The Dippers Dipped, Essay 1
A true Relation of what passed at a meeting in Southwark, between D. Featley, and a company of Anabaptists, October 17. 1642.
AFter the Company were placed, and Dr. Featley had made a short ejaculatory Prayer to GOD, to give a blessing to the meeting, a Scotchman began thus.
M. Doctor,Scotch-man. we come to dispute with you at this time, not for contention sake, but to receive satisfaction: wee hold that the Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved lawfull by the Testimony of Scripture, or by Apostolicall tradition; if you therefore can prove the same either way, we shall willingly submit unto you.
Are you then Anabaptists? I am deceived in my expectation,D. Featley. I thought that the ending of this meeting had bin to have reasoned with you about other matters, and that my taske would have beene to have justified our Communion-Booke, and the lawfulnesse and necessity of comming to the Church, which I am ready to doe. Anabaptisme (which I perceive is the poynt you hold) is an heresie long since condemned both by the Greeke and Latine Church, and I could have wished also that you had brought schollars with you, who knew how to dispute, which I conceive you doe not, so farre as I guesse by your habit, and am informed concerning your professions: for there are but two wayes 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 Originall Languages,
For no Translation is simply authenticall, or the undoubted word of God.
In the undoubted word of God there can be no Error.
But in Translations there may be, and are errors.
The Bible Translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so farre onelyonly as it agreeth with the Original, which (as I am infermed) none of you understand.
Secondly, if you will dispute by Reason, you must conclude syllogistically in mood and figure, which I take to be out of your Element. However, sith you have so earnestly desired this meeting, and have propounded a Question to me I little expected: before I answer yours, I will propound a Question or two to you concerning the blessed Trinity, that I may know whether you are well instructed in the principles of Catechisme, who yet are so well conceited of your selves, that you take upon you to teach others.
This, M. Doctor,Scotch-man. is nihil ad Rhombum, we would know of your whether the Baptism of Children can be proved lawful (as we said before) as it is practised among you.
Whereas you say this my question is not ad Rhombum, you mistake the matter.D. Featley. For it is ad Rhombum, Section 1.if you know what the Phrase meaneth.Two Questions of the Trinity propounded. Is not the form of Baptisme this? I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? therfore my questions concerning the Trinity appertain to the Doctrine of Baptisme. Before therefore I answer you concerning the persons fit to be Baptized, whether men and women onelyonly in riper years, or children also: to try your skill, I will propound an argument to each of you out of Scripture, concerning the blessed Trinity.
And first, (turning to the Scotchman)
Doe you believe, saith hee, that each of the three persons is God? how then doth Christ, Iohn 17. 3. say that the Father is the onelyonly true God?
2. After turning to the other.
Doe you believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and the Son? if you doe so, how then doe you answer the words of our Saviour, Iohn 15. 26. The Spirit which proceeds from the Father? there is no mention at all of proceeding from the Son, but the Father onelyonly. To the latter of these queries nothing was answered, by either of them; to the former they both answered. First the Scotchman.
We never intend to deny that every person in Trinity is God,Scotchman for the text you alledge, it proves not what you bring it for.
Her…t be Text being read, the Scotchman answered, Christ opposeth his Father, as the true God, to all false Gods.
I doe not urge the word true, D. Featley.for that indeed is spoken in opposition to false Gods, but the word only, and thus I frame the Argument.
If God the Father be the only true God, then the holy Ghost is not God.
But God the Father is the onelyonly true God;
Ergo the Holy Ghost is not God.
The Father is said to be the only God in respect of Essence.Scotch-man.
This Answer containes in it Blasphemy;D. Featley. for if the Father bee the onelyonly true God, in respect of Essence;The venterous Scotch-man was so slunnied with this blow, that he gave in, and spake no m…re for a good space. then is not the Son or the Holy Ghost God in respect of Essence; but that is false and blasphemous, for then the three persons should not be one God in Essence; or in respect of Essence.
Here the Scotchmans answer being exploded, he wrote something, and gave it some there present, and in the meane while one M. Cufin Cufin.interposing, said.
I come not here to dispute, but to receive satisfaction of some doubts, which if you can resolve me in, I shal submit. Now for the place you alledge out of S. John, I conceive it may be thus answered: Christ spake this as man, and his meaning is that his Father is only God, and no Creature is so.
