SECT: I.

THe injuries which David received from his enemies were much more tolerable, then 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 Christs 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, then any ponyard It was Queen Elizabeths 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 acknowledgment) 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 rankerous, and maligne reflections upon him, as if to prey upon his honour, and feed upon the bloud of his reputation; were the first-born 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 [Page 2]hunts after his pen (2s it were) senting the track of his former writings, Mr: Lambs unkindnes [...]. that it might bite 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 rejoyceth Mr: Good­wins adversa­rie [...]: and feast made herewith in Askelon? whereat the Daughters of the uncircumcised rejoyce, and the Daugh­ters of the Philistines triumph Well, Offences will come — How cru­elly the man of his contention hath been dealt withall 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 mole-hils in his way. But that his own Disciples, and Scholars should be his executioners, and that for nothing, but his very judgment, and conscience, in, and about the matters of his God, that the sheep of his Flock, yea the Lambs thereof should convert into Ly­ons, and Tygers against him; that his most hopeful, and choisest trees and Vines, should yeeld 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 egge, and in hopes to bring forth in her own likenes) 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 threatning to bring his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave; That those who were his late joy, and crown of rejoycing, while they stood fast in the Lord, should now prove a Crown of bryars, 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 lesse then even an Apostolical authority) he would obtrude, and impose upon our Judgments, 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 GOODWINS WATER-DIPPING, &c.

SECT: II.

Mr: Lamb having built, and trim'd, and rigg'd his ship, Reply: and (as he supposeth) rightly fraighted her, ventures her to sea, hoiseth up all his sails, main-sail, and fore-sail, main top-sail, 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 lanching 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 shoars with the thundring noise thereof: Hearken, Truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition; there's one. Or An Answer to Mr: Goodwins Waterdipping, &c: there's another. Wherein the invali­dity of his (Mr. Goodwins) 23 Considerations, &c. there are 23 in one vollie 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 ful of light and heat; but if you touch it, it hath neither. Apothecaries boxes have sometimes goodlie titles, when there is never a good drugg, nor any thing medicinal in them. It is like the name of a Nunnery, on the out. side upon the wals over the gates, pretending nothing but Virginity within doors, but a little search may discover (as once to Gregory the great) thousands of infants skuls cast into fish ponds; which did argue foul doing, under fair shews. We have here Truth in the Title: and all that is within must be of the same denomination (doubtless) How often is God intituled to that which his soul abhors! 1 Sam: 23.7 God hath delive­red David into my hands (saith Saul) because he was in Keilah; therfore he bears an alarum to all the people to march thither to take him. Ze­charie speaks of shepheards that slay the flock, fleecing them instead of feeding them; and yet intitle 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, un­lesse she should be first baptized: 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 cal 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 stuft up with nothing but trash and trumperie. 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, Lambs 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 relique, wrapt up in several imbroidered and rich mantles and laid up in a certain place in a chappel 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 relick so famously spoken of abroad in the world, & were willing to purchase the same at a very considerable rate. This relique being depolited in the hands of [...]he reverend Father the keeper therof, 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 genu-flections 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 stedfastly, and fixedly upon the said Relique, 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 then the rest) pardon us; but tel 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 wil not see; but i'le tel you what it was; mary it is the breath of the Asse upon which Christ rode to Jerusalem, when the people cried Hosanna unto him. At which they that were silent before, did professe they saw it very plain­ly and wondered that the rest did not see it; and so they departed very thankful, very much satisfied, and wel apaid at their bargain. In like manner Mr Lamb hath filled the eares of the World round about him vvith the mighty noise of the great truth of God concerning baptisme on his side, that it is most apparently evident in his book, and by the light thereof, that the baptisme of believers at age, in opposition to In­sant [Page 5]baptisme, 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 baptisme of such persons only (and that by dipping them under vvater) is the initiating Ordinance into Church-fellovvship: that all Congregations (othervvayes gathered) are little betterthen the Synagogue of Sathan, though they cal 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 mens dovvn-right vvilfulness, in shutting their eyes vvhen they might see the same, and do homage thereunto: We have the talk of Truth in the Title truth in the trunck or body, truth in the taile of the book truth in the praescripts, truth in the grand-scripts- truth in the post-scripts; but though you unfold mantle after mantl [...] seaf after leaf, page after page, paragraph after paragraph; all vvhich (I confesse) are richly trimd imbroidered, and laced vvith many holy scriptures, and devout expressions; yet though you should gather up all your visive capacities, and abilities of ingenuity, knovvledg and Wisedom, you vvil find nothing of that vvhich you seek for in this kind, but meer aire 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 fill'd, and stuff'd with imperti­nences. Of all the Quotations of scriptures irrelative to the businesse 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 judg &c: again; What man is he that doth not glory in men; whose faith and practise standeth not in the wisedom of men, &c: but must conceive &c: again, be astonished therefore O yee Heavens, and horribly afraid O earth &c: again, good Reader what saist thou? hath not Mr: Good­win the wrong end of the staff &c: again, I appeal to the Conscience of the ju­dicious Reader &c. 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 shal find it a meer skeleton, a starved carkasse like one of pharaos lean kind not having so much spirit, life and strength of argu­ment to the busines 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 meer 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 begins thus:

SECT: IIII.

THou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord wil 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 candor of spirit unto Mr: Mr. Lamb pre­tends much candor 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 stroaking him againe. 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 maligne influence of the star called Wormwood (mentioned by John) when you wrote that book against Mr: Goodwin, which makes more then the third part thereof so bitter a­gainst him? do you not believe it? Then let me tel you. How a man may know conscience from concupisence, 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 controversie 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 controversall 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 compell (that is your own word to the Reader) the more weak, & injudicious, the milk-sops, or babes in Christ (as you must give me leave to judg you to be, in com­parison of those you contend withal, viz. Mr: Goodwin, M: Baxter) to rise up with that majestick 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 hils 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 hils 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 high [...]y then 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 vain-g ory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better then themselves. The confident, and conceited [Page 7]man in doubtful cases, hath seldome the truth on his side With the low­ [...] is wisedom; grace is given to the humble, bashful, shame-faced, that thrust not themselves into observation. The odoriferous Violet grows low to the ground-ward, hangs its head downward, hides it self 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 then you are aware; Reply. Error of judg­ment often called by the name of purity of consci­ence. for by what light, law, or rule from Gods 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 refreshings 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 joyes 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 meerly because they durst not sinn against the light of their judg­ments, and consciences; M: Lamb sepe­rated from the Church, because they keep in a good conscience. because they cannot submit unto such practi­ses (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: baptize their children) which they judg themselves bound in conscience to do, and forbear to do that ( viz: submit to re-baptization, or to be baptized again, they supposing themselves baptized 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 cal us holy and be l [...] ­veà, Brethren of like pretious faith with your selves, a Church: and yet you are compeld in Conscience to withdraw, and separate from us; and why? not because you question our Saintship, Gods 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 meerly be­cause we wil not deny our Insant-baptisme, and submit our selves to be baptized 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 [Page 8]should offend against his majesty, and provoke his Jealousie against us, not having (as we conceive) upon serious perusal of his holy Word, and several mens writings of piety, & ability, of different apprehensions in the subject in hand, the very least ground of the truth, to justifie our selves, 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 Judgment, or practise; and that it would be a vision of much peace, satisfaction, and contentment unto us (if we ate 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 frō which M. Lamb seperated, could allow him his li­berty in the bu­siness of baptism, but he wil not allow them theirs. knoweth that we lye 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 rent, and torn your self from us, and entitle the same unto the Word of God, as justi­fying you therein. These we shal 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 breath­ings of the spirit of God therein for your justification in your se­paration. We find the great Apostle Paul in his writing to Churches, cals 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 faithfull Brethren in Christ at Coll [...]sse; I say we find the Apostle (writing to these) provokes them to love, to good works, to edifie 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 separation [...] one from another, &c: You judg 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 sepe­ration meerly be­cause the whole Church wil not bow to his di­ctates. faithfull 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 cal you Father, and master? because they will not bow down their Judgments, and consciences against their Judgments, and consciences, unto your Judgments, and consciences (being a lesser part of our Curch, and society) we also beleeving in our Judgments, and con­sciences that you are in an error? Have we not severall directions from the Oracles of God very expresse 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 perswaded in all things pertaining to christian liberty, but judging himself bound stil to the observations of earing, or not eating, meats, according to Moses Law. receive, viz. into your bosomes affectu charitatis, with the affection of love: receive him into your Assemblies [Page 9]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 tendred with all sweetness: Do not judg, 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 reiect them? If you say, they are not visible unto you, except they be baptized after your manner, why then do you cal them so? if you say the Apostle there viz: Rem: 14: speaks of things indifferent, but baptisme 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 controversie are smal, 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 baptisme be a gospel command, yet many things may be doubtful in, and about baptisme, which may be reckoned of as meane a nature, and consideration, as the eating o [...] meats there spoken of, was, as viz: when, how, by who [...], upon whom, or unto vvhom, baptisme is to be administred; 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 saies this, for God hath accepted him Do you not think that God hath accepted us? that he doth accept us, that he wil accept us, so long as we are found faithfull unto him, in following him fully, as we can see him going before us? Would he accept us if vve did do what you would have us do (though it should be granted it vvas 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 blesse us (think you) if we should condemn our selves in doing the things, that we allow not? Wil not he accept us doing all, whatsoever we understand he hath commanded us? if you being a small part of the Church wil 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 then your selves 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 judgment therein; if those ten should judge that opinion a great truth of Christ, &c: and the hundred judge it a meer mistake, a smal matter, an outward ceremonie in comparison of the great things of God; shal the ten seperate, and be justified therein? what Church can then hold together long? if you say if the thing (wherein those tenn differ from the one hundred) be essenti [...] I to a Church, without which the consciences of those ten be fully perswaded the one hundred are no church, then they ought to seperate. I Answer, First, This is not the case here for you cal us a Church in your writing, nay a Church of ho [...]ly, and beloved brethren. 2ly: Who shal judg touching this matter, the one [Page 10]hundred, or the ten? If you say the ten must judg for themselves, and be able to satisfie 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 yee may be in­structed in all things needfull for you, and become of one mind, and in the mean while whereunto we have already attained, that is:

1. Wherein we have mutuall apprehension of mutuall duty, let us mutually walk together, comfort and edifie 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 onely lose the prize, but exposed themselves, either to ruin by the sword, or by the river, If they did not keep their path. Se here, let us walk by the same rule, not running over, or stepping aside, seperating our selves from the common path, lest we be dipt, yea drown'd by the river on the one hand, or destroied 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; es­peciallie should be the same at all times, and together, God at sundry times, 1 Hebr: 1 that is, by peece meales, Somwhat now, and somwhat 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 returne to my dear friend, the Antagonist; how many Exhortations have we in scripture, to love, to edifie one another, to build up one another in our most holie Faith? can these things be done by seperations, 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 denie it. And had your Conscience, judgment, & affections been enlightned, and heated by the fire of Gods sanctuarie, you would have better considered then so suddenlie, and rashlie, have rent your selfe from us, and written so impertinentlie for the justification thereof. But to proceed You tel your Reader the several reasons why you wrote that Book:

[Page 11] As pure Conscience &c. so now compelleth me to make Answer to that Book, &c. not only TO DEFEND THE TRUTH to the therein opposed, &c. Mr: Lamb to the Reader

SECT: VI.

