Some brief CONSIDERATIONS On Doctor Featley his Book, entitled, The Dipper dipped, Wherein In some measure is discovered his many great and false accusations of divers persons, commonly called Anabaptists, with an Answer to them, and some brief Reasons of their Practice.  


In seven Sections, viz.  
I. Dr. Featley his secret and heinous accusing the honourable Parliament.  
II. That he is guilty of greater errors, then to go into the water to be dipped.  
III. His false Accusations against the Anabaptiss, examined and answered.  
IV. How in a Disputation he discovered his subtlety and pride.  
V. That he justifieth dipping in rivers to be a lawful manner of baptising.  

VI. Some Reasons alleged against Infants being baptised.  
A question proposed to consideration, that if it be an error to be baptised again, whether the punishment, some would have infflicted upon them, and some have suffered, be not too great?   
VII. How many sorts of Anabaptists he saith there are, and what they hold.    
Whererunto is added, what is conceived the Doctors mystical frontispiece may more properly declare.  Blessed are ye when men revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: Rejoy●●, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you, Mat. 11. 12. See Mat. 19 29. 
By SAMUEL RICHARDSON.  
London, Printed, Febr. 25. 1645.   

Some brief CONSIDERATIONS On Doctor FEATLEY his Book entitled, The DIPPER dipped.  

Section I. Doctor Featley his secret and heinous accusation of the honourable Parliament.  
DOctor Featley, under the colour of aiming at Anabaptists, strikes the Parliament, and secretly wounds them with his malignant pen, in his Epistle to his friend, he complains of his corporal thraldom, and that his pressures are unsufferable, his person confined, his estate sequestered, his losses unvaluable, his books and both his pulpits taken from him, that his friends & himself sought earnestly, but could not obtain that liberty which Paul enjoyed when he was in prison in Rome, to preach the Gospel to his fellow-prisoners: observe, what doth he not say, that the Parliament are hinderers of the preaching of the Gospel of Christ? What, are they worser than Heathen Emperors and Magistrates? can they not be prevailed with, to yield that the Gospel should be preached to prisoners? &c. O heavy charge! It seems he hath a great mind to preach the Gospel, but the honourable Parliament have had cause enough to fear that he would so mix it with the leaven of malignancy till he had so soured it, that all that should taste of it, were in danger to be poisoned with it; and so they did justly, in hindering him from preaching such a Gospel as this is: and in pag. 32. the government of Archbishops, &c. is not Antichristian, contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament, and nicknames them Brownists and Barrowists that hold so: and in p. 214, 215, 216. he saith, this kind of sacrilege we speak of, whereby Churches and Churchmen are defrauded of their due, is no better nor worse than robbing God, and pronounceth a curse upon a curse to them; what doth he less, then charge the Parliament with sacrilege? what punishment he deserves, I leave it to them whom it concerns: Also he saith, p. 70. (speaking of the Separatists and Anabaptists) that the Magistrate, who, though by present connivance seems to give them line, yet no doubt it is, that they may the more entangle themselves, and more easily be caught; as if the Parliament ●ought to ensnare any that are loyal to the State. Suppose they conceive they are in an error, how knows he, but that their forbearance is out of a desire and hope, that upon their better information they will gladly ●●forme what is amiss, themselves considering that many of the Separation and Anabaptists are well known to be honest and conscionable men, both towards God and man? and concerning the Doctor, when he reckoneth up the enemies of the State, in his Epistle to Mr. Downam, he doth not name the malignant's to be any of them, which declares he is not yet healed of his malignancy.   

Sect. II. Wherein it appears that the Doctor is guilty of greater errors, then to be dipped in the river.  
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, baptising 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 God fathers, 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 schoolmen, 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. than it seems he must be rebaptised, else how shall he get in if it be the entrance? so by the doctor's doctrine he holds rebaptising, 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 originally; and that the Spirit hath a dependence from both, pag. 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 than the Father from the Spirit? and how can the Spirit of God have any more dependence upon the Father and the son, than they have upon him, seeing whatsoever is infinite, can have no dependence 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 remain, is above the reach of any man: I may say to him, as Mat. 7. 3. Luk. 6. 41, 42   

Sect. 3. Wherein is contained Doctor Featley his large conscience in laying so many and false accusations and wicked errors, which he (like a mad man) shoots desperately against the Anabaptiss (as he calls them) to wound their reputation, that they might appear more vile in the eyes of the ignorant, and procure their destruction.  
THe Doctor chargeth 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, aught to die for it: But in no place of his book he doth 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 pleaseth to call Anabaptists, which he saith were guilty of this sin: But what is that to us if they be guilty of these & the like wickednesses? 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 destroy the kingdom: we answer, we do so to preserve the State, and this is not against the State. But the Doctor saith, that we are a cruel and bloody Sect, by embroiling kingdoms in wars, and by raising persecutions against God's servants, page 210. Answ. 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 judgement 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 till God persuade them; and if they never see the light to walk in it, to leave all to God. And if so, which way doth this tend to persecution of the Saints, let all judge. But he saith, we are a lying and blasphemous Sect, yet he alleges 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 accuseth the Anabaptists to be an impure and carnal Sect, p. 207. yet he brings not any one instance of any one act of uncleanness 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 stews, (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 1. 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 allege what the Priests of England have been guilty of, near our doors, as one John Wilson, committed buggery with fifteen 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 dreadful noise of the fearful judgements 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 practised 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 than the Scripture saith, Rev. 13. 7. They shall make war with the Saints and overcome them. He saith in Vienna some Anabaptiss were tied together with ropes and drowned, two were burned beyond Southwark, and a little after five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield, pag. 55. It rejoiceth us that men suffer for any truth; behold how he honoureth those men that suffered: But he saith, they dip one another after their manner with a kind of spell, containing the heads of their erroneous 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 baptising, than what is expressed in the 28 of Matthew part of the 19 verse, and no mention of any tenets, much less erroneous ones: nor no words of any covenants are mentioned at all. We confess when any is to be baptised at the water side, the administrator goeth to prayer suitable to the occasion, and after go both into the water, and useth the words Mat. 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 accuseth the Anabaptists, for running into corners to meet in. We answer, If he mean 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 favour to procure more larger and public places for us to meet in, we are ready to embrace them with much thankfulness. But, saith the Doctor, they go men and women together stark naked into their Jordans, pag. 36. & 203. We answer, we abhor 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 deserve no punishment for it. But he saith, 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 affirmed 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 perceive the Doctor hath 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 inveyeth 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 planteth and he that watereth is nothing; and further saith, p. 14. I confess we read of one Fumentius, a layman, who in his travels, converted many to the Christian Faith: (and Dr. Fulk confesseth in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament, of a woman that converted a great many of them who lived in the Island to which place she was carried captive) But Dr. Featley saith, the learnedst men have proved the worthiest Instruments (bravely spoken) 2 Cor. 10. 17, 18. the sum is, therefore now all illiterate men must for ever 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 chargeth the Anabaptists, p. 10. to be uncertain of their grounds, because sometimes they plead one thing, and sometimes another. Answ. No, variety of grounds and reasons against a thing, may arise from the clear discovery of the truth to them and from fullness of persuasion in the judgement, 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. Answ. No such matter, they do but only declare their loyalty to the State, being urged to it by some, who falsely accuse them to be enemies 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, saith 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 confesseth, that general counsels have sometimes most grossly mistaken error for truth, and Idolatry for true Religion, p. 92. than it's no wonder, if the Doctor err with his Greek and Latin Church: and seeing the Doctor affirms that the example of Christ and his Apostles doth not bind us without a precept, p. 37, 38. with what reason or conscience doth he urge against us, yea, and against Christ's command, his Greek and Latin Churches, without a precept? doth 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 baptising by dipping was before baptising by sprinkling; he may name to us as many men as he pleaseth, 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 chargeth 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 than one at once, That a man may put away his wife if she differ from him in point of 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 propriety in their goods, but all things ought to be held 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 abhor 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 ere long, if God permit; but sure I am, all this poison (which he chargeth upon us) is drawn out of the impure fountain of divers heretics, in which he laboureth to drown us in; and I wonder how his conscience would permit him to heave so many untruths into the press: but (as Christ saith, John 16. 2. and) he was encouraged by Sleiden, Gabriel, Abres, Alstedius, and others, oh me thinks I hear the press groan, if not sweat under the burden of so many heavy charges; and sure his groans 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 forgive him, for he knows not what he hath done, (Matth. 5. 44. ●1▪ 12.)   

