision, and afterwards be ashamed of their own Vision, and lament themselves with, woe unto us in that we have put darkness for Light, and Light for darkness. To study the wiles, methods, and subtleties of Satan, in causing men to err in judgement, is a seasonable study in these slippery times for our Christian caution against his cunning; his most thriving trade in these days being to transform himself into an Angel of Light.   

SECT. XXIV.  
WE have not hitherto felt so much as the weight of your little finger in arguments. You have spoken much of Truth, of clear Light, of truth in evidence of the Scripture, of truth clothed with the majesty of God (meaning still in the point of Baptism, and of withdrawing from those Churches that are not so and so baptised) as if the ignorance here of were so scandalous, that it renders men unworthy of the meanest place, so much as of being Dore-keepers in the house of God. I pray let us see your strength, and show us your Light. For this end you tell us in these words,  
Now what those considerations are, 
Mr. Lamb,  that commanded my judgement to that point, whereat it now standeth in the business of Baptism, which is that only thing which separated between me & you, you ha●e scattered up and down in this my Answer to Mr. Goodwin; but yet I think good to give you the sum thereof under a few Heads.   

SECT. XXV.  
YOU say your considerations presented to us in your Epistle to the Church, from whence you have withdrawn, Reply. do contain the sum of what is scattered up and down in your book. Herein you utter (in my judgement) the truth: for the spirit, heart and soul of your book, seems rather to be heated with zeal against Mr. Goodwin, then for the truth. Well, sure the sum of all is in your considerations: we will take them into our considerations also: You deal yourself out in the business thus:  1. 
Mr. Lamb.  I considered the excellency of Jesus Christ above Moses; from thence argued the ungodliness and danger of slighting him in any of his Commandments. 
AS for this consideration, we (with you) speak the same thing, and are perfectly joined together in the same mind, Reply. and in the same judgement. What will you make of this to your separation from us? That we shall see hereafter: Well, proceed then.  2. 
Mr. Lamb.  I found Baptism with Water to be one of his (viz. Christ's) commandments, and joined with teaching by name in the commission of Christ; and the same presence of Christ promised jointly to Baptism, as teaching, to the end of the world, and serving the Grand Interest of Remission of Sins, and Salvation in some sense, and commanded by Christ to be done upon discipled persons, and that with huge solemnity, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and that too amongst the last words he spoke on earth.  

SECT. XXVI.  
THat Baptism with Water is one of Christ's commands, Reply. is our belief as well as yours. But what you mean in these words, and joined with teaching by name in the commission of Christ, I do not well understand: If you understand the particle [and] distributively, thus, That Christ commanded, or appointed his Disciples to Teach, as well as to Baptism, your Yea, in that sense, is our Amen. But if you mean, and understand the Particle [and] conjunctively (as I think you do) in this sense, as if Baptism and Teaching must be companions, and go together, than it is denied. For if there must be teaching wherever there is baptising, because they are joined together in the commission, than it will follow, that there must be baptising wherever there is this teaching, upon the same ground; because in the Commission, baptising is as well joined with teaching as teaching with baptising: if you say  
Teaching must precede baptising, Obj. because it is put before it in the Commission:   

SECT. XXVII.  
I Answer, Answ. first, That the Prelocation of the word, teaching, in the Commission before baptising, is no more an argument that teaching must precede baptising in time, than the prelocation of the word jacob before Esau in Rom. the 9th. 13. doth argue that jacob was the elder brother; no more, then because we have jacob also mentioned before Abraham in the 7th. of Micah. 20. that therefore Abraham was born after jacob. Yea, Mark 1.4. We have baptising mentioned before teaching, or preaching: john did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the Baptism of Repentance, etc.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
2. THe Commission (you see) is concerning Nations: Mat. 28.19. 
The word Nations doth include children.  Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, haptizing them; it is not go, teach every person, Baptising them. It is not denied but Nations must be taught, before Nations be baptised; and families must be taught, before families be baptised; that is, those that are capable in both, must be taught, and more than taught before they be baptised. But this doth no more argue that every individual person must be taught, yea and must understand and receive that teaching, before they be baptised, than it did follow, that because the Nation of Israel was to be taught and instructed in the ways of God under the Law, before circumcision, that therefore none of their children must be circumcised until they were first actually taught and instructed, Genesis 17. and the ten first verses; you will find that God first instructed Abraham in the Doctrine of his Covenant, and afterward imposed upon him Circumcision, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith, or of the Covenant of Justification by Faith. The Nation of the Jews were Gods taught people, before circumcised: and this is most apparent that the Proselytes of the Gentiles were first instructed before they became Jews. This did not argue that their children must not, or might not be circumcised before they were likewise actually instructed. You know they were to be circumcised by the express command of God.  
You have replied to yourself in mentioning the word of God: they had the express command of God for their circumcision; Object. show us the like for baptism, and we shall give all up unto you.   

SECT. XXIX.  
IF God gave his express commands to circumcise the children of taught Parents, Answ. or of Parents instructed in the Mysteries of the Doctrine of circumcision, before those children were capable of any such teachings, or of understanding the same; than it will follow that there was a time when children (even Infants at eight days old) were capable subjects of such Ordinances of God, and of Christ, (for they were his Ordinances) which were very mysterious and spiritual, 
Children in God's acceptation capable of circumcision and the Doctrine thereof under the Law, why not alike capable of baptism and the doctrine thereof, under the Gospel?  and which they could not understand until they came to years of discretion; and that God did thereby instruct their Parents in the extent of his grace, through the Mediation of Christ, or the Messiah, unto them and their children (except they themselves did afterwards reject and refuse the same) which was matter of great comfort to them. If children were thus capable under the Law, except you can find that they are expressly, or by infallible consequence from the Scriptures, excluded under the Gospel, by what authority dare you exclude them? Are they not as capable of the Doctrine of Baptism, as the children of the Jews were of circumcision? Were not there as deep Mysteries in the Ordinance of Circumcision, as there are in the Ordinance of Baptism? Did God, did Christ command circumcision to children under the Law, and hath God, hath Christ, forbidden or prohibited Baptism unto children under the Gospel? If so, show us where, and we have no more to say. And whereas you say, show us an express command for the Baptising of children, the text is at hand, Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, 
God's express command for baptising of children.  and of the Holy Ghost. Are not Nations made up of men, women and children? 'Tis true, children are not named in the Commission, neither are men or women named: if children must be excluded because not named, why do you not exclude men and women upon the same reason? and whom then will you baptise? If you say, those that are actually capable of teaching, and no more; I answer, than you obey not the extent of the Commission, which is not to baptise the capable part (in your sense) of Nations, but all Nations. If the Jews consisting of men, women, and children, were a taught Nation in Scripture Language, and in God's acceptation, why may not a Nation of the Gentiles consisting of men, women, and children, be likewise a taught Nation? and the men, women, and children thereof receive all the characters and signs of God's gracious acceptation of them all, as well as the Jews did? If by the word, Nation, in Scripture when applied to the Jews, the men, women, and children of the Jews are intended (as you know they are, and as will appear by the Texts in the Margin: 
* Deut. 4.34. Deut. 32.28. 2 Sam. 7.23. 1 Chron. 17.21. Psal. 83.4. Psal. 147.20. Isa. 1.4. Luke 7.5. etc. Act. 8.28. Gal. 3.14. Eph. 3.6. ) why then by the word nation, when applied to the Gentiles, shall we not understand the men, women, and children also? And whereas the Text saith, Go teach all nations, I conceive it was to instruct them to inform the world, that now the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles also, as to the Jews; and that the blessing of Abraham is now come upon the Gontiles through jesus Christ, being rejected by the Jews, and that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the fame body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. The words, jews nation, under the Law, were comprehensive, importing the men, women, and children: The words Gentiles and nations under the Gospel, cannot with the least show of reason be restrictive, importing only men and women, with the exclusion of children. The salvation sent by God to the Jews, the blessing of Abraham that was upon the Jews, the Covenant whereof the Jews were heirs, was such a salvation, such a blessing, such a covenant, as was assured, signed, and sealed unto the children of the Jews. The children therefore of those Gentiles that accept of this salvation, this blessing, this covenant, which the Jews rejected, being in no place of Scripture cut off, God forbidden that we should dare to cut them off, though (it seems) you dare. Consider, as it is a cursed thing to add unto the word of God, so it is no less a cursed thing to take any thing from the same. Christ saith plainly, go teach all nations, baptising them viz. all taught nation: you say, go teach all nations, baptising only such of every nation as are actually taught and instructed. In Scripture acceptation, men, women, and children, made up the taught nation of the Jews; in your sense and meaning, only the men and women must be the taught nation of the Gentiles, and children excluded. The Scripture makes the Covenant of Grace and the figns thereof, to belong to the men, women, and children of the Jews, and in the application thereof unto the Gentiles, makes use of the same comprehensive Expressions to them, as were used to the Jews, viz. Gentiles, Nation. But you will take upon you to cut off more than a third part thereof, without any commission or authority from God, or from jesus Christ, for your instruction or voucher. It is a sin of an equal demerit, to pull down God's posts, and set ours up by his, as it is to set up by God's posts any posts of our own.  
Again, whereas you add in this Consideration, 
Mr, Lamb.  That the same presence of Christ is promised jointly to Baptism as to Teaching, to the end of the world.   

SECT. XXX.  
I Reply, That if by the same presence of Christ, you mean the same, Reply. in respect of reality and truth; that is, that there is a true and real presence of Christ, promised unto Baptism, as there is in Teaching, we are Partners with you in the same meaning. But if by the same presence of Christ your meaning be, the same every way, and no otherways, that is, there is one and the self same, and no other operating presence of Christ in the Administration of Baptism, as there in Teaching or Preaching the Gospel, than it is denied. 
There is a real, but a different presence of Christ in the Baptism of Infants from that in preaching the word.  There is a manifold presence of Christ, or operation of his Holy Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel, which is not at all in the Ministration of Baptism. There is nothing symbolical, or otherways, in baptism, preaching Jesus Christ to be the Son of the Virgin Mary, that he was betrayed by Judas, one of his Disciples; that he was the Son of David; that he suffered death upon the Cross, etc. which is to be known by teaching the Gospel: and a suitable presence of Christ doth accompany such Doctrines, etc. But yond insinuate (as I conceive) such a thing as this, in saying, there is the same presence of Christ promised unto the Ordinance of Baptism, as is promised to that of teaching, to the end of the world; viz. That there is such a kind of the presence of Christ in teaching, which none are capable to understand but persons at years of discretion, having personally an actual capacity of understanding, receiving and believing the same; and that the self same presence of Christ there is in Baptism, whereof children are not capable, I mean, so to understand: and that therefore, as teaching belongs not unto Infants, because they cannot understand nor enjoy the presence of Christ in that Ordinance; even so Baptism be longs not to children, because they cannot understand the same, neither can they enjoy the presence of Christ therein. If this is your meaning, I answer,   

SECT: XXXI.  
FIrst, 
In what sense children are capable of the Doctrine of baptism.  that no such presence of Christ is promised unto, or doth accompany baptism, otherways then was promised unto, or did accompany the Ordinance of circumcision under the Law. The presence of Christ necessary to make the Ordinance of baptism profitable, is such a presence as shall first teach the subjects of Baptism (to speak in your Language) the Doctrine of dying unto sin, rising up and living unto God; the Doctrine of mortification, of sanctification: And secondly, such a presence of Christ, as shall duly affect their minds with suitable affections and heavenly dispositions under, in, and by such a vision. Such a presence of Christ as this, was as necessary for the useful improvement of the Ordinance of circumcision of old, namely, such a presence of Christ, as should first teach and instruct the subjects thereof, according to their capacities in the Doctrine of the circumcision of the heart, the cutting off of the superfluity of naughtiness, the circumcision made without hands. And thirdly, Such a presence of Christ as should duly affect their minds with holy and heavenly suitable affections. And the children were not capable of such a presence of Christ; yet you know they were by God's will and pleasure, to partake of that Ordinance notwithstanding. Surely God did not command the Ordinance of circumcision under the Law, but he did vouchsafe his presence unto those upon whom he did enjoin it: Even so, as great and effectual a presence of Christ is promised and performed unto children baptised under the Gospel, as was performed unto children circumcised under the Law.  
2. The presence of Christ promised and made good unto persons that are found under those Ordinances which God hath appointed, may not be so much for the present benefit and sensible accommodation of all the true subjects of such an Ordinance, as for the immediate benefit of the standers by, and persons that are Witnesses thereof. And the benefit of Christ's presence when it was first administered unto them, may not influence itself, at least in a sensible manner, until they come to years of discretion. As the presence of God blessing the Seedsman in the act of soweing, is not sensibly found until the Harvest. You know the presence of Christ in the administration of circumcision, did not appear in the children of the Jews, in a spiritual benefit, until they came to years of knowledge, and understanding. Even so baptising of children (as well as men and women of discretion) may be accompanied with the presence of Christ unto the standers by, unto the administrators and Witnesses of the thing done, and do service for the present upon them, and upon children also, when they are capable to understand the Mysteries of God imported therein.  
As for that passage in this your second consideration, wherein you say that Baptism with water, etc. is an Ordinance and command of Christ,  
Serving the Grand Interest of Remission of sins, 
Mr. Lamb.  and salvation (in some sense.)   

SECT. XXXIII.  
IF by serving the grand-interest of remission of sins and salvation in some sense, be meant only this, Reply. 
How baptism serveth the interest of Remission of Sins, and how not.  that as the other Ordinances of Jesus Christ preaching, prayer, etc. do serve, or subserve unto these grand ends mentioned; we are all brethren in this precious faith together with you: We do believe that all God's Ordinances (and consequently this of baptism) do accommodate and serve the grand-interest of remission of sins, and salvation in some sense, though every one in its own order and manner. But  
2. If by serving the grand-interest of remission of sins, and salvation (in some sense) You mean, as if there was as absolute necessity unto remission of sins, and salvation, that men and women should be baptised as well as believe, and that it is not faith alone that justifieth, or without baptism, because (as some of you have sensed it) Jesus Christ hath said, that he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: if you say of haptism, and of the manner thereof, according to your apprehensions, as the jews that came from judea, Acts the 15. chapped. ver. 1. said of circumcision, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; if this be your sense concerning baptism, and the manner thereof, viz. Dipping, etc. then I say, though you, or an Angel from heaven, shall bring in baptism, or any thing else, in competition with faith unto justification, as some once brought in circumcision contrary to the Doctrine of truth which we have received, you are, and shall be unto us, in this point, as accursed. And we rather affirm, that if in this sense, or with this hope and expectation, you preach the necessity of baptism and dipping, etc. that Christ shall profit you nothing.  
Again, Whereas you further add in this your second consideration, that Baptism was  
Commanded by Christ to be done upon Discipled Persons. I Answer. 
Mr. Lamb.    

SECT. XXXIII.  
1. Reply. 
In whatsense children are discipled persons, & cipled persons, & in what sense not.  THat if by Discipled persons you mean only persons that are taught and have learned personally the truth as it is in Jesus, I deny any such command of Christ concerning Baptism: neither doth any word in the commission imply in the least any such thing. The word in the Commission is Nations; Go ye and teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. and we have granted that no nations are to be baptised, but the discipled nations, as no nation was to be circumcised but the discipled nation of the Jews. Yet undiscipled persons (at least in your sense undiscipled) were circumcised; Even so I conceive, though no nations of the Gentiles were to be baptised, but discipled nations, yet children, not actually, and with understanding, brought to the knowledge of Christ, may be baptised.  
2. Suppose it be granted that none but discipled persons are to be baptised, yet will it not follow that children must not be baptised? The reason is, because in Scripture-sense, children of discipled parents are called discipled persons, Act. 15.10. Why do ye tempt God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples; 
Children are called Disciples in Scripture.  etc. This yoke is circumcision; all are called Disciples upon whom this yoke was put. Now this yoke was not put upon the neck of the believing Jews, in respect of their personal subjection to circumcision, for they were circumcised already: but upon their children, or upon them, in respect of their children, who are here called Disciples. Again john 9.28. said the Jews to the man whom Christ cured, being born blind, we are Moses Disciples; we, that is, the whole Nation of us Jews, are Moses Disciples, under the discipline of Moses Law. And you know that children were under Moses his discipline in respect of circumcision.  
Again, the Scripture calls children by the name of God's servants, Leu. 25.41, 42. Then shall he departed from thee, both he and his children with him, (speaking of the jewish servants and their children, when the year of Jubilee comes) for (saith God) they are my servants, he and his children, etc. for they, that is, he and his children are my Servants: If children may be called Moses Disciples, and Gods Servants under the Law, why may they not be reputed Christ's Disciples and his Servants under the Gospel?  
Again the holy actions of Parents are said to be done also by their children, 2 Chron. 20.4. Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, and judah gathered themselves together to ask, or pray for help of the Lord: Who are meant by Judah? See verse the 13th. And all judah stood before the Lord with their little ones, their wives, and their children; thus children are said to pray with their fathers. Again Deut. 29.10, 11. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your Tribes, your Elders and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, etc. that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath, etc. Thus children are said to Fast, to Pray, to Repent, to enter into covenant, viz. in Gods merciful acceptation, their Parents being exercised in those duties. Why may they not be said now also to be the same with their Parents? Again Psal. 22.9. David saith thus: Thou art he that tookest me out of the womb: thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my Mother's Breasts. What is more plain in Scripture than this, viz. in Gods gracious account children are said to hope and depend upon him, even before they come to understand the Doctrine of hope. Again, Mat. 18.5, 6. children are said to believe in Christ, and a fearful judgement denounced against those that shall do them injury. And whether you do not wrong them by excluding them from the Ordinance of Baptism, it concerns you well to consider. See the like, Mark 9.36, 37. and 42. compared together. Again, Mark. 10.13, 14, 15. Again Math. 19.13, 14, 15. You shall see the heart and soul of Jesus Christ is free in the admission of children unto him, though you thrust them away from him.  
As for that last clause in your second consideration, wherein you take notice that the celebration of Baptism upon discipled persons was commanded to be done  With huge solemnity in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and that too amongst the last words he spoke on Earth: 
I Shall only offer this, that those words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost do not imply the huge solemnity of the administration, (to speak in your uncouth expression) but a consecrating them unto the service of God, discovered now unto them more clearly, than formerly, to be the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, & it makes not one hair of the head of your Opinion about baptising of persons at age, etc. white, or black. And whereas you add with an Emphasis, viz. and that too amongst the last words he (1. Christ) spoke on earth, it is so impertinently brought in by you to your purpose, that these first words shall be the last words that I shall speak unto them; and therefore shall proceed to your third Consideration, which you give out thus:  
3. I find, 
Mr. Lamb in the second Epistle.  that he (Christ) intended not the reiteration of it (baptism) by the same person: and that therefore there ought to be all due care of practising it without corruption.   