It is very true, that only excludes all creatures; but whereas you say that these words are spoken by Christ,D Featley. as man onelyonly, it cannot stand with the Text; for it is added, and whom thou hast sent, Iesus Christ. Christ saith it is life Eternall to know the Father to be the onelyonly true God, and whom he hath sent, Jesus Christ; but it is not life Eternall to know Christ onelyonly as man, but as true God and man, and so a perfect Mediator: neither is Christ said only the Son of God, in respect of his temporall generation, as man; but also in respect of his eternal generation as he is the second person in Trinity; this answer therefore of yours is not sufficient nor pertinent.
M. Doctor,Sir John Lenthall. the company is not satisfied with their Answers, I pray, resolve the doubt your selfe.
I will, as soone as they have propounded their objections; for, I moved these Questions only to make it appeare to the auditors,See the Solution of those doubts, in the additions to the Conference. how unfit these men are to take upon them the office of Teachers, who are so imperfect in the fundamentall poynts of Catechisme. Now let them propound what questions they please.
What is the nature of a visible Church?Cufin. what is the matter and f…rme of it?This Cufin is said to be one of the first that subscribed the Anabaptists confession. printed 1644. London. or what is the visible Church of Christ made up of, by authority of the Scriptures?
Your Question is, Quid constituit visibilem Ecclesiam, what makes a Church.
Yes.
I answer, according to the Scriptures and the joynt consent of of all protestant Churches in the world,D Featley. French, Dutch, &c. in the harmony of confessions,Cufin. that the sincere preaching of the Word,D. Featley. Section 2… and the due administration of the Sacraments, constitutes or makes a true visible Church. The Papists make many notes of the Church,Of the definition of a true Church, as antiquity, universality, succession, miracles, and diverse other: but the reformed Churches make but two onelyonly, namely those above mentioned.
What is a true particular visible church?Cufin.
A particular companie of men,D Featley. professing the christian faith, knowne by the two marks above mentioned, the sincere preaching of the word, and the due administration of the Sacraments.
Is the church of England such a church?Cufin.
It is so.D. Featley.
How prove you that?Cufin.
First,D. Feateley. I answer, I need not to prove it, but you are to disprove it. For as Hooker teacheth, in his Ecclesiasticall Politie, they who are in possession are not bound to prove their right, but they who goe about to thrust them out are to disprove their right, aud bring a better title for themselves.
Secondly, yet to give you further satisfaction, thus I prove the church of England to be such a church.
Every church in which the word of God is sincerely preached,Section 3. & the sacraments lawfully and rightly administred,That the church of England is a true Church. is such a church.
But in the church of England the word is sincerely preached, and the sacraments lawfully administred.
Ergo, the church of England is such a church.
I denie that in the church of England the word is sincerely preached,Cufin. or the sacraments rightly administred.
I have here two things to prove.
1. That the doctrine of the church of England is agreeable to Gods word.
2. The sacraments are rightly administred in it.
First, the doctrine of the church of England is contained in the 39 Articles.
Secondly, the due administration of the sacraments in the communion-book. But both the one & the other are agreeable to Gods word.
Ergo, the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments in the church of England are agreeable to Gods word.
I denie that the 39 Articles and the book of common-prayer are agreeable to Gods word.Cufin.
1. I wil prove that the book of Articles is agreeable to Gods word.
In the book of Articles, the first which concerneth the blessed Trinity, the 2. 3. 4. which concern the incarnation of Christ Jesus his death and resurrection, the 5. which concerneth the holy Ghost, the 6. the perfection of scriptures, and the 18. following, which impugn popery, are agreeable to Gods word; and you cannot name any one of the rest which is not agreeable; therefore they are all agreeable. If you know any one that is not agreeable, instance in it, and I will presently shew how it is agreeable to scripture.
For the 39 Articles,Cufin. I know not what they are, I never saw them that I remember.
Then for ought you know they are all conformable to scripture,D. Featley. at least you can except against none of them. Now for the book of common-prayer, it consists partly of Psalms, Epistls, and Gospels, partly of Prayers, and the form and manner of administration of the sacraments. But the former are taken out of scripture, the latter are agreeable to it. What doe you except against it?
I except against your administration of Baptism, it is not rightly administred in your church;Cufin. for you baptize children, and that is not agreeable to Gods word:Anabaptist. if you say it is,Section 4. how doe you prove it by scriptures?
This D. F. undertook to prove out of scriptures,That the Magistrate may compell men to come to church, and serve God there according to his word. but before he alledged any text of scripture for it, another Anabaptist interposed.
You say your church is a true church; that cannot be: for the true church compells none to come to church, or punishes him for his conscience, as the church of England doth.
Iosiah was supream governour of the true church in Iudah and Israel, D. Featley.but Iosiah compelled all Israel to come to the house of God and worship him there, 2 Chron. 34. 33. So Iosiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that appertained to the children of Israel, and compelled all that were found in Israel to serve the Lord their God.