Sect. IV. Whererin appears in the doctor's disputation, his subtlety and pride.  
AFter he had condemned the point in question for an error, the Doctor saith, I could wish you had brought Scholars with you, who know how to dispute, which I perceive you cannot do. Answ. Observe, how before he disputes, he vilifies the point in question, and those that maintain it. But saith the Doctor, there are but two ways of disputing: first, by authority: secondly by reason. First, by authority, if you will dispute in Divinity, you must be able to produce the Scriptures in the original language. Answ. 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, saith he, in translations there may be, and are errors, for no translation is are 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 pag. 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 justifieth 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, than all that know the tongues must of necessity know the mind of God in the Scriptures, and if so, Apollo being a learned man, and saw the first copy of the Bible, should not need to learn of Aquila a tradeseman (one of the Laity) and Priscilla 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 Spirit of God in his Word? so that some of you in your Expositions, differ as much as light and darkness; and if our translation be true, than we may know the meaning thereof as well as you; 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 that 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 original, affirm some one word will bear 7 or 10 divers 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 saith, the natural man cannot perceive 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, saith he, revealeth to us the deep things of God by his Spirit, 1 Cor. 2. 10. he doth 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 are there other 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 penmen of Scriptures, 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 Lords, which savoureth the truth, and disrelisheth errorr. Fourthly, help to the understanding the Scriptures, is the manifold experiences 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 conclude this, all men are purblind, yea dead, till God gives life, and opens men's eyes. And although human learning is necessary for translating the Scriptures, &c. yet many idolise it, as the children of Israel did their golden Calf; the issue of the conference, as he saith, p. 18. was, that they were not able to withstand the truth; it seems he was, he saith, the Knights and Ladies thanked him, but he cannot say he did deserve it: and he saith, the Anabaptiss went away discontented and grieved. Answ. It seems they were very sorrowful, to see his great blindness and hardness of heart; and he saith none of them ever after that troubled him any more; it seems they could do him no good, and so they resolved to leave him to God, till he shall please to open his eyes, Luke 11. 25, 26.   

Sect. 5. That Doctor Featley justifieth dipping in Rivers to be a lawful manner of baptising; in which he justifieth the practice of the Anabaptists in their manner of baptising.  
DOctor Featley in p. 33. 71. 223. 224. saith, Whatsoever is alleged for dipping, we approve of, I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptised in the river, Matth. 3. 16. Acts 8. 38. John 3. 23. And the Church of England approves of dipping, and that such baptising of men hath been, and is, and may lawfully be used; yea, and is fit to be used in warm seasons, and the word Baptizo sometimes signifies to dip. Answ. Now you justify our practice (for we do no more) in warm seasons: and as for those that choose cold seasons to be baptised 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 pag. 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 baptising of believers in rivere, 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 durst condemn any for doing of that which he confesses the Scriptures approve of? but I leave him to consider Rom. 14. 22.   