TO defend the truth opposed by Mr: Goodwyn. Error always defended un­der the noti­on of truth. Everymans way is right in his own eyes. The Turks stile themselves the only Mausulmans, or true beleevers in the world. The Papists the onlie Catholicks; the Jew the holie Nation, the peculiar people, the gnosticks of old, the onely 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, partie, or faction professing any Religion, but doth it under the pretence and notion of Truth; and withstand their opposits, as do those that defend the truth? the very Banters, Sha­kers, Quakers, do they not all plead truth? do you defend the truth with untruth [...] by scandalizing & abusing the defenders of the truth, as you have M. Goodwin; wherof you must hear, & know before we have done with your book? but do you defend the truth with the meer name of truth without any spirit, or power of truth? Let any man that hath as much ill umination, inspection, or abilitie as to discern truth from un­truth in the ABC things of the scriptures; he shal see, that your greatlie conceited swords, spears & darts, which You have prepared in your Book to defend the truth (as you cal it) are but straw, stubble, & rotten wood to those against which you contend. And indeed you make use of them as these Egiptians do of their darts, which they shoot against the sunne, that scorcheth them: But alas, it is out of their reach; scorch them it wil, wil they, wil they, and their darts fal down again, upon their own heads, But you say, you wrote your book, not onely to de­defend the truth, but first

To vindicate your self with some others from the heavy charge therein given to the whole world against you, as faith, and trust-hreakers, sacrilegious Church-breakers, &c.

SECT: VII.

YOu wrot your book, not onely to defend the Truth, but also (you might have said, chiefly) to vindicate your self, &c: I remember when Christ said unto his Disciples, that one of them should betray him, he that was guiltie, was forward to demand, Master is it; You writ your book to vindicate your self from the heavy charge therein, viz: in Mr. Goodwins book given against you. Are you so much as once na­med in that book? do not you expose your self by name to be that man [Page 12] 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 stile 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 indeavoured to divide Pastor from people; and people from pastor? to demolish, and tear up by the roots, as thriving, as loving, as wel go­verned a Church, a Church as ful of charity, and good works, as beauti­ful an edefice, where Jesus Christ hath dwelt, and manifested his de­light therein, by the comfortable influences of his truth, and presence upon the hearts of your self; and Brethren, as eyes beheld: is not this sacriledg? Return, return O blacksliding Is [...]a [...]ite: 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 Judgments, to whose understanding common sense is a mistery 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 then you wel 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 wil 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: Goodwins 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; Goodwins twincling stars must hide 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 publick Theater in print, and see, how handsomlie 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 wrastle with him and give him fall upon fall, and fal after fal, and make good sport for the spectators. Remember Solomons councel, 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, [Page 13]or any others, by pen, or other way, should so much injure the hap­piness of the world, as to hide you from them, that they cannot behold your glorie, this is a cup that you are not able to drink of, a baptism, that you cannot be baptized withall. Your glorie you will let no man take from you: this is as the wel of Bethlem, for which you wil 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 schollars, if they had not been perswaded that they were such already, Themistocles listned to nothing so willingly, as to his own commendations. The Emperor Adrian oppressed some, and slew others, that exceld in any art, or faculty, that he might be held the only skilful. And it is said of Aristotle, that he burnt the books of many antient 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 wal swels, it is near breaking: it is no smal art, to conceal art, nor is it a smal glory, to conceal glory. Emptie casks sound lowdest, and purses with a very little money gingles more, then those that are top ful. They that best deserve praises, do most desire concealment; Moses shone, and knew it not. Christ had all the treasures of wisdome and knowledg in him; but they were hid in him: he did not fret, when he was obscured. The best of men were most modestlie conceited of themselves. Jacob said he was lesse then the least of Gods mercies: David, a worm, and no man: Agur, more brutish then any man. Great Pau [...] the least of Saints, the greatest of sinners. They that think themselves rich, and ful, able, and strong, know not that they are poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked. They conceive their mole hil, 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 fal 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 baptisme hath not metamorphosed us, Mr: Lamb to his Reader. from Lambs to Wolves, Tygers, or Serpent, which is insinuated by M: Goodwin in his last, &c.

SECT: IX.

INdeed if the world had not seen your Book, Replie. Mr: Lamb ren­ders himselfe in his Book a visi­b [...]e instance of what he seems to withstand; and implead therein, they might have suspe­cted the due applicablenes of such an insinuation unto your self; but he that shal 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 rendred your self as sad an instance of such an alteration, and grown as great a proficient in the black art for rendring evil for good, (your [Page 14]time, and all things else, considered) as any of that misterie of iniqui­tie, that ever I knew? Have you not (with all love, care, and tender­ness) been treated withall by your antient Pastor, as a sheep and lamb of Christ under him, Mr: Lambs ingratitude, and unkind­nes to Mr: Goodwin. as deare 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 Evangel [...]st unto Christ Jesus, alwaies (as it were) in his bo­some, I had almost said his fond-ling? And have not you heretofore answered, at least seeminglie) nay I think I may say reallie) 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 then a commmon) member, Mr: L. chan­ged for the worse since his separati­on. in a straight hand of unitie, & love improving your parts, abilities, and opportunities to keep them as close together, as the scales of the Leviathan? And have you not, not onlie withdrawn your self, but with an high hand stroven to bring off others into the same condemnation with your self, endeavouring to tear up our foundations, and incouraging, all you had any hope to ingage 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 Wildernesse, started aside like a broken bow? and vvith Peter withdrawn away from us, as if you never knew us? Yea eagerlie, and Tiger [...]y made at the face of your faithful pastor in the eies 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 Crosse to be crucified in the sight of the world, as Your self 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 naile are readie in your hands to strike him through the verie Temples; rejoicing therby not the armies of Israelites, Mr: Lamb first crowns, then kils Mr: Goodwins reputation. but of the Cananites; dealing with him as Xerxes did with his stears-man, 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 verie latelie for David, and a little after crie 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 crie is for She­ba the son af B [...]ri; is not here a change? However you proceed vvith a verie oilie lip, thus,

[Page 15] 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, then set it to a Book that frowneth on him (Mr: Goodwin) whose credit alwaies was and stil is right, dear, and pretious in my sight.

SECT: IX.

YOur pen stumbles at Truth, Reply: and speaks of nothing more then 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 figgs on thistles, as find it there. He that thinks to be led by the light that shines therein unto Dothan, shal find himself at last abused by an ignis fatuus, and conducted into Samaria, in the midst of mistakes Sands his relation mentioneth a prophane Sect not long since in Aragon, who affecting in themselves a certaine angelical puritie, fel suddenlie to the very counterpoint of justifiing beastilitie; and yet called themselves the illuminati as if they onlie 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 Clergie of the Church, and they of the Clergie. Wel, but the Truth is dearer unto you, then any man; that is, your opinion, then any man. How apt are men to assert their own opinion for tryth? Though the Pharises, and the Saduces were of one faith touching their oposi­tion against Paul, while they knew not of whose Judgment 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 mens 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 baptized, that men, believers at age onlie ought to be baptized, (though they were baptized in their infancie, that being a nul [...]tie,) Where can we find this great Truth in all the writings of Gods Word? it is inde [...]d a serted by your self and several others of the like authoritie. 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) wil sooner make a man a Luthern-Heretick, then a Roman-Catholick. And at a publick Assemblie 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 reade in it is utterlie against our Religion. So John Bishop of Mis­nia confessed that reading the holie bible, he found there in a Religion much differing from that, that was then established) be­ing [Page 16]poperie.) Certainlie an ingenious, and impartial reader of the holie sciptures, Old, and new Testament, shall find so many expressions importing the grace and favour of God through Jesus Christ unto chil­dren, as that it wil hardlie enter into his beliefe, that it should be the wil and pleasute of God, that henceforth, viz: after Moses administra­tions are dead & buried) they must no more be numbred, or reckoned among the familie of God, but all cast out as illegitimate. And when you handle the scriptures about this point, how miserablie do you (like the cammel with his feet before he drink of the clear waters, lest he should see his deformitie) 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. Goodwins credit alwaies was, and stil is right dear and pretious 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 doore, 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, vvhen she said thou wert not vvithin? and vvilt thou not believe me my self, vvhen I say I am not vvithin? He vvould have him believe a most appatent untruth; what ever Mr: Goodwins credit was, is it stil 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 phisicians Officiosè occidunt: they kiss, and kil familiarlie. Squire being sent out of Spanie to muther Queen Elizabath, was taught to anoint the pummel of her saddle with poyson 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 betraid Him with a kiss, friend for so thou vvouldst be esteemed by a kiss, wherefore art thou come, as friend? or as a foe? if a friend, vvhat mean these svvords, if a foe, vvhat means this kiss? so say I to you, is Mr: Good­wins credit stil right dear and pretious in your sight? what means then your Edwardizing H [...]m, your gangreninizing Him, your six-book-seller­ring [Page 17]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 Iesus Christ was unto them that Crown'd him (indeed, but) with a Crown of Thoms; put a Reed into his hand instead of a Scepter, & did bow the knee, unto him with Haile, King of the Iews: Just as King Richard the second, who, when he was to be deposed, was brought forth in Royall Array, whereof he was pre­sently despoyled. But you justifie your present adversariness against Mr. Goodwin, because it is for the Truths 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 perswaded in your conscience that Mr. Goodwin argues against his conscience? Paul charged Peter to his face for his unmeet contempo­rizing with the Iews 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 reproveable by Paul, for sinning against the rationall ducture of his Light; therefore Mr. Goodwin is justly re­proveable 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 thar reads you seriously, and knew the School of your spirituall instruction in the things of the scriptures, might wel say, you have too long been a Dis­continuant: Gods gifts groan under dis-use, or misuse. Well, Remember your own Law, we shal have occasion to use it: Thus you give it out;

HE who spotteth the beautifull face of Truth, Mr. Lamb to the Reader. tho 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 wil 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 beautifull face of truth, I am sure very arrogantly, tho ignorantly, es­pecially in some things ascerted by you, concerning Mr. Goodwin; yea, and in, and about the controversie beetween us, will appear in due season.

[Page 18] 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 Gods word, a point of Faithfulness.

SECT. XIII.

TO that of Gratitude, Reply. it well becomes you to be thankfull 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 ma­jestick Pen. of England, until they made him, bleed. But whereas you pre­sume that your pen is cloathed with the Majesty of Gods VVord, as if it dwelt in Light, and were like the bright Morning-Star, or rather the Sun at Noon in his Majesty: Consider, Pride is a piece of maduess; and many poor creatures cloath'd 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 busie was he from day to day, at the water-side to look after his Goods: And severall 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, wish't the Merchants had not undertook his cure. For then (said he) I had all things, every mans 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. Good­wins Highest Provocations, look upon me as disowning them, and minde the Reason of the place.

SECT. IV.

VVHat is the meaning of this? Reply. Mr. Lamb at contest with his Conscience. What strivings and conten­dings were there between your pen and your conscience in writing this Book? Why did you suffer your self to he over­come of your own evill, and did not rather strive to overcome your evill with good. Was not Conscience and concupisence hard at com­beate in your thoughts? Did not the Flesh lust against the Spirit, and [Page 19]the Spirit against the Flesh? Did not your heart smight you when you began to dip your inconsiderate pen in the blood of Mr. Goodwins Re­putation? Did not your hands tremble when (like Mezentius the Ty­rant, that did use to tye the living with the dead) you bound Mr. Goodwin, and Mr. Edwards together with the same Cord of dishonour and snacie, when you chained him with the dis-ingenious and frow­ard six Book-sellers 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. Goodwins VVater-Dipping, &c. (the Book of your quarrell) 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 stew'd 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 shew 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 fearfull Metamorphosis?

CHrists Counsell is not to resist evil, Mr. Lamb to the Reader. but whosoever will smight me on the right Cheek, to turn the other to him. But besides, it becommeth me to hear much evill from that hand, by which I have received so much good.

SECT. XV.

HOw easie is it to preach and hard to practise truth: Mr. Lamb ac­teth contrary to his knowledge of Christs 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 knowledg of Christs will a great dispositum, a rich Talent? and do you improve it thus? You confess you have received much good from him, and it becommeth you to bear much evill 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 Iews) 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 [Page 20]thereof. Those Iews 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 spoyles of Mr. Goodwins 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 Iesus 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 your self to be found amongst them at that day? Well, take heed of haltering up that conscience of yours, that tels 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 chuse that that is good, and refuse the evil thatshal appear unto him in the perusall thereof.

To your Prayer I can heartily say Amen, and do believe that he, to whose understanding the very Grass-Hopper of an Argument is not a burthen, will be able to go on his way (contrary to yours, in respect of the point in controversie) rejoycing, and be no more troubled at the great noise of your loud pen, then men of understanding are at the popping off of childrens Gun-pots.

SECT. XVII.

HAving finished your Epistle to the Reader, as your first Court-Gate, you lead us through another before we come to your buil­ding: and that is, another Epistle to the Church from whence you have rent your self; and this, indeed, is (like Sampsons Hair) that wherein your strength lyes; which being clipt off, I hope you will ap­pear, even to your self (tho now you seem to have the strength and confidence of seaven men that can render a reason,) to be as weak as o­ther men are. This Epistle you thus superscribe,

[Page 21] 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.

VVE suppose our selves in the right Order, Reply. as wel as in the right Faith of the Gospel, and that you have disorderly and undu­ly departed from us; and that your concluding your selfe in the Right, and us in the wrong (the matter being sub judice, and not yet determined) is nothing but a flourish before the Battel; 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 wil cost you hot water, as wel 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. Goodwins 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 joy­ning 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 Booke 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 your self, 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 Coyn, which bears the I mage & [Page 22]superscription of the Prince of Darkness upon it, (scandalls and re­proaches) rendring him evill 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, Angells, and men, with Cain, out of the same treasury, viz. by seperations, 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 Iohn 15. did a strange act con­trary to his genius, to the amazing of his Disciples, viz. whip the Buyers and Sellers, &c. 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 (wondring 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, &c.

SECT. XX.

JConfess your sudden departure from us was a Riddle, and is stil as anig­maticall as ever, (all your writings, notwithstanding) as for your instance of Christs 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, &c. What Oyntment can we draw from hence to annoint our eyes to perceive this Riddle? Help us to draw the parrallel.

Christ whipt the buyers and sellers of Doves, Sheep, Oxen, &c. out of the Temple; Even so Mr. Lamb left, departed, and rent himselfe from that Church of Christ whereof Mr. Iohn Goodwin is Pastor: 1 What an apt and concinne Analogie this is?

The Disciples of Christ wondred at this strange act; 2 Even so the Members of the said Church wondred at Mr. Lambs strange act of sepa­ration from them.

The Disciples remembred that it was written, 3 The zeale 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. Iohn 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?

[Page 23]But yet there is more truth in the writing, Mr. Lambs se­paration is a ful filling of Scrip­ture Prophesies, Iohn 12.51. than happily was meant in the writer. The High Priest prophesied (when he spake he knew not what) that Christ should dye 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 prophesie that there shall be some that shall forsake the right way, and go astray. Heb. 10.25. We read of mens 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 implyes a danger) against di­visions; an exhortation to be perfectly joyned together in the same mind, &c. Implying, that men are apt to divide, first, in judgment; next, in practise; 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 it self 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 Opposits, (the true believers.) It is an easie matter to take severall yoaks of the Old Oxen of the Old-Testament, as wel 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, &c. and ploughing thus with the heifers of the holy Scriptures, we may finde out the Riddle of your departing from us.

SECT. XXI:

In the next place you charge us for mis-judging you, Mr. Lamb in his second Epistle. and bring in this as your consolation, that Paul and Iohn, 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 judgments and consciences an undue act, which you could not but expect the Church should do, otherwaies they should do little less than justifie 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 guists, yea, and very countenance, have been very welcome to them.

[Page 24]YOu tell us that no worldly thing separated you from the Church; Mr. Lamb. and complain that some body dream't 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 mens dreams? How come you to be so touchy? However we see your mighty care to be wel thought of. You will divide from us, break your faith and trust with us, seek to extirpate and root us up; scandalize our Pa­stor in the eyes of all men, rendring him evill 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, &c.) struck my conscience, and the light shone into my Judgment with that clearness, that I could by no means a [...]oid it with peace.

SECT. XXIII:

TRuth struck your conscience! Reply. Striking implyes violence, and sudden­ness. Gods 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 enlightning mens judge­ments. and in the knowledg of Iesus Christ. Iacobs 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 Earth-quake, nor in the rushing wind, but in the soft and still voice. Clearness of Iudgement 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 dayes some persons have been Planet-struck, 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 erre in vision, and afterwards be ashamed of their own Vision, and lament themselves with, wo unto us in that we have [Page 25]put darkness for Light, and Light for darkness. To study the wiles, me­thods, and subtilties of Satan, in causing men to erre in judgement, is a seasonable study in these slippery times for our Christian caution a­gainst his cunning; his most thriving trade in these dayes being to transform himself into an Angell 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 cloathed with the majesty of God (meaning still in the point of Baptism, and of with­drawing from those Churches that are not so and so baptized) 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 shew us your Light. For this end you tell us in these words,

Now what those considerations are, Mr. Lamb, that commanded my Iudgement to that point, whereat it now standeth in the business of Baptisme, which is that onely 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 summe 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 judgment) 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 your self out in the busi­ness thus:

AS for this consideration, we (with you) speak the same thing, and are perfectly joyned together in the same mind, Reply. and in the same judg­ment. VVhat will you make of this to your separation from us? [Page 26]That we shall see hereafter: VVell, proceed then.

SECT. XXVI.

THat Baptism with VVater is one of Christs commands, Reply. is our belief as well as yours. But what you mean in these words, and joyn'd with teaching by name in the commission of Christ, I do not wel un­derstand: If you understand the particle [and] distributively, thus, That Christ commanded, or appointed his Disciples to Teach, as wel as to Baptise, 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, then it is denyed. For if there must be teaching whereever there is baptizing, because they are joyned together in the commission, then it will follow, that there must be baptizing whereever there is this teaching, upon the same ground; because in the Commission, baptizing is as well joyn'd with teaching as teaching with baptizing: if you say

Teaching must precede baptizing, Obj. because it is put before it in the Commission:

SECT. XXVII.

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

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, Baptizing them. It is not denyed but Nations must be taught, before Nations be baptized; and families must be taught, before families be baptized; that is, those that are capable in both, must be taught, and more than taught before they be baptized. But this doth no more argue that every individuall person must be taught, yea and must understand and receive that teaching, before they be bap­tized, than it did follow, that because the Nation of Israel was to be taught and instructed in the wayes of God under the Law, before cir­cumcision, that therefore none of their children must be circumcised untill 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 replyed to your self in mentioning the word of God: they had the express command of God for their circumcision; Object. shew 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; then it will follow that there was a time when children (even Infants at eight dayes old) were capable subjects of such Ordinances of God, and of Christ, (for they were his Ordinances) which were very mysterious and spirituall, Children in Gods 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 untill 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 expresly, 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 [Page 28]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, shew us where, and we have no more to say. And whereas you say, shew us an express command for the Baptizing of children, the text is at hand, Mat. 28.19. Go ye there­fore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, Gods express command for baptizing of children. and of the Holy Ghost. Are not Nations made up of men, women and children? 'Tis true, children are not nam'd 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 baptize? If you say, those that are actually capable of teaching, and no more; I answer, then you o­bey not the extent of the Commission, which is not to baptize 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 Gods 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 Gods gracious acceptation of them all, as well as the Jews did? If by the word, Nation, in Scripture when ap­plyed 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. &c. Act. 8.28. Gal. 3.14. Eph. 3.6.) why then by the word nation, when applyed 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 Iesus 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 gospell. The words, Iews nation, under the Law, were comprehensive, importing the men, women, and children: The words Gentiles and nations under the Gospel, cannot with the least shew 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 forbid 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, baptizing them viz. all taught nation: you say, go teach all nations, baptizing only such of every nation as are actually taught and instructed. In Scripture acceptation, men, women, and children, made [Page 29]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 Iesus Christ, for your instruction or voucher. It is a sin of an e­quall demerit, to pul down Gods posts, and set ours up by his, as it is to set up by Gods posts any posts of our own.