Ergo, men may be compelled by the civill magistrate to the true worship of God.
Josiah compelled them to come to Jerusalem; Anabaptist.but that law is not now in force.
There is a three-fold law of God delivered by Moses.D. Featley.
1. Ceremoniall. 2. Judiciall. and 3. Morall. The ceremoniall and judiciall are not now in force; but the morall is, and Iosiah did this by the command of the morall law. For the text saith not that he compelled them to come to Ierusalem, but to serve the Lord their God, which is a dutie required by the morall law, and the law of nature. For though the place of Gods Service and the manner be changed, yet the substantiall worship of God still remains, and princes are now as much bound to compell their subjects to the true worship of God, as Iosiah was. And moreover it is to be noted, that Iosiah did this by vertue of a covenant, which he made before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and keep his commandements, with all his heart and all his soul, 2 Chro. 34. 31. And the spirit of God sendeth this testimony after him, 2 King. 23. 15. Like unto him there was no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might,Here this third Anabaptist was blank't, and, to save his credit, starts up another doubt. according to the law of Moses; which words have an apparent reference to that first and great commandement, Deut. 6. 5. thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might, which law is morall and perpetuall, as all grant.
Prove that any ought to be compelled by the gospel.Anabaptist.
That which Iosiah did agreeably to the morall law,D. Featley. bindeth us under the gospel; for Christ in the gospel both repeateth and confirmeth this commandement of loving the Lord, with all our heart, and all our soul, calling it the first and great commandement, Mat. 22. 37. 38. Therefore our princes are as much bound, as Iosiah was, to compell their subjects to serve the true God. Yet farther to give you satisfaction, I will prove that it is agreeable to the new law to compell men to come to church, and hear Gods word and receive the sacraments, for this Christ teacheth in the parable recorded by S. Luke chap. 14. 23. Of a King who made a great supper, and bade many guests, and when they made excuses, he said to his servant, g…e to the highways, and hedges, and compell them to come in, that my house may be full.
To this nothing being answered, D. Featley proceeded in his argument. Besides this command in the parable, thus I prove, that you ought to come to our churches; the Apostle commandeth, Rom. 13. 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the over-sight of you, and submit your selvs, for they watch for your souls, &c. To which, if we adde those places in 1 Tim. 2. 2. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. An undeniable argument may be framed, to convince your conscience, after this manner.
All lawfull superiours, either temporall or spirituall, commanding lawfull things, are to be obeyed.
But your lawfull superiours in church and common-wealth, require you to come to our church, which I proved to be a true church of Christ.
Ergo, you ought to obey them, and you sin against God by your disobedience to lawfull authority, if you come not.
The word of God doth not command us to come to your steeple-houses, Anabaptist.the King hath nothing to doe to command us in that kind.
The King hath power to command you in all things that are lawfull,D. Featley. and not repugnant to Gods word: (indeed if he should command any thing against Gods word, you ought rather to obey God than man, by the example of the Apostle in the Acts 4. 19.)
But it is a thing lawfull and no way repugnant to Gods word, but most agreeable thereunto to come to our steeple-houses, (as you call them) where the servants of God assemble on the Lords day and other times,Anabaptist. to worship him in spirit and truth.
Ergo, D. Featley.the King hath power to command you to come to our church.Anabaptist.
The King makes an Idoll of the church,Here the Anabaptist yeeldeth the buckler, viz. that the Magistrate ought to be obeyed, when he commandeth men to hear Gods word in the church, where doth Christ command us to come to it?
Where he commandeth us to hear the word preached; for, in our church the word of God is preached, and therefore there we ought to hear it.
I am not so averse, but if one of our society should preach in Olaves, or Mary Overis church, I would hear them, I would come where the church is gathered, for therein I obey Christ.
Then you will hear none but one'of your society,D. Featley. as if your societie were the true church,This was the plea of the old Donatists. and none of the true church but those of your society. I have proved already, that we have a true church among us, but you have none.
For where there are no lawfull pastors,Section 5. nor flocks, there is not a true church.That the Anabaptist shave no Church. But amongst you there are not lawfull pastors, nor flocks.
Ergo, no true church.
We have amongst us lawfull Pastours.Anabaptist.
There are no lawfull Pastors but those who are sent,D. Featley. Ro. 10. 15. No man ought to assume unto himself that honour, but he that is called, as was Aaron, Heb. 5. 4. all Presbyters are to be made by imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. 14. & 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6.
But your Pastors have no sending, no calling, no imposition of hands on them, Ergo you have no lawfull pastors.
None amongst us teach; but they have Ordination, for they are elected, examined and proved.Anabaptist.
Have you imposition of hands of the Presbytery?
Wee are not bound to tell you,D. Featley, if you will come to our Church you may see.Anabaptist.
I pray you M. Doctor come to the point: how prove you the Baptisme of Children to be lawfull by the Word of God?Cufin.
It seems you will willingly fall upon no other point but this of Anabaptism,D. Featley. which heresy was condemned neer fifteen hundred years ago. Here, after a long space, the Scotchman puts in a word, saying,Section 6.
Not sixteen hundred years ago.Of the christening children,
If it were but a thousand, it is long enough, being condemned by the whole Christian Church,D. Featley. Greek and Latin.
Sir, that is neither here nor there, you know what the woman of Samaria said, Joh. 4.Cufin. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that at Ierusalem is the place where men ought to worship; they continued in an error above 2000 years.
You are mistaken in your chronology, for there were not 2000 years between Iacob and Christ.D. Featley. But to let that your errour passe, the Samaritans indeed were in an errour a long time; but this is no errour, but a doctrine of truth, that children ought to be baptized.
There are three sorts of arguments of great force with all understanding men, the first and chiefest from
1. Scripture.
2. From consent of the universall church.
3. From evident reason.
I will produce all these for the baptisme of children.
We desire to have it proved by scripture.Scotch-man.
Our proofs out of scripture are of two sorts;D. Featley. some probable, some necessarie.
First probable; as where it is said in the Acts 16. 33. that the Apostle baptized the Gaoler, with all that belonged to him and Lydia, and her houshold, Acts. 16. 15. and 1 Cor. 1. 16. that he baptized the houshold of Stephanas, and in a whole houshold in all probabilitie there were some children.
I cannot tell that; let's hear your necessary proofe out of Gods word.Scotch-man.
There is as good ground,D. Featley. reason, or warrant for the baptizing of children now, as there was of old for circumcising them. But of old children were to be circumcised;Deut. 10. 16. many plain places there are where that was commanded.Joshu. 5. 2. &c…
Ergo now by the same warrant they are to be baptized.
We denie that there is the same warrant or ground now for the baptizing of children,Scotch-man. that there was of old for the circumcising of them. For there is an expresse command for circumcising of children; but there is none for the baptizing of any but those who can hear the word preached, Mat. 28. Go teach and baptize.
1. That which circumcision was in the old law to the Jews,D. Featley. that is baptisme now to us, the sacrament of entrance into the church; for so St. Austine and all sound divines hold, that our sacrament of baptisme answereth theirs of circumcision, as the sacrament of the Lords supper doth their Paschall Lamb.
2. Circumcision was instituted, as appears, Rom. 4. 11. to be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith. But for the same end also was baptisme instituted, to be a seal of the covenant of grace, and the free remission of our sins by faith. And though children in the old law before eight dayes had not actuall faith, nor could make profession thereof, yet they received the sacrament thereof. Therefore by the same reason children under the gospel, though they have not actuall faith, nor can make profession thereof, yet may and ought to receive the sacrament of baptisme,… this argu…ent drawn … analogie … Anabaptists … swered no…ing at all. which is a seal of the covenat of grace, and righteousnesse by faith.
Children ought not to be baptized, because there is no command for it.
Mark, I pray, how uncertain they are in their grounds; sometimes they say that children are not to be baptized,…cotch-man. because they have not actuall faith,… Peatley. which I overthrew but even now; sometimes, because there is no commandement for it. Which as the future arguments disprove, so, see a punctuall refutation of this answer. Infra art. 2. ob. jâ
Prove it by scripture that they ought to be baptized.…cotch-man.
So I will:… Featley. first, I will alledge you the text of scripture, and then frame my argument from it; the place of scripture is, Ioh. 3. 5. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man he born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. My argument from this place for the baptizing of infants is this:
If none can enter into the kingdom of God, but those that are born of water and the spirit; that is, those that are baptized with water, and regenerated by the spirit, then is there a necessity of baptizing children, or else they cannot enter into the kingdom of God; (that is, ordinarily) for we must not tye God to outward means.
But the former is true.
Ergo, the latter.
By this your reason it would follow that all that are baptized are regenerated,…cotch-man. and none regenerated but those who are baptized; what becomes then of those who dye without baptisme?