SECT. XXXIV.  
WE have digged in the same field of the Scriptures with you, Reply. 
Rebaptization condemned by Mr. Lamb himself.  and have found the same treasures with yourself, touching what you say in this consideration. Only give us a like liberty with yourself, to add an Use of Reproof, or of Correction, to yours of Instruction, viz. that seeing Christ intended not the Reiteration of baptism, that therefore those are here to be reproved for their extreme boldness and presumption, that shall press persons already consecrated unto the service of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost at the Waters of their baptism in the time of their infancy, and that upon terms little lower than upon their salvation, to a Reiteration of their baptism, contrary to the intention of jesus Christ. Your fourth consideration runneth thus.  
4. 
Mr. Lamb.  I found the design of Christ in the Ordinance itself, be exceeding rich and spiritual, namely amongst many other ends, etc.   

SECT. XXXV.  
THE Ordinance of baptism is indeed, Reply. exceeding rich and spiritual; but I fear, while you seek out the spiritualness, and richness thereof administered unto such persons only, and after such a manner, as you plead for, instead of finding these, you lose the richness and spiritualness of the baptism you have received in your infancy; which, however it is, or hath been unto you, yet that Ordinance administered unto others, in their infancy, and duly improved in their riper years, hath been as a cloud dropping fatness upon their souls; and as the Tree of Life yielding various fruits every month, yea, every moment, of rich and pleasant tastes unto their spiritual palate. You proceed in this fourth consideration to show us wherein consists those rich and Spiritual designs of Christ: As  
1. 
Mr. Lamb.  To oblige the Disciples unto Christ; that as circumcision bound men to keep the law of Moses, so doth baptism to keep the law of Christ. Therefore the Spirit borroweth the word baptism which respecteth Christ, to express the obligation of the Jews to the law of Moses, 1 Cor. 10.2. and were all baptised unto Moses.   

SECT. XXXVI  
HErein I confess that (in my judgement) you speak after, Reply. 
Mr. Lamb by consequents grants that children do capable subjects of baptism, notwithstanding theio infancy.  or according unto, the Oracles of God, and the analogy of faith. For if circumcision bound men (that is, those that were partakers of it, who were children in their infancy, as well as men of riper years;) if (I say) circumcision bound the subjects thereof, who were children, as well as men, to keep the Law of Moses; why should not baptism bind them to keep the Law of Christ? For if circumcision taken or received by children at eight days old, did bind these children when they came to years of discretion, to keep the Law of Moses, what tolerable shadow or show of reason can be given, why that Baptism administered now unto children, should not also bind them all the after-days of their lives to keep the Law of Christ? I very much honour and approve of your Orthodoxism in this point at this turn. You proceed:  
Further the design of Christ is to affect the heart by the will of God, seen in the Ordinance of Baptism, 
Mr. Lamb.  as well as heard in the word preached, etc.   

SECT. XXXVII.  
TO grant you this also (in a due and qualified sense) were but to grant you out of the abundance of our own apprehensions in the truth thereof. These holy designs of Christ in baptism, Reply. are as effectually brought about (and his heavenly hand hath found out his enterprise herein) by baptism administered unto Infants, as by the administration of it unto others at age. Your four first considerations premised, you advance to the fifth.  
This being the plain design of Christ in the ordinance, 
Mr. Lamb.  I considered Infants-Sprinckling, which ordinarily goeth for baptism, and found the great design of Christ in a manner frustrate by it, because there is no Sign or figure of any such thing as death, burial, and resurrection, and consequently not that Sermon of the Gospel, which Christ intended to make by it, as is most evident by Scriptures, which palpably discovereth it to be a humane invention.   

SECT. XXXVIII.  
IT seems you took Infant-sprinckling, called baptism, Reply. into your consideration, as the jews did Christ when they looked upon him as the Carpenter's Son, or as a Root out of a dry ground, having no form or comeliness, and beauty, that it should be desired. 
Mat. 13.55.  And hence it is that it is despised, and rejected, and not esteemed by you. Well, however to us that believe our Infant-baptism, to be by God's appointment, it is precious, but unto those that be disobedient unto Gods will therein, it is a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence. I believe it hath been of a higher esteem with you. There were some, that grew miserably defective, both in their opinion of, and respects unto, the Apostle Paul, who once could be willing to pull out their eyes for him; which argued, themselves, but not the Apostle, to decline in godliness. 
The true Reason why infant-baptism doth no more good unto some men.  The truth is, as Christ could do no great miracle among those that did not believe, even so your misbelief of the mind of God in your Infant-baptism, hath hindered the rich and spiritual effects thereof upon your heart and soul. But you say,  
You found the great design of Christ frustrate by it, viz. by sprinkling of Infants.   

SECT. XXXIX.  
IT is not one of the least of mercies purchased by jesus Christ, Reply. that there is an atonement made for the ignorances' of his people. The froward in heart find no good: certain I am, if there be tares in that field of Infant-baptism, that God sowed wheat there: and it is the Enemy that hath done this. You find the great design of Christ frustrate by Infant-Baptism. So many of the jews found nothing of Messiah in Messiah himself. You find no good in it, because you seek no such commodity there. If you speak of your personal experience, I am sorry for, and pity your barrenness. If you affirm it dogmatically, asserting, that you find or perceive, that the great design of Christ is frustrated by it, I bewail your thick darkness. However you find no good in it, or that there can be no good in it; yet you do not expect that we should alter our Opinions of it by your bare affirming, that you find the great design of Christ frustrated by it. But you give us a reason of your affirmation:  
Because there is no sign or figure of any such thing, 
Mr. Lamb.  as Death, Burial, and Resurrection; and consequently, not that Sermon of the Gospel, which Christ intended to make by it, as is most evident by the Scripture; which palpably discovereth it to be a humane invention.   

SECT. XL.  
First, You have not yet made it appear, that the design of Christ in Baptism, Reply. was to signify or figure out the Death, Burial, and resurrection of Christ. This you should first have done, before you had lifted up your heel, and spurned at it, as a thing of naught, because it did not serve in that warfare. It may be of rich and spiritual use unto men in some other sacred respects, as well as in these mentioned.  
2. Suppose you do not find any such thing in it, doth it follow that it is not there? The Lord of glory himself was despised, contemned, yea and condemned too, by many of the Princes of this world, who were great in knowledge, yea and in zeal too, for external and outward worship; I mean the Scribes and Pharisees, because they knew him not in his worth and excellence. There might be treasures of wisdom and knowledge (even of those things you speak of) in Infant-baptism, yea though administered in the way so much despised by you) though they be hid there from you: 
Another reason why some men find no good in Infant-baptism.  You know when men begin once to despise the Gospel, and continue therein, they are given up at last to an injudicious mind, having eyes and see not, ears and hear not; hearts and understand not.  
3. As much consimilitude and configuration unto the Death, Burial, and Resurrection, etc. may be found in the baptism of children, as in the baptism of men and women. The difference of the subject doth not hinder this, but the manner of administration, viz as performed by dipping, or sprinkling. But  
4. In Sacrament all Ordinances, 
In Sacrament all Ordinances we must have respect to God's command, not to the fitness of the things signified thereby.  the institutions and commands of God, are to be observed, more than the adaption of the sign unto the thing signified according to our thoughts and apprehensions. Such ceremonies under the Law were appointed by God, to be had in his worship, which (it is likely) man's wisdom (had the matter been left unto him) had never chosen unto such ends. If you had perfectly convinced us first, that dipping, and not sprinkling, had been God's appointment, in that administration, we had had nothing to say for ourselves, why sprinkling should be used, when dipping is appointed; but to argue meetly from a conceited aptness, 
Mr. Lamb. justifies Papists will-worship.  of the manner of Baptism in this way, and not in that, to represent the supposed ends thereof, is to justify the Papists in their use of their significant, and teaching ceremonies, which God never appointed.  
5. The command being to baptise, and the manner thereof not being directed, there being in the Scriptures a various interpretation and use of the same word, wherein the command is given, 
The command of Christ to baptise, is of several interpretations.  and no one of these interpretations more than others insisted upon in that place where it is given, doubtless in such cases, the Churches and people of God, may use their liberty, in making choice of that, which they conceive most conducing to their spiritual, and temporal interest. And that being the true state of the case in hand, therefore, as circumstances may be, he that baptizeth by dipping, may do well, and he that doth it by sprinkling may do better. And so again on the contrary, as the case may be; he that baptizeth by sprinkling, may do well, 
God doth command some Sacramental things to be done that are less significant (as least in man's thoughts) than what he might have commanded; but his commands are the ground of our duty.  and he that doth it by dipping, may do better. The worship of God under the Gospel, being more spiritual than under the Law; wherein God standeth not so much upon the Letter, as upon the Spirit, and truth of the heart.  
6. In Sacramental Ordinances, God may, and (doubtless) doth make use of such tips and ceremonies, which may not so fully, and in all points of spiritual instructions (in man's apprehension) answer the things signified, as some other tips and ceremonies would, which he doth not make use of, and that for very rich and spiritual ends, which would be too great a digression to insist upon. As for instance, in that Ordinance of the Supper, he might have made use, not only of a mere piece of bread and a cup of wine, but also of a competent meal of comfortable provision, to have showed forth his death and their life, by means thereof, with much more signification; as suppose it had been by the kill of some Lamb, or other living creature made for the use of man; and afterwards to have eaten it together in love, and holy mirth. This, a man would have thought, would have answered the rich and spiritual ends of that Ordinance better, than a small bit of Bread, and a little Wine would do. If God saith go into the River jordan, and wash, and be clean, we must not suffer our hearts to mind the excellent Amana, and Pharpar, Rivers of Damascus, but submit unto his Ordinance, though it be never so mean in our eyes. Many times, the goodly and most likely Sons of jessie, are rejected, and the contemptible Lad sought out and crowned. Therefore it is no good Argument to conclude that sprinkling in baptism cannot be of God, though it should be granted that the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, are not so fitly represented by sprinkling, as by dipping.   

SECT. XLI.  
7. AND lastly, there is more aptness even in sprinkling the subject of baptism by water, to the rich, holy, and spiritual ends of baptism, 
Spinckling doth fully answer the ends of baptism, yea better than dipping.  than perhaps hath entered into your minds, seriously to consider; as for instance.  
First, The sprinkling of water doth more lively represent the effusion of Christ's blood for us, and consequently the death of Christ, than a standing Pool, or River doth. It was not simply the blood of Christ, but the blood of Christ shed, by which we have a Redemption, and Remission of sins. Now though water in a Pool, or River, might in a dull way represent the blood of Christ, yet the sprinkling, or pouring of it out, doth more aptly set forth the shedding of this blood. We may well presume that his precious blood did trickle down from his most sacred Temples, Hands, Feet, and Sides, when he was upon the Cross, all which (I say) is more significantly represented by Sprinkling, than by Dipping.  
2. A little Water sprinkled and poured out upon a person, doth more lively and significantly set forth the value, worth, and excellency of Christ's blood, than a great standing Pool, Pond, or River, instructing the beholders thereof, that it is not the quantity, but the quality, the dignity of Christ's blood. Though it be but as the blood of a Lamb, yet the Lamb being spotless, and without blemish, that hath purchased redemption, and remission of sins, the Scriptures take no notice how much the blood was, but what the dignity of that blood was, that was shed, Act. 20.28. God hath purchased the church with his own blood. Heb. 9.14. It is the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot, etc. that purgeth the conscience, 1 Pet. 1.19. You are redeemed, not with silver and gold, etc. but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot. It is true, a great Pool, Pond, or River, might better represent the blood of Bulls and Goats, Oxen and Heifers, Rams and Lambs, etc. altogether, making a great Pool, or lake of blood which is corrupted, and cannot justify, but a little water sprinkled doth more aptly set forth the value, worth, and dignity of Christ's blood, which is as it were freshly running out of his veins, and besprinkled upon the subject in Baptism.  
3. The Sprinkling of the water in baptism, doth hold a conformity unto, and preserves the commemoration of, the legal sprinklings, in the Old-Testament, Exod. 24. compared with Hebrews the 9th. you will find that Moses, after he had preached and spoken the Law of God unto the people, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, etc. and besprinkled the book and all the people, the tabernacle, the vessels of the ministry, etc. all things were purged by the sprinkling of blood. And the Author to the Hebrews refers all to the purging and purifying of the conscience from dead works to serve the living God, Heb. 10.22 & Heb. 12. ver. 24. You are come, etc. to the blood of Sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel; the blood of sprinkling, that is, the blood wherewith you are sprinkled, alluding to that blood of the Old-covenant, mentioned Heb. 9.20. So we are sprinkled with the blood of Christ, etc. This is more lively represented in the sprinkling of water in baptism, then in dipping or dowsing the subject of baptism (so much insisted upon.)  
4. This ceremony of sprinkling, or pouring out water, in baptism, doth more lively represent the performance of several promises of sanctification unto the Gentiles, mentioned by the words sprinkling and pouring out of water, then that of dipping doth, Ezek. 36.25. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all yvor filthiness; and from all your Idols will I cleanse you, and a new heart also will I give you, etc. So again in Isa. 52 23, 24, 25. it is prophesied of Christ, Behold my Servant shall deal prudently: he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high, etc. he shall sprinkle many Nations, etc. So again Isa. 44.3. I will pour out water upon him that is thirsty, etc. I will pour out my Spirit. So again Joel 2.18. I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh, etc. upon all Flesh, as well as upon the Jews. Thus the ceremony of sprinkling, or of pouring out of water in baptism, doth help a man's faith in the believing and expecting the performance of these promises, after a more effectual manner, than dipping doth.   

SECT. XLII.  
5. IN the fifth and last place, 
Sprinkling and pouring out water upon the subject of baptism, better answers the end of that Ordinance, than dipping the subject of baptism, or burying him under water.  let us compare your dipping with your notions and apprehensions thereof, together with sprinkling, and our apprehension thereof: and then see which is most likely to be the truth, and to answer the nature of a Sacrament.  
We have usually considered three things in Sacraments, the outward visible sign: The thing signified thereby; and the inward spiritual grace. As to instance, in the Supper of the Lord, the Bread and Wine are the outward visible signs: The Body and blood of Christ, the things signified: Our spiritual Union with Christ, refreshment by Christ, interest in Christ, etc. these are the spiritual graces, etc.  
So now consider in our Notions and apprehensions of baptism by sprinkling; The outward visible sign is, Water: the thing signified by it, is the Blood of Christ: The inward and spiritual graces, they are remission of sins, sanctification, spiritual washing, cleansing ourselves from all pollutions, etc. (the spiritual graces of any Sacrament being very many and vatious.) Now let us consider your Notion of Dipping intended by Christ (as you say) therein, viz. to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for sinners, and the sinner's death unto sin, suffering with Christ, Resurrection to all newness of life here, and glory hereafter. Let us then examine it.  
First, Here is water, the outward visible sign; What must this signify? Or what is the thing signified by it? Is it to answer the Death and Burial, and Resurrection of Christ? What answers Water? Is it the death or blood of Christ? So far we grant also, that the Water signifieth Christ's Blood. So far I believe you are right: and this doth more lively represent the Blood of Christ trickling, or sprinkling down by drops and gushes, viz. the sprinkling or pouring out of water, than dipping into water. But to make it represent the burial of Christ, how will you make the parallel? Let us try how things will agree.  
1. Here is water, whereinto the subject is dipped, or dowsed: this is the outward visible sign.  
2. What is thereby signified? The Blood of Christ cannot be here the thing signified; for Christ was not buried in his own blood, but in the earth. Then the thing signified hereby is the earth; and it can be nothing else, what ever be the inward and spiritual graces. Now I offer, Where do we ever find water in Scripture to represent the earth? It doth frequently sign fie the Spirit, the blood of Christ, the pure word of God, whereby men are made clean, when they are polluted; refreshed when thirsty, etc. But never doth it signify the Earth, as it must here according to your Notion of it, this being to show forth the burial of Christ. Is not this an earthly and dull interpretation, representation, and exposition of water in baptism, as you carry it?  
Again, to represent unto us the Resurrection of Christ, you must manage it thus. First here is water, the outward visible Sign. 2. What must be signified thereby? It cannot be the blood of Christ. For as Christ was not buried in his own blood, so he did not rise out of his own blood. That that must answer water here also, must be the earth again, out of which Christ risen. Is not this a most fansifull and unscriptural use of the word Water? But you will object and say,  
The Scriptures themselves are their own best Interpreter, and the best Interpreter likewise of God's Ordinances. And do not the Scriptures refer our dipping in water to Christ's bu●●all; our rising out of water to Christ's resurrection? Rom. 6.4, 5. We are buried with him by Baptism unto death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, etc. Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.   

SECT. XLV.  
THese (doubtless) are your thoughts, and these are the main Scriptures wherein you so much boast that you have found out the truth in the matter of difference between us in this point, Ans. as if they were as plain, clear, and express for your turn, as words and expressions can make them. And this is the evidence of the Scriptures, which manifesteth the palpableness of the error of our practice, as baptising Infants by sprinkling. But if a man shall seriously consider, it will appear that it is not the Text, but your interpretation of it, that thus magnify. And it is your (i. e.) and not Christ's scriptum est, that you call by the name of truth clothed with the majesty of God (with other great swelling words.) You deal with us in this point, 
Anabaptists, & Antiremonstrants, bring their meaning 〈◊〉 the Scriptures and then force it upon their brethren for the Oracles of God.  as some others do about the Doctrines of the extent of Christ's death, of election, and reprobation, of the liberty of the will of man, etc. who (declining the express letter of the Text) bring their interpretation-sense and meaning to the Text, contrary to the interpretation, sense, and meaning of other persons, whose abilities, piety, parts, and worth, are no way inferior to their own. These likewise will take upon them, to digest their opinions, and interpretations of such Texts into certain positions, and these must be Articles of faith, fundamentals in Religion, the Golden Reeds laid up, even in the very Sanctuary of God, to try other men's doctrines withal. If they speak according to their sense, than they speak as the Oracles of God, and according to the analogy of Faith; then they pass for Orthodox; they have a sacred and fatherly benediction, an authoritative God-speed in the work of the Ministry, speaking according to that rule, there is a peace be upon them, and upon all such the Israel of God. And so they pass with an Ecclesiastical vale to preach and premulgate their presumed notions, for articles of faith. If you on the otherhand, and any person comes before them (sitting together, clothed, as it were, with glory and majesty from on earth, viz. the authority of man) he is presently brought to the rest, that as the Papists, Prelates in the Marian-dayes, when they would know ●n Heretic, would presently demand of any brought before them, what do you be believe concerning the Sacrament of the Altar? Even so these demand, what do you believe concerning the extent of Christ's death, election, reprobation, the power of the will, falling away, etc. If they answer never so pertinently to every one of these, speaking only the very Scripture phrase, and nothing else, though therein they exercise and manifest much learning, much dexterity in the Scriptures, much holiness of mind, sweetness of lip; yet, though they spend several hours and days, in such examinations, and such answers, yet they are judged subtle men, that speak warily, and covertly. And so long as they will speak nothing but the Language of the Scriptures, they are put off, or put by, their enemies their Judges not being satisfied, who (in a word) will not pass them for Orthodox, until they leave off, and desist to give their answers thus in Parables (I mean, in Scripture say) and speak plainly, whether they do, or will, receive their conceits, and plucits, the brood of their own brain, without sound proof of Scripture, for the infallible truth of God. If they do not, or will not it is not their piety, their parts, their gifts of knowledge and utterance, their University education and perficiencie of learning, it is not Certificates (though never so authenticque) of their holy life, and unspotted conversation, that shall serve their turn: they are laid aside as men unsound in the faith; men that believe, and will preach another Gospel; their truth (or tormentors rather) thus making their own judgements and opinions in the said points, their positions and articles by themselves made, not only equal with, but above the Holy Scriptures themselves: Or as the Pope and his Cardinals make their Canons and decrees of equal authority with the Scriptures, sending out their Bulls and Excommunications against those that refuse to receive them; or as the Mahometan Priests and Turks will not suffer Mebomet-Dictates to be questioned upon pain of death: even so you produce Scriptures against the baptising of children, which you say give a distinct sound, that it is against the will of God to baptise such, that such were never baptised; that the manner of baptism, according to Gods express will and word, is by dipping, etc. which Scriptures notwithstanding make no more for the same, than those Texts that say, that two Sparrows are sold for a farthing; that they took up so many Fishes, that the Net broke, etc. And yet he that shall not receive your interpretations; nay though Paul, or an Angel from heaven say otherways, he is as a man accursed from Christ: you excommunicate such men, unchurch them, holding them unfit to partake of the Ordinances of God's House, although the Texts in the mean time urged and produced by you (as Balaam by Balack) to curse us, yet do not curse, but bless us altogether. For confirmation hereof, let us examine the two Texts last quoted by you: Rom. 6.4, 5. We are buried with him by Baptism, etc. Colloss. 2.12. We are buried with him in Baptism, etc. What is here against baptising of children? what to justify separation from churches baptised only in their infancy? What is here to evince, that it is the express command, will, and pleasure of God, that baptism must be by the total immersion of the subject of baptism, by burying and dipping him in the water? and that every other manner of baptising is a nullity, and mere babism and vanity? These Texts speak of the blessed fruits, benefits, and consequences of baptism, not of the manner of baptising. All that they say is this, that in, or by Baptism (be the manner what it will) we are buried with Christ, that is, we have a blessed fellowship with Christ jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection; God making a blessed co●●enant with us, in baptism, and we with him, that through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, he is become ours, and we are become his; that as he died, was buried, and risen again for us, so we would live, and die with him unto the world, flesh, and devil, and henceforth live as those that were risen again with Christ. These Texts do not prove, first that dipping or plunging in the waters of baptism, is the express will of God concerning persons when they are baptised, respecting the manner thereof: Nor secondly, that the persons baptised in those days, were so baptised; but it proves (as we have said) that whatsoever the manner of their baptism was, that believers, by their baptism, are buried with Christ, which is not at all denied; the very design of the Apostle here, not being to set forth the manner of baptism, but the benefits and fruits thereof. When the Apostle saith in the next verse, 
Rom. 6.5.  if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall, etc. this doth not show the manner of Christ's death, as whether he was killed with a Sword, strangled, or crucified, etc. but some other thing: if you will know the manner of Christ death, you must look elsewhere for it. So again, when the Apostle saith in the 3. to the Philippians, and the 3. ver. we are the circume sion, etc. this doth not prove the manner of circumcision, but another thing: circumcision might be the cutting off of something from the forehead, or finger, or any other part, for all that can be gathered from that Text, you must search elsewhere for that. Even so when the Apostle saith, we are buried with Christ, in, or by, Baptism, if you will look for the express will and command of God, concerning the manner of baptism, you must find it elsewhere, and not in this place.  
And further, 
Tho it be granted that the practice of baptismin the primitive times was by dipping; yet will it not follow that dipping is binding upon all persons in all places.  though it should be granted (as possibly it may be true) that persons baptised at that time, and in those parts of the world, where (it is likely) it might be done without danger to their health, etc. were baptised by dowsing, dipping, or plunging into the water, and that the Apostle might take advantage from the manner thereof, namely, the more significantly and emphatically to put them in mind of their being dead and buried with Christ, that is, of their being in the State of death, and of burial, as they were when under the water, etc. it doth not prove that therefore they ought to be baptised no other way. For though they were baptised after that manner, yet they might have been baptised after another manner without offence unto God, if so be they were not tied up and restrained by God unto that manner, and from all other; show us where is such restraint in the Scripture. If from those Texts you will prove the necessity of the manner of baptism to be by immersion, because the Text saith, we are buried: with him in baptism; that is, as Christ was buried in, or under, the earth, so we were buried in and under the waters, inferring as well the manner of Christ's burial, as the manner of our baptism, why may you not infer thence also the manner of Christ's death, as well as of his burial? and with what kind of art can you make the analogy to hold there? The next words speak of our being planted together in the likeness of his death, etc. Is there any thing in dipping setting forth the manner of Christ's death? Well, though it be granted that some were (nay, that all spoken of in the Scripture were dipped in baptism) yet will it not follow, that if they had been baptised any other way, they had offended their Liege Lord, except he had denied them their liberty in this case, and commanded them to be baptised in that manner only, and no other way.  
If we seriously consider the Texts by you urged, to prove the necessity of dipping, viz. Rom. 6.4. Coll. 2.12. they intent to teach men the true, and most necessary Doctrine, and use of baptism, not the manner thereof. The Doctrine, Benefits, and use of Baptism, these are plainly taught us in the Scriptures, which (indeed) we should more study and practise, than thus disingeniously to separate, rend, and run away from the blessed assemblies of the Saints and Churches of God, because they differ in these external things. And the truth is, there being (at least that we can find) no one determinate and external manner of baptism, or using the water in baptism, essential thereunto by God's command; that therefore we ought to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage imposed upon us by man, as you seem to impose this of dipping upon your brethren, having only such thin, waterish, and slender Arguments and Proofs for the same. But what you want in evidence, you make up in confidence. To proceed:  
6. 
Mr. Lamb.  I find that as baptism, etc.  
THere is nothing under this head, Reply. which you gave us not before, and whereunto we have not already made a reply. Only one small Moat indeed, which unto you may seem a Beam, is not yet taken away, and which is by you mentioned in this 6th. Particular speaking of children being baptised in their infancy; you say of them that   

SECT. XLIII.  
When they are grown up, 
Mr. Lamb.  they can only tell by hear-say, that ever any such thing was done upon them, most unlike therefore to feel any such Obligation by it.  
TO insist upon this, is but to spend an Arrow upon a Butterfly. Reply. I would know of Mr. Lamb how he comes to know his name is Mr. Lamb, or whether his Father's name was Lamb, 
The baptising of children nevertheless efficacious, because when they come to age, they cannot remember their baptism.  or somewhat else; or whether that the children of Christian Parents have not as much reason to believe their Parents informing them of the time and place of their baptism, and instructing them from day to day in the holy and due improvement thereof, as Mr. Lamb hath to believe his name is Lamb, because his Parents, or Neighbours (if his Parents died in his Infancy) told him so? May not Christians, when they they come to age (nay, are they not bound) as much to believe their Parents telling them of their baptism, as the jewish Children were bound to believe their Parents telling them that the Mark on the foreskin of their flesh, or the want of their praepatium, was the Mark of their circumcision which they received, according to the Laws of their religion, when they were but eight days old? Or whether that baptism, upon such an information and belief of it, be not as proper, and apt, to do spiritual service upon their hearts, as circumcision was to do upon the hearts of the Jews children, when they come to age? It is sad to see such shadows of Arguments to divert men from the ways of truth.  
Your seventh Particular contains little also, but what you have already spoken, and hath been also spoken unto. I see we have seen your strength, and what you have to say. You run so much upon repititions, but though your spirits be spent, and strength is gone, yet your courage remains. You have a good mind at it still. Hence it is that you snatch up your we opens again, though the strength of your arm is hardly able to hold them. Here also you remind us of your findings, which you have ●an over, and over, and over again; as if you had no sooner found any thing, but you lost it again, and then you find it again. What have you found here?  I find the Scriptures in all expressness of Letter, are in many places for Believers Baptism. 
Mr. Lamb.  
This hath been affirmed and granted, granted and affirmed; but what then? Reply.  Whereas there is not one such Text for children, 
Mr. Lamb.  nor any instance of the Baptism, so much as of one child in all the New-Testament.  

SECT. XLI.  
WHat if there be not one such Text for children's baptism (for it may be your emphasis lieth there) doth it follow that there is no text at all for the justification thereof? We have found text upon text, and text after text, namely, all those texts (recording the commands of Christ upon his Apostles, and Disciples, concerning baptism) so, conditioned, qualified, and phrased, as that all the art and skill, that either you, or the greatest of your Champions you have, cannot with a savage unto your right reason, honour, and conscience, exclude children from the intention of jesus Christ, as the legitimate and due subjects of baptism. And where as you say there is not any instance of the baptism, so much as of one child in all the New-Testament, we have found also, satisfaction upon satisfaction, and satisfaction after satisfaction, from all those texts likewise, recording the exequation of Christ's commands, concerning baptism; as that neither you, nor all the Armies of your party can evince the contrary, but that: here were many hundreds of children baptised, where, and when jerusalem and all judea, and all the Regions beyond jordan, (being jews, and therefore would doubtless have quarrelled if their children had been rejected) were baptised; as also where we read of thousands, and of families, and houses, etc. that were baptised. But it is worthy observation that you tell us,  
That many learned men have acknowledged, 
Mr. Lamb.  that Infant-baptism is not in God's Word.   

SECT. XLV.  
1. Reply. IF you mean, that many learned men have acknowledged that there is no expressness of Letter in God's word, 
Mr. Lamb rejoiceth in the testimony of learned men, when he can find any of them of his judgement about baptism, though he cautioneth us about Mr. goodwin's learning.  showing the facto that children were baptised; it is not denied you, nor doth it make any thing for your purpose. For neither is there any expressness of the Letter, showing where any women did partake of the Lords Supper. And yet you judge it their duty (being otherways qualified for the same) to partake thereof. But  
2. If you mean that many learned-men have acknowledged, that Infant's baptism cannot be proved in God's word to be lawful, nay, not a duty; I cannot but observe, how that one of a City, and two of a Tribe of learned men of your way, do amount unto many in your eyes. Surely if you glory thus in the glean, what would you do if the vintage were your own? Why should Mr. goodwin's learning hang in his light any more than other men's? Well, however every one of the many you mention, be interpreters, even one of a thousand, yet shall they not be Rabbis unto me, nor have any dominion over my faith in the point in hand. You add.  
And those that go about to found it (Infant-baptism) on Scripture, build all on consequences (ifs, may-bees, 
Mr. Lamb.  why-nots (which argument Mr. Goodwin hath often used to confirm the Doctrine of general Redemption, and to draw the contrary opinion under the suspicion of error.   

SECT. XLIV.  
DOth not Scriptures speak consequences in premises, Reply. as well as the premises themselves? The Scripture no where saith, 
Scripture speaks consequences, as welas principles or premises.  That any one, whose name was, is, or ever should be, Thomas Lamb, shall, or may possibly, be saved. Can it not be proved therefore that one Thomas Lamb shall, or possibly may be saved, as well as if the Scripture had the express saying therein, that one Thomas Lamb shall, or may be saved. The Scripture makes mention of Paul desiring. Philemon to receive Onesimus, not as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved. May not a man affirm hence, that Onesimus was not with Philemon, when he wrote thus unto him? When the Scripture saith (speaking of Christ's Mother) and the virgin's name was Mary; may not we say and insist upon it, as a truth very provable from the Holy Scriptures that Mary was a virgin?  
Again, if we must not build upon ifs, may-be's, and why-nots, 
Mr. Lambs proofs by consequences are good, but he will not suffer other men to prove Doctrines by consequences.  how come you to affirm with that magisterial confidence, as you do, that the baptising of children is unlawful, that no children were baptised by john, or any others mentioned in the Holy Scriptures; that it is unlawful to join with such persons in Church-fellowship, that were baptised only in their infancy (with many other of the like nature) having indeed, not so much as any rational ifs, may-be's, and why-nots from Scripture, for the confirmation thereof? would any man suppose that so much as a babe in Christ, would reason after this rate? Where have you been since you left us?  
But whereas you add, 
Mr. Lamb.  which argument (I suppose you mean, which manner of arguing by Mr. goodwin's adverse, viz. from ifs, may-be's, why-nots:) Mr. Goodwin hath often used to confirm the Doctrine of General Redemption, and to draw the contrary opinion under the suspicion of error.   

SECT. XLVII.  
IT would require you more pains to show us one place in all his writings (which you say he hath after used) of such splashy, Reply. shallow, watery, thin, and barren argumentation, either pro or con, than the writing of seven such boo●s as this is, which we now implead You speak much of your findings; but if you have found any such place in all his writings, namely where he hath denied that true, proper, and natural consequences from granted premises in the Scripture, are not to be admitted as the truths of God I believe you may rejoice in it, and eat the morsels thereof yourself alone, having no partner with you therein in any part of the world, whereof the Sun in the firmament is Overseer. But this is only to give Mr. Goodwin a running-rap; but you could not reach him. You procee:  
8. 
Mr. Lamb.  I found the unregenerate world naturally falling in with children's baptism, which is a shrewd sign is a de●ice of her own, the world loveth her own, etc.   

SECT. XLVIII.  
YOU find the unregenerate world no more naturally falling in with children's baptism, Reply. than you found it naturally falling in with the profession of Christ. For they are baptised and do baptise their children in no other name, nor into the profession of any other Saviour, than Jesus Christ. And is not this a shrewd argument that this Doctrine of the Messiah, the unregenerate world so naturally falleth in withal, is a device of her own; the world doth love her own?  
Your 9th. particular is summed up in this, 
Mr. Lamb.  infant-Baptism is unlawful, because baptism being the initiating Ordinance into the Church, it letteth in a sort of Members, which the New-Testament knoweth not; namely, such as cannot worship God inspirit, God now seeking only such to worship him. The whole bedy must be fitly framed together, and every part must effectually work. And can these things be affirmed of children?   

SECT. XLIX.  
First, you affirm that baptism is the innitiating Ordinance into the Church I suppose you mean, not the Church general, but dejure, it is the initrating Ordinance into particular Churches. If that be your meaning, 
Baptism not proved to be the initiating Ordinance into Church-fellowship.  this then is such a conclusion, as you can hardly make good, no not by any ifs, may-be's, and why-nots, gatherable from any place, or places in the Holy Scriptures; that is to say, that baptism did make any person ipsosacto, a member of any particular Church. But it is provable that many, and many, were baptised, of whom it is impossible to prove that by baptism, or any other way, they were ever immembred into any particular Church. And it is a difficulty too hard for you or I, or any other in the world to undertake, namely to prove, that all and every particular member of particular Churches, were ever baptised at all.  
2. It is true, Gad seeketh such, and only such, now to worship him, as can worship him in spirit and in truth, john. 4.23. that is (as I conceive) according to the context, Now the time of reformation approacheth; God will be worshipped and obeyed, neither in the judaical rites (consisting in external performances, as some among you so much contend for, nor according to the Samaritans false worship, who worshipped their Idol Gods together with God, 2 King. 17.26, 27, 28, 29.) but in a pure spiritual manner, extending to the very heart, such as was typified by those shadows: and the Son of God comes now to draw all men unto this way of worship from the judaical, from the Samaritan way. This text indeed (with several others) renders men uncapable of Church-worship in an acceptable manner, that content themselves only with outward forms, and yet leading a vicious life. But what is this to the exclusion of children? As for them, here is the grace of the Gospel, that he accepteth of little children, and would not have men forbidden (as you do) to bring them to Christ. He accepteth according to what any person hath, and not according to what he hath not.  
3. Again, God was always a spirit, as well as now, and he did always seek for such to worship him, as should worship him in spirit and in truth, as well as now. He always loved-truth in the inward parts, he always required of all his Sons to give him their hearts in his worship; he always commanded the Jews to love the Lord their God with all their hearts, and minds, and soul, and strength. Did this under the Law any way hinder that children might not be admitted members of the jewish Church, because they could not perform, inward, heart-worship, and spiritual service? did God upon their circumcision accept of them, as if they did perform all those spiritual services, and heart-duties, until they came to an actual and personal capacity, actually and personally to perform the same? And will he not (now) accept of children baptised, as if they did actually, and personally, perform those services unto him, which under the Gospel, he requireth, until they likewise come to an actual, and personal capacity so to do? And then will he accept, or reject, them, as they are found faithful, or unfaithful in these things.  
4. Whereas you say, that the New-Testament knoweth us such member; of Churches, as infants, etc. I answer, that though I will not say, or deny, that the New-Testament knoweth not any infant-members of Churches, yet the New Testament knoweth, and hath taught others also to know, that children are due subjects of Baptism. And that it never knew, not taught any to know, where ever they were, or aught to be rejected, and denied the participation thereof. Our controversy is not about infant-Church-member-ship, but infant-baptism.  
Your tenth Argument for your belief in the business of Baptism, viz. against Infant-Baptisme, and for your separation, 
Mr. Lamb.  etc. is taken from your observation of the righteous hand of God, who causeth the sharpest and most able Adversaries to you in this point, to let fall such expressions as justify what they go about to oppose and condemn; (as Mr. Richard Baxter saith) the aged are (1.) the most fully capable subjects, (2.) the most excellent subjects, (3.) the most eminent subjects, (4.) of whom Scripture fully speaketh; (5.) the greater part of the world when Baptism was instituted, who were to be partakers of it: But on the contrary, for infant-baptism, he (Mr. Baxter) acknowledgeth it so dark in the Scripture, that the controversy is thereby become not only hard, but so hard, etc.   

SECT. L.  
YOU needed indeed to have written this in Capital Letters, that every one that runs may read the profundity thereof. Reply. The aged are the most capable subjects of Baptism; Ergo, Children are no subjects thereof. The aged are the most eminent subjects; Ergo, Children are no subjects; 
Mr. Lambs miserable inferences from Mr. Baxters' words.  the Scripture speaketh fully of them; Ergo, not at all of Children: The aged were the greater part of the world that did partake of Baptism; Ergo, Children were no part of the world that did partake thereof: The proof of children's baptism in Scripture is hard; Ergo, impossible. Can you be offended, that any that should reason thus, should be esteemed by rational men, persons of a maimed fancy, having their judgements and understandings stupefied, distraught, and confounded? Are these Arguments Men, or the shadows of the Mountains? Are not most, and greater, terms of comparisons, and must these exclude all positives? He that should say, Mr. Lamb is the most ingenious in all his Family, doth he deny the least degree of ingenuity in his children? He that saith, (I trust the parallel will please you) Mr. Lamb is the most Christian, most Charitable, most Edifying, most Wise, most Holy, most Humble among his Brethren; doth he deny that there is any christian, charitable, edifying, wise, holy, and humble person amongst them all, except M. Lamb? If Mr. Baxter hath said more for your way, in those few words, and that upon pure principles of reason, than he hath said against it, in all his whole book, his whole book would as much edify the world were it in ashes, as it doth now in ink and paper enriched with truth. But alas! the light of God shining therein, will like the Sun in the Firmament, run its course and prosper, against all that shall rise up against it.  
Again, Do not you blush when you read over this your emphatical query (importing an assertion with might and majesty of truth) Doth not plain Scripture proof, and dark Scripture proof, directly oppose? Doth Scripture proof, oppose Scripture proof? Scripture proof is Scripture proof, whether plain or dark: and must the one oppose the other, because the one is plain, and the other is dark? Is the Sun in its brightness, and the Sun in a cloud opposite? Can there be no proof fetched from the Scriptures, but that that is in the plain expressions of the letter? Again, because Mr. Baxter speaks on the surer side of the hedge, hath the hedge therefore but one side? Because Mr. Baxter saith it is safe baptising those that are actual believers, not being baptised before, doth he ●imply, that it is safe refusing or neglecting to baptise infants: What shall we say? If a spider's web be as bars of Brass to you, there is no hope.  
It agreeth not with the wisdom and goodness of Christ, 
Mr. Lamb.  that Baptism should be so dark, as Mr. Baxter saith it is, etc.   

SECT. LI.  
MR. Baxter doth not say it is so dark as that the way thereof is not plain enough to be found by men that will seek it out, Reply. and inquire after it. And it is agreeable to God's wisdom and goodness, that it should be, as his wisdom and goodness have declared it to be in the Scriptures, and it is no argument of your wisdom and goodness to question the same.   

SECT. LII.  
Your 12th. Particular is built upon a false foundation, viz. that by baptism persons are immembred into churches, which you have not yet proved. Your quotation of Act. 2.42. will not prove your position. 
Act. 2.42. Mr. Lamb.  Observe your argument: they that were baptised were added to the Church, ergo all baptised persons in the Apostles days, were Church-members. May not I as well argue thus? they that heard the word, were baptised, ergo, all that heard the word in the Apostles days were baptised. To insist more upon this would be but to follow you in speaking much to little purpose.   

SECT. LIII.  
Your 13th. Argument is barren of proof altogether, viz. that infant-baptism agreeth to the carnal (I presume you mean, sinful and wicked) interest of men, that preach for filthy lucre, etc. It is wholly denied, standing upon your own bare affirmation, which shall pass, having your own image and superscription upon it: and if any will take it for current coin, let him enrich himself with it, if he pleaseth.   

SECT. LIV.  
HAving thus given us your grounds of your separation from us, as if you had made us all proselytes by them, having now drawn us not with the cords of a man, but (as it were) of an Angel, you justify yourself in your way, and bless yourself with an expectation, not only of peace, but even of reward, as a man that hath now contended for the faith, (viz. God's mind and pleasure that children should not be baptised) that was once delivered to the Saints, (no where to be found in holy writ) as of a man that had followed the example of the holy men of old, in separating themselves from their holy and beloved brethren, as of one that hath followed the Lord fully, by forsaking his Church and people; as one that hath kept the national covenant, by breaking covenant which he made with the Church of Christ. What shall I say? He feeds upon ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand?   

SECT. LV.  
BEfore you have made an end of your Epistle, you have yet one parting-blow again at Mr. Goodwin, after the manner of some of his quondam adversaries, who (as you here) have twitted and upbraided him with what he once writ to Mr. Thomas Goodwin, touching separation from Parish Churches (as you intimate) as being a weak, fleeting, and uncertain man: though for your part, you profess it is not Mr. goodwin's shame you seek for hereby, I believe your conscience will not say it was his glory that steered your pen herein. 
M. Goodwin no separate from the godly Presbyterians in his reformation, as M. Lamb affirms.  But to answer you, and all other Scribes of the same Order with you touching this point;  
First know that Mr. Goodwin never came to Coleman-street (at first) as a parish-person, nor after the manner of such men's inductions into parishes: but there being a considerable, pious, and godly party in that parish, who having a longing desire to enjoy the Ordinances of God in purity, purchased the impropriation thereof, whereby they enjoyed the liberty of choosing their own Minister. And Mr. Davenport their Pastor having left them, the said party made choice of Mr. Goodwin to be their Pastor; and accordingly a considerable number of them did fetch him unto them. He, and they lived together several years upon the best terms of purity and reformation in the Ordinances of God, which their light, and the frowardness of the times did admit.  
2. That when Mr. Goodwin wrote to Mr. 
M. John Goodwin not contrary in his practice to what he writ to Mr. Thomas Goodwin when he was in Holland, as hath been injuriously cast in his teeth by his adversaries formerly, & now by Mr. Lamb also, after the rest.  Thomas Goodwin (as aforesaid) the said Mr. Thomas Goodwin was in Holland (as yourself observe) at which indeed Mr. Goodwin was offended; namely that the holy, learned, and good men of those times, such as Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and others were, should break away out of the Nation, taking with them the hewen-stones of God's Temples, as you know many went away into several parts of America, some to the Summer-Islands, others to Holland and the low-Countries; at which the Bishops were well pleased, as not doubting but they might (with more ease) deal with the remnant that were left behind. Mr. Goodwin did often bewail the departure of those men, and resolved by God's grace to stand it out against all the adversaries of God's people in those times. And you know he did persist in his resolutions and integrity, even to the making of himself a byword and a mock amongst them; viz. then when others were fled and run away, Mr. Goodwin was left to pray, etc. At this, chief, and mainly, was Mr. Goodwin offended with Mr. Thomas Goodwin. Never was he troubled at the joining together of holy men in any parish, to keep out the vicious and evil party, according to their best opportunities so to do. Neither did he ever refuse (that ever I have heard) the entertainment of godly persons (though not of the parish) into Church communion with him, that did desire the same. Nay several persons living in several parts of the City out of the parish, were his most intimate associates even in the ordinances of God's worship and service, and in all things relating to reformation, though in that parish (the civil interest of the parish only excepted.)  
3. That M. Goodwin to this day did never separate from them, but hath (indeed) endeavoured a stricter way of reformation, in, and about, Church-work, than some (though I hope) good men of the said Parish would submit unto. Upon which, some disterences grew amongst them; in all which differences it was never insisted upon by M. Goodwin, that they should deny themselves to be a true Church of Christ before; but that for time to come they would walk after a more visible reformed manner than they did, admitting such godly persons (though not dwelling in the parish) as should be approved of by the honest party of that parish, to enjoy after a more visible manner than formerly, an equal interest and power in voting in Church affairs, (parish civil rights excepted) I say an equal interest with those godly of the parish. I remember well it was demanded by the brethren that diffented from Mr. Goodwin, several times, whether Mr. Goodwin, and the brethren that joined with him, would deny, that they were a true Church, before these differences did arise amongst them: and it was never denied, but that they were a true Church, though under much deformity, and want of Reformation. At last it was assented unto, that an equal number of persons, chosen by M. Goodwin, on the one party, and the dissenting brethren on the other party, should meet, and agree, who, how many, and what manner of persons (not living in the Parish) should be admitted into Churchfellowship with them. And after all things in a publick-meeting in the Parish Church, or meeting place, were composed by Vote, and a blessed, peaceable, and comfortable reformation was expected, the brethren formerly dissenting from M. Goodwin, receded from their former agreements, rend themselves away from M. Goodwin, leaving him and a considerable part also of the godly party in the parish with him, to go alone in their Church-Reformation.  
For the confirmation of all which, and for the muzling the mouth of scandal, at, or against M. Goodwin, in and about the premises, I have thought good here to insert the true Copy of the order of the said Parish-Vestry, with other passages thereunto belonging, word by word.  

At a general vestry, holden the 12th. day of May, 1643. in the Parish Church of Stevens-Coleman-street, London.  
IT is agreed by general consent, that Mr. John Goodwin shall nominate six Persons of this Parish, to consider of, and compose the present differences between M. Goodwin, and his people, within the space of one month now next ensuing if it may be.  
The persons named by Mr. Goodwin at the same Vestry, were these following.  

Coli. Owen Row,  
Mr. Mark Hildesley,  
Doctor Paget,  
M. john Price,  
M. William Mountag●●,  
M. Richard Ashurst.    
The persons named by the same Vestry for the Parish, were these following, 

Mr. Samuel Avery,  
Mr. Andrew Kenrick,  
Mr. Thomas Bernardiston,  
Mr. Edward Lucas,  
Mr. joseph Syblye,  
M. Tho. Fitzwilliam.    
And whatsoever shall be agreed by the major part of the twelve persons above named, there being present an equal number of those named by both parties, shall be presented to Mr. Goodwin, to obtain his consent.  
It was further agreed upon at the same time, that the strangers (viz. those that did not live in the said parish,) should be suffered to come to a public meeting in the Parish Vestry, that they might be known by face, and heard in their desires, that exceptions might have been made against them (if there were cause) and (no cause to the contrary appearing) they might be owned as members of the Church of Christ in that place, and to have their free Votes in all things relating to the due ordering of the Church, (parish-interest in civil things only excepted:) All which was agreed upon by full consent: and at the same Vestry also a certain day was appointed for their solemn seeking of God by prayer and humiliation, to be kept in the said public meeting place, to entreat the Lord for mercy for former ignorances' and miscarriages, in, and about his public worship; and to enter into a holy covenant with the Lord, to be more careful to study the Laws of his house and Ordinances, for the time to come. There was also a form of an agreement concluded upon to be subscribed by all persons of the parish, and that lived out of the parish, who should be owned for members of the Church from that time the true copy whereof is as followeth, We having lately solemnly covenanted to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in this kingdom of England, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of God, and example of the best reformed Churches; and conceiving it a thing conducible hereunto to agree and promise to walk together in all the ordinances of God, as becomes those that are fellow members of a visible Church of Christ, do acknowledge and choose M. John Goodwin for our Pastor.  
About a month after, when the day appointed (as aforesaid) came, wherein the Resolves of the said Vestry were to be put in exequation; some of the contrary party to Mr. Goodwin, receded from their former Votes, and Resolutions, fomenting the old differences still after the said happy and general composure thereof, to the great amazement, grief, and trouble of the rest. Others met according to appointment, and the duties of fasting and prayer being finished, joined together in the Covenant aforesaid, and subscribed the same; the number of them being about sixty persons, Inhabitants of the said Parish, (all of them having made a good profession of Religion) besides several others that were not of the Parish, who joined and subscribed also with them.  
The party dissenting (being about twelve or fourteen of the professing party in number) were still the same as formerly, all endeavours to gain them notwithstanding, and the disterences grew as great as ever.  
At last the twelve persons chosen as aforesaid, six by Mr. Goodwin, and six by the Parish, having met several times, did conclude upon several proposal, to be tendered to Mr. Goodwin. And a time was appointed for M. Goodwin to give in his answer, whether he would consent thereunto, or not: M. Goodwin having perused the same, immediately consented thereunto, and signified his resolutions to give in his consent unto the Vestry at the time appointed.  
There was also another Vestry held, in which it was ordered as followeth.  

At a Vestry held the 12th. of December, 1643. ordered,  
THat all those that shall desire and be sound worthy by M Goodwin and such as he shall nominate in the parish, and the parish approve of, to partake of the Sacrament in this parish, shall submit to have their names written down in a book kept for that purpose, by which they shall be accounted members of this Church and congregation, and that other Parishioners, being members, have liberty to inform those persons so instructed, with their Objections against any man.   
Mr. Goodwin having thus complied with the dissenting brethren, as aforesaid, and having resolved also to submit unto the proposals aforesaid, and signified the same unto them, that he would subscribe them in public Vestry, upon the day appointed, some few of the said dissenting party (for it is not imputable to them all) before the said Vestry were to meet, contrary to all former proceed relating to union and reformation, applied themselves to the then Committee of Plundered Ministers, by way of Petition, complaining against M. Goodwin, that he caused rents and divisions in the Parish, refused to administer the Sacrament, introduced innovations, gathered a people unto himself, etc. and in fine, procured (as it was said, though it was never showed unto the Parish, as I could ever understand) the sequestration of the Vicarage of Steven, Coleman-street, from the use of M. john Goodwin, unto the use of M. jeremy Whitaker, then living. But M. Whitaker upon the full understanding of the whole matter, would not accept of the same: By all which it appears to all impartial men, that ever understood the History of these transactions, that it was not M. Goodwin, and those of the Parish that joined with him in that reformation, who separated from the godly Presbyterians, as you call them, but that they were the true separatists, though they would be known by another name. And God almighty pardon them, and lay not their separation unto their charge, & show you mercy also for your groundless separation from us, and for your untrue charging M. Goodwin for separation from the godly Presbyterians, in Coleman-street, for those by you meant were not such at that time.  
4. Suppose M. Goodwin had altogether been now of another opinion about Church-work, than he was before, when he wrote that Letter to M. Thomas Goodwin; must this in M. goodwin's judgement and conscience justify your separation from the Church where you were, because you judge your present way the truth, and that you were before in an error? It may (indeed) and I think it aught, to keep him from censuring you, as sinning against your light and conscience, as supposing your heart right with God in respect of your intentions in your separations: and so it doth. For where hath he censured you, or the rest of the brethren walking with you, as so sinning? I believe he hath exercised more charity to you-ward in this kind, than you have towards him: and it is fit he should, for he hath more to exercise. But doth this wholly excuse you, or reflect dishonour upon M. Goodwin for condemning your separation? Suppose you had turned Papists, jews, Turks in your very judgement and consciences, or (as many) Ranters and licentious persons, and still by the delusion of your judgements and consciences; would it have been dishonourable for M. Goodwin to write against you, because M. Goodwin turned separate from the Church of England? Certainly a man would think that such arguments as these would hardly make a Net strong enough to catch and hold a very fly: but a child is known by his do. 
Pro. 20.11.    

SECT. LVI.  
WE accept of your Exhortation, to suffer none to have dominion over our faith, to call no man (much less a child) master on earth, in respect of it. And therefore you must show us better arguments than hitherunto we have seen, before you pull us away from our present standing in the Courts of the house of our God where we arefed with the marrow and fatness thereof, and have sweet refresh from his presence from day to day.  
HAving done with your Epistle, wherein you have contracted what you have dispersed in your Book, I shall take a very brief survey of the Book and body thereof also. And because I will not trouble the Reader with vain repetitions, shall wave that which hath been already insisted upon, and speak to the rest. The whole Book (indeed) containing many needless and heartless repetitions, unnecessary digressious, tedious prolixities, proceeding not so much from strength of judgement, as hear of affection, being like corn on the house top, yielding neither seed to the sour, nor bread to the eater; or as judes' clouds without water, and giving out little refreshment to any man, but blackness and darkness.   

SECT. LVII.  
M. goodwin's first consideration is summarily thus. Moral precepts when in competition with ceremonial, must be obeyed, and Ceremonial suspended, Mat. 12.3, 4.7.11. Mat. 5.23, 24. Hence he infers, the inexcusableness of such persons in the sight of God and men, who pretend themselves disobliged from the performance of such lawful, yea holy and righteous promises, which they solemnly made unto their brethren, by a necessity of subjecting to an external rite or ceremony, as water-dipping is; especially, when the generality of the most judicious, learned, and faithful servants of God in the Christian world, adjudged the same no ways necessary, by virtue of any precept or command of God.  
To this you answer, that you allow the consideration as importing an undoubted Truth. But secondly, that this is ill applied unto you, though separating from the Church whereof you were a member, upon the account of their refusal to be rebaptised, and that too by dipping: You ground your exception upon two things;  
First, the solemn League and Covenant, taken by you and the whole Nation, to go one before another in reformation according to light. 2. Mr. goodwin's own practice, in separating from the godly Presbyterians, and joining in that way of worshipping God, wherein he now walketh.  
I Reply: 
The solemn league & covenant, no pleafor separation.  First, to that of the Covenant, that it was in the very design of it, a covenant of union, and not of division, of the godly party in the three nations; that it was intended by the framers, and imposers thereof, that each person should be an example unto his brother, going one before another in known ways of joint Reformation; that in things granted by the generality of the godly party, to be the mind and will of God, each should provoke his brother unto reformation, not intending hereby, a liberty, much less a duty vowed, and covenanted, viz. that in case of different apprehensions, especially in smaller matters, or ceremonies, etc. each should be obliged to run away from his dissenting brother. If so be that in doubtful, and questionable things, such as your notions of infant-baptism, and rebaptisation, etc. are, each should be bound by this vow and covenant, to follow his own personal conception; where should two believers be found walking together? And is the national vow and covenant, which intended to make all the people of God in the three nations to be one, a sufficient ground to render believers, as so many wand'ring cain's, to run away one from another? what, to join together as beacons upon hills do? Surely you are an interpreter of the solemn league and covenant, even one of a thousand. To your argument of following your light, 
Conceit of light notformerly discovered, no plea for separation.  we have already answered, Sect. 6. and elsewhere. If you will not admit of limitations and boundaries in granting men a liberty of following their own private conceptions, you lay a foundation of every man's departure from another, of justifying men's apostasy (if upon religious pretences) though it be even to Turcism, judaism, and what not?  
As for what you offer concerning M. goodwin's separation from the godly Presbyterians, I have already answered, Sect. 55.  
M. goodwin's second Consideration amounteth in brief unto this, viz. That though it were granted, that that very baptism, viz. the baptism of believers at age, and that by dipping, was the only baptism-Ordinance of Christ, yet their brethren (though not baptised according thereunto) having no opportunity through want of light, or otherways, for the same, and yet withal, an hearty desire unto it, and endeavour after a discovery of the will of God therein; I say in this case their brethren are according to divine estimate and acceptance, baptised therewith. Proof, 2 Cor. 8.12. Mat. 5.28. where God judgeth men according to what is found in the heart, whether it be good or evil.   

SECT. LVIII.  
TO this you answer: First, by absolute denial of the said consideration, and affirm it a mistake, that such Churches, not actually baptised with your baptism, should (the premises notwithstanding) be esteemed by God to have been baptised, offering only, that that Text, 2 Cor. 8.12. doth not prove, that God judgeth a man actually and in a formal proper sense to have been baptised, who never was thus baptised; or that the deed is done, when there is no such deed done, but only a will to do it.  
I Reply. That to insist upon this, is but to suspect the reader a very infant in understanding, for doth the consideration itself, in the very lest, imply, that God judgeth that actually and in a formal proper sense to be done, which was never done? nay doth it not more than imply that it is only accepted in respect of reward, as done, though not done? 
God accepteth the will for the deed.  Is this distinction of the will from the deed, and God's acceptance of the will for the deed, as done, though it be never done, a perfect chaos and confusion unto you? Doth M. Goodwin say that God judgeth that actually and in a formal proper sense to be done, which was never done? Doth he not speak only of acceptance, as if done? And is this so Enigmatical and hard a saying to your understanding? If this consideration given by M. Goodwin, should not import a truth, what hopes could you and I have of salvation? Doth not God accept of our faith, putting us upon a holy endeavour to keep all his commandments, (though we keep none, but in many things sin all) as if we did actually and formally keep them all, and break none? Do you expect at the great day, to be measured by weight, or by will? Is it the willingness of your mind, or the worthiness of your works, that is the Anchor of your soul in the day of Christ? But you have another answer, viz. summarily thus.  
2. Though God accepteth a desire of obedience (though obedience be not performed for want of knowledge of God's mind therein) yet this doth not excuse men's ignorance. God doth not justify men in any such false judgement.  
I reply. And is this an answer? may not we infer; therefore God doth not justify your ignorance of his mind, in keeping covenant with him and his Church and people, though differing in some things from you, but breaking the same as a thread of Tow. Yet we deny not but he may graciously accept of your will also for the deed. But our work now is about healing this ignorance.  
And thirdly, you object,  
That if God accepts your will for the deed, your not being baptised, as if you were baptised, he will also by your own argument (say you) accept of us, separating from you, as still with you, it being according to our Light, as he will accept of yourselves, as baptised, though not baptised, etc.  
I reply, 
Our Opinion of Mr. Lamb, with others that went from us, more charitable of them, than theirs of us.  That we judge and censure, not the intentions of your mind, but the unsoundness of your judgement; we hope, your hearts being right with God, that he will pardon your mistakes and ignorances', though rending and tearing up by the roots (so far as in you was) a blessed society of Saints and people of God: that he will accept of you, that is, pardon you, as he did Paul, though breathing persecutions against the Churches of Christ, because he did it ignorantly. And upon these hopes, and opinion we have of the uprightness of your souls, we can join with you in prayer, and any other Ordinances of Jesus Christ, though you cannot so do with us. And whereas you say, that we have much more reason to judge excellently of you, than you of us, because your way is the poor persecuted way, 
The praise of the poor a great snare.  ours, the way in esteem, your say herein savours so much of vanity, folly, spiritual pride, and conceitedness, that for your sake I shall forbear to say more to it. Only remember, there is a snare of secret vanity in gathering up an esteem from the poor and meaner sort of persons are more apt to trumpet up such a man's holiness, humility, bounty, charity, etc. then the rich: but I spare you.  
Mr. goodwin's third consideration is collectively thus,  
The Scriptures expressly teach, that by faith men become the children of Abraham, and sons of God, john 1.12. john 2.26. Rom. 4.11, 12.16. those than that are not their brethren, are bastards and not sons. If they that are the Sons of God, and consequently their brethren, be ashamed of them, and refuse to own them in their Church-fellowship, they are ashamed of them of whom Christ is not ashamed, Heb. 2.11. It follows then, that Christ must look upon them as having a conceit, that they have either more holiness, or dignity, than Christ himself, in that they are ashamed of those, of whom Christ is not ashamed, etc.   

SECT. LIX.  
To this you answer, by granting the truth of the consideration, but offer, that no man's faith was accepted with God in the premitive times, who was found sticking at any of his commandments. Now baptism being the express command of Christ, you insinuate no man must be owned by you as Brethren, that stict at it, as we do. If this be not your insinuation you say nothing, but grant all that M. Goodwin affirms, and yourself to be convicted of disowning Christ's brethren, as ashamed of them: if this be your sense,  
1. I Reply, That you have owned us for holy brethren, 
Mr. Lamb owns those for holy brethren, beloved of God, believers, a Church, and yet separates from them.  as walking in the right faith of the gospel, as beloved of God, therefore you are condemned by your own mouth.  
2. You insinuate that we stick at the commands of Christ, which is an uncharitable and scandalous insinuation. We dare not receive your weak and shallow interpretation of Scripture, for the commands of Christ; you must prove it the command of Christ, that persons baptised in their infancy, must be baptised again; that children's baptism is forbidden in Scripture, or a nullity: you may sooner be able to show us one of the feathers of the Raven that fed Elias, than show us any such thing, and yet you boast that you have the express will of God, the plain word of Christ, the command of God, etc. for the same you take your dead and unsound interpretation of Scripture, 
1 King. 3.20.  as the Harlot her dead child, and cast it in the bosom of the holy Scriptures, and this you would enforce upon us, as the offspring of God's word, and after a most proud and popish manner, you exalt your interpretation as equipolent with the Text, and the rejection thereof by those that differ from you, is the rejection of the command of Christ, the sticking at it, is to stick at the command of God, exalting your interpretation of the Scriptures, above, beyond, or besides all that is called Gods, speaking perverse, or distorted things, to discerp, or violently drag Disciples after you, and indeed, bringing your sense to the Scriptures, and setting it cheek-by-jowle with the Scriptures, and not receiving it from the Scriptures.  
3. Do you make no difference between sticking (as you call it) at a known duty, and at a doubtful practice? did not you once stick at it yourself as we do? and had the person done you no wrong that should then affirm that you never gave any visible testimony or fruit of your faith, until you were newly baptised?  
From the 9th Page of your book, speaking to M. goodwin's third consideration, you take an excursion, even unto the 32. Page, quite forsaking the business in hand, and repeating M. Allens Arguments about baptism, which have been answered once, and again, by Mr. Goodwin; and to run after you, is to pursue the wind, which will bring nothing but vanity in the latter end.  
Mr. goodwin's fourth Consideration runs thus, such persons whom God judgeth fit for communion with himself, upon grounds visible unto men, ought not to be judged unmeet for communion with the holiest of men, Rom. 14.1, 2. Act. 10.31. Rom. 14.17, 18. 1 john 1.7. that you therefore acknowledge us to have worth, yea more worth, holiness, righteousness, the fear and love of God in us, than many among yourselves, baptised after your own minds have; and separating from us, and not receiving us into fellowship with you in Church-communions, do sin contrary to the truth of this consideration.  
To this you say, (1) The persons to whom the Apostle wrote, Rom. 14. were baptised. (2) That by the word, receiving, is not meant into Church-fellowship, but into common respect, and brotherly familiarity. (3.) That though it should be to receive them into Church-communion, it doth not follow that they should be disorderly received. (4.) Upon this ground, godly Presbyterians, godly Episcopal men, godly Papists, nay honest Heathens, should be admitted into Church-communion. (5.) That it is contrary to Mr. goodwin's own practice, and having here gotten, as you suppose, Mr. Goodwin under your fear, you flourish your naked sword, as if the trophies of victory must make halt to your temples, for you say, who then may not see, etc. but hold a little.   

SECT. LX.  
1. What if the persons spoken of Rom. 14. were baptised, (which we shall grant, Reply, 
Rom. 14.1, 2. There may be visible testimony of faith, without baptism.  whether you be able to prove it or no) what is this to impeach the truth of the consideration? Can not the persons give visible testimony of their communion with God before their baptization, or though they had never been baptised? If so, why were they baptised, having given no testimony that they did believe, and so were fit for baptism? again, if so, why do you call us holy and beloved brethren, though not baptised (to speak in the language of Ashdod) if there could be a visibility of their communion with God without baptism? the rule imported in the consideration takes place, whether they were baptised or no.  
2. By the word, receive, say you, is not meant into Church-fellowship, but into common respects: I reply,  
1. Their very being in Church Fellowship (the greater and more spiritual Fellowship) required much more their reception into common respect; certainly, they that do the great things of the law, will not stick at the tything of Mint and Commin. 2. If the Apostle would have them to receive them into common respect, they being already in Church-fellowship, then would not he have any disrespect at all in any kind, cither common, or special, upon the account of their different apprehensions in some things, there being a visible testimony of their faith, and that God hath accepted them; what then have you gotten here also for your purpose? You object,  
3. Though it should be to receive them into Church-communion, it doth not follow they should be disorderly received.  
I reply: If Scruple had been about the order or manner of their reception, some being weak in the faith hereabout, if God hath accepted them, except you will put them upon new terms, which God never did, and be wise above what is written, receive them, for the reason you see is, for God hath accepted them. You go on.  
4. Upon this ground godly Presbyterians, Episcopal, Popish, nay beathenish persons may be received.  
I reply: If a Presbyterian, a prelatical man, a Papist, nay a heathen can give a visible testimony of his communion and fellowship with God, and that God hath accepted him, though he should scruple the manner of baptism, and several circumstances therein, and should make his application unto us, giving sufficient testimony that God hath accepted him, and he promising to walk as a visible believer, in all the good ways of God, (what ever your principle is) I am not ashamed to tell you that my opinion is, that he should be received into Church-fellowship with us, and make no scruple of entertaining those that have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we. And whereas you speak of Mr. goodwin's, and though Church practise in this kind, though all due care hath been exercised, not to offend weak Brethren, and to keep and preserve the peace of the Church: yet upon occasion, communion and fellowship with us in this kind, I mean in that of the Supper, hath not been refused, when desired, and the peace of the Church preserved, as I could instance matter of fact for proof, if it were meet, so that your Sun of triumph, is turned into darkness; and where is now your glorying?  
Mr. goodwin's fifth Consideration is to this purpose, that learned men are not agreed about the proper signification of baptizo, whether it be to dip, or sprinkle, etc. much less illiterate men, for, for all that they know, it may signify to run or to ride, or what not, as well as to dip, and therefore unchristian it is, for brethren to separate from brethren, upon their difference, in, and about such things, whereof they can have no better assurance, than humane tradition.  
You answer (1.) if you were not unlearned, yet there would be little advantage in the right understanding of the signification of the said word, seeing learned men do differ about the meaning thereof.   

SECT. LXI.  
I Reply: In this you give Mr. Goodwin the argument, for if the learned agree not about the meaning of the word, much less the unlearned, viz. upon any personal knowledge, than there can be no certainty, but humane tradition; no nor yet the certainty of that, because there are several significations of the same word, given out by this tradition.  
You answer, 2. That the Scripture interprets it, Rom. 6.4. Coll. 2.12. and many other places.  
I reply: 
Rom. 6.4. 2 Coll. 12.  You argue thus, baptism must terminatively signify dipping, because it is said, Rom. 6 4. 2 Coll. 12. buried with him in baptism: which is as if a man should argue thus, the word Christ must terminatively signify the burch, because it is said, 1 Cor. 12.12. as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so also is Christ. May not I as well argue thus also, touching this word, baptizo, that it signifies terminatively to wash, and turn you to Luke 11.28. where it so signifies, and when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner; and whereas you seem to infer thus, baptizo is to dip, in Mat. 28.19. Go teach all nations, baptising them, that is, dipping them, because it is expounded so, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him in baptism; buried, that is, plunged under water, as a dead man is buried under the earth. May not I also as well urge thus, baptizo must needs signify to wash, because it is said. Mat. 3.11. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost: what is that dipped with the Holy Ghost? that's harsh; but washed, purified, made clean by the Holy Ghost; and this was made good by the pouring out of the spirit of God upon men, according to promise, in Isa. 44.3. and made good, Acts 2.4. Again, Mark 7.4. the same word is used for washing, when they come from the Market, except they wash, they eat nor; compare this with Acts 22.16. therethis very Ordinance of baptism is made use of with respect to this signification of the word for washing, and now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptised, 
That liberty is allowed by the Church to Mr. Lamb, which he denies to allow the Church  and wash away thy sins: since then there are various significations of the word baptizo, why will you take upon you the imposition of any one of them upon us, any more than we impose another upon you; take your own way for yourselves; wash, sprinkle, dip, whether you please, all if you please, we shall not be offended with you for it, neither shall we separate from you, for the exercise of your judgement herein, give us the same liberty, and come again unto us, our right hands, our hearts, our souls are all extended forth to receive you. You proceed:  
Mr. goodwin's sixth Consideration, you affirm to be the same with his first, and therefore for your Reader to your answer to his first consideration, for an answer to that also.   

SECT. LXII.  
HOw miserably are you mistaken in this? Reply. his first consideration was, that when moral and ceremonial precepts come to competition, ceremonials must be suspended, and morals obeyed.  
His sixth consideration is to this purpose, manifest and indisputable commands of God, must take place and he obeyed, when they come in competition with such commands as are disputable among the godly, holy, and learned men, whether they are indeed commanded or no, as to instance, to edify, comfort, admonish, counsel, watch over one another, these are the undoubted commands of God, and due unto those to whom they are solemnly promised to be performed, except there be a releasing by consent, or the providence of God otherways or dering it, that it is impossible to make them good unto those individual persons, to whom they were made, but whether God commanda that children should be baptised as well as men, or that baptism should be administered this way, or another, these things are disputable, and disputed, amongst believers: what say you now? is there no difference between Mr. goodwin's first and sixth consideration? Well, that consideration is yet untouched by you; but sure I am, you are sufficiently touched, and more than touched by it, and I trust you are not past feeling, I wish you would seriously lay it to heart.   

SECT. LXIII.  
MR. goodwin's seventh consideration is to this purpose, That that text, viz. Hebrews 6.2. so much insisted upon by you, 
Heb. 6.2.  and the brethren with you, doth import a plurality of baptisms (though in respect of the end of baptism to us, there is but one baptism, Eph. 4.5. 
Eph. 4.5.  yet in respect of variety of subjects and different forms, these may b●● many; and therefore (these forms not expressly declared and manifested in the Scriptures) it is a hard and unchristian thing to call those Churches accursed and unclean, that shall not use that particular way or form that you so much magnify and insist upon.  
To this you answer: first, Why should that be hard to Mr. Goodwin, which the Scripture hath made easy? say you, that is your interpretation, no Text expressly, or by necessary consequence, proving what that form was: Say I.  
2. As for variety of Subjects, the Scripture (say you) mentions but one, viz. Discipled Persons; to this I have replied before, Sect. 32.  
Mr. goodwin's vl consideration, is summarily what you have said, viz. that withdrawing upon this account, is a Schismatical practice, and a Sin of a high nature.  
To this you answer: first, Scripture schism is a sin, but that's not your schism, your schism is commanded, not prohibited in Scripture.  
But by your favour, it is sub judice, and every man's cause is right in his own eyes, and your separation hath been sufficiently argued and proved to be such a sin as requires your repentance and reformation, whether you see it or no.  
But say you, Show us a rule from Christ, to gather Churches without baptism, than our mouth will be stopped.  
I reply: What is this to infant baptism? what to dipping? the Church from whom you have separated, was, and is, a baptised Church.  
2. Show us where in all the Scriptures, baptism is made an essential part of Church-fellowship; sure I am, in respect of Scripture evidence, you are here as mute as fishes.  
2. You add: Why should our separating from you be sinful in us, any more than your separating from Parish-Churches sinful in you?  
This we have already answered, Sect. 52. You add: You say,  
3. As the fatal apostasy from the pure Ordinances of Christ, and primitive worship was gradual, so is the recovery of the primitive purity gradual also, etc.  
This is nothing to the consideration, and therefore I have nothing to say unto it.  
Mr. goodwin's nineth consideration, that baptism with water is but a ca●●all ceremony, so acknowledged by one of the gravest Authors of the Antipcedo baptistical saith, and therefore it ought not to make a partition-wall between the godly party of believers, etc. To this you say,  
1. That though the said Author calleth it a carnal ceremony, yet the Holy Scriptures have not so styled it.   

SECT. LXIV.  
SUppose the Scriptures have not so called them, are they not so● Is water any thing else but an outward thing? is it a spiritual thing?  
Is dipping, washing, sprinkling, spiritual or carnal actings? was there any need that the Scripture should teach believers such things as these?  
2. You say, Mr. ●. calleth it a carnal ceremony only in respect of the outward act, not in respect of the spiritual design.  
No more doth Mr. Goodwin, or any other man, and all the ceremonies of the Law were of the same nature; had not they a spiritual design of God in them?  
3. You give us for your third answer, what you do believe concerning its giving a man right unto Church communion.  
Well, I know your faith in this point, but what is this to the consideration propounded?  
Mr. Goodwin tenth consideration is thus, Ignorance in some things (among the Saints) appertaining to the knowledge of God and Christ, rendereth them not unclean one unto another; nor is it a just ground of dividing one from another etc.  
To this you grant, that ignorance in many things of that nature, is no ground of separation of m●n from Churches, but ignorance in this point, viz. of baptism, is such, as it just●f●eth such a separation, because (say you) I have proved, that for unbaptized persons to join in Church-fellowship, is disorderly.  
First, you talk apace of your proving that which was yet never done, and thereby prove indeed your own confidence, but not hang else.  
2. You have said nothing in this kind, but you have had better proof to the contrary than you brought with you.   

SECT. LXV.  
11. Consideration tendered by M. Goodwin.  
Baptism is no constituting principle of a true Church, therefore separation upon the account of this, or that manner of baptising, is not warrantable, there being nothing, but (suppose) a mistake about it, etc.  
To this you say again you have proved it, but where, who can tell?  
Mr. goodwin's 12th. consideration, is to this purpose; That the Scriptures making mention of persons that are unmeet for Church-fellowship, or christian communion; they mention fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, disorderly walkers, but never persons of a holy and blameless conversation, whether baptised or unbaptised, etc. You answer,  
1. Paul writ to Churches who were all baptised, 1 Cor. 12.13. he saith, we are all baptised, etc.   

SECT. LXVI.  
BRother, take heed of handling the word of God deceitfully; where doth the Scripture say we are all baptised with water? it is true, it saith we are all baptised by one spirit into one body: take heed of Legerdemain in the things of God: is this good arguing, we are all baptised by one spirit; ergo, we are all baptised with water? I confess it is an inference of the same kind, and kin, as it were of the same flesh, blood, and bones, as several the rest of your inferences are: Do we deny that any believer mentioned in the Scriptures, as members of Churches, were not baptised with the Spirit? Do not you judge your holy and beloved brethren, etc. baptised with the spirit, though not baptised as you count baptism.  
2. What if it be granted that they were all baptised, would Paul have them rejected, in case they were holy and worthy men, and durst not be baptised for fear of offending God, their consciences being weak in that point for want of light? would he have reckoned them among fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners.  
You reply: I make little doubt but he would.  
I tremble at your saying; is this like that sweet and blessed nature of the father of mercies, that pardons the ignorances' of his people, and judgeth of man according to what a man hath, and not according to what a man hath not. What? to number a believer with the vilest of sinners, fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, etc. and to banish him, with them, out of his house, from his Ordinances, and this merely, because that either he will not be dipped and baptised again, having in his judgement and conscience, been baptised already; or because he is ignorant that it is God's mind it should be so, and there durst not: Is this consistent with that great love of God, professed in Scripture, to them that are one, in union and fellowship, with his Son, Jesus Christ: But what is your reason of this representation of God?  
1. Because Christ was so full advising the Disciples to punctuality in point of order, 2 Coll. 16. 1 Cor. 14.40.  
Reply, Let us examine your Texts.  
1 Cor. 14.40. 
1 Cor. 14.40. 2 Coll. 16.  Let all things be done decently and in order. 2 Coll. 16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; ergo, children are not to be baptised; ergo, the manner of baptising must be by dipping: Ergo, if persons be not thus baptised, and at age, they are no more fit to make members of Churches, than fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, and evil workers: Ergo, jesus Christ was full advising to punctuality in order; viz. of baptism. I have read of one Orietes, that imagined that he did see his own shape and picture still going before him; So it seems in those paths of the Scripture where you walk, you suppose you see the shadow of your opinion about baptism, yea the truth (in that) shining with the majesty of God. You argue (with the Scriptures) as the Papists (your great pattern in the mount, in more things than in this) do, to prove their fanatic notions and practices. The text saith, give not holy things to dogs: Mat. 7.6. that is (say they) the Scriptures to the ignorant: again, Mat. 6.11. Give us this day our daily bread; Ergo, we must communicate in one kind. What's your second reason, why godly persons, scrupling baptism, after your manner, are reckoned with God, in respect of right to churchmembership, among fornicators, covetous? etc. It is this,  
2. Because he praised the Church of Corinth, for keeping the Ordinances as he declared them unto them. Just thus, your foresaid pattern. There are seven Sacraments, for Christ broke and divided to the people, five Loaves, and two Fishes. Mat. 14.19. Well, your third reason:  
3. Because Order he looked upon as a beautiful thing, Coll. 2.5. Ergo, What do you tell us of the steadfastness of your faith without you be dipped? away with you among your companions, fornicators, covetous, idolaters, drunkards, railers, and the rest of that cursed crew. Well, proceed.  
4. Because he cautioneth the Church to take heed of Philosophers, that through vain deceit would bring them into disorder: 
2 Coll. 8.  Coll. 2.8. what need we any further witness; he that will be blind, let him be blind; can you not see baptism by dipping, and believers unbaptised, reckoned among the rabble of wretches in this reason also; yet a little more to cure our dull eyes, say you,  
5: Because when any disorder grew, he took such care to have them corrected, Tit. 1.5. If this be not light sufficient to convince the world, that holy men, not baptised, according to our way and opinion, are to be reckoned in, respect of right to Church-membership, among dogs without, there is no hopes of conviction. Yet again you proceed:  
6. Because he saith his word was not yea and nay, as fallible men's are now, 2 Cor. 1.18.  
I hope now it appears clearer than the Sun, (if clearer may be) that in Paul's judgement godly and holy persons (though one with Christ Jesus by faith) that scruple baptism, and are not baptised after our way and manner, have no more right to Church-membership than those that are one in communion and fellowship, even with the Devil himself, or else Paul would pull down with his one hand, what he built up with another.  
Having killed Mr. goodwin's Argument dead, six times over, so that it lies at his feet, like murdered Abel at his brother cain's; hark how the Drums beat, the Trumpets sound the Coolurs are displayed, no noise but Victory, Victory, to be heard in the Camp; see how he glories in the Triumph.  
Good Reader, Dost not thou think in thy conscience, Mr. Goodwin hath the wrong end of the staff in this controversy? and whether the putting this question doth not discover it? and who it is that buildeth upon light conjectures, lose suppositions, presumptuous self-imaginations, M. Goodwin, or his poor brethren of the dip, as he calleth them?   

SECT. LVII.  
MR. goodwin's 13th. Consideration, touching the offensiveness, burthensomness, and grievousness of water-dipping to the natural flesh, together with what others have written hereabouts, and what you have answered, I shall leave to men of sense that have felt it, and of reason to judge upon the whole, whether this be according to that Gospel freedom, from such yokes mentioned in the Law, which the New-Testament speaks of. The Law indeed chastised the Jews with whips, but you make the Gospel (like Rehoboam) to chastise the Gentiles with scorpions, 
1 King. 12.11.  which (as you manage your conceits of the power and virtue of baptism, as if men without it, and that at such time, and in such manner, and upon such terms as you plead for it) is as acceptable unto God, as the whips of the Papists upon Good-Fryday, lashing their backs until they bleed again.  
Mr. goodwin's 14th. consideration, viz. that for persons to mistake about baptism, is as venial and pardonable mistake (all things considered) as likely can be, and therefore if punishable, it should be with the lightest punishment that may be; therefore to inflict the heaviest curse, such as the unchurching men is, the rendering men abominable in the sight of God, this is indeed more than summumjus, yea summainjuria.   

SECT. LXVIII.  
TO this you speak several words, (as if you knew not what the consideration said, nor whereof it affirmed) your answer seems to be to another thing, I think yourself cannot tell to what, as if (like Babel's bvilders) you understood not the language of the consideration, but that it spoke in an unknown tongue: for say you, (1.) The Apostles did foresee there would be an apostasy from the primitive practice, etc. (2.) This apostasy did fall out accordingly, etc. (3.) Why did not the judgement of the learned stop your (Mr. Gooodwins) mouth, and tearing yourself from the national Church? etc. (4.) You (Mr. Goodwin) plead stiffly for some things, which rendereth you more alone than we, etc. What is the meaning of all this? you might as well have told us, that Lot's Wife was turned to a Pillar of Salt, which had been as savoury an answer, as that you gave unto the consideration propounded.   

SECT. LXIX.  
YOU say the 15th. Consideration saith nothing, but what hath been said before, and therefore you have no more to say to it: I have therefore no more to say to you concerning it, but I believe the judicious Reader of that consideration, and your answer, will find it like Moses Rod, devouring all that you have said in your whole Book, to invalid the same.   

SECT. LXX.  
MR. goodwin's 16th. Consideration, you have summed up thus: Infant-baptism, though per sprinkling, is as efficacious, as the baptism you plead for. (1.) For declaring persons the professed Disciples of Christ. (2.) For obliging persons to be the loyal Disciples of Christ. (3.) For mutter of edification and comfort to the inner man.  
To this you answer, by denying all that hath been said touching those three ends of baptism, and my reply shall only be, That it is too evident to be denied, and too easy an answer to satisfy men in their wits, unto matter of such palpable argumentations, and to what Mr. Goodwin hath said hereabout, the Reader may please to peruse Page 94, 95, 96. besides many other places in this reply.  
Mr. goodwin's 17th. Consideration, is indeed as (you have said) to this purpose.   

SECT. LXXI.  
It doth not ap pear from Scriptures that any Church of Christ was commanded to be dipped, reproved for not being dipped, therefore high presumption for any to lay their own commands herein upon such penalties as you do, etc.  
You have answered it is very true, and it is the truest answer you have yet given.  
Mr. goodwin's 18th. Consideration, viz. that it is hard to prove it sinful to refuse not only not to be dip, but to be baptised in one form or other, (1.) Because hard to find out a lawful administrator. (2.) The command to baptise is given to the Apostles. (3.) They were not enjoined to baptise any person against his will. (4.) Those words, teaching them to observe whatsoever I command them, do not prove that the Apostles did teach believers to require baptism of them, except it be proved that Christ did command the Apostles so to do. (5.) Neither is it found in the Scriptures, that the Apostles did teach a church or people to seek baptism at their hands, etc.   

SECT. LXXII.  
YOU answer, first, with grief of heart that such noble parts and abilities, are so desperately engaged in so bad a cause. By this,  
You seem a little to grudge, that such precious Ointment should be spent upon the service of truth; you know who said, it were better sold and given to the poor. But thus say you,  
If I prove from Scripture that it is sinful for Disciples to remain unbaptised, and that by the precept of Christ, than all your far-fetched pleas will fall to the ground. And then you fall to the work, from page the 69. to page the 79. toiling and labouring to catch that (which at least mist of it) you might have had granted you for ask; but you answer to what was objected, as if (like the Disciples when Christ told them of his going up to Jerusalem to suffer, etc. Luke 18.34.) you understood none of those say, but that they are hid from you, neither know you the things that were spoken. Those that have a blemish in their eye, (said one) the more wishly they look into any thing, the less they see of it: the truth is, in this you answer, as if the language of the consideration were Barbarian unto you, and you to it; and instead of pursuing the Partridge with the Falconers, you fly after a gilded butterfly with children; when one thing is called for by Mr. Goodwin, another thing is fetched by Mr. Lamb: Like that of Dabartus, writing of the building of N●mrods Tower: 
Bring me (quoth one) a Trowel, quickly, quick,  
One brings him up a Hammer: Hue this brick,  
Another bids, and then they cleave a Tree;  
Make fast this Rope, and then they let it flee.  
One calls for Planks, another Mortar lacks,  
They bring the first a Stone, the last an Ax.   
You go about to prove it sinful for Disciples to remain unbaptised, if you mean Disciples, whom Christ commanded to be baptised, having all opportunities thereunto, (as they had in the primitive times) M. Goodwin and you are of one mind in that, but if you mean Disciples now in these days wherein we live, you must prove that God hath given them the same opportunities unto baptism, which he gave those Disciples in the primitive times. Jesus Christ surely doth not command things to be done, and that upon penalty of his sore displeasure, and banishment from his dwelling place, which are ultra posse, or impossible; Jesus Christ is no such hard Master; if you will prove it incombant upon us to be baptised (which is not by us denied) by virtue of the command of Christ, you must then prove (and that not by a flourish of words, but evidence of Scripture) 1. Who is the person sufficiently authorised by Jesus Christ hereunto: 
Hard it is for. M. Lamb to prove his authority to baptise.  Whether you can clearly prove your commission for baptising other men and women; and why those men, yea and women too, whom you baptise, may not go out and baptise others; for where do we find in the Scriptures, that those whom John baptised, did after their baptism baptise others; as also the like query may be made of those converts in the Acts of the Apostles, etc.  
2. If you will answer the argument of the consideration in hand, you must prove the command of Christ, Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them, etc. was a Law imposed upon you (if you will take upon you to baptise others) as well as upon the Apostles; As also, who are those mentioned in baptising them, what is the antecedent, or substantive, to this relative pronoun, them.  
Again, you must prove that the Apostles did teach believers to require baptism of them, and that Christ did command his Apostles to teach the Nations to observe it; and that the Apostles in their ministry did teach churches, or persons, to seek baptism at their hands, much less to threaten them for not seeking it.  
Again, you must prove, if you will speak to the consideration, or that under consideration, that the Apostles had power, by virtue of their commission, to make it a standing Law, for all Pastors and Teachers who were to succeed them in the ministry, to impose the observation of the same law upon all believers, and the rather, because (1.) water baptism seems (by the practice of the Apostles) to be intended by God chief, if not only for to attend the Gospel in its first reception by a people. (2.) In that where the work or office of Pastors and Teachers, or their qualifications are described, there is no mention made of any charge upon them to baptise, etc.  
Again, if you consider the consideration, you must prove that those words, Mat. 28.19. and so I am with you to the end of the world, do necessarily imply, that baptism is to continue unto the end of the world; for as much as the phrase to the end of the world, may mean (1.) His being with them unto the end of their lives. (2.) That their labours should prosper and be fruitful (when they were dead, and gone) even to the end of the world.  
Again, you must prove the promise of his presence, not only to his Apostles and successors in the administration of baptism unto the end of the world; but that the like promise is made unto private Christians also, in their administrations of baptism.  
These things are propounded (as Mr. Goodwin saith) not as intending to argue the extinction of the Ordinance of baptism, but rather as a demonstration of the many Labyrinths and Difficulties, which you ought to overcome and clear, who are so confidently positive and assertive of your practice, and who pronounce all men unworthy of christian-communion, who are not as positive and assertive as yourselves. But alas! Mountains and Rocks are not so easy removed by Babes and Sucklings, and puffed away with a breath.   

SECT. LXXIII.  
THE 19 Consideration (being, as you say, the same with the 8th.) you pass over with reference to your answer thereunto, and so do I with reference to my reply to that answer; and if that 19th. Consideration, were nineteen times put upon your thoughts, it would be too little for you to withstand the due weight and import thereof.  
Mr. goodwin's 20. Consideration, is to this purpose:  
Peter being questioned for holding communion with Cornelius, and other Gentiles, by the brethren of Jerusalem, he justifieth it, by telling them, that they having received the Holy Ghost as well as themselves, they had no Reason to reject them, never making the least mention of their being baptised, and with that account only the brethren were satisfied.  
To this you answer, 1. They were baptised. I reply, How could the brethren know that? 2. You say the communion Peter had with them, was after baptism. I reply, How could the brethren know that still? the query still is, why did not Peter inform them of their baptism? 1. You answer, the Scriptures silence doth not argue that there was no mention made of it.   

SECT. LXXIV.  
I Reply: That your silence had been better than such an answer: will you conclude upon that whereof the Scripture is silent? You add.  
2. In those days a believing person, and a baptised person, was presumed the same. I reply, 1. How know you that? where do you find such a presumption? If this be a verity, it must be an unwritten one also, having not so much as any probable ifs, may-be's why-nots for it. 2. The contrary is palpable; for, (1.) there were believers before they were baptised, and therefore were so presumed to be their faith and the profession thereof, being praevious to their baptism. (2.) there were many believers spoken of by the Scriptures, of whose baptism there is not the least mention made, viz. of the baptism of Peter, & james, and john, Philip, and Bartholomew, etc. (3.) we read of many that were baptised, of whose faith we have no particular assurance at all, as of those of jernsalem, and all judea, and of the Regions beyond jordan, that were baptised of John in the Wilderness.   

SECT. LXXV.  
MR. goodwin's 21. Consideration, is to this purpose, viz. That Pastors and Teachers were given by Christ, for the perfecting of the Saints in general, whether baptised or not baptised, 2 Eph. 4.8.11, 12. Christ's body consisting of Saints, ● Ephes. ●. 10. it followeth then, that Saints, whether baptised on not, have right to fellowship, in as much as Pastors and Teachers have their calling by, and residence in Churches, neither are they in a probable way of perfecting them, but while incorporated with them; if so, they that will not allow the privilege of Church-membership with them, unto Saints, deeming them unbaptised, are sound fighters against jesus Christ, etc. You answer,  
1. Those Saints specified in the 4th. of the Ephesians, were baptised, having one God, one Spirit, one Hope, one Lord, one Faith, so one Baptism. I reply: One baptism in respect of fruit and consequence, not in respect of form: For, 2. they had several baptisms in other respects, as to speak in your own language, baptism with water, baptism with the spirit, baptism with affliction, etc. But all these in respect of fruit and consequences, but one baptism; so that answer vanisheth into air. 2. You say, I have proved already that unbaptized persons were reputed none of the visible body of Christ. I reply: But where have you proved it? Sure I am, all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, know nothing of your proof, herein; show us therefore where your proof lieth, we hear of nothing more than I have proved, I have proved, I have proved, and I have found, I have found, I have found, but you can as well show us the way of the bird in the air, of the fish in the sea, etc. as show us where you have thus proved and found the things you speak of. Your chiefest proof for the point in hand, that I have met withal, is Gal. 3.27. for as many as have been baptised unto Christ, 
Gal. 3.27.  have put on Christ; hence you most confidently build, that they, and only they that were baptised unto Christ, were judged by the Churches to have put on Christ, this place is the Mine, from whence you dig up your treasure; here is the place where you think you have found, you have found. But look into it again, may not you as well argue, (as once Manes that mad heretic, as one calls him, did) from the 10th. of john, and the 8th. ver. All that ever came before me are Thiefs and Robbers; therefore Abraham, Isaac; and jacob, Moses and the Prophets, that came before Christ were Thiefs and Robbers; is not here good divinity? may not you argue thus also, because the Scripture saith, Mark 6.56. As many as touched him were made whole; hence I argue, that they and only they that touched Christ, were made whole by Christ. Again, Acts 4.6. it is said, as many as were of the kindred of the high Priest, were gathered together at jerusalem; hence you infer, that they and only they that were of the kindred of the high Priest, were gathered together at jerusalem. Do you not see that your silver is become dross, and all your treasure is nothing but dirt and mire?  
Mr. goodwin's 22. consideration imports,  
First, the consideration of that intelligence, by books and writings, from too crebile authority, touching the troublesome and turbulent deportment of those that have thus gone a wand'ring after dipping and rebaptisation, where their numbers have considerably increased in Ireland, Scotland, etc. and the menacing effects thereof.  
2. The testimony of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Bullinger, who in their writings take up most sad complaints against this generation of men, as enemies to the progress of the Gospel, and by their unchristian carriages, caused the good word of God and the Reformed Religion to be evil spoken of, etc.  
3. That Records of former, and experience of present times, have given instances of several of the best and most considerate persons, sometimes engaged in that way of Rebaptisation, after full trial of it, have forsaken it as not finding God and Christ in it.  
4. That by frequent and credible information, there is little of the presence of God in some of their Religious assemblies, the Scriptures being very lamely opened, etc.  
5. The several new modes of dipping pleaded for, every latter pretending to correct the insufficiency, irregularity, and inconvenience of the former, etc.  
6. The uncertainty of many men of that way who change and shift their judgements and practices, their dividing and subdividing, even among themselves, etc.  
7. That high Antichristianlike, and imposing spirit that is amongst them, prohibiting men Pope-like, and conjuring men (disciples of that way) not to hear Jesus Christ himself speaking by any other mouth than theirs, as if after they were dipped, a voice from heaven had commanded all men to hear them, as it did (upon Christ's Baptism) to hear him, etc.  
8. That persons once discipled to that way, have no ears to hear and consider any arguments and reasons that speak against that way, etc.  
9ly. and lastly, That many (given up unto that judgement and practice, upon terms of total separation from their godly societies) decay in their graces, lose that sweetness, meekness, love and humility that were in them formerly; going into the water lambs, and coming out again wolves, and tigers, etc.   

SECT. LXXVI.  
THis 22. consideration, hath such an operation upon you, as Christ's Sermon had upon some of the jews, when they said, (joh. 10.20.) He hath a Devil, and is mad; or, as the jews when they heard Paul speak of his being sent to the Gentiles, (Acts 22.22.) Away with such a fellow from the earth, it is not fit he should live: The truth is, did I not know you, I would say, your zeal against Mr. Goodwin seems to rise not only to anger, but even to rage's, yea, to envy itself, as if (like Esau) you now resolved your Brothers (nay, your spiritual fathers) death, or at least, the death of his name and honour a-among good men. I have heard of one Friar Augustine of Antwerp, that preaching to the people against Luther, wished that Luther was there, that he might by't out his throat with his teeth; you seem to use M. Goodwin and his reputation, in your answer to this 22. Consideration, but even as David in his rage against the Ammonites, putting them under saws and harrows of tron, and under axes of iron, making them to pass through the brick-kilne; or, as Balacks' anger against Balaam, Numbers 24 10. made him clap his hands as him, his colour to change, his tongue to stammer, his teeth to gnash, his feet to stamp, etc. what have we here in answer, but as it were thunder, hail, tempest from your supercilious and peevish pen? but more particularly let us observe your answer.  
First, you lift Mr. Goodwin up for his old brave say, (Strapado-like) that you might throw him down with the greater fall and reproach: How doth Mr. goodwin's zeal in opposing us, transport himself, making him forget his old brave saying, wherein he certainly had the spirit of God with him, etc.  
2. You charge Mr. Goodwin, that leaving his calm reasonings from Scripture, he betakes himself to wrath, and the weapons of reflection, and presently yourself reflects upon him what ever you can pick out of his writings to disparage him; though in this you do (like a Whiffler) carry a torch in your hand to show to others your own deformity.  
3. Mr. Lamb that he might Gangrene his name to purpose, and lay his honour in the very dust, is searching and digging the field even of Golgatha itself, to find out the worst of rottenness and putrefaction he can, to besmear him therewith; mark his words, He (Mr. Goodwin) shakes hands with the old enemy of the truth, Gangraena, in many of his methods, etc.  
Before I look into this Sepulchre, I shall premise concerning the Author of Gangraena, Mr. T. E. deceased and interred therein; that, however his zeal, by the advantage of his natural temper, and the multitude of bellows blowing it up, even from all parts, did (indeed) transport him beyond the due lines of Christian moderation, in writing against his brethren, differing from him about discipline; yet, for my part, my hopes are, that though those works of his will not be able to abide the fire, but shall be burnt; yet, that he himself shall be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus, and that God hath forgiven it unto him, for he did it ignorantly, and presuming he did his Master good service therein, and I could wish, that his dust might not be interrupted, but that it might sleep in rest, and peace, and no more disturbed until it be refined and restored.  
Nevertheless, the said Sepulchre being opened by this unhappy hand, striving (if possible) to thrust Mr. goodwin's fame and reputation into the mouth thereof, and to bury it in everlasting reproach and contempt; I cannot but endeavour to hold the arms of this unkind, ungrateful, and indeed unnatural once beloved Son and Disciple of his, to prevent the issue of his desperate attempt.  
Mr. Lamb compares Mr. G. to Mr. E. striving to make the parallel hold in five things.  
1. Did Mr. E. take up disparaging reports against honest men, differing from himself in judgement? so doth Mr. G. 2. Did Mr. E. publish those reports to their dishonour? so doth Mr. G. 3. Did Mr. Edw. charge the unworthiness of some few, upon the generality of the men of his displeasure? so doth Mr. Goodw. 4. Did Mr. Edw. stir up the Magistrate against them? so doth Mr. Goodw. 5. and lastly, Did Mr. E. urge the writings of other men to disgrace them whom he opposed? so doth Mr. Goodwin.  
I reply, first, To the two first of your particulars, yea and to the last also, viz. the gathering and publishing the true reports, evil customs, and practices of those men, that decline the ways of God, and the societies of the Saints, under their pretended zeal for God's glory, and the salvation of men's souls, and that for the christian caution of others, either staggering and unsettled in the truth, and recovery (if it may be) of some out of the snare of death: these (I say) are practices of divine authority and approbation, and to be reckoned among other the good ways of God, for the edification of the sons of men, Mat. 16.6. Mark 12.38. Phil. 3.2. 2 Tim. 3.6. 2 Pet. 2.12, 13, 14, 15. jude 8.10.16. Rom. 16.17.18.  
To the third particular, viz. the charging of the unworthiness of some persons, to slain the honour of the generality of men of the same way, judgement, and practise, this is scandalously charged upon Mr. Goodwin, for he brings you the authority of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, and men of undoubted credit and worth, for their piety, learning, life, and conversation, making mention not of one, or a few, but of the generality of men of that judgement and practice, acting very turbulently and sinfully in the places where they lived, and several of the last quotations of Scripture, will justify that also.  
To the fourth particular, viz. That Mr. Goodwin stirred up the Magistrates in his Water-dipping, etc. against you or any others for matters of Religion (the public peace preserved) is so foul, false, and foolish a charge, as a man would think, that the forehead of a whore upon the face of a man, had more modesty than to affirm it; and certainly, had you not given and rendered yourself a very sad instance of the woeful change of your wont Genius, from what it was when you were amongst us, and that you are the man that have made a sad shipwreck of that sweetness, meekness, love, and christian humility of spirit, etc. I say, had you not been a sad example and instance herein, you (that know Mr. goodwin's judgement, and what he hath and doth daily write concerning his faith in that point) would not so boldly, capriciously, and peremptorily have written such falcities of him, and except you quickly recover yourself, we cannot but fear the issue will be tragical. How can you revise those words of yours, page. 92. There is this only difference between you and M. Edward's, in your war against the truth, and people of the most high, he was your match in rage and fury, but he wanted your keen wit, and roaring language to set it off with; I say, how can you read them over and not look upon them as the abhorrency of your soul, and even melt in tears for them? but the Leopers lips must be covered.  
2. Suppose Mr. Goodwin had exceeded the rules of christianity in this kind, and stumbled at that stone whereat others dash themselves in pieces, was it such a worthy piece of charity to the world to be edifified by you in the discovery thereof? by you (I say) his Son in the faith: I have heard of a father, who complaining, that never had man so undutiful a child as he, his son (to throw contempt enough upon him) replied, with less grace than truth, my Grandfather had. Do not you likewife endeavour here to render Mr. G. worse than him whom (with (indeed) very little charity also) you style an old enemy of the truth.  
3. I appeal to your conscience; do not you believe that Mr. goodwin's end in writing this 22. consideration, as well as any of the rest? was not your spiritual peace and interest according to his best thoughts and apprehensions, that you might remember from whence you are fallen and repent? And is this so great a crime, deserving from your justice so great a censure, that you should thus stigmatize him for a man of rage, of fury, and of a roaring language to set it off with? a man of cruel mockings, contemptuous revile, etc.  
4. Whether you do not judge it incombent as a duty upon Elders, Ministers, and Pastors of Churches, when they perceive a danger of their Church's defection in matters of faith and practice, together with other arguments from Scripture and reason, to present their people and flocks, over which God hath made them Overseers, with the corrupt and wicked conversations of those persons, I mean of the generality of those persons of the same judgement, notions, and apprehensions, against which they argue, as being fully persuaded of the corruption thereof, & of a dangerous tendency to root up & destroy the flourishing congregations & churches of the living God. Suppose some of your people baptised (as you call it) and gathered to yourself according to your own judgement, should apostize to Popery, to Judaisme, to Turcism, to Rantism, and that with the plea of conscience, as supposing the truth to be on their fides, would it be improper or impertment (if you be their Pastor) amongst other arguments for their reducement, to inform them of the authenticque histories, relating the cruelty of the Papists, the tyranny of the Turks, the frauds of the Jews, the profaneness of the Ranters, etc. and hath Mr. Goodwin done any more.  
5. How were you harrased, tortured, and perplexed in this your answer to this 22. Consideration, as if in an agony between conscience and concupiscence, one while lifting Mr. Goodwin up above all his fellows for disposition and conversation according to godliness, a pattern of patience, humility, meekness, temperance, and this by 20 years' experience; a man that hath exceeded his brethren of the Ministry in the promotion of holiness and close walking with God, there being not many in his time, if any at all, that hath managed the same with more authority, life, and power; another while you writ him comparable with the old enemy of the truth, Gangraena, between whom and Mr. Goodwin (say you) there is but this only difference, viz. that he had not so keen a wit and roaring language to set off his rage and fury, as Mr. Edward's had.  
6ly. and lastly, Instead of answering those nine particulars mentioned in this 22 Consideration, you fall foul upon M. Goodwin, as if your pen was in an ecstasy of rage, and discontent, and this must pass for an answer to them all, and so set it pass with them that can be content to be so answered.  
Mr. goodwin's 23 Consideration amounts to this, There is no substantial argument produced to justify such a practice of separations upon such grounds, neither do he believe ever will be.  
To this you say, Whether we have not given arguments to justify it, more than one, and that grounded upon the Scriptures and your own principles, and indeed the principles of all the learned, I refer (say you) to the judgement of the Reader.   

SECT. LXXVII.  
IF your Reader be a child in malice, and a man in understanding, Reply. if a noble Berrean, and not a giddyheaded Galathian, able to try the spirits, to prove all things so, as to hold fast that which is good, if his eyes are in his head; what can he see in what you have written, but a reed shaken with the wind, a bubble in the air, having indeed curious colours, but filled only with very breath? What can he see, but zeal without knowledge, many good words to no good purpose, the holy Scriptures miserably mangled and cut in pieces, like the Levites Concubine, and scattered abroad throughout your book? What can he see, but confidence of mastery upon the very throne; evidence of truth upon the very dunghill: shadows of arguments exalted above the stars of God, and the truth of arguments brought low, and (as it were) covered with worms? What can he see, but a child of light walking in darkness, and a son of desire murdering the honour of his aged father? What can he see, but a straggling sheep wand'ring away from the flock of Christ, a prodigal son turning his back upon his father's family? What can he see, but your high presumption, in cutting off, and keeping away innocent babes from Christ's benediction, in tearing up, and rending in pieces the Churches of Christ united together by a holy covenant, in obtruding your mere fancies for the objects of Faith, and your unscriptural conceits for the Oracles of God, in cursing those armies of Israel, and flocks of Christ, whom he hath blessed, and in calling them common, and unclean, whom he hath cleansed. In a word, what shall he see, but that (notwithstanding all that you have written yet) WATER-DIPPING IS NO FIRM FOOTING FOR CHURCH-COMMUNION.   

SECT. LXXVIII.  
To conclude, If your Reader of what you have written to answer M. Goodwin, be also M. goodwin's Reader of what you have pretended to answer, and a Reader of such a Character mentioned in the last Paragraph, I need not in the least suspect his discerning faculty, in observing your most importune weakness, in discovering (as you call it) M. goodwin's great mistakes in the exposition of eight chief Scriptures about Church-communion: the truth is, as in the former part of your book, you call darkness light, so in the rear of it, you call light darkness, and as the real darkness of that pretended light; so the manifest light of that which you here call darkness, cannot but be evidently discerned by him that will diligently search those Scriptures, and examine what M. Goodwin and yourself, his corrector, have offered, as the true sense and meaning thereof, in relation to the business in controversy between you, viz. separation from Churches, made up of holy brethren, walking in the right faith of the Gospel, because of their disterence in judgement concerning baptism, 
1 Bohn 2.10.  for he that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.   
FINIS.   

Mr. LAMB'S POSTSCRIPT, Prescribed.  
There is one thing further observable in Mr. goodwin's Answer to my brother Allen, which I take myself bound to give the Reader notice of, lest he err through the ignorance of it; that is, that he doth with my brother Allen, just as the six Booksellers did with him, p. 64. by leaving out the very word such, (though I suppose through oversight) whereupon the stress of the argument lieth.  
THere is one thing further observable in Mr. goodwin's Answer to my Brother Allen; Reply. it seems the very fragments of any thing that will serve in your warfare against M. goodwin's reputation, are so precious, that nothing thereof must be lost.  
Which I take myself bound to give the Reader notice of: Bound? by what bonds? what, of nature, to rise up against your friend, your brother, your great benefactor, your spiritual Father? or are they bonds of grace, viz. to bear false witness against your neighbour? Maximinian the Emperor thought that the blood of Christians was a very acceptable sacrifice unto his Gods, and in the sixth Consul of Toledo it was enacted, that the King of Spain should suffer none but Roman Catholics to live in his Dominions, King Philip accordingly having narrowly escaped shipwreck in his passage from the Low-Countries, said, he was delivered by the singular providence of God to root out Lutheranism, and this he thought himself bound to do: and so Paul thought he verily ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Well, consider of it; if the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! beware of an injudicious mind; what man bound to thrust your pen up to the feathers (as a sword to the hilt) in the blood of Mr. G. good name, by fixing upon him a very falsehood: I still demand, by what Law are you bound? and you answer virtually, yes, bound, and that by the Law of charity to your honest Reader: For thus say you:  
I take myself bound to give the Reader notice thereof, lest he err through the ignorance of it. I confess it is a very charitable thing to be eyes to the blind, but a cursed thing to make the blind man go out of his way; for if your Reader be blind in the thing you speak of, sure I am, he hath but a blind guide of you in this point, as we shall see presently: and if he be not blind, than you endeavour very charitable to pluck out his eyes, that he may see the better through the holes of his head. But I further demand:  
What great error was your Reader like to incur by the ignorance of this great piece of truth, whereof you do inform him? Suppose he had never known this way of truth, (untruly so called) had it been much out of the way of his peace and edification? I confess he had not seen so much your own nakedness, had you not anointed his eyes with this eyesalve, and therein might have been a loser: But what is the vision? You give it out thus:  
That is, that he (M. Goodwin) doth with my Brother Allen, just at the six Booksellers did with him, viz. (M. Goodwin.)  
In your Prescript you raked the grave, to find out (if it were possible) the worst amongst the dead, Reply. and painted out M. Goodwin according to his ghostly and ghastly image in your Prescript, you (Diogenes like) walk up and down the City of London, with your candle in your hand, to find out a pack of very honest men, having neither honour nor conscience among the living, that you might chain M. Goodwin with them also, to crucify Christ with thiefs, and to number him with transgressors, was the trick of the Rulers of the Jews, to make Jesus odious to the people: for my part, make good your charge, and I will turn separate from M. Goodwin also, professing that he that shall deal with any man, good or bad, as the six Booksellers did deal with M. Goodwin, is not worthy to set amongst the Dogs of jobs Flocks, much less amongst men of any credit or conscience; but Solomon saith, he that uttereth a slander is a fool. But wherein did M. G. deal with M. A. as the six Booksellers did deal with him? You proceed:  
Page 64. of his Book, by leaving out the very word, such (though, I suppose, through over sight) whereupon the stress of the argument lieth; the very word, such. This is, I confess, a very obseveable thing, that he should not only leave out the very word, such, but that he should leave it out just as the six Booksellers did, is such a thing as must not be omitted, though he did it through a mistake.  
1. If M. G. did leave out the very word, such, as the six Booksellers did, if it were through a mistake, do you think he left it out just as the six Booksellers did? did they do it through a mistake also?  
2. But did he leave out the very word, such, just as the six Booksellers did? Yea, say you, Consider else.  
Here let us consider how the six Book sellers deal with Mr. G. in leaving out that word, such, in transcribing M. G. words, and how M. G. did with M. A. just as they did with M. Goodwin.  
M. goodwin's words out of the 335. page of his Redemption-Redeemed, speaking against the assurance of the love of God, to a person outrageously and desperately wicked and profane, these are his very words,  I verily believe, that in case any such assurance of the unchangeableness of God's love were to be found in, or could regularly be deduced from the Scriptures, it were a just ground to any intelligent and considering man, to question their authority, and whether they were from God or no. 
The six Book sellers to render M. Goodwin an Heretic, transcribed his words out of the same place, affirming that M. Goodwin said thus:  That in case any assurance of the unchangeableness of God's love, were to be found in, or regularly be deduced from the Scriptures, it were a just ground to any intelligent man to question their authority, and whether they were from God or no. 
Would not a man think that these six Book sellers were all brethren of the lineage of one of those two false witnesses against Christ, Mar. 14.58. who affirmed that they heard him say, I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build up another made without hands, which was neither his saying, nor meaning; his saying was, john 2.19. destroy ye; they affirm that he said, I will destroy: his saying was, this Temple; they affirm he said, this Temple made with hands, etc. If these Booksellers should thus prevaricate with those with whom they trade, about men's estates, as they have with M. Goodwin in matters relating to his good name, would any wise men deal with them for three pence: Certain I am, however they may flatter themselves, and may have pillows under their Elbows; and men (known by the name of the Prophets of God too) may speak peace to them for their pretended zeal for the truth of God, and against errors, yet the Holy Scriptures yields no hopes, much less assurance, of salvation unto such persons, living and dying in such wilful abuse of men without repentance; and M. Lamb chargeth this cursed delinquency upon M. Goodwin, dealing with M. Allen as these six Booksellers did with him: But let us examine whether this be so or no. M. Allens words (as yourself hath transcribed them) are these:  If one person may be admitted without baptism, why not two? if two, why not ten? and so an hundred or a thousand, and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside, meaning baptism. 
M. Goodwin dealing with those words by way of answer, in the 64. page of his Water-dipping, etc. transcribes them thus:  If one person should be admitted upon such terms (that is as you explain it, without baptism) then why not two? if two, why not ten, and so an hundred, or a thousand; and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside. 
What injury hath M. Goodwin done here to M. Allen in the transcribing his words: Hath he dealt with him as the six Booksellers dealt with M. Goodwin: You cry out against M. G. unmerciful pen, because it vexeth with evidence and sharpness of argument, and aptness of expression; may not he cry out against your pen for a false and scandalous pen: Is there any one word, syllable, or tittle, or the least jota of difference (either by adding unto, or taking from) between M. goodwin's transcript and M. Allens words so transcribed.  
But wherein do you pretend the parallel: Thus, say you.  Mr. Goodwin answereth thus; If a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousands should be admitted to Church-priviledges upon a manifestation of their faith, which may be otherways done, & to far better satisfaction then by being baptised, with an exclusion to all others who are able to give no such account of a work of faith in them, would this be a total laying aside of Gospel-order? My Brother Allen saith, not that it would be a total laying aside of Gospel order, but a total laying aside of such Gospel order, which he was speaking of, namely, the great Ordinance of Baptism, as Mr. Baxter calleth it, etc. 
1 And is this all that you can say to justify that loud and filthy charge, cast upon M. Goodwin, in chaining him with those six Booksellers, namely, because he did not answer (as you suppose) the strength of M. Allens Argument? will it not then follow, that whosoever doth not answer every word of a book, which the Author judgeth to have strength in it, is as vile and unworthy, as he, or they, that shall falsely and scandalously charge a man with untruths? and if so, must not you come up to the chain also?  
2. M. Goodwin pleads a possbility of evidencing faith, and visibility of Saint-ship, and so a capacity of a holy fellowship, even in Gospel Order, though baptism had not been appointed, or that there had been no such Ordinance: M. Allen on the other hand argues, that upon the admission of any persons, one, or more, without baptism, you take a course to destroy all such Gospel Order, that is, as you interpret him, all Gospel Order by way of baptism? would you have M. Goodwin say, that if there were no baptism, yet there were a baptism; that if there were no admission by baptism, there were admission by baptism: his work was, to prove that all Gospel Order would not be destroyed, though there were no baptism, M. Allen saith, all such Gospel Order would be destroyed, which because M Goodwin denies not, you number him among the six Booksellers, as if a brother with them in their iniquity.  
3. If M. Allen and yourself do allow of a Gospel order, though there be not such a Gospel Order as is by baptism, as you seem to grant: (otherways why do you thus except against M Goodwin, for charging M. Allen that he denies it?) than I demand, why do you forsake a Church of Jesus Christ, merely and only because they want, as you judge, this, or such Gospel order as is by baptism? ex ore tuo, etc. God will judge you for these things.  
He that should have read your book, especially knowing your former respects to Mr. Goodwin, and his better deserts at your hands, would have thought you had said enough, and more than enough before, by way of abuse and injury done unto him, that you needed not thus to thrust out your sting at him in the tail thereof, charging him with such an open broad-fac'd-falshood; but what shall I say? Ephraim is joined unto Jdols, let him alone? No, God forbidden, I rather expect to hear him bemoaning himself in dust and ashes for his former apostasy, and pouring out his soul unto God, saying, turn thou me and I shall be turned, for thou art the Lord my God, surely after I was turned I repent, and after I was instructed I smote upon my thigh, I was ashamed, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.  
FINIS.   

Reader, if thou takest no pleasure in the errors of the times, mend by thy pen, what the Printer hath marred by his press:  
Page 1. line ult. for division, read venison: p. 3. l. 2. for rightly read richly: p. 5. l. 36. for kind r. kine: p. 13. l. ult. for for r. of: p. 19 for stewed r. slew: p. 22. l. 5 for Cain r. quoin, ibid. l. 20. for anigmatical r. enigmatical: p. 41. l. 19 for that thus magnify r. that you thus magnify: p. 42. for 34. r. 42. ibid. l. 14. for plucits r. placits, ibid. l. 17. for perficiency r. proficiency, ibid. l. 21. for truth r. tryers: p. 43. for 35. r. 44. p. 45. l. 13. for praepatium r. praeputium: p. 46 for 38. r. 46. ibid. l. 18. for exequation r. execution, l. 47. for 39 r. 48 ibid. l. 32. for adverse r. adversaries: p. 48. l. 2. for after r. often: p. 52. l. 37. for parish person 1. parish parson, p. 60. l. 40. for persons are r. persons who are; p. 61. for equipolent r. equipollent: p. 68 l. 5. for and there durst not, r. and therefore durst not: p. 71, l2 2. for at least mist of it, r. at the least motion for it.  
Thy charity will stir thee up to correct both these, and what else occurs thine eyes; and thereby oblige,  
Thine in the service of truth and love,  
I. P.   

These Books following are Printed for (and sold by) Henry Eversden, at the Greyhound in Pauls-Church-yard.  

I Renicum Evangelicum, an Idea of Church-Discipline: by I. Rogers. An Exposition on the whole Book of Canticles, with practical Observations: by I. Robotham, in quarto.  
An Exposition on the three first Chapters of the Proverbs, in quarto, by Mr. Francis Taylor, Minister at Canterbury.  
The Rich Closet of Physical Secrets; Or, The Child-Bearers Cabinet: In quarto.  
Mercy in her Exaltation: A Sermon, preached at the Funeral of M. Taylor, by M. John Goodwin: in quarto.  
Lucas Redivivus; Or, The Gospel-Physician, prescribing (by way of meditation) Divine Physic, to prevent Diseases not yet entered on the Soul, and to cure those maladies which have already seized upon the Spirit: By I. Anthony, late Dr. of Physic.  
A Comment on Ruth; together with two Sermons, the one teaching how to live well, the other minding how to die well: By Tho. Fuller, Author of the Holy State.  
The Natural man's case stated; Or, An exact map of the little world, man, in seventeen Sermons: By Ch. Love.  
The Foundation-Doctrine of laying on of hands, vindicated and asserted, against L. Coll. Hobson: By Tho. Tillam: in quarto.  
The Male of the Flock: A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor, on Mal. 1. chap. Nou. 14. By Ben Agas.  
The mystery of the two Witnesses unveiled, with a Description of their Persons and Office, their time and manner of Prophecy, their Acts and Sufferings, Death and Resurrection: By M. I. Robotham: in octavo.  
A Vindication of the Lords Prayer, against all Schismatics and Heretics; in octavo: By I Harwood. B. D.  
God's Glory in man's Happiness; together, with God's Choice in man's Diligence; being a Treatise of Election; By M. Francis Taylor; in octavo.  
The Christians Diurnal; or, Daily duties to be practised by every Christian: By Dr. Morgan: in twelves.  
Zion and Parnassus; or, Select Poems on the Bible; By I. Hoddessen, Gent. In octavo.  
The Anabaptists Meribah; or, Waters of Strife; being an answer to Mr. Tho. Lambs Book: By M. I Price. in quarto