Sect. 6. Some Reasons alleged against Infants being baptised.  
WE contend for the perfection of the last will & testament (of our Lord & 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. & 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 baptised, because they are the subjects of baptism, then if the new Testament do not expressly command infants to be baptised, the time when they are to be baptised, and by whom they are to be baptised, and the manner how they are to be baptised; but if the new Testament expresseth any of these things, with the manner of sprinkling, & the place where they are to be sprinkled, we desire they would show it us, which they confess they cannot, it follows by their doctrine, the new Testament gives us not as express direction in the administration of the ordinances thereof, as the old Testament did for the ordinances thereof; and so the new Testament to come short of the old. But the new Testament expressly commands who shall baptize, Matth. 28. 19 Go ye, teach and baptize. Secondly, the persons who are to be baptised, such as repent and believe, and confess their sins, and profess their faith, both male and female: Make Disciples baptising them, Matth. 28. 19 When they believed they were baptised both men and women, Acts 8. 12, 13. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayst be baptised, Acts 8. 36, 37, 38. Repent and be baptised, Acts 2. 38. And they that gladly received the Word, were baptised, vers. 41. And they were baptised in Jordan, confessing their sins, Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 4. 5. Such as have received the holy Spirit, are so to be baptised, Acts 10. 44, 47, 48. Thirdly, the time when they are to be baptised, when they declare their faith, Acts 8. 37. 38. they are not to tarry, but to be baptised as soon as possibly they can, as Acts 22. 16. Fourthly, the Element, water. Fifthly, and the manner how they are to be baptised, they were to be dipped in the name of the three Persons, Matth. 28. 19 they were dipped in Jordan, Matth. 3. 6. Jesus being baptised, went straightway out of the water, Matth. 3. 16. John was dipping (that is, baptising) in Aenon, John 3. 23. And they went both down into the water and baptised him, Acts 8. 38. So you see it is plainly set down what persons are to be baptised, who are to baptize them, when they were to be baptised, and the manner how they were to be baptised: therefore the new Testament is as clear as the old, and Christ as faithful as Moses to appoint how every thing should be done; and also that 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, but only such as believe, Rom. 11. 20. Heb. 3. 18. 19 & 4. 1, 2, 3. & 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 hath elected in Christ, and so appear by some fruit and effect of the same, as appears, Rom. 8. 29. 30. Rom. 11. 7. Ephes. 1. 4, 5, 6. 2 Thess. 2. 13, 14. 1 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 faithful, 1 Pet. 2. 5. 9 Jam. 4. 23. Ephes. 2. 19, 20, 21, 22. & 4. 16. 1 Cor. 12, 12, 13. Ephes. 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 baptised, 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 Rom. 10. 14. If any say, we cannot require faith and repentance of infants; I answer, no more can we require them to be baptised. Baptism presupposeth it, being an ordinance to confirm grace, & none can rightly presuppose grace without some appearing ground, seeing faith & obedience to Christ, is not natural: but baptism is forced upon infants against their wills, contrary to Zeph. 3. 9 Object. But infants may have grace. Answ. What doth 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. Object. baptism succeeds Circumcision, therefore as infants were circumcised then, so are infants to be baptised now. Answ. Circumcision of the heart succeeds in the place of circumcision in the flesh, as appears, Rom. 2. 29. Circumcision made without hands, cometh in place of circumcision made with hands, as Col. 2. 11. with Ephes. 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, Ephes. 1. 13, 14. And if baptism did succeed circumcision, yet the subject of the new Testament doth not succeed the Old: for no rejected Esau or Ismaelite, 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, Exod. 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, & none else, Gal. 3. 14, 23, 29. Rom. 8. 17. & 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 Jam. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 2. 23. John 1. 12. 13. 1 Jo●. 3. 9 10. Those that believe are the seed of the righteous, & of the promise, Esay 43. 5. with Rev. 12. 17. Gal. 4. 26. 31. Infants not being such, are not to be baptised. 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, Exod. 12. 3. 4. and the Lord's Supper succeeded that, than 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 doth) but stood merely upon nature and circumcision of the flesh. Object. But baptism is as large as circumcision, Ergo Infants. Answ. baptism is both to male and female, therefore larger: circumcision was only to males. Baptism is both to Jew & Gentile, and so is the covenant, yet infants are not to be baptised. Obj. But Believers children are holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. therefore are to be baptised. Ans. This doctrine takes away the being of actual sin, else they could not be holy; this is contrary to Psal. 51. 5. the unbelieving wife is termed holy in the same place, therefore she must also be baptised as well as the child: so the unbelieving Jews were termed holy, when they were broken off, Rom. 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, Psal. 51. 5. and Infants borne come under the Covenant when their parents are regenerate; then it appeareth, 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, than 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 signifieth 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 1 Thes. 4. 3, 4. there is other kinds of holiness; one of things dedicated to holy uses, as 1 Sam. 21. 5. so there is a sanctification by the Spirit, which is called holiness, Heb. 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 holinesses is meant by this Scripture. Obj. But 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 testifieth, that but a remnant of them shall be saved: Rom. 9 27. considered with Rom. 9 13. Gen. 17. 19, 20. Now if the new Covenant be as Jeremy reports, Jer. 31. 32, 33, 34. and as is expressed, Heb. 8. 8. & 10. 15, 16, 17. then God, who keeps Covenant, must (needs be true in what he promiseth) writes his laws in the hearts of all believers children, they being within the Covenant, and their children must also be saved, which yet the Scripture denies: Rom. 9 27. Isa. 1. 9 Rom. 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. Rom. 10. 4. 1 Joh. 5. 11, 12. Rom. 8. 9 we are in Christ (visibly) first by faith, and then in the Covenant and privileges 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 privileges of his faith, Salvation being one privilege, it must needs partake of that also. Men talk of a privilege, O it's a privilege! but what privilege 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 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. Joh. 8. 37, 39 Rom. 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 an 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) saith they are born in the Covenant of Grace and life, then shall all such children be saved, or else God is unfaithful, because the Covenant of grace is a covenant of life, in and by Jesus Christ, which is absolute and additional, 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, than 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 believers 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 yet not all saved. 2. It's a ground of falling from grace; thus all that God took into his Covenant of grace, were in an estate of grace; but all that God took into his covenant of grace did not there continue, Ergo, 3. It's 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, Rom. 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 covenant of life by Cheist, they cannot prove they have any right to the seals of it. 5. If by their natural birth they be borne 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 Ephes. 2. 3. Now can one be under the covenant, and under grace, and under wrath at one and the same time? 6. Then there is two ways of entering into the covenant of grace, one by natural birth, another by faith. 7. That there is two ways to enter into the Church of God, one by a natural birth, and another to another by the second birth, without which none is to enter into the kingdom of God: this latter enters by profession of faith & repentance. 8. That sa of old, so now there is some fleshly privilege as by which we become members of the Church now, viz. by being borne 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 Rom. 9 7, 8. with Gal. 3. 9 9 If by fleshly birth some have right to the Ordinances, &c. than we may know some after the flesh, that is, in a fleshly consideration, but that is contrary to 2 Cor. 5. 16. Phil. 3. 45. 10. This abuseth the Word of God, by making every believer to come in the place of Abraham, and so assuming to each believer to be the Father of the faithful; yea, the woman to have this privilege, 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 doctrine, that the matter of the Church of Christ to be Saints, living stones, contrary to 1 Pet. 2. 5. 9 Ephes. 2. 19 20. 21. 22. & 46. 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13, 25, 26, 27. Eph. 5. 25. 26. 27. John 4. 23. Acts 20. 28. P●… 17. 14. the natural posterity of believers are not so much as in appearance such. 12. This enforceth such matter upon the Church, as tends to the destruction of the form of it, and bring the Saints in 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 than the major voice is like in a small time to be the worst, and so oppress those who are borne the second time, it's 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 privileges & ordinances of the same, this is to acknowledge them fit for union, who are not fit for comunion 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 1 Pet. 2. 9 Rom. 6. 7. 1 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 Rom. 9 9 7. 8. Gal. 3. 9 26. 28. 29. Rom. 9 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. Psal. 51. 5. John 3. 6. Eph. 2. 3. And it maintains that grace is entailed to generation, and not regeneration, contrary to John 3. 5. 6. And it holdeth that believing Gentiles natural seed 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 parent's faith, contrary to Heb. 2. 4. Gal. 3. 11. And crosseth Christ's commission first to sprinkle them, and after to teach them, contrary to Matth 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. And declareth that believers infants are fit subjects of baptism before faith and repentance is manifested, contrary to Acts 2. 38. & 8. 36. 37. And crosseth the practice of the apostolical church's 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 exposition is right of 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, that if it be an error to be baptised in the River, whether the punishment some would inflict upon them, and some have suffered for it, be not too great.  
SUppose infants 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, than the basest livers where they dwell; because they went into the river to be (ducked) dipped, and that but once more than 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 separation 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 than themselves, because their progenitors were stripped of all, and could by no means obtain so much favour as to enjoy the fruit of their labours which they sweat for; but in stead thereof have been confined where they might have a dying life, and after that suffer death, pag. 70. and all this for so small a fault, if any at all, Matth. 19 29. But they should consider Rom. 14. 23. what is not of faith is sin, and that which hath no precept or example, cannot be done in faith.    

Sect. 7. Doctor Featley his three sorts of Anabaptists, and what they maintain.  
DOctor Featley saith, Alstedius maketh 14 sorts of Anabaptists, yet there are but 3. to whom the name properly appertaineth, p. 24. Ans. Then you have done very improperly and unworthily, & scarce honestly, to stretch 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 that behold it judge, Mat. 7. 15. 16. D. Feat. The first sort broached their doctrine about the year 250. which was that all those who had been baptised by Novatus, or any heretic, aught to be baptised by the orthodox Pastor of the Church: and Cyprian, a famous Bishop affirmed the same, that baptism of heretics was invalid, and null, and Erasmus would not condemn these, pag. 24. 25. Ans. And Dr. Fealey doth not greatly condemn these. See ibid. D. Feat. The 2d. sort broached theiss about the year 38●▪ that none were rightly baptised, but those that held with Donatus: and that all others who had received baptism of the Catholic Church, aught to be rebaptised. Ans. 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 hold any any are rightly baptised, unless it be by such as have received holy Orders: and if he do, he must be reckoned for an Anabaptist of the 2d sort: for this is the same in substance. D. Feat. The third and last sort broached theirs 15●5. which was this, that baptism ought to be administered to none, but ●uch as can give account of their faith, and such as have been baptised in their infancy, they ought to be baptised when they come to years of discretion, p. 25. Answ. And this last sort the Doctor is not able to allege so much as one place of Scripture that speaks one word against them, therefore he speaks many.  

What Doctor Featleys 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 hath 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 p. 24. there is 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 properly hold forth unto 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 curtain, which the Serpent stretches wide open: the meaning is, that what is held out by any against the Anabaptists for submitting to Christ, is from the devil; and that the devil would have all to take notice what is written against them: the spewing that proceeds out of his mouth, is mystically, all his abominable lies and devilish errors, which is the filth of his stomach, which he labours to cast upon the Anabaptiss, to make them odious, which declares the devil hath much malice against them; and the mouth of the Serpent is wide open, which shows he never ceaseth raging and accnsing them, and his tail is sharp, and it points toward the Anabaptist, 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 on the right side of the Serpent, he seems to be very still, his picture declares, that either he hath wearied himself against the people of God, and so is glad to be quiet, or else he is one that observes the event of things, and perceiving no good can come of it, he chooseth 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 falls something like drops of water, he seems to preach that sprinkling is sufficient for baptism, but he hath no pulpit, it's like he hath had two pulpits, 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 doth here, he means honestly, and intends to do good, it seems he is in a pulpit; it's like he is preaching against the Anabaptist. How! is't possible? if it be so, I fear he hath not well studied the point he hath spoken against them, and the devil hath 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, hath yielded, but his face seems to be turned something backward, which holds forth, he will not be able to stay there long; but why should the devil desire honest men to preach against them? Ans. Because he knows one word from an honest man, will more prevail with some, than 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 dipped. 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 cars 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 hears him sees 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 judgement hath given up to their wickedness, and shall to eternity perish in it. The 10th hath the Sun touching him; this shows the light is come, now he sees that he never saw, he points to the light, it showeth he is affected with it, and that declares he useth means that others may see it also, and he hath a key in his hand, that is, now God hath enlightened his mind, he is able to open such places of Scripture which others cannot: also he seems to represent Paul, who being a persecutor, God hath 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 haste, 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 it's a conspiracy against them. The 12th hath a Serpent at his mouth, which showeth the near familiarity 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 hath a pen, and he is a writing; this holds forth, that the devil hath 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 leisure now to meddle with them. The 15th and last, seems to be out of his wits, he hath 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, named Jordan, this declareth that much water is required to baptise in, a few drops being not sufficient; the men in it, seem to be the Anabaptiss, so called, a man and a woman are about to be baptised 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, land, 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 another's head under water so baptising him: this to a learned Doctor (that can see but the outside of things) seems, yea, esteems 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 labour. 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 Zion: virgins▪ because they are chaste to God and man; and they are named virgins of Zion, that is, they belong to the Church of Christ by the confession of their adversaries.  
FINIS.