I conceive the same of them as of those among the Jews who dyed before they were circumcised;D. Featley. we leave them to the mercy of God, conceiving charitably of their salvation, because the children of the faithfull are comprised in the covenant, Gen. 17. 7. and Acts. 2. 39. and the Apostle saith, They are holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. All that I will conclude from this place, is, that no children enter into the kingdom of heaven by the ordinary way chalked out by Christ but those who are baptized; or, which comes all to one, that the sacrament of baptisme ought to be administred to children, as the ordinary means of their salvation.
This text speaks not of children, but of men;Cufin. children are not men,
You might as well and better say,D. Featley. that women are not men; and doe you think that women ought not to be baptized? this text speaks of children as well as those in riper years, male, or female; for, as the Apostle speaketh, In Christ there is no difference of sex or age.
All that are to enter into the kingdom of God, ought to be born of water and the spirit.Talium enim est regnum c… lorum, Mat. 19. 14.
But children enter into the kingdom of God as well as men of ripers years.
Ergo children ought to be born again with water, &c.
How prove you that children enter into the kingdom of God?Anabaptist.
All those that are holy enter into the kingdom of God.D. Featley.
But the children of the faithfull are holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14.
Ergo they enter into the kingdom of God.
The Apostle meaneth that such are not bastards.Anabaptists.
At which the company laughing, as a ridiculous answer,See the refut…tion of this an…swer in the ce…sure of a book, intituled, Th… Vanitie of childrens baptisme. as if all that were not bastards were holy; or that no children could be holy in the Apostles sense who were base-born. Another Anabaptist came in, and propounded a question concering Lay-mens preaching.
I will prove unto you M. Doctor, that neither you, nor such men as you are ought to preach, but such only ought to perform that office of preaching,Infra & articl 2. argum. 8. as are appoynted by us.
How prove you that?D. Featley.
Those who are ordained ministers by ungodly men,Anabaptist. ought not to preach. But you, and others as you are, be ordained by ungodly men.
Ergo, you ought not to preach.
I denie both your propositions.D. Featley. First, because although we should suppose the bishops, who ordained ministers, to be ungodly men, yet if they were themselves lawfully ordained, and had power of imposition of hands, the ministers ordained by them, may and ought to discharge their function. Iudas the Apostle, and Nicholas the deacon, were ungodly men; yet the ministeriall acts they did, either in preaching the word, or administring the sacraments, were never accounted void. Secondly, I denie that our bishops were ungodly men.
They that persecute good men are ungodly men.Anabaptist.
But all your bishops persecute good men.
Ergo, the bishops are ungodly men.
I answer: first,D. Featley. some of our bishops never persecuted any man; as namely, the Arch-bishop of Armagh, and bishop Potter. Secondly, though some of our bishops by their places, as they were high commissioners, punished some men by Mulcts, imprisonments, or other censures; yet they persecuted no godly man, but executed justice upon delinquents: namely, factious schismaticks that disobey the Kings ecclesiasticall laws, and disturb the peace of the church.
Yea,Anabaptist. but they are good men whom your bishops persecute, and you cannot except the bishop of Armagh; for when I was called in question before the high commission, the Primate of Ireland sate there, and by silence gave consent.
The Primate of Ireland was never a Judge in our high commission in England, D. Featley.as it is well known: sometimes he might sit with the rest, but he had no power to give sentence in the high commission in England; and if I might know truly for what cause you were brought into the high commission, I doubt not but to prove the sentence given against you to be just; for you are one who come not to church, nor will hear our preachers, but only some of your own sect, and those no better then meer Lay-men.
We do no read of any such distinction in the word of God,Anabaptist. as Laymen and Clergy-men,SECT. 7. these are popish distinctions;Of the distinction of the Clergy & Laicks. the word. Lay is not in all the scriptures.
No more is the word Trinity, nor sacrament, nor many others read in scripture,D. Featley. yet the sense of them is there, and so is the distinction of Clergy and Laitie;And that none may exercise the function of a minister of the Gospel, without a speciall calling thereunto for God commandeth that the people should learn the law from the Priests mouth; the Priests were no other then the Clergy, and the common people then the Laity.
Their Priest-hood was not the same with yours.
It was the same for substance, but not for ceremony and manner of worship; their Priest-hood was typicall, ours evangelicall; they by the figures of the ceremoniall law fore-shewed Christ to come,Anabaptist. we preach that Christ is come.D. Featley.
Can you prove any such distinctions in the new testament?Anabaptist.
We can:D. Featley, for we read in the new testament of pastours and flocks; they who feed with the word, are the Clergy; and the flocks who are fed, are the Laity. All are not pastours or teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? That is, all are not so.
Deacons preached, they were Lay-men,Anabaptist. therefore may Lay-men preach; I instance in Steven, &c.
The Deacons were not meer Lay-men,D. Featley. but men full of the holy Ghost, and of wisedom, upon whom the Apostles layd their hands, Acts 6. 6. Prove that any preached who had not imposition of hands.
Here that Anabaptist failing, Cufin undertook it, saying;
In the 8. of the Acts we read plainly,Cufin. that, after that great persecution of the church at Jerusalem, they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea, and Samaria, except the Apostles; and that they who were scattered abroad went every where, preached the gospel; and that God gave a blessing to their preaching, it is plain, Acts 11. 19. Again, (Peter saith) 1 Pet. 4. 10. As every man hath received the spirit, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of Christ. If God have given us a talent, it is our duty to improve it.
They that were scattered and preached the gospel,D. Featley. were such as the Apostles had layd hands on, and sent to preach, and among them Philip the Deacon there mentioned. For the text of S. Peter; he speaketh not there of publike preaching, and administring the sacraments, which appertaineth only to pastours by their speciall function; but of edifying one another, and teaching and admonishing in private,1 Thess. 5. 11. according to the precept of S. Paul, Colos. 3. 16. Let the word of God dwell richly among you, in all wisedom, teaching and admonishing one another: this was no publike preaching, or expounding the word, but godly conference in private houses with those whom they met, such as every godly master of a family useth in his house, instructing his children and servants the best that he can, telling them their duty out of Gods word. It is true, in time of persecution we read of one Frumentius a Lay-man, who in his travailes converted some to the christian faith, confirming the truth of christian religion by scriptures.
That is all we desire to do, as Frumentius did.
That was no preaching publikely by vertue of a pastorall function,Cufin. or expounding scriptures,D. Featley. but holy conference and exhortation; such as that of Aquila and Priscilla. And the historian addeth, after the church had notice how God blessed Frumentius his labours, in turning many heathen to christinity; the bishops sent ministers unto them, to confirm them and administer the sacraments unto them; and himself also received holy orders, to accomplish that work which he had so happily begun.
The scripture puts no difference betwixt publike and private;Another Anabaptist. it is as lawfull to worship God in a private house, to preach there, as in one of your Steeple-houses.
The Apostle puts a difference, 1 Cor. 11. 22.D. Featley. What? Have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God?
The word in the originall is ecclesia, Anabaptist.not templum, which never signifieth your Steeple-house in all the scripture.
The word ecclesia is taken diversly in holy scripture:D. Featley. sometimes,
1. For a company of men, and that either of the wicked, as Psal. 26. 5. Odi ecclesiam malignantium.
Or, of the godly, Acts 20. 28. & 11. 26. &c.
2. For the place of their publike meeting; and so the word ecclesia is here taken.
If the people of God meet in a private place, is not that then the house of God?Anabaptist.
There is a publike house of God,D. Featley. that is, a place sequestred from common use, and dedicated to Gods service, and there is a private house of God, as we read Ro. 16. 5. where some of the faithfull privatly meet, and that also is called the church; greet the church in thine house: & in such private houses it is lawful to preach in time of persecution, but not now, when we have publike churches for the service of God, to which we may and ought to repair, and in these churches no lay-man ought to preach, nor at all exercise the pastorall function, either there or any where else. Which I prove by two reasons especially.
First, none ought to take upon them the office of pastour, or minister of the word,1. Reason. who are not able to reprove and convince Hereticks, and all gain-sayers: but your lay and unlettered men are not able to convince Hereticks, and stop the mouths of gayn-savers, because they can alledge no scripture but that which is translated into their mother-tongue, in which there may be and are some errours: for, though the Scriptures be the infallible word of God, yet the translators were men subject to errour, and they sometimes mistook.
Will you say that those learned men who translated the bible at Geneva committed any error in their translation?Scotch-man.
I will; and for instance, Luke 22. 25.D. Featley. in the Geneva translation, printed 1569. we read, the Kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they that beare rule over them are called gracious Lords: whereas in the originall it is Euergetai, that is,foreign benefactors, or bountifull; yet this place hath bin much urged against the titles of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops, as if Christ forbad any ministers of the gospell to be called by the titles of Lords or gracious, wheras there is never a word in the text that signifieth either Lord or gracious, neither d…th Christ there speak only to the ministers of the gospell, but to all Christians. Besides this, I could produce many other errors in that translation, which are corrected in the Kings translation.
Though we cannot prove the letter to be well translated,Anabaptist. that matters not much,The Anabaptists blasphemy against the scripture. for the letter of the scripture is not scripture.
That's blasphemy, I pray take notice of it, he denyeth the letter of the Text to be scripture.
The letter of the word of God is not scripture,D. Featley. without the revelation of the spirit of God;Anabaptist. the word revealed by the spirit is scripture.
Very fine doctrine; if God reveal not to us the meaning of the scripture,D. Featley. is not the letter of the text scripture? By this reason, the greatest part of the Revelation, and other difficult texts of scripture should not be scripture, because God hath not revealed to us the meaning of them.
Here one that stood by demanded of the Anabaptist; how prove you the bible to be Gods word?
By experience. For, whatsoever is written in the word of God commeth to passe,Anabaptist. concerning Christ and Anti-christ; experience is the best doctor that teacheth us.
This reason alone will not prove the bible to be Gods word;D. Featley. for Moses saith, If a false prophet shall arise, and fore-tell any thing, and it come to passe, Deut. 13. 2. thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet, for the Lord thy God proveth you; it is true, that argument with others makes a good proof.
There is no false prophet in the scripture, the pen-men thereof were all true prophets,Anabaptist. and spake from the mouth of God.
I grant you, they did; yet by this argument alone you cannot convince an Atheist,D. Featley. or a Mahumetan: for in Mahomets Alc…ron it is said, that Mahomet was a true prophet, and that the Angel spake to him from God; you see to what a miserable plunge you are put, if you have no more knowledge then meerly the translation of the English bible.
Secondly, for the event of prophesies you speak of, how prove you the event of them? For the events of the latter prophesies are not set down in scripture; as namely, of the destruction of the temple, and the dispersion of the Jews into all nations.
Travellers can testifie the truth of that.Anabaptist. Besides, some here, I doubt not, can witnesse.
I believe it;D. Featley. but these travellers their report, and the testimonie of those witnesse you speak of, are no ground of our christian faith; you see therefore that you are still to seek, and not able to convince any Jew, Pagan, or Mahumetan, out of your translated bible without other helps of learning, which you want.
Secondly,2. Reason. I prove that none of your Lay-men, who have not received holy orders, may take upon them the sacred office of preaching the word, and administring the sacraments. The office of a minister is a holy office, which none may meddle with but those who have a lawfull calling thereunto. To which purpose I alledged divers texts out of the new testament before: whereunto I will adde the fearfull judgments of God in the old testament, which fell upon Lay-men who medled with the priests office. As first, the judgment that fell upon Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, Numb. 16. 3: Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is amongst them: wherefore then lift ye up your selvs above the congregation of the Lord? v. 28. And Moses said, if these men diethe common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men, the Lord hath not sent me. v. 31. And assoon as he had made an end of speaking all these words, the ground clave asunder that was under them, v. 32. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up with their families, and all the men that were with Corah, and all their goods. Secondly, Uzza, who put forth his hand to stay the Arke, 2 Sam. 6. 6. 7. And when they came to Nachons threshing floor, Uzza put his hand to the Arke of God, and held it, for the oxen did shake it. v. 7. And the Lord was very wroth with Uzza, and God smote him in the same place for his fault, and there he dyed by the Arke of God. Thirdly, upon Uzziah, who, for taking upon him to offer incense which belonged to the priests office, was stricken with a Leprosie that clave to him till his death, 2 Chron. 26. 18. 19. 20. 21. And they withstood Uzziah the King, and said unto him, it pertaineth not to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated for to offer incense: go forth of the Sanctuarie, for thou hast transgressed, and thou shalt have no honour of the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had incense in his hand to burn it; and while he was wroth with the priests, the Leprosie rose up in his fore-head, before the priests, in the house of the Lord, besides the incense Altar. And when Azariah the chief priest with all the priests looked upon him, behold, he was Leprous in his fore-head, and they caused him hastily to depart thence, and he was even compelled to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the King was a Leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt as a Leper in a house apart, because he was cut off from the house of the Lord. Fourthly, upon husband-men and heards-men, that took upon them to prophesie, Zach. 13. 4. 5. 6. And in that day shall the prophets be ashamed, every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; then they shall wear a rough garment no more to deceive. But he shall say, I am no prophet: I am a husband-man; for men taught me to be an herds-man from my youth up. So you artificers may be ashamed of your prophesying, and say, I am a trades-man; I am no prophet; men taught me to exercise a handy-craft from my youth. At this, one Cufin being very angry, said;
M. Doctor,Cufin. I am more lawfully called to preach the word then you; and that I will prove by scripture.
You will have a hard task of it;D. Featley. for neither my name, nor yours, are found in scripture; neither is there any colour in all Gods word for any Lay-mans preaching; much lesse such an illiterate artificer as you are.
He that is called by saints to preach,Cufin. is better called, then he that is called by ungodly men.
*Such saints as John of Lydan, who had 15. wives; and Cniperdoling, who died likeabeast.But I am called by saints.
Ergo my calling is better then yours.
You are like the Pharisees, who justifie your selvs; what arrogancie and pride is it in you, to tearm your societies a company of saints?
Neither were you called by saints, nor I by ungodly men.
I am called by those who live in no known sins.See Sleidan. Cōment. l. 10.
But you are called by bishops, who lived in known sins.
Ergo, Mr. Morgan.I am more lawfully called then you.
Such a company of saints,D. Featley. as you are,Cufin. two of your holy society was, lately accused for a Rape.M. R.
How can you know that none of your society live in known sins,D. Featley. who cannot say so of your self? Much lesse of any of them. For I appeal to your own conscience, whether you and they in your prayers to God do not ask him forgivenesse as well for sins against conscience, as for sins of ignorance; as well for known as unknown sins: besides, have you no idle thoughts, or fleshly lusts, or desires in you?
I do not deny but I have.Cufin.
And do you not know that these are sins?D. Featley.
I know they are.Cufin.
Then by your own confession you live in known sins.D. Featley.
Though I know them,Cufin. yet I do not approve of them.
And can you prove,D. Featley. that he who ordained me approved himself in any known sin? He, who ordained me, was a learned, grave, and religious bishop, who lived and dyed without spot or taint; and I cannot sufficiently admire your boldnesse, who charge him who ordained me with walking in known sins, and approving them, who knew not the man who he was: take heed of these flanders, the tongue that lyeth slayeth the soul.
Whosoever he was,Cufin. he was but a particular man, and Christ gave the power of ordaining to his church, not to any particular men.
Though Christ hath given this power to the church,D. Featley. yet some particular men in the church ought to execute this power of ordination.Here it grew late, and the conf…rence brake off.
The issue of the conference was; first, the Knights, Ladies, and Gentlemen gave the Doctor great thanks: secondly, three of the Anabaptists went away discontented, the fourth seemed in part satisfied, & desired a second meeting; but the next day, conferring with the rest of that sect, he altered his resolution; and neither he, nor any of that sect ever since that day troubled the Doctor or any other Minister in the Borough with any second chalenge. Finis.
Additions to the former Conference.
IN the conference above mentioned, D. F. promised to prove the baptisme of children: 1. By scripture. 2. By consent of the universall church. And 3. by evident reason. And the arguments drawn from the first head he prosecuted, but was not permitted at that time to urge the arguments drawn from the second and third heads: yet, because they were desired by some persons of note, it was thought fit they should be added to the former.
Next to the arguments drawn from expresse testimony of scripture for the baptisme,D. Featley. of children, we have a most forcible argument drawn from the consent of the universall church,The consent of the catholike Christian church for the baptisme of infants. testified by their constant practise of admitting children to baptisme, even from the Apostles dayes unto this present. This argument, if it be well weighed, is of very great moment, and may convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian. For no Christian doubteth, but that the Apostles were inspired by the holy Ghost, and Christ promised his spirit to lead his church into all truth; which promise he hath hitherto made good in such sort, that it cannot be proved that ever the whole church of Christ unversally erred; it is true, particular churches have erred, and may erre, and generall councels, which the schools tearm the representative church, are subject to error, and have sometimes decreed heresie and false-hood for truth; but the formall church as they speak, that is, all the assemblies of Christians in the world cannot be impeached with error at any time: whence I thus frame my argument.
That which the Apostles in their dayes began, and the whole christian church scattered over the face of the whole earth hath continued in all ages, and all countries where christianity hath been, and is professed, cannot be an erroneous practise.
But the catholike christian church, in all places and ages, even from the Apostles times, hath admitted the children of faithfull parents to holy baptisme.
Ergo the practise of christening children cannot be erroneous or unwarrantable, as the Anabaptists teach.
The major or first proposition is already sufficiently proved; the minor or second proposition is proved by the testimony of Origen for the Greek church, and S. Austin for the Latine, and the Ecclesiasticall stories in all ages. Origen, in his Commentarie upon the sixt chapter of St. Paul to the Romans, having alledged the words of the prophet David, Psal. 51. 5. I was born in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me; addeth, proper hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit parvulis dare baptismum (for this reason, namely, because all are conceived in sin) the church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to administer baptisme to little infants. And St. Austine, l. 10. de genesi ad literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris ecclesie in baptizandis parