Doctor Featley holds these errors, viz.,

that Archbishops, &c. are not Antichristian, p. 32,

and that the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not Idolatrous nor Antichristian, p. 32,

that baptism is a means of salvation, and p. 40, 41, 50,

that it is the remedy of original sin, p. 41,

that regeneration by water, is to take away the filth of sin; p. 41,

that children of faithful parents receive some measure of grace in their infancy; p. 59,

that there is no command or example,

that women took the Sacrament,

that the river is defiled by dipping a man or woman into it;

he saith, baptizing of Infants began in the Apostles days, p. 19, and yet no man can name the time when it began, p. 52, 53, 66, (which is so high a contradiction, as no illiterate man can reach it) .

Also he saith,

that those children which cannot be taught, may be made disciples by their parents, p. 39, or godfathers, p. 57,

and that children make a profession of their faith and repentance at their baptism by these sureties, p. 76, might he not as truly say, that the faith of their parents or godfathers is given to the children, and so it's theirs?

illiterate men must of necessity refer these things to the School-men, as Tho. Aquinas, &c.

Also he saith, that baptism is the entrance into the Church, p. 23, 46, 63. and he that is cast out of the Church, upon repentance must be received in again, p. 29, then it seems he must be re-baptized, else how shall he get in if it be the entrance?

So by the Doctor's doctrine he holds re-baptizing, which we deny, and so he is an Anabaptist, and not we.

Also the Doctor saith,

that Christ is the Son of God, not only in respect of His temporal generation, but also in respect of his eternal generation, p. 3,

and that the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, because He proceeds from the Father originaly; and that the Spirit hath a dependence from both, p. 23.

But if Christ, as He was God had a beginning, he could not be God if He had no beginning.

How can Christ, as He is God, be the Son of God in respect of His eternal generation any more than the Father is His Son by eternal generation?

Secondly, if the Spirit of God be God, (as He is) equal with the Father and the Son, all Three infinite, without beginning, each having the whole divine essence and yet there is but one essence: how can the Spirit proceed from the Father originally, any more then the Father from the Spirit? And how can the Spirit of God have any more dependance upon the Father and the Son, then they have upon Him, seeing whatsoever is infinite, can have no dependance upon any thing?

Therefore the Doctor's words contain in them the nature of blasphemy; and to define how one can be three, and three but one, & always so remains, is above the reach of any man: I may say to him as, Mat. 7:3; Luke 6:41, 42..

The Doctor charges the Anabaptists, in the Title page of his book, with high attempts against the State, which I confess were an impiety insufferable, and all that are guilty of this charge, ought to die for it. But in no place of his book he does so much as offer to prove the least part of this charge against any one of this Kingdom, or the next to it. He speaks as if two or three in Germany whom he pleases to call Anabaptists, which he said were guilty of this sin. But what is that to us if they be guilty of these and the like wickedness? Should not the Doctor have done better to have written his book in their language (if he be not illiterate in it) and sent it into those parts of the world as a means to reform them? As for our parts, we can justly plead, Not guilty, and challenge all in the world to prove it against us if they can.

If the Doctor's meaning be that we are guilty of rebellion, because we side with the Parliament against those that go about to destory the Kingdom:

We answer, we do so to preserve the State, and this is not against the State.

But the Doctor says, that we are a cruel and bloody Sect, by embroiling Kingdoms in wars, and by raising persectuions against God's servants, page 210.

Answer It is well known that we were not the causers of these wars, and our desires are, that God would end them, and settle truth and peace in all places in the world. And it is well known, we desire no man might be forced against his judgment and conscience in any way of worshipping of God; no not to the true worship, but rather to pray to God, to open their eyes, and wait with long patience til God persuade them; and if they never see the light to walk in it, to leave all to God. And if so, which way does this tend to persecution of the Saints, let all judge.

But he said, we are a lying and blasphemous Sect, yet he alledges not one proof to prove us so, and we are content that your books with ours may be examined, to see which is the lying, and blaspheming Sect.

Also he accuses the Anabaptists to be an impure and carnal Sect, p. 207. Yet he brings not any one instance of any one act of uncleaness of any one Anabaptist in all England. And seeing he could not produce any witness of such a thing here, he, for proof, steps to Rome to search the Popes, and names three of them, Sergius, Gregory and Leo, and that the Pope tolerated Stewes, (he might as well have said, a Priesthood with holy Orders.)

But the Doctor is not ignorant that these Popes were not Anabaptists: but suppose they had, is this a good reasoning to say the Churches of Christ in the Apostles' days, were a filthy unclean Sect, and for proof name I Cor. 5:1, that one was guilty of fornication, yea one who had his father's wife. And to say the Priesthood of England are a filthy and unclean Sect, and for proof alledge what the Priests of England have been guilty of, near our doors, as one (here he names the man but the name is blacked out REP), committed buggery with sixteen men. See the FIRST CENTURY OF SCANDALOUS MINISTERS, p. 1. &c. And, Doctor Featley, if you please to join issue with us, we will confine ourselves to this Kingdom, whether your Sect of Priests, or us be most guilty of uncleanness, and upon that side it falls by the clearest proof, shall with my consent, be chronicled for the filthy and unclean Sect.

So he makes a dreadfull noise of the fearfull judgments of God that befell the Ringleaders of this Sect, and of their deaths; and to prove this, he names Elymas the Sorcerer, who was struck with blindness, p. 218, but he was not an Anabaptist, but withstood the Apostles, and the truth they professed, and they practiced dipping. So that he is recorded for an example for others, that they oppose not Christ's servants, and the truth they profess, lest God meet with them also in like manner; but he names 200 and odd were put to death, who were, as he saith, Anabaptists.

Answer, This is no more then the Scripture saith, Rev. 13:7. They shall make war with the Saints and overcome them. He saith in Vinna some Anabaptists were tied together with ropes and drowned, two were burned beyond Southwark, and a little after five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield, page 55. It rejoiceth us that men suffer for any truth; behold how he honors those men that suffered.

But he says, they dip one another after their manner with a kind of spell, containing the heads of their erroreous tenets, and their engaging themselves in their schismatical covenants.

We answer, The manner of our baptism is as the Apostles' was, and there is no other words expressed in our baptizing then what is expressed in the 28th of Matthew part of the 19, verse, and no mention of any tenets, much less erroneous ones: nor no words of any convenants are mentioned at all.

We confess when any is to be baptized at the water side, the administrator goes to prayer suitable to the occasion, and after goes both into the water, and uses the words Matt. chap. 28, part of the 19, verse; and coming forth again, they go to prayer again, and also return thanks to God, and how this can be a spell we cannot see.

But he further accuses the Anabaptists, for running into corners to meet in.

We answer, If he means houses to be the corners, we confess it, and they are the best places we have; but if he or any other will do us so much favor to procure more larger and public places for us to meet in, we are ready to embrace them with much thankfulness.

But, said the Doctor, they go men and women together stark naked into their Jordans, pages 36 and 203. We answer, we abhore it, and deny that ever any of us did so, and challenge him to prove it against us, if he can; & if he cannot, it is fit he should be known for a slanderer, if he deserves no punishment for it.

But he said, the Anabaptists are an illiterate and sottish sect. We answer, some of them know many letters, and if they can do no more, I see not how it can be truly affimred they are illiterate. Yea, but it seems in the Doctor's account they are not so good scholars as he is. I freely confess it, and I preceive the Doctor has skill in one tongue that will never do him good, and I desire to be ignorant of it; but one may wonder that he so much enveies against illiterate men, seeing he saith, in p. 200 that God in the first planting of the Gospel, made use of illiterate men, that all may know, that he that plantes and he that waters is nothing; and further says, p. 14. I confess we read of one Fumentius, a lay-man, who is in his travels, converted many to the Christian Faith: (and Dr. Fulk confesses in his CONFUTATION OF THE RHEMIST TESTAMENT, of a women that converted a great many of them who lived in the Island to which place she was carried captive).

But Dr. Featley says, the learned men have proved the worthiest Instruments (bravely spoken) 2 Cor. 10:17, 18. The sum is, therefore now all illiterate men must forever hold their peace, at least in England, and in case any travel into any Island, where there are some unconverted, if there be no Doctors there, Illiterate men may see what God will do by them.

But the Doctor charges the Anabapsits, p. 10, to be uncertain of their grounds, because sometimes they plead one thing, and sometimes another.

Answer, No, variety of grounds and reasons against a thing, may arise from the clear discovery of the truth to them and from fulness of persuasion in the judgment, as illiterate men conceive.

But, saith the Doctor, in his Epistle, the SEPARATION and ANABAPTISTS upbraid the State with their merit, in hazarding their lives and estates in these present wars.

Answer. No such matter, they do but only declare their loyalty to the State, and I conceive they accuse them to be enemies, out of a desire that they be less friends to it; and some conceive, the Doctor, and such as he is, seek the destruction of the State, in seeking to deprive the State of the help of many (who are faithful and loyal to it.)

But, said he, Anabaptism was condemned long since by the Greek and Latin Churches; mark how the Doctor bears himself upon human authority; then it seems you cannot say it is condemned by Jesus Christ in His Word; but the Doctor confesses, that general Councels have sometimes most grossely mistaken error for truth, and Idolatry for true Religion, p. 92. Then it's no wonder, if the Doctor error with his Greek and Latin Church: and seeing the Doctor affirms that the example of Christ and his Apostles does not bind us without a precept, p. 37, 38, with what reason or conscience does he urge against us, yea, and against Christ's command, his Greek and Latin Churches, without a precept? Does he not set them herein above Christ Himself? The Papists pretend antiquity, and brag of their universality against the truth. We know error is ancient, and spreading; but truth was before error, and baptizing by dipping was before baptizing by sprinkling; he may name to us as many men as he pleases, but he must tell us where it is so written in the Scriptures, so as we may read it, before we shall believe them, Luke 10:26.

But the Doctor charges us in his book, with many things that we hold:

That no malefactor ought to be put to death,

That it is lawful to have more wives then one at once,

That a man may put away his wife if she differ from him in point or religion,

That we are to go naked, and not be ashamed,

That we hold it lawful to slay wicked Magistrates,

That no Christian may go to law, but right himself by violent means,

That wicked men have no properiety in their goods, but all things ought to be hold in common,

That we maintain pretended Revelations,

That Christ took not flesh of the virgin Mary,

That there is no original sin,

That men have free will in spiritual actions,

That election is for foreseen faith and repentance,

That God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved,

That a man hath free will of himself to accept or refuse grace, That Christ died indifferently alike for all,

That a true believer may fall away from grace totally and finally,

And that we hold Libertinism & Familism, and such like stuff which we utterly abhore and detest; and if God permit, we shall in the next impression of the Confession of our Faith, more fully declare jointly what we believe, and therefore I will not answer his exceptions, which he makes at some of the Articles, but leave it to them to answer for themselves, which will be before long, if God permits.

But I am sure, all this poison (which he charges upon us) is drawn out of the impure fountain of divers Heretics, in which he labors to drown us in; and I wonder how his conscience would permit him to heave so many untruths into the Press; but (as Christ said, John 16:2, and) he was encouraged by Sleiden, Grabriel, Abres, Alsterdus, and others, Oh, I think I hear the press grone, if not sweat under the burden of so many heavy charges; and sure his grones will be much greater when God opens his eyes, and shows him what he hath done, which the Lord in mercy do, if it be His will. I hope I may say as Christ did, Father forigve him, for he knows not what he has done, (Matt. 5:44, 11,12).

After he had condemned the point in question for an error, the Doctor said, I could wish you had brought Scholars with you, who know how to dispute, which I preceive you cannot do.

Answer, Observe, how before he disputes, he vilifies the point in question, and those that maintain it.

But said the Doctor, there are but two ways of disputing: first, by authority: second by reason.

First by authority, if you will dispute in Divinity, you must be able to produce the Scriptures in the original language.

Answer, But why may you not as well say none can dispute in divinity unless they can produce the same copy of the Scriptures which the Apostles wrote, and seeing you cannot do that, you are not fit to dispute yourself; for, said he, in translations there may be, and are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. We may say the same of your HEBREW and GREEK copies, seeing you cannot produce the first copy, how know you but your copies are written and printed false? See page 109.

Can no Writer, if he pleaseth, write contrary to his copy? As for printing, I may say the same, printing is not above 250 years standing. Dr. Fulk in CONFUTATION OF THE RHEMIST TESTAMENT justified the English translation of the Bible, and you have the same reason to doubt of the writing or printing of your copy as we of our translation; and if you may depend upon the Writer or Printer of your copies, why may not we do the same of our Translators, they doing it upon oath?

But truth must not be taken by tradition; and if the knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, &c. be sufficient to teach them the mind of the Spirit of God, then all that know the tongues must of necessity know the mind of God in the Scriptures, and if so, Apollos being a learned man, and saw the first copy of the Bible should not need to learn of Aquila a tradesman (one of the Laity), and Pricilla his wife, the Word of God more perfectly as he did, Acts 18:26.

And what is the reason you agree not among yourselves about the mind of the Spriit of God in His Word? So that some of you in your Expositions differ as much as light and darkness; and if it be not true, tell me, what is that preaching worth which is proved by a false translation? And if we must believe contrary to our translation, because you know the original say so; (what is this but an implicit faith, & so human?) And seeing you so differ among yourselves about the meaning of the Spirit of God in them, tell me how I shall know, which of you I am to believe: also some who know the orignal, affirm someone word will bear 7 or 10 diverse significations, how do you know which of them is intended by God, unless he reveal it to you? and if he please, he can reveal it to illiterate men; God hath hid that from the wise, which he hath revealed unto babes; God said, the natural man cannot preceive the things that be of God (though he be learned) surely no man can know the things of God, but he to whom the Spirit will reveal them unto.

The Word, said he, revealed to us the deep things of God by His Spirit, I Cor. 2:10, he does not say by Greek and Hebrew, &c.

But it will be objected, cannot learned men understand the Scriptures as well as illiterate Asses, as the Doctor calls tradesmen? I answer, yes, both alike, not at all of themselves.

But, what, are there (not-REP) means and helps to the understanding the Scriptures without Greek and Hebrew?

Yes, only the self-evidencing light of the Spirit of God, which first inspired the Pen-men of Scriptures, who is in the hearts of the Saints, the only Interpreter of the Scriptures.

Secondly, the knowledge of the body of Divinity, or the Analogy of the faith, to which the Scripture is to be referred for its right interpretation.

Thirdly, the Law of God written in the hearts of the Lord's, which favors the truth, and disrelishes errors.

The 4th help to the understanding the Scriptures, is the manifold experience of varieties of temptations, and the experiences of the work of Grace in the soul.

Lastly, to compare Scriptures that are dark with Scriptures of the same nature that are more plain, and so to let the Scriptures expound themselves. I conclud this, all men are pur-blind, yea dead, till God gives life, and opens men's eyes. And although human learning is necessary for translating the Scriptures, &c. yet many Idolize it, as the children of Israel did their golden Calf.

The issue of the conference, as he said, p. 18, (?) was, that they were not able to withstand the truth; it seems he was, he said, the Knights and Ladies thanked him, but he cannot say he did deserve it; and he said, the Anabaptists went away discontented and grieved.

Answer, It seems they were very sorrowful, to see his great blindness and hardness of heart; and he said none of them ever after that troubled him anymore; it seems they could do him no good, and so they resolved to leave him to God, till He shall (be-REP) pleased to open his eyes, Luke 11:25, 26.

Section 5: That Doctor Featly justifies dipping in Rivers to be a Lawful manner of baptizing; in which he justifies the practice of the Anabaptists in their manner of baptizing.

Doctor Featley, in page 33, 71, 223, 224, said, Whatsoever is alledged for dipping, we approve of, I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river, Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38, John 3:23. And, the Church of England aproves of dipping, and that such baptizing of men has been, and is and may lawfully be used, yea, and is fit to be used in warm seasons, and the word baptize sometimes signifies to dip.

Answer, Now you justify our practice (for we do no more) in warm seasons: and as for those that choose cold seasons to be baptized in, do they not suffer sufficiently for that fault? I believe you would judge so if the case were yours, though your Epistle declares the contrary, and page 70. I conceive he should have declared to us when the times are, the word signifieth dipping, or what Scriptures they be that will bear that signification. Also, it is worth the observing, that baptizing of believers in rivers, by dipping, is so clearly expressed in the Scriptures, that the enemies to it are forced to confess it; and may not one wonder how he does condemn any for doing of that which he confesses the Scriptures approve of? But this I leave him to consider, Romans 14:22.

We contend for the perfection of the Last Will and Testament ( of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) that it is as perfect to direct in the administrations of the ordinances thereof, as the Old Testament was to direct in the administrations of the ordinances thereof, in which was expressed:

First, who was to administer circumcision, Gen. 17:9, 11, and 21:4.

Secondly, who should be circumcised, every male child, born in the house, or bought with money, Gen. 17:10, 12, 13.

Thirdly, the time when, he that is eight days old shall be circumcised, &c. Gen. 17:12.

Fourthly, the place of circumcision; ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, Gen. 17:11.

Fifthly, the manner, which was to be cut.

But if Infants are to be baptized, because they are the subjects of baptism:

Then if the New Testament does not expressly command infants to be bapized,

The time when they are to be bapized,
and by whom they are to be baptized,
and the manner how they are to be baptized;
but if the New Teatament expresses any of these things,
with the manner of sprinkling,
and the place where they are to be sprinkled.

We desire they would show it to us, which they confess they cannot, it follows by their doctrine, the New Testament gives us not an express direction in the administration of the ordinances thereof, as the Old Testament did for the ordinances thereof; and so the New Testament comes short of the Old.

But the New Testament expressly commands:

Who shall baptize, Matt. 28:19, Go ye, teach and baptize.

Secondly, the persons who are to be baptized, such as repent and believe, and confess their sins, and profess their faith, both male and female: Make Disciples baptizing them, Matt. 28:19, when they believed they were baptized, both men and women, Acts 8:12, 13. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou may be baptized, Acts 8:36, 37, 38. Repent and be baptized, Acts 2:38, And they that gladly received the Word, were baptized, verse 41. And they were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins, Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:4, 5. Such as have received the Holy Spirit, are so to be baptized, Acts 10:44, 47, 48.

Thirdly, the time when they are to be baptized, when they declare their faith, Acts 8:37, 38. They are not to tarry, but to be baptized as soon as possibly they can, as Acts 22:16.

Fourthly, the Element, water.

Fifthly, and the manner how they are to be baptized, they were to be dipped in the name of the three Persons, Matt. 28:19. They were dipped in Jordan, Matt. 3:6. Jesus being baptized, went straightway out of the water, Matt. 3:16, John was dipping (that is, baptizing) in Aenon, John 3:23. And they went both down into the water and baptized him, Acts 8:38.

So you see it is plainly set down what persons are to be baptized, who are to baptize them, when they were to be baptized, and the manner how they were to be baptized.

Therefore the New Testament is as clear as the Old, and Christ as faithful as Moses to appoint how everything should be done; and also such persons that are so qualified as aforesaid, have right to baptism, and none but they, because God excludes all from His Holy Covenant, and to have any right in the outward dispensations thereof, only such as believe, Rom. 11:20; Heb. 3:18, 19 & 4:1, 2, 3, and 11:5, 6; Rom. 9:7, 8; Gal. 3:22, 26, 29.

God denies fellowship and communion with them that do not believe, John 3:5, 6, 36; Heb. 11:6; Rom. 8:9 only such as He has elected in Christ, and so appear by some fruit and effect of the same, as appears, Rom. 8:29, 30; Rom. 11:7; Eph. 1:4, 5, 6; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; I Pet. 1:2; Acts 2:47; Acts 13:48.

Those that God owns for His, are purchased by His blood, who are called, chosen and faithfull, I Peter 2:5, 9; James 4:23; Ephesians 2:19, 20, 21, 22 and 4:16; I Cor. 12:12, 13; Ephesians 5:25, 26, 27 Acts 20:28; Rev. 17:14.

And because infants have not repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, which precedes baptism, as appears Heb. 6: 1,2; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:38.

So also rising with Christ is an act required of all that are baptized, which act infants cannot perform, Col. 2:12; therefore they are not fit subjects of baptism.

Also infants are not to be accounted such as believe, as appears Romans 10:14. If any say, we cannot require faith and repentance of infants; I answer, no more can we require them to be baptized.

Baptism presupposes it, being an ordinance to confirm grace, and none can rightly presuppose grace without some appearing ground, seeing faith and obedience to Christ, is not natural: but baptism is forced upon infants against their wills, contrary to Zeph. 3:9.

Objection: But infants may have grace.

Answer: What does not appear, is secret, and secret things belong to God, Deut. 29:29. What infants may have, is one thing, and what they can be proved to have, is another: we pronounce nothing of infants, but leave them to the Lord.

Objection: Baptism succeeds Circumcision, therefore as infants were circumcised then, so are infants to be baptized now.

Answer: Circumcision of the heart succeeds in the place of circumcision in the flesh, as appears, Romans 2:29. Circumcision made without hands, comes in the place of circumcision made with hands, as Col. 2:11, with Ephesians 2:11. As circumcision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the Israelites, the Holy Spirit of promise is the spiritual seal and earnest of our inheritance, Ephesians 1:13, 14. And if baptism did succeed circumcision, yet the subject of the New Testament does not succeed the Old: for no rejected Esau or Ishmael are to be admitted either to union or communion with the Church of Christ under the New Testament:

The two Testaments are as two Wills, containing legacies bequeathed to such whose names are expressly set down in the same, as Rev. 21:27. In the Old Testament, as the first Will, a male of 8 days old, or a Proselyte, Exodus 12:48, 49; Gen. 17:10- 14:23, 25; John 8; Phil. 3:4, 5.

So in the New Testament, as the last Will of Christ, the legacies therein contained are given to such as believe, and none else, Gal. 3:14, 23, 29, Rom. 8:17 and 14:11, 12; Gal. 3:6, 7; these are begotten again by the Word, born of the Spirit, the children of God, the true heirs of the Kingdom of Christ, with the privileges thereof, as James 1:18; I Peter 2:23; John 1:12, 13; I John 3:9, 10. Those that believe are the seed of the righteous, & of the promise, Isaiah 43:5; with Rev. 12:17; Gal. 4:26, 31.

Infants not being such, are not to be baptized. The New Testament succeeded the old, therefore must we observe the same order they did, all the whole household of every family among the Israelites in Egypt, as well children as others, were to eat the Passover, Exodus 12:3, 4, and the Lord's Supper succeeded that, then it follows children and all must eat the Supper: besides, God did never take in the body of the Gentiles to be His Church, as He did the Jews; ergo, the argument is not the same. The Jews' Church stood not by faith and circumcision of heart (as the Church of the Gospel does) but stood merely upon nature and circumcision of the flesh.

Objection: But baptism is as large as circumcision, Ergo Infants.

Answer: Baptism is both to male and female, therefore larger: circumcision was only to males. Baptism is both to Jews and Gentile, and so is the covenant, yet infants are not to be baptized.

Objection: But believers' children are holy, I Cor. 7:14, therefore are to be baptized.

Answer: This doctrine takes away the being of actual sin, else they could not be holy; this is contrary to Psalms 51:5, the unbelieving wife is termed holy in the same place, therefore she must also be baptized as well as the child: so the unbelieving Jews were termed holy, when they were broken off, Romans 11:16.

What is it to be holy? It may be, you will say, to be under the Covenant. I demand, when do Infants come under the Covenant? When they are conceived? Or when they are born? Or when their parents are converted?

If it be answered, that Infants begotten of believing parents, come under the Covenant in their conception, Psa. 51:5; and Infants born come under the Covenant when their parents are regenerate; then it appears, that the Covenant is conveyed to their children by generation, and by filial relation; but that which is a means to bring an Infant under the Covenant, is a means to bring them under Justification and Sanctification, then it must follow, that we must account all the children of (believing parents) natural birth, to be under Justification and under Sanctification, because they are holy, that is, as they say, under the Covenant; but prove by Scripture that this holiness signifies true sanctification, or to be under the Covenant.

The holiness of the child here, is meant lawfully begotten, which is called holy or godly, Mal. 2:14,15. The sanctity or holiness of the wife, is meant lawful marriage, contrary to Ezra 10:2, 3; as I Thess. 4:3, 4.

There are other kinds of holiness; one of things dedicated to holy uses, as I Sam. 21:5.

So there is a sanctification by the Spirit, which is called holiness, Hebrews 12:14.

So there is a holiness being free from sin; and thus was Christ in the Virgin's womb, this is called holy, Luke 1:35.

There is a holiness of actions, when they are outwardly according to the Word that makes an outward holiness, &c.

Let them prove which of these holiness is meant by this Scripture.

Objection: But the children are in the Covenant, and so are to have the seal of the Covenant.

We demand what Covenant it is they intend, if to the old Covenant, to the old Covenant seals we send them. If they say they be in the New Covenant, I deny it; for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were believers, as the Scriptures affirm, yet of their children God testified, that but a remnant of them shall be saved, Rom. 9:17. Considered with Romans 9:13; Gen. 17:19, 20.

Now if the new Covenant be as Jeremy reports, Jer. 31:32, 33, 34, and as is expressed, Hebrews 8:8 and 10:15, 16, 17, then God, who keeps Covenant, must (needs be true in what He promises) writes His Laws in the hearts of all believer's children, they being within the Covenant, and their children must also be saved, which yet the Scripture denies; Rom. 9:27; Isa. 1:9; Romans 9:29.

But it's believing the doctrine of the Gospel proves persons to be in the Covenant, the promises are all confirmed in Christ; no interest in Christ, no interest in the Covenant and promises thereof, 2 Cor. 1:20, Romans 10:4, I John 5:11, 12, Romans 8:9. We are in Christ (visibly) first by faith, and then in the Covenant and priviledges thereof, Gal. 3:29. And they that were born in the Covenant are never out of it; if the parent's faith instates his child into the priviledges of his faith, salvation being one priviledge, it must needs partake of that also.

Men talk of a priviledge, O it's a priviledge! But what priviledge is it for an Infant to have a name to live, and yet to be never the more alive for it, and to be dead for all that any one knows; they are the children of Abraham, who walk in the steps of Abraham, see Acts 3:25, & 13:26, 33; John 8:37, 39, Romans 9:7, 8, and concerning Genesis 17:7, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; to expound and apply this, and the like places, to the natural posterity of believers, such an exposition of it is as heresy, as we conceive, and strikes at many express Texts of Scripture. To name some:

1. If it be so, that by being born of a believer, the Word (of God which is truth itself) says they be born in the Covenant of Grace and life, then shall all such children be saved, or else God in unfaithful, because the Covenant of grace is a covenant of life, in and by Jesus Christ, which is absolute and unconditional, therefore none can miss of glory if God be faithful; but it is impossible for God to lie, Ergo, they shall all be saved, or they were never in this covenant; this doctrine makes void the stability of God's Covenant of Grace itself.

Thus, if the Covenant of Grace be absolute and stable, then all within the same must be saved, but all within the said covenant were not saved, Ergo, the Covenant of Grace is not absolute and stable. The major is confessed, that a believer's seed is in the Covenant of Grace without exception; the minor is proved from Ishmael and Esau, and the rejected Jews, all which were the seed of believers, and not all saved.

2. It's a ground of falling from grace; thus all that God took into His Covenant of Grace did not there continue, Ergo,

3. Its a ground of universal redemption; this doctrine makes the death of Christ equal as well to such as perish, as to such as are saved, all that are in the Covenant of Grace Christ died for, but all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not saved, Ergo, Christ died for such as are not saved.

4. This doctrine offers to make God the author of man's believing a lie, in enjoining him to believe the salvation of such as he knows, and reveals the contrary, Romans 9:27. God requires no man to believe an untruth; but for a believer to believe that all his seed is in the Covenant of Grace, is to believe an untruth, Ergo, God requires no such thing. But here some are constrained to confess they are not in the covenant of grace and salvation; for all that are in this covenant shall be saved. See, can you find another covenant whereof Baptism and the Supper are the seals of it? And seeing they cannot prove them to have by their natural birth right in the covanant of life by Christ, they cannot prove they have any right to the seals of it.

5. If by their natural birth they be born in the Covenant of Grace, then are they not by nature the children of wrath as well as others who are born of unbelievers, which is against Ephesians 2:3. Now can one be under the covenant and under grace, and under wrath at one and the same time?

6. Then there are two ways of entering into the Covenant of Grace, one by natural birth, another by faith.

7. That there are two ways to enter into the Church of God, one by a natural birth, and another by the second birth, without which none are to enter into the kingdom of God; this latter enters by profession of faith? and repentance.

8. That as of old, so now there is some fleshly priviledge as by which we become members of the Church now, viz. by being born of a believer; therefore all old things are not done away, and all become new, which is contrary to divers Scriptures: as they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted (by God) for the seed, Romans 9:7, 8, with Gal. 3:9.

9. If by fleshly birth some have right to the Ordinances, &c, then we may know some after the flesh, that is, in a fleshly consideration, but that is contrary to 2 Corinthians 5:16; Phil. 3:4, 5.

10. This abuses the Word of God, by making every believer to come in the place of Abraham, and, so affirming to each believer to be the father of the faithful; yea, the woman to have this priviledge, which never any believer had besides Abraham: Now they say, if one of them be a believer, the woman and not the man, yet this promise they will apply to her seed, Gal. 3:29, not considering that the parents themselves, though believers come not in the place of Abraham, but in the place of his seed, it's an high contempt of Jesus Christ, as He is the husband of His Church, to force upon Him a natural wife (Himself being spiritual) to found the Church upon natural birth.

11. It tends to overthrow this doctine, that the matter of the Church of Christ is to be Saints, living stones, contrary to I Peter 2:5-9; Ephesians 2:19, 20, 21, 22 and 4:6; I Cor. 12:12, 13, 25, 26, 27; Ephesians 5:25, 26, 27; John 4:23; Acts 20:28; Rev. 17:14; the natural posterity of believers are not so much as in appearance such.

12. This inforces such matter upon the Church, as tends to the desturction of the form of it, and brings the Saints into bondage; for to found the Church of Christ upon natural birth, seeing to one born in the Spirit, there appears to be twenty born in the flesh; what then the major voice is like in a small time to be the worst, and so oppress those who are born the second time, it apparent it's the next way to make the Church become carnal, and tends to a National Church. And how shall the lesser voice in the Church cast out the greater, if they sin?

13. It tends to make God's holy ordinance a lying sign, to confirm that which visibly is not, secret things belong to God, and revealed things to us, Deut. 29:29. And seeing such infants appear not to have any right in the covenant, they are not to have the seal of the covenant, it being against the light of nature to set a seal to a blank. And that any should have a visible right to the seals, &c. and yet not godly, is strange doctrine.

14. It tends to prove either, that infants may eat the Lord's Supper (it being in the same nature, end and use for kind:) or else that the Church may withhold from the members the priviledges & ordinances of the same. This is to acknowledge them fit for union, who are not fit for communion with the church; and seeing it puts an infant into a state of grace and remission of sins before calling, contrary to 2 Tim. 1:9; Acts 26:28; Rom. 8:30; Heb. 9:15.

And it constitutes them visible members of Christ's body before calling, contrary to I Peter 2:9; Rom. 6:7; I Cor. 1:2.

It upholds a National Church, as Circumcision did of old, contrary to Rev. 1:20. And it maintains infants of believers to be born in a Covenant of Grace, and to have a right to a promise of life in Christ Jesus, contrary to Romans 9:7, 8, 9; Gal. 3:9, 26, 29; Rom. 9:8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Ephesians 2:3.

And it maintains that grace is entaild to generation, and not regeneration, contrary to John 3:5, 6.

And it holds that believing Gentiles' natural seed shall have a right to the promise of life before faith is received, contrary to Gal. 3:21; John 1:12, 13.

And that infants of believers may be saved by their parents's faith, contrary to Hebrews 2:4; Gal. 3:11.

And crosses Christ's commission, first to sprinkle them, and after to teach them, contrary to Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15.

And declares that believers' infants are fit subjects of baptism before faith and repentance is manifested, contrary to Acts 2:38, & 8:36, 37.

And crosses the practice of the Apostical Churches, Acts 2:41, they that gladly received the word, were dipped, Acts 8:12, 36, 37, 38; Acts 10: 47, 48; 16:15, 33.

Therefore we cannot conceive that this their expostion is right on the 17, of Genesis.

To conclude, many of our opposites confess, there is no express command or example to baptize infants, and that infants sprinkled by one of the Priests, is sufficient baptism; and yet they cannot tell us where we may find the place of Scripture where we may read it, that it is so as they say: but if any desire further satisfaction, I refer them to John Spilsbery's book of Baptism, and other books of the same subject.

A Question proposed to consideration:

Suppose infant's sprinkling to be sufficient dipping, and some were not so persuaded, because they cannot find the place in the Scripture where they may read it (that it is sufficient) as Luke 10:26, is this so great an evil, that for this a man shall be more hated, and suffer more from some men, then the basest livers where they dwell; because they went into the river to be (ducked) dipt, and that but once more then they needed?

Is this so heinous an offence as to turn a believer into an heretic, and sufficient to deprive them of all hope of salvation, and of breathing in the air of their native country?

Shall this one act of theirs turn a tender heart into hardness, and be sufficient to accuse them of all errors and blasphemies, and turn near kindred, and entire loving friends to be bitter enemies, and force an unwilling seperation of husband and wife, who are but one in affection and relation; and the little ones, who know not the right hand from the left, shall they also suffer hunger, cold and nakedness, and their posterity beg their bread, and if it be possible, be more miserable then themselves, because their progenitors were stripped of all, and could by no means obtain so much favor as to enjoy the fruit of their labors which they sweat for; but instead thereof have been confined where they might have a dying life, and after that suffer death, p. 70.

And all this for so small a fault, if any at all, Matt. 19:29. But they should consider Romans 14:23, what is not of faith is sin, and that which has no precept or example, cannot be done in faith.

Doctor Featley saith, Alstedius makes 14 sorts of Anabaptists, yet there are but 3, to whom the name properly appertaineth, p. 24.

Answer: Then you have done very improperly and unworthily, & scarce honestly, to streach your conscience to make the world believe there are 14 sorts by 15 pictures in the title of your book. If this be equal dealing, let all behold it judge, Matt. 7:15,16. Dr. Feat.

The first sort broached their doctrine about the year 250, which was that all those who had been baptized by Novatus, or any heretic, ought to be baptized by the orthodox Pastor of the Church: and Cyprian, a famous Biship affirmed the same, that baptism of heretics was invalid, and null, and Erasmus would not condemn these, page 24, 25.

Answer: And Dr. Featley does not greatly condemn these. See Ibid. D. Feat.

The 2nd sort broached their's about the year 380, that none were rightly baptized but those that held with Donatus; and that all others who had received baptism of the Catholic Church, ought to be rebaptized.

Answer: I know not whom they and you call the Catholic Church, and therefore can say the less unto it: and it is a question whether D. Featley holds any are rightly baptized, unless it be by such as have received holy Orders: and if he does, he must be recognized for an Anabaptist of the 2nd sort: for this is the same in substance. D. Featley

The third and last sort broached their's 1525, which was this, that baptism ought to be administered to none, but such as can give account of their faith, and such as have been baptized in their infancy, they ought to be baptized again when they come to years of discretion, p. 25.

Answer: And this last sort the Doctor is not able to alledge so much as one place of Scripture that speaks one word against them, therefore he speaks many.

What Doctor Featley's Mystical Frontispiece May More Properly Declare.

Upon consideration of the frontispiece of the Doctor's book; there is the picture of a Serpent, which is very remarkable, and yet he has said nothing in his book to unfold the mystery thereof: also considering he contradicts the truth of the substance of his pictures, which is, as he declares, to signify 14 sorts of Anabaptists, yet says in page 24 there are but three sorts in all, so according to his own confession, his explanation thereof cannot be true, nor hang together, I shall therefore propose to your consideration, what I conceive they may more prorerly hold forth to us.

The great headed Serpent is the old Serpent, which is the Devil, near to his mouth is written in great letters, the name Anabaptist, it signifies to us, that the name Anabaptist came first from the Devil, and that he will own whatsoever is written against them; this name is written, as it were, in a white curtein, which the Serpent stretches wide open; the meaning is, that what is held out by any against the Anabaptist for submitting to Christ, is from the devil; and that the devil would have all to take notice what is written against them: the spring that proceeds out of his mouth, is mystically, all his abominable lies, and devilish errors, which is that filth of his stomach, which he labors to cast upon the Anabaptists, to make them odious, which declares the devil has much malice against them; and the mouth of the Serpent is wide open, which shews he never ceases raging and accusing them, and his tail is sharp, and it points toward the Anabaptists, it shows his willingness to give them a deadly wound with it, but his tail is short of them, that is, they are safe from his hurting them, being out of his reach; and the Anabaptist is set in the midst, and is enclosed close in the East, West, North, South, with men & the devil, it declares that they are beset with enemies in all the four quarters of the earth, and the men have several names, this signifies several religions and opinions of several persons, yet they all are as one joined together to oppose the truth and people of God, especially against the Anabaptist; and on the top of the right side of the Serpent, he seems to be very still, his picture declares, that either he has wearied himself against the people of God, or so is glad to be quite, or else he is one that observes the event of things, and perceiving no good can come of it, he choses rather to do nothing then to meddle with them.

The second, by the posture he seems to be in is preaching, he holds up his hand, and from it fall something like drops of water, he seems to preach that sprinkling is sufficient for baptism, but he has no pulpit, it's like he has two puplits, and both justly taken from him for his malignancy to the State.

The third is not ashamed of his name, and he is a Separatist. Surely, I believe he is an honest man, I wonder what he does here, he means honesty, and intends to do good, it seems he is in a pulpit; its like he is preaching against the Anabaptist. How is it possible? If it be so, I fear he has not well studied the point he has spoken against them, and the devil has tempted him to preach against the Anabaptist openly. It may be also, that he might not be esteemed an heretic, and out of a hope of doing good, has yielded, but his face seems to be turned something backward, which holds forth, he will not be able to say there long; but why should the Devil desire honest men to preach against them?

Answer: Because he knows one word from an honest man, will more prevail with some, then many from a loose fellow.

The 4th holds up both his hands; surely he stands amazed, wondering at the silliness of such as will in cold weather go into a river to be ducked or dipt.

The 5th, he stands as one that holds something against his mouth; he represents them that will neither speak for them nor against them; he is indifferent, yet one of the same company.

The 6th staggers, he will fall off from them ere long.

The 7th stretches out his hands both ways, that is, he cares not, let all go which way they will.

The 8th appears naked, the meaning is, he is so foolish in defending his practice, as all that hear him see the folly of the man, and what he contends for, or he conceives he is innocent, and no persecutor.

The 9th is compassed round with a Serpent, signifying eternity; this represents all those whom God in His just judgment has given up to their wickeness, and shall into eternity perish in it.

The 10th has the Sun touching him; this shows he is affected with it, and that declares he uses means that others may see it also, and he has a key in his hand, that is, now God has enlightened his mind, he is able to open such places of Scripture which others cannot: also he seems to represnt Paul, who being a persecutor, God had mercy on him, and with a light from heaven converts him.

The 11th picture is a Chariot with two in it, drawn swiftly with horses, this signifies they make hast, as if they were coming from some remote part of the kingdom to London, to do some of the people of God a mischief, and the Chariot seems to be all on fire; this declares their great zeal and malice, which fire came from the devil; and there being two of them, declare they are for witnesses, sure its a conspiracy against Christ.

The 12th has a Serpent at his mouth, which shows the near familarity they have with the devil, that are enemies to the people of God, and that they are counselled by the devil what mischief they shall do, and how they shall effect it.

The 13th has a pen, and he is a writing; this holds forth, that the devil has always one or other to write against the truth, and them that profess it.

The 14th is pictured with two, like women, embracing them, that is, he is so taken up about his wenches, that he is not at leasure now to meddle with them.

The 15th and last, seems to be out of his wits, he has persecuted the people of God so long, that he is distracted, or so terrified in his conscience, that he stands in water ready to drown himself. In the middle of all is a river, name Jordan, this declares that much water is required to baptize in, a few drops being not sufficient; the men in it, seem to be the Anabaptists, so called, a man and a woman are about to be baptized in the presence of all the aforesaid enemies; this holds forth their loyalty, courage and constancy, of both men and women, that they are not afraid nor ashamed to own Jesus Christ & practice His truth in the presence of the Devil and his instruments. And they are almost naked: this was done to make them odious to the world, by an enemy of theirs, mystically they have forsaken all fathers, mothers, friends, lands to submit to the ways of Jesus Christ. Thus they have denied themselves to be Christ's Disciples, and that their enemies have stripped them of all, and that none may expect outward riches nor glory, in submitting to the ways of Christ. And thus being stripped of all outward comforts, now they seem to a carnal eye most miserable. One puts others' head under water so baptizing him. This to a learned Doctor (that can see but the outside of things) seems, yea, esteemes it a mere ducking, that deserves drowning: there is no money nor figures set down near the dipper. It seems they are so silly, that they do not compound what they shall have for their labor. And under the men is written Proselytes, that is, they are converted to the faith of Christ. And under the women is written, Virgins of Sion. Virgins, because they are chast to God and man; and they are named virgins of Sion, that is, they belong to the Church of Christ, by the confession of their adversaries.

FINISH