Again, whereas you adde in this Consideration, Mr, Lamb. That the same presence of Christ is promised ioynt­ly to Baptisme 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 reall 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 otherwaies, 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, then it is denyed. There is a reall, but a different presence of Christ in the Baptisme 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 symbolicall, or otherwaies, 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, &c. which is to be known by teaching the Gospell: and a sutable presence of Christ doth accompany such Doctrines, &c. But yon 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 actuall 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 [Page 30]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, otherwaies 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 prefence 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 sutable affections and heavenly dispositions under, in, and by such a vision. Such a presence of Christ as this, was as necessarie for the usefull 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 sutable affections. And the children were not capable of such a presence of Christ; yet you know they were by Gods 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 enjoyn it: Even so, as great and effectuall a presence of Christ is promised and perfor­med unto children baptized 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 Christs presence when it was first administred unto them, may not influence it self, at least in a sensible manner, untill they come to years of discretion. As the presence of God blessing the Seeds-man in the act of soweing, is not sensibly found untill the Harvest. You know the presence of Christ in the administration of circumcision, did not ap­pear in the children of the Jews, in a spirituall benefit, untill they came to years of knowledg, and understanding. Even so baptizing 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.

[Page 31]As for that passage in this your second consideration, wherein you say that Baptism with water, &c. 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 baptisme serveth the inte­rest of Remissi­on of Sins, and how not. that as the other Ordinances of Jesus Christ preaching, prayer, &c. 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 Gods 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 baptized 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 Iews that came from Iudea, Acts the 15. chapt. 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, &c. then I say, though you, or an Angell 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, &c. that Christ shall profit you nothing.

Again, Whereas you further adde 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 [Page 32]thing. The word in the Commission is Nations; Go ye and teach all Na­tions, baptizing them, &c. 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 baptized, but discipled nations, yet children, not actually, and with understanding, brought to the knowledg of Christ, may be baptized.

2. Suppose it be granted that none but discipled persons are to be baptized, yet will it not follow that children must not be baptized? The reason is, because in Scripture-sense, children of discipled parents are called discipled persons, Act. 15.10. VVhy do ye tempt God to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples; Children are called Disciples in Scripture. &c. This yoak is circumcision; all are called Disciples upon whom this yoak was put. Now this yoak was not put upon the neck of the believing Jews, in respect of their perso­nall 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 Iohn 9.28. said the Jews to the man whom Christ cured, being born blinde, 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 Gods servants, Lev. 25.41, 42. Then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, (speaking of the jewish servants and their children, when the year of Jubile comes) for (saith God) they are my servants, he and his children, &c. 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 Christs 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 Iudah ga­thered themselves together to ask, or pray for help of the Lord: Who are meant by Judah? See verse the 13th. And all Iudah 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, &c. that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath, &c. Thus children are said to Fast, to Pray, to Repent, to en­ter into covenant, viz. in Gods mercifull 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 did'st make me to hope when I was upon my Mothers 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 [Page 33]of hope. Again, Mat. 18.5, 6. children are said to believe in Christ, and a fearfull 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 wel 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

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 baptizing of persons at age, &c. white, or black. And whereas you add with an Emphasis, viz. and that too amongst the last words he (1. Christ) spake 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 him­selfe. and have found the same treasures with your self, touching what you say in this consideration. Only give us a like liber­ty with your self, 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 extream boldness and presumption, that shall press persons already consecrated unto the service of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost at the Waters of [Page 34]their baptism in the time of their infancie, and that upon terms little lower than upon their salvation, to a Reiteration of their baptism, con­trary to the intention of Iesus Christ. Your fourth consideration run­neth thus.

4. Mr. Lamb. I found the design of Christ in the Ordinance it selfe, be exceeding rich and spirituall, namely amongst ma­ny other ends, &c.

SECT. XXXV.

THE Ordinance of baptism is indeed, Reply. exceeding rich and spiri­tuall; but I fear, while you seek out the spiritualness, and rich­ness thereof administred 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 infancie; which, however it is, or hath been unto you, yet that Ordinance ad­ministred unto others, in their infancie, and duly improved in their riper years, hath been as a cloud dropping fatness upon their souls; and as the Tree of Life yeilding various fruits every month, yea, every moment, of rich and pleasant tasts unto their spiritual palate. You proceed in this fourth consideration to shew us wherein consists those rich and Spirituall designes 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 doe capable subjects of bap­tism, notwith­standing theio infancie. 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 infancie, 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 dayes old, did binde these children when they came to years of discretion, to keep the Law of Moses, what tolerable shadow or shew of reason can be given, why that Baptism administred now un­to children, should not also bind them all the after-dayes of their lives to keep the Law of Christ? I very much honour and approve of your [Page 35]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, &c.

SECT. XXXVII.

TO grant you this also (in a due and qualified sense) were but to grant you out of the aboundance 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 enterprize herein) by baptism administred 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 designe 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 Iews did Christ when they looked upon him as the Carpenters 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 Gods 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 Infant­baptism, hath hindred the rich and spirituall effects thereof upon your heart and soul. But you say,

[Page 36] You found the great design of Christ frustrate by it, viz. by sprinckling of Infants.

SECT. XXXIX.

IT is not one of the least of mercies purchased by Iesus Christ, Reply. that there is an attonement made for the ignorances of his people. The froward in heart finde 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 finde the great designe of Christ fru­strate by Infant-Baptism. So many of the Iews found nothing of Messiah in Messiah himself. You finde no good in it, because you seek no such commodity there. If you speak of your personall experience, I am sorry for, and pitty your barrenness. If you affirm it dogmatically, as­serting, that you finde or perceive, that the great design of Christ is fru­strated by it, I bewail your thick darkness. However you finde 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 finde 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, Buriall, 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 signifie or figure out the Death, Buriall, 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 spirituall use unto men in some other sacred respects, as wel as in these mentioned.

2. Suppose you do not finde 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 knowledg, yea and in zeal too, for externall 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 [Page 37]though administred in the way so much despised by you) though they be hid there from you: Another reason why some men finde 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, Buriall, and Resurrection, &c. 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 sprinckling. But

4. In Sacrament all Ordinances, In Sacrament all Ordinances we must have re­spect to Gods 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) mans 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 sprinckling, had been Gods ap­pointment, in that administration, we had had nothing to say for our selves, why sprinckling 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 justifie the Papists in their use of their significant, and teaching ce­remonies, which God never appointed.

5. The command being to baptize, 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 bap­tize, 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 choise of that, which they con­ceive most conducing to their spirituall, and temporall interest. And that being the true state of the case in hand, therefore, as circumstan­ces may be, he that baptizeth by dipping, may do wel, and he that do­eth it by sprinckling may do better. And so again on the contrary, as the case may be; he that baptizeth by sprinckling, may do well, God doth com­mand some Sa­cramentall things to be done that are less sig­nificant (as least in mans thoughts) than what he might have comman­ded; but his com­mands are the ground of our duty. and he that doeth it by dipping, may do better. The worship of God under the Gos­pel, being more spirituall than under the Law; wherein God standeth not so much upon the Letter, as upon the Spirit, and truth of the heart.

6. In Sacramentall Ordinances, God may, and (doubtless) doth make use of such tipes and ceremonies, which may not so fully, and in all points of spirituall instructions (in mans apprehension) answer the things signified, as some other tipes and ceremonies would, which he doth not make use of, and that for very rich and spirituall 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 onely of a meer piece of bread and a cup of wine, but also of a competent meal of com­fortable provision, to have shewed forth his death and their life, by [Page 38]means thereof, with much more signification; as suppose it had been by the killing 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 spirituall ends of that Ordinance better, than a small bit of Bread, and a little Wine would do. If God saith go into the River Iordan, 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 Iessie, are rejected, and the contempti­ble Lad sought out and crown'd. Therefore it is no good Argument to conclude that sprinckling in baptism cannot be of God, though it should be granted that the Death, Buriall, and Resurrection of Christ, are not so fitly represented by sprinckling, as by dipping.

SECT. XLI.

7. AND lastly, there is more aptness even in sprinckling the subject of baptism by water, to the rich, holy, and spirituall ends of baptism, Spinckling doth fully answer the ends of baptism, yea better than dipping. then perhaps hath entred into your minds, seriously to consider; as for instance.

First, The sprinckling of water doth more lively represent the effusi­on of Christs 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 sprinckling, 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 Sprinckling, than by Dipping.

2. A little Water sprinckled and poured out upon a person, doth more lively and significantly set forth the value, worth, and excellency of Christs 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 Christs 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 eternall Spirit offered himself without spot, &c. that purgeth the conscience, 1 Pet. 1.19. You are redeemed, not with silver and gold, &c. 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, &c. altogether, ma­king [Page 39]a great Pool, or lake of blood which is corrupted, and cannot ju­stifie, but a little water sprinckled doth more aptly set forth the value, worth, and dignity of Christs blood, which is as it were freshly running out of his veins, and besprinckled upon the subject in Baptism.

3. The Sprinckling of the water in baptism, doth hold a conformity unto, and preserves the commemoration of, the legall sprincklings, in the Old-Testament, Exod. 24. compared with Hebrews the 9th. you will finde that Moses, after he had preached and spoken the Law of God unto the people, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, &c. and besprinckled the book and all the people, the tabernacle, the ves­sels of the ministry, &c. all things were purged by the sprinckling 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, &c. to the blood of Sprinckling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel; the blood of sprinckling, that is, the blood wherewith you are sprinckled, alluding to that blood of the Old-covenant, mentioned Heb. 9.20. So we are sprinckled with the blood of Christ, &c. This is more lively represented in the sprinckling of water in baptism, then in dipping or dowsing the subject of baptism (so much insisted upon.)

4. This ceremony of sprinckling, or pouring out water, in baptism, doth more lively represent the performance of severall promises of sanctification unto the Gentiles, mentioned by the words sprinckling and pouring out of water, then that of dipping doth, Ezek. 36.25. I will sprinckle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all yuor filthiness; and from all your Idolls will I clense you, and a new heart also will I give you, &c. So again in Isa. 52 23, 24, 25. it is prophesied of Christ, Behold my Servant shall deale prudently: he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be ve­ry high, &c. he shall sprinckle many Nations, &c. So again Isa. 44.3. I will poure out water upon him that is thirsty, &c. I will poure out my Spirit. So again Joel 2.18. I will poure out my Spirit upon all Flesh, &c. upon all Flesh, as well as upon the Jews. Thus the ceremony of sprinckling, or of pouring out of water in baptism, doth help a mans faith in the belie­ving and expecting the performance of these promises, after a more effectuall manner, than dipping doth.

SECT. XLII.

5. IN the fifth and last place, Sprinckling 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 sprinckling, 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 spi­rituall 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 spirituall Union with Christ, refreshment by [Page 40] Christ, interest in Christ, &c. these are the spirituall graces, &c.

So now consider in our Notions and apprehensions of baptism by sprinckling; The outward visible sign is, Water: the thing signified by it, is the Blood of Christ: The inward and spirituall graces, they are remission of sins, sanctification, spirituall washing, clensing our selves from all pollutions, &c. (the spirituall 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 shew forth the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ for sinners, and the sinners 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 signi­fie? Or what is the thing signified by it? Is it to answer the Death and Buriall, and Resurrection of Christ? What answers Water? Is it the death or blood of Christ? So far we grant also, that the Water signifieth Christs Blood. So far I believe you are right: and this doth more live­ly represent the Blood of Christ trickling, or sprinckling down by drops and gushes, viz. the sprinckling or pouring out of water, than dip­ping into water. But to make it represent the buriall 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 buryed 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 spirituall 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, &c. But never doth it signifie the Earth, as it must here according to your Notion of it, this being to shew forth the buriall 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 rose. Is not this a most fansifull and unscripturall use of the word Water? But you will object and say,

[Page 41]The Scriptures themselves are their own best Interpreter, and the best Interpreter likewise of Gods Ordinances. And do not the Scriptures refer our dipping in water to Christs bu [...] [...]all; our rising out of wa­ter to Christs resurrection? Rom. 6.4, 5. VVe 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, &c. Col. 2.12. Buryed 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 practise, as baptizing Infants by sprinckling. But if a man shall seriously consider, it will appear that it is not the Text, but your interpretation of it, that thus magnifie. And it is your (i. e.) and not Christs scriptum est, that you call by the name of truth cloath'd with the majesty of God (with o­ther great swelling words.) You deal with us in this point, Anabaptists, & Anti-Remon­strants, 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 Christs death, of electi­on, and reprobation, of the liberty of the will of man, &c. 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 inferiour 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, fundamentalls in Reli­gion, the Golden Reeds laid up, even in the very Sanctuary of God, to try other mens doctrines withall. If they speak according to their sense, then 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 Ecclesiasticall vale to preach and premulgate their presumed notions, for articles of faith. If you on the other-hand, and any person comes before them (sitting to­gether, cloathed, 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 Heretick, would presently demand of any brought before them, what do you be believe concerning the Sacrament of the Altar? Even so [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 44]these demand, what do you believe concerning the extent of Christs death, election, reprobation, the power of the will, falling away, &c. 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 holyness of mind, sweetness of lip; yet, though they spend seve­rall hours and dayes, in such examinations, and such answers, yet they are judg'd subtile 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, untill they leave off, and desist to give their answers thus in Parables (I mean, in Scripture sayings) 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 wil not it is not their piety, their parts, their gifts of knowledg 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 Gospell; their truth (or tormentors rather) thus making their own judgments and opinions in the said points, their positions and arti­cles by themselves made, not only equall with, but above the Holy Scriptures themselves: Or as the Pope and his Cardinalls make their Canons and decrees of equall 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 baptizing of children, which you say give a distinct sound, that it is against the will of God to baptize such, that such were never baptized; that the manner of baptism, according to Gods express will and word, is by dipping, &c. 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, &c. And yet he that shall not re­ceive your interpretations; nay though Paul, or an Angell from hea­ven say otherwaies, he is as a man accursed from Christ: you excom­municate such men, unchurch them, holding them unfit to partake of the Ordinances of Gods 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. VVe are buryed with him by Baptism, &c. Colloss. 2.12. VVe are buryed with him in Bap­tism, &c. What is here against baptizing of children? what to justifie separation from churches baptized only in their infancie? What is here to evince, that it is the express command, will, and pleasure of God, that baptism must be by the totall immersion of the subject of [Page 45]baptism, by burying and dipping him in the water? and that every other manner of baptizing is a nullity, and meer babism and vanity? These Texts speak of the blessed fruits, benefits, and consequences of bap­tism, not of the manner of baptizing. All that they say is this, that in, or by Baptism (be the manner what it will) we are buryed with Christ, that is, we have a blessed fellowship with Christ Iesus in his death, bury­all, and resurrection; God making a blessed co [...]enant with us, in bap­tism, and we with him, that through the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ, he is become ours, and we are become his; that as he dyed, was buryed, and rose again for us, so we would live, and dye with him unto the world, flesh, and devill, 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 baptized, respecting the manner thereof: Nor secondly, that the persons baptized in those dayes, were so baptized; but it proves (as we have said) that whatsoever the man­ner of their baptism was, that believers, by their baptism, are buryed with Christ, which is not at all denyed; 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, &c. this doth not shew the manner of Christs death, as whether he was killed with a Sword, strangled, or crucified, &c. 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, &c. this doth not prove the manner of cir­cumcision, but another thing: circumcision might be the cutting off of something from the fore-head, 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 buryed 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 elswhere, and not in this place.

And further, Tho it be gran­ted that the practise 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 baptized at that time, and in those parts of the world, where (it is likely) it might be done without danger to their health, &c. were baptized 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 buryed with Christ, that is, of their being in the State of death, and of buriall, as they were when under the water, &c. it doth not prove that therefore they ought to be bap­tized no other way. For though they were baptized after that manner, yet they might have been baptized after another manner without of­fence unto God, if so be they were not tyed up and restrained by God unto that manner, and from all other; shew us where is such restraint in the Scripture. If from those Texts you will prove the necessity of [Page 44]the manner of baptism to be by immersion, because the Text saith, we are buryed: with him in baptism; that is, as Christ was buryed in, or under, the earth, so we were buryed in and under the waters, inferring as well the manner of Christs buryall, as the manner of our baptism, why may you not infer thence also the manner of Christs death, as well as of his buryall? 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, &c. Is there any thing in dipping setting forth the manner of Christs death? Well, though it be granted that some were (nay, that all spoken of in the Scripture were dipt in baptisme) yet will it not follow, that if they had been baptized any other way, they had offen­ded their Leige Lord, except he had denyed them their liberty in this case, and commanded them to be baptized 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 intend 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 externall things. And the truth is, there being (at least that we can finde) no one determinate and externall manner of baptism, or using the water in baptism, essentiall thereunto by Gods command; that therefore we ought to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be intangled with any yoake 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, &c.

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 baptized in their infancie; 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.

[Page 45]TO insist upon this, is but to spend an Arrow upon a Butterflye. Reply. I would know of Mr. Lamb how he comes to know his name is Mr. Lamb, or whether his Fathers name was Lamb, The baptizing of children ne­vertheless effi­cacious, because when they come to age, they can­not remember their baptism. or somwhat 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 dyed in his Infancie) 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 Iewish 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 dayes old? Or whether that baptism, upon such an information and belief of it, be not as proper, and apt, to do spirituall 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 wayes 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 minde at it still. Hence it is that you snatch up your we opens again, tho the strength of your arm is hardly able to hold them. Here also you reminde 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 finde it again. What have you found here?

This hath been affirmed and granted, granted and affirmed; but what then? Reply.

SECT. XLI.

WHat if there be not one such Text for childrens baptism (for it may be your emphasis lyeth 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 salvage unto your right reason, honour, and conscience, exclude children from the intention of Iesus 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 Christs 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 baptized, where, and when Ierusalem and all Iudea, and all the Regions beyond Iordan, (being Iews, and therefore would doubtless have quarrelled if their children had been rejected) were baptized; as also where we read of thousands, and of families, and houses, &c. that were baptized. But it is worthy observation that you tell us,

That many learned men have acknowledged, Mr. Lamb. that In­fant-baptism is not in Gods Word.

SECT. XLV.

1. Reply. IF you mean, that many learned men have acknowledged that there is no expressness of Letter in Gods word, Mr. Lamb re­joyceth in the testimony of learned men, when he can finde any of them of his judgment about bap­tism, though he cautioneth us a­bout Mr. Good­wins learning. shewing de facto that chil­dren were baptized; it is not denyed you, nor doth it make any thing for your purpose. For neither is there any expressness of the Letter, shewing where any women did partake of the Lords Supper. And yet you judge it their duty (being otherwayes qualified for the same) to partake thereof. But

2. If you mean that many learned-men have acknowledged, that Infants baptism cannot be proved in Gods word to be lawfull, 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 gleanings, what would you do if the vintage were your own? Why should Mr. Goodwins learning hang in his light any more than other mens? Well, however every one of the many you mention, be interpreters, even one of a thousand, yet shall they not be Rabbies unto me, nor have any dominion over my faith in the point in hand. You add.

[Page 39] 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 generall Redemp­tion, and to draw the contrary opinion under the sus­pition 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 Christs Mother) and the virgins name was Mary; may not we say and insist upon it, as a truth very proveable from the Holy Scrip­tures that Mary was a virgin?

Again, if we must not build upon ifs, may-bee's, and why-nots, Mr. Lambs proofs by conse­quences are good, but he wil not suffer other men to prove Doctrines by consequences. how come you to affirm with that magisteriall confidence, as you do, that the baptizing of children is unlawfull, that no children were baptized by Iohn, or any others mentioned in the Holy Scriptures; that it is unlawful to joyn with such persons in Church-fellowship, that were baptized only in their infancie (with many other of the like nature) having indeed, not so much as any rationall ifs, may-bee's, and why­nots 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. Goodwins adverse, viz. from ifs, may-bee's, why-nots:) Mr. Goodwin hath often used to confirm the Doctrine of Generall Redemption, and to draw the contrary opini­on under the suspition of error.

SECT. XLVII.

IT would require you more pains to shew us one place in all his wri­tings (which you say he hath after used) of such splashy, Reply. shallow, watry, 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 denyed 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 rejoyce in it, and eat the morsells thereof your self alone, having no partner with you there­in in any part of the world, whereof the Sun in the firmament is Over­seer. But this is onely 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 childrens baptism, which is a shrewd sign is a de [...]ice of her own, the world loveth her own, &c.

SECT. XLVIII.

YOU finde the unregenerate world no more naturally falling in with childrens baptism, Reply. then you found it naturally falling in with the pro­fession of Christ. For they are baptized and do baptize their chil­dren in no other name, nor into the profession of any other Saviour, then Jesus Christ. And is not this a shrewd argument that this Doctrine of the Messiah, the unregenerate world so naturally falleth in withall, is a device of her own; the world doth love her own?

Your 9th. particular is summ'd up in this, Mr. Lamb. infant-Baptism is unlawfull, 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 onely 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 [Page 49]I suppose you mean, not the Church generall, 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-bee'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 prove­able that many, and many, were baptized, 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 baptized at all.

2. It is true, Gad seeketh such, and onely such, now to worship him, as can worship him in spirit and in truth, Iohn. 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 Iudaicall 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 spirituall manner, extending to the very heart, such as was ty­pified by those shaddows: and the Son of God comes now to draw all men unto this way of worship from the Iudaicall, from the Samari­tan way. This text indeed (with severall others) renders men unca­pable of Church-worship in an acceptable manner, that content them­selves only with outward forms, and yet leading a vitious life. But what is this to the exclusion of children? As for them, here is the grace of the Gospell, 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 alwayes a spirit, as well as now, and he did al­wayes seek for such to worship him, as should worship him in spirit and in truth, as well as now. He alwaies loved-truth in the inward parts, he al­wayes required of all his Sons to give him their hearts in his worship; he alwayes 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 Iewish Church, because they could not perform, inward, heart-worship, and spirituall service? did God upon their circumcision accept of them, as if they did perform all those spirituall services, and heart-duties, untill they came to an actuall and personall capacity, actually and personal­ly to perform the same? And will he not (now) accept of children baptized, as if they did actually, and personally, perform those servi­ces unto him, which under the Gospell, he requireth, untill they like­wise come to an actuall, and personall capacity so to do? And then wil he accept, or reject, them, as they are found faithfull, or unfaithfull in these things.

[Page 50]4. Whereas you say, that the New-Testament knoweth us such member; of Churches, as infants, &c. I answer, that tho 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 ought to be rejected, and denyed the participation thereof. Our controversie is not about infant-Church-member-ship, but infant-baptism.

Your tenth Argument for your beliefe in the busi­ness of Baptism, viz. against Infant-Baptisme, and for your separation, Mr. Lamb. &c. 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 ju­stifie what they go about to oppose and condemn; (as Mr. Richard Baxter saith) the aged are (1.) the most fully capable subiects, (2.) the most excel­lent subiects, (3.) the most eminent subiects, (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 controversie is thereby be­come not onely hard, but so hard, &c.

SECT. L.

YOU needed indeed to have written this in Capitall Letters, that every one that runs may read the profundity thereof. Reply. The aged are the most capable subjects of Baptisme; 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 Baptisme; Ergo, Children were no part of the world that did partake thereof: The proof of Childrens 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 fancie, having their judgments and understandings stupified, 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 [Page 51]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, then he hath said against it, in all his whole book, his whole book would as much edifie the world were it in ashes, as it doth now in ink and paper inriched 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 emphati­call 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 fetcht 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 hedg, hath the hedge therefore but one side? Because Mr. Baxter saith it is safe baptizing those that are actuall believers, not being baptized before, doth he [...]imply, that it is safe refusing or neglecting to baptize infants: What shall we say? If a spiders web be as bars of Brass to you, there is no hope.

It agreeth not with the wisdome and goodness of Christ, Mr. Lamb. that Baptism should be so dark, as Mr. Baxter saith it is, &c.

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 enquire after it. And it is agreeable to Gods wisdome 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 wisdome 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 baptized were added to the [Page 52]Church, ergo all baptized persons in the Apostles dayes, were Church­members. May not I as well argue thus? they that heard the word, were baptized, ergo, all that heard the word in the Apostles dayes were bap­tized. 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 carnall (I presume you mean, sinfull and wicked) interest of men, that preach for filthy lucre, &c. It is wholly denyed, standing upon your own bare affirmation, which shall pass, having your own image and superscription upon it: and if any wil take it for current coyn, let him inrich 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 Angell, you justifie your self in your way, and bless your self with an expecta­tion, not only of peace, but even of reward, as a man that hath now contended for the faith, ( viz. Gods mind and pleasure that children should not be baptized) 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 nationall 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 lye 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. Goodwins shame you seek for hereby, I believe your consci­ence will not say it was his glory that steerd your pen herein. M. Goodwin no separate from the godly Pres­byterians in his reformation, as M. Lamb af­fi [...]ms. 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 mens inductions into parishes: but there being a considerable, pious, and godly party in that [Page 53]parish, who having a longing desire to enjoy the Ordinances of God in purity, purchased the impropriation thereof, whereby they enjoyed the liberty of chusing 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 severall 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 practise 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 your self 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 Gods Temples, as you know many went away into severall parts of America, some to the Summer-Islands, o­thers to Holland and the low-Countries; at which the Bishops were wel pleased, as not doubting but they might (with more ease) deal with the remnant that were left behind. Mr. Goodwin did often bewaile the departure of those men, and resolved by Gods grace to stand it out against all the adversaries of Gods people in those times. And you know he did persist in his resolutions and integrity, even to the making of himself a by-word and a mock amongst them; viz. then when others were fled and run away, Mr. Goodwin was left to pray, &c. At this, chiefly, and mainly, was Mr. Goodwin offended with Mr. Thomas Goodwin. Never was he troubled at the joyning together of holy men in any parish, to keep out the vitious 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 defire the same. Nay severall persons living in severall parts of the City out of the parish, were his most intimate associates even in the ordinances of Gods worship and service, and in all things relating to reformation, though in that parish (the civill 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, then 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 then 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 equall interest and power in voting in Church affairs, (parish civill rights excepted) I say an equall interest with those godly of the parish. I remember well it was demanded by the brethren that diffented from Mr. Goodwin, severall times, whether [Page 54]Mr. Goodwin, and the brethren that joyned with him, would deny, that they were a true Church, before these differences did arise amongst them: and it was never denyed, but that they were a true Church, though under much deformity, and want of Reformation. At last it was assented unto, that an equall 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 Church-fellow-ship 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, rent 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 scandall, 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.

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. Ioseph Syblye,
• M. Tho. Fitzwilliam.

And whatsoever shall be agreed by the major part of the twelve per­sons above named, there being present an equall number of those na­med by both parties, shall be presented to Mr. Goodwin, to obtain his consent.

[Page 55]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 publick 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 civill things onely 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 publick meeting place, to intreat the Lord for mercy for former ignorances and miscar­riages, in, and about his publick worship; and to enter into a holy covenant with the Lord, to be more carefull 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 indeavour the Refor­mation of Religion in this kingdome 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 moneth after, when the day appointed (as aforesaid) came, wherein the Resolves of the said Vestrie were to be put in exequation; some of the contrary party to Mr. Goodwin, receded from their former Votes, and Resolutions, somenting 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, joyned 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 joyned 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.

[Page 56]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.

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 publike Vestrie, 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 proceedings relating to union and reformation, applyed 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, &c. and in fine, procured (as it was said, though it was never shewed unto the Parish, as I could ever understand) the sequestration of the Vicaridge of Steven, Coleman-street, from the use of M. Iohn Goodwin, unto the use of M. Ieremy VVhitaker, then living. But M. VVhitaker upon the full understanding of the whole matter, would not accept of the same: By all which it appears to all impartiall men, that ever understood the History of these transactions, that it was not M. Goodwin, and those of the Parish that joyned 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, & shew 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, then he was before, when he wrote that [Page 57]Letter to M. Thomas Goodwin; must this in M. Goodwins judgement and conscience justifie 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 ought, 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 kinde, 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 turn'd Papists, Iews, 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 flie: but a child is known by his doings. Pro. 20.11.

SECT. LVI.

VVE 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 shew 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 refreshings from his presence from day to day.

[Page 58]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 wil 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, yeilding neither seed to the sower, nor bread to the eater; or as Iudes clouds without water, and giving out little refreshment to any man, but blackness and darkness.

SECT. LVII.

M. Goodwins first consideration is summarily thus. Moral precepts when in competition with ceremonial, must be obeyed, and Ceremoniall sus­pended, Mat. 12.3, 4.7.11. Mat. 5.23, 24. Hence he inferrs, the inexcu­sableness of such persons in the sight of God and men, who pretend themselves disobliged from the performance of such lawfull, 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 vertue 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 rebap [...]ized, 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. Goodwins own practise, in separating from the godly Presby­terians, and joyning 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 wayes of joynt 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, &c. each should be obliged to run away from his dis­senting brother. If so be that in doubtfull, and questionable things, such as your notions of infant-baptism, and rebaptization, &c. are, [Page 59]each should be bound by this vow and covenant, to follow his own personall conception; where should two believers be found walking together? And is the nationall 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 wandring Cains, to run away one from another? what, to joyn 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 mans departure from another, of justifying mens apostacie (if upon religious pretences) though it be even to Turcism, Iudaism, and what not?

As for what you offer concerning M. Goodwins separation from the godly Presbyterians, I have already answered, Sect. 55.

M. Goodwins 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 baptized according thereunto) having no opportunity through want of light, or otherwayes, for the same, and yet withall, 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, baptized 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 evill.

SECT. LVIII.

TO this you answer: First, by absolute denyall of the said conside­ration, and affirm it a mistake, that such Churches, not actually baptized with your baptism, should (the premises notwithstanding) be esteemed by God to have been baptized, offering onely, 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 baptized, who never was thus baptized; 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 it self, in the very least, imply, that God judgeth that actually and in a formal proper sense to be done, which was never done? nay doth it not more then 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 Gods 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 Aenigmatical and hard a saying to your understanding? If this consideration given [Page 60]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 minde, or the worthiness of your works, that is the Ancor 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 Gods minde therein) yet this doth not excuse mens ignorance. God doth not justifie men in any such false judgement.

I reply. And is this an answer? may not we infer; therefore God doth not justifie your ignorance of his minde, in keeping covenant with him and his Church and people, though differing in some things from you, but breaking the same as a thred 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 bapti­zed, as if you were baptized, 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 your selves, as baptized, though not baptized, &c.

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 judgment; 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 joyn 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 excellentlie 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 sayings herein sa­vours so much of vanity, folly, spiritual pride, and conceitedness, that for your sake I shall forbear to say more to it. Onely 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 mans holy­ness, humility, bounty, charity, &c. then the rich: but I spare you.

Mr. Goodwins third consideration is collectively thus,

The Scriptures expresly teach, that by faith men become the children of Abraham, and sons of God, Iohn 1.12. Iohn 2.26. Rom. 4.11, 12.16. those then 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 [Page 61]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 holyness, or dignity, than Christ himself, in that they are ashamed of those, of whom Christ is not ashamed, &c.

SECT. LIX.

To this you answer, by granting the truth of the consideration, but offer, that no mans faith was accepted with God in the premitive times, who was found sticking at any of his commandments. Now baptisme 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 your self to be convicted of disowning Christs 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 gospell, 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 bapti­zed in their infancie, must be baptized again; that childrens baptism is forbidden in Scripture, or a nullity: you may sooner be able to shew us one of the feathers of the Raven that fed Elias, than shew 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, &c. 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 bosome of the holy Scriptures, and this you would enforce upon us, as the off-spring of Gods 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 practise? did not you once stick at it your self 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 baptized?

From the 9th Page of your book, speaking to M. Goodwins third consideration, you take an excursion, even unto the 32. Page, quite forsaking the business in hand, and repeating M. Allens Arguments [Page 62]about baptism, which have been answered once, and again, by Mr. Goodwin; and to run after you, is to persue the wind, which will bring nothing but vanity in the latter end.

Mr. Goodwins 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 holyest of men, Rom. 14.1, 2. Act. 10.31. Rom. 14.17, 18. 1 Iohn 1.7. that you therefore ac­knowledg us to have worth, yea more worth, holiness, righteousness, the fear and love of God in us, than many among your selves, bapti­zed 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 baptized. (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 Church­communion. (5.) That it is contrary to Mr. Goodwins own practise, and having here gotten, as you suppose, Mr. Goodwin under your feer, 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, &c. but hold a little.

SECT. LX.

1. VVHat if the persons spoken of Rom. 14. were baptized, (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? Could not the persons give visible testimony of their communion with God before their baptization, or though they had never been baptized? If so, why were they baptized, 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 baptized (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 baptized 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 spirituall Fellowship) required much more their reception into com­mon respect; certainly, they that do the great things of the law, wil 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 dis-respect at all in any kind, cither common, or special, upon the account of their different [Page 63]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 prelaticall 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 severall 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 wayes of God, (what ever your principle is) I am not ashamed to tel 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. Goodwins, and tho Church practise in this kind, tho 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. Goodwins fifth Consideration is to this purpose, that learned men are not agreed about the proper signification of baptizo, whether it be to dip, or sprinckle, &c. much less illiterate men, for, for all that they know, it may signifie to run or to ride, or what not, as well as to dip, and theref [...]re 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 personall knowledg, then there can be no cer­tainty, but humane tradition; no nor yet the certainty of that, because there are severall 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 signifie dipping, because it is said, Rom. 6 4. 2 Coll. 12. buryed with him in baptism: which is as if a man should argue thus, the word Christ must terminatively signifie 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, bapti­zing them, that is, dipping them, because it is expounded so, Rom. 6.4. We are buryed with him in baptism; buryed, that is, plunged under wa­ter, as a dead man is buryed under the earth. May not I also as well urge thus, baptizo must needs signifie to wash, because it is said. Mat. 3.11. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost: what is that dipt 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 baptized, That liberty is allowed by the Church to Mr. Lamb, which he denyes to al­low the Church and wash away thy sins: since then there are various sig­nifications of the word baptizo, why wil 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 your selves; wash, sprinckle, 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 judgment 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. Goodwins 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 morall 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 edifie, comfort, admonish, counsell, 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 otherwayes 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 baptized as well as men, or that baptism should be ad­ministred this way, or another, these things are disputable, and dispured, a­mongst believers: what say you now? is there no difference between Mr. Goodwins first and sixth consideration? Well, that consideration is yet untouched by you; but sure I am, you are sufficiently touched, and more then touched by it, and I trust you are not past feeling, I wish you would seriously lay it to heart.

SECT. LXIII.

MR. Goodwins 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 expresly 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 magnifie and insist upon.

To this you answer: first, VVhy should that be hard to Mr. Goodwin, which the Scripture hath made easie? say you, that is your interpreta­tion, no Text expresly, 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 replyed before, Sect. 32.

Mr. Goodwins eigth consideration, is summarily what you have said, viz. that withdrawing upon this account, is a Schismaticall practise, 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 mans cause is right in his own eyes, and your separation hath been sufficiently argued [Page 66]and proved to be such a sin as requires your repentance and reforma­tion, whether you see it or no.

But say you, Shew us a rule from Christ, to gather Churches without baptism, then our mouth will be stopt.

I reply: What is this to infant baptism? what to dipping? the Church from whom you have separated, was, and is, a baptized Church.

2. Shew 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: VVhy should our separating from you be sinfull in us, any more than your separating from Parish-Churches sinfull in you?

This we have already answered, Sect. 52. You add: You say,

3. As the fatall apostacie from the pure Ordinances of Christ, and primi­tive worship was graduall, so is the recovery of the primitive purity gradual also, &c.

This is nothing to the consideration, and therefore I have nothing to say unto it.

Mr. Goodwins 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, &c. To this you say,

1. That though the said Author calleth it a carnall 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 spirituall thing?

Is dipping, washing, sprinckling, 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 onely in respect of the out­ward act, not in respect of the spirituall 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, ren­d [...]e [...]h them not unclean one unto another; nor is it a just ground of dividing one from another &c.

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 [Page 67]have proved, that for unbaptized persons to joyne 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 hing 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 tendred by M. Goodwin.

Baptism is no constituting principle of a true Church, therefore separation upon the account of this, or that manner of baptizing, is not warrantable, there being nothing, but (suppose) a mistake about it, &c.

To this you say again you have proved it, but where, who can tell?

Mr. Goodwins 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 baptized or unbaptized, &c. You an­swer,

1. Paul writ to Churches who were all baptized, 1 Cor. 12.13. he saith, we are all baptized, &c.

SECT. LXVI.

BRother, take heed of handling the word of God deceitfully; where doth the Scripture say we are all baptized with water? it is true, it saith we are all baptized by one spirit into one body: take heed of Le­gerdemain in the things of God: is this good arguing, we are all bapti­zed by one spirit; ergo, we are all baptized 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 severall the rest of your inferences are: Do we deny that any believer mentioned in the Scriptures, as members of Churches, were not baptized with the Spirit? Do not you judge your holy and be­loved brethren, &c. baptized with the spirit, though not baptized as you count baptism.

2. What if it be granted that they were all baptized, would Paul have them rejected, in case they were holy and worthy men, and durst not be baptized 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, [Page 68]&c. and to banish him, with them, out of his house, from his Ordi­nances, and this meerly, because that either he will not be dipt and baptized again, having in his judgement and conscience, been bapti­zed already; or because he is ignorant that it is Gods 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 sabboth dayes; ergo, children are not to be baptized; ergo, the manner of baptizing must be by dipping: Ergo, if persons be not thus baptized, and at age, they are no more fit to make members of Churches, than fornicators, covetous, idolaters, rai­lers, drunkards, extortioners, and evill workers: Ergo, Iesus 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 stil going before him; So it seems in those pathes 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 fanatick notions and practises. 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 dayly 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? &c. 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 brake 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 beautifull thing, Coll. 2.5. Ergo, What do you tell us of the steadfastness of your faith without you be dipt? 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 blinde, let him be blinde; can you not see baptism by dipping, and believers unbaptized, 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, [Page 69]that holy men, not baptized, 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 mens are now, 2 Cor. 1.18.

I hope now it appears clearer than the Sun, (if clearer may be) that in Pauls judgement godly and holy persons (though one with Christ Jesus by faith) that scruple baptism, and are not baptized after our way and manner, have no more right to Church-membership than those that are one in communion and fellowship, even with the Devill himself, or else Paul would pull down with his one hand, what he built up with another.

Having kill'd Mr. Goodwins Argument dead, six times over, so that it lies at his feet, like murthered Abel at his brother Cains; 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, Doest not thou think in thy conscience, Mr. Goodwin hath the wrong end of the staff in this controversie? and whether the putting this question doth not discover it? and who it is that buildeth upon light conjec­tures, loose suppositions, presumptuous self-imaginations, M. Goodwin, or his poor brethren of the dip, as he calleth them?

SECT. LVII.

MR. Goodwins 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 freedome, from such yoaks 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 vertue of baptism, as if men without it, and that at such time, and in such manner, and upon such tearms 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. Goodwins 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 rendring men abhominable 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 your self cannot tell to what, as if (like Babels builders) you understood not the language of the conside­ration, but that it spake in an unknown tongue: for say you, (1.) The Apostles did foresee there would be an apostacie from the primitive practise, &c. (2.) This apostacie did fall out accordingly, &c. (3.) Why did not the judgement of the learned stop your (Mr. Gooodwins) mouth, and tearing your self from the national Church? &c. (4.) You (Mr. Goodwin) plead stiffly for some things, which rendreth you more alone than we, &c. What is the meaning of all this? you might as wel have told us, that Lots 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. Goodwins 16th. Consideration, you have summ'd up thus: Infant-baptism, though per sprinckling, 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 onely be, That it is too evident to be denyed, and too easie an answer to satisfie 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. Goodwins 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 [Page 71]to be dipt, reproved for not being dipt, therefore high presumption for any to lay their own commands herein upon such penalties as you do, &c.

You have answered it is very true, and it is the truest answer you have yet given.

Mr. Goodwins 18th. Consideration, viz. that it is hard to prove it sin­full to refuse not only not to be dip, but to be baptized in one form or other, (1.) Because hard to finde out a lawfull administrator. (2.) The command to baptize is given to the Apostles. (3.) They were not enjoyned to baptize 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, &c.

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 Oyntment 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 sinfull for Disciples to remain unbapti­zed, and that by the precept of Christ, then all your far-fetcht pleas will fall to the ground. And then you fall to the work, from page the 69. to page the 79. toyling and labouring to catch that (which at least mist of it) you might have had granted you for asking; but you answer to what was objected, as if (like the Disciples when Christ told them of his going up to Jerusalem to suffer, &c. Luke 18.34.) you understood none of those sayings, 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 Faulconers, you flie after a gilded butterflye with children; when one thing is called for by Mr. Goodwin, another thing is fetcht by Mr. Lamb: Like that of Dabartus, writing of the building of N [...]mrods Tower:

You go about to prove it sinfull for Disciples to remain unbaptized, if you mean Disciples, whom Christ commanded to be baptized, having [Page 72]all opportunities thereunto, (as they had in the primitive times) M. Goodwin and you are of one minde in that, but if you mean Disciples now in these dayes 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 baptized (which is not by us denyed) by ver­tue of the command of Christ, you must then prove (and that not by a flourish of words, but evidence of Scripture) 1. VVho is the person suffi­ciently authorised by Jesus Christ hereunto: Hard it is for. M. Lamb to prove his autho­rity to baptize. Whether you can clearly prove your commission for baptizing other men and women; and why those men, yea and women too, whom you baptize, may not go out and bap­tize others; for where do we finde in the Scriptures, that those whom John baptized, did after their baptism baptize others; as also the like querie may be made of those converts in the Acts of the Apostles, &c.

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, baptizing them, &c. was a Law imposed upon you (if you wil take upon you to baptize others) as well as upon the Apostles; As also, who are those mentioned in baptizing 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 vertue 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 practise of the Apostles) to be intended by God chiefly, 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 baptize, &c.

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 fruitfull (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 [Page 73]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 practise, and who pronounce all men unworthy of christi­an-communion, who are not as positive and assertive as your selves. But alas! Mountains and Rocks are not so easie removed by Babes and Sucklings, and puft 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. Goodwins 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 wel as themselves, they had no Reason to reject them, never making the least mention of their being baptized, and with that account only the brethren were satisfied.

To this you answer, 1. They were baptized. 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 dayes a believing person, and a baptized 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-bee's why-nots for it. 2. The contrary is palpable; for, (1.) there were believers before they were baptized, 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, & Iames, and Iohn, Philip, and Bartholomew, &c. (3.) we read of many that were bap­tized, of whose faith we have no particular assurance at all, as of those of Iernsalem, and all Iudea, and of the Regions beyond Iordan, that [Page 74]were baptized of John in the VVilderness.

SECT. LXXV.

MR. Goodwins 21. Consideration, is to this purpose, viz. That Pa­stors and Teachers were given by Christ, for the perfecting of the Saints in general, whether baptized or not baptized, 2 Eph. 4.8.11, 12. Christs body consisting of Saints, [...] Ephes. [...].10. it followeth then, that Saints, whether baptized 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 priviledge of Church-membership with them, unto Saints, deeming them unbaptized, are sound fighters against Iesus Christ, &c. You answer,

1. Those Saints specified in the 4th. of the Ephesians, were baptized, 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 severall baptisms in other respects, as to speak in your own language, baptism with water, baptism with the spirit, baptism with affliction, &c. But all these in respect of fruit and consequences, but one baptism; so that answer vanisheth into ayre. 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; shew us therefore where your proof lyeth, we hear of nothing more then I have proved, I have proved, I have proved, and I have found, I have found, I have found, but you can as wel shew us the way of the bird in the ayre, of the fish in the sea, &c. as shew 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 withall, is Gal. 3.27. for as many as have been baptized unto Christ, Gal. 3.27. have put on Christ; hence you most confidently build, that they, and only they that were baptized 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 heretick, as one calls him, did) from the 10th. of Iohn, and the 8th. ver. All that ever came before me are Thieves and Robbers; therefore Abraham, Isaac; and Iacob, Moses and the Prophets, that came before Christ were Thieves 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 Ierusalem; hence you infer, that they and only they that were of the kindred of the high Priest, were gathered together at Ierusalem. Do you not see that your silver is be­come dross, and all your treasure is nothing but dirt and mire?

[Page 75]Mr. Goodwins 22. consideration imports,

First, the consideration of that intelligence, by books and writings, from too crebile authority, touching the troublesom and turbulent de­portment of those that have thus gone a wandring after dipping and rebaptization, where their numbers have considerably increased in Ireland, Scotland, &c. 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, &c.

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 Rebaptization, after full tryal 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, &c.

5. The several new modes of dipping pleaded for, every latter pretending to correct the insufficiency, irregularity, and inconvenience of the former, &c.

6. The uncertainty of many men of that way who change and shift their judgments and practises, their dividing and subdividing, even among themselves, &c.

7. That high Antichristian-like, 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 then theirs, as if after they were dipt, a voyce from heaven had com­manded all men to hear them, as it did (upon Christs Baptism) to hear him, &c.

8. That persons once discipled to that way, have no ears to hear and consider any arguments and reasons that speak against that way, &c.

9ly. and lastly, That many (given up unto that judgment and pra­ctise, 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 tygers, &c.

SECT. LXXVI.

THis 22. consideration, hath such an operation upon you, as Christs Sermon had upon some of the Iewes, when they said, ( Ioh. 10.20.) He hath a Devil, and is mad; or, as the Iews 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 [Page 76]seems to rise not only to anger, but even to rage, yea, to envy it self, as if (like Esau) you now resolved your Brothers (nay, your spiri­tual fathers) death, or at least, the death of his name and honor a-among good men. I have heard of one Fryer Augustine of Antwerp, that preaching to the people against Luther, wish't that Luther was there, that he might bite 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 sawes 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, &c. 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 sayings, (Strapado­like) that you might throw him down with the greater fall and re­proach: How doth Mr. Goodwins zeal in opposing us, transport himselfe, making him forget his old brave saying, wherein he certainly had the spirit of God with him, &c.

2. You charge Mr. Goodwin, that leaving his calm reasonings from Scripture, he betakes himself to wrath, and the weapons of reflection, and presently your self reflects upon him what ever you can pick out of his writings to disparage him; though in this you do (like a Whifler) carry a torch in your hand to shew to others your own defor­mity.

3. Mr. Lamb that he might Gangrene his name to purpose, and lay his honor in the very dust, is searching and digging the field even of Golgatha it self, to finde out the worst of rottenness and putrifaction 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, &c.

Before I look into this Sepulchre, I shall premise concerning the Author of Gangraena, Mr. T. E. deceased and interr'd 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 disturb'd untill it be refined and restored.

Nevertheless, the said Sepulchre being opened by this unhappy hand, striving (if possible) to thrust Mr. Goodwins fame and reputation [Page 77]into the mouth thereof, and to bury it in everlasting reproach and con­tempt; I cannot but endeavour to hold the arms of this unkinde, un­g [...]atefull, and indeed unnatural once beloved Son and Disciple of his, to prevent the issue of his desparate 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, evill customes, and practises of those men, that decline the wayes of God, and the so­cieties of the Saints, under their pretended zeal for Gods glory, and the salvation of mens souls, and that for the christian caution of others, either staggering and unsetled in the truth, and recovery (if it may be) of some out of the snare of death: these (I say) are practises of divine authority and approbation, and to be reckoned among other the good wayes 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. Iude 8.10.16. Rom. 16.17.18.

To the third particular, viz. the charging of the unworthiness of some persons, to stain 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 practise, acting very turbulent­ly and sinfully in the places where they lived, and severall of the last quotations of Scripture, will justifie that also.

To the fourth particular, viz. That Mr. Goodwin stirred up the Ma­gistrates in his Water-dipping, &c. against you or any others for mat­ters of Religion (the publick peace preserved) is so foul, false, and foolish a charge, as a man would think, that the fore-head of a whore upon the face of a man, had more modesty than to affirm it; and cer­tainly, had you not given and rendred your self a very sad instance of the wofull change of your wonted Genius, from what it was when you were amongst us, and that you are the man that have made a sad ship­wrack of that sweetness, meekness, love, and christian humility of spi­rit, &c. I say, had you not been a sad example and instance herein, you (that know Mr. Goodwins judgement, and what he hath and doth day­ly write concerning his faith in that point) would not so boldly, ca­priciously, and peremptorily have written such falcities of him, and [Page 78]except you quickly recover your self, we cannot but fear the issue will be tragicall. How can you revise those words of yours, page. 92. There is this only difference between you and M. Edwards, 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 abhorren­cie 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 undutifull a child as he, his son (to throw contempt enough upon him) replyed, 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. Goodwins end in writing this 22. consideration, as wel 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 revilings, &c.

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 Churches defection in matters of faith and practise, 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 perswaded of the corruption thereof, & of a dangerous tendencie to root up & destroy the flourishing congregations & churches of the living God. Suppose some of your people baptized (as you call it) and gathered to your self accor­ding to your own judgement, should apostize to Popery, to Judaism, 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 tyrany of the Turks, the frauds of the Jews, the prophaneness of the Ranters, &c. 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 [Page 79]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 Ministery in the promotion of holyness 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 write him comparable with the old enemy of the truth, Gangraena, between whom and Mr. Goodwin (say you) there is but this onely difference, viz. that he had not so keen a wit and roaring language to set off his rage and fury, as Mr. Edwards 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 extacie 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. Goodwins 23 Consideration amounts to this, There is no sub­stantial argument produced to justifie such a practice of separations upon such grounds, neither do he believe ever will be.

To this you say, VVhether we have not given arguments to justifie 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 judgment 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 giddy-headed 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 ayr, having indeed curious colors, but fill'd 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 dunghil: 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 murthering the honor of his aged father? What can he see, but a stragling sheep wandring away from the flock of Christ, a prodigal son turning his back upon his fathers family? What can he see, but your high presumption, in cutting off, and keeping away innocent babes from Christs benedicti­on, in tearing up, and rending in pieces the Churches of Christ uni­ted together by a holy covenant, in obtruding your meer fancies for the objects of Faith, and your unscriptural conceits for the Oracles of [Page 80]God, in cursing those armies of Israel, and flocks of Christ, whom he hath blessed, and in calling them common, and unclean, whom hee hath clensed. In a word, what shall he see, but that (notwithstand­ing all that you have written yet) WATER-DIPPING IS NO FIRM FOOTING FOR CHVRCH-COMMVNION.

SECT. LXXVIII.

To conclude, If your Reader of what you have written to answer M. Goodwin, be also M. Goodwins 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. Goodwins 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 wil diligently search those Scriptures, and exa­mine what M. Goodwin and your self, his corrector, have offered, as the true sense and meaning thereof, in relation to the business in con­troversie between you, viz. separation from Churches, made up of holy brethren, vvalking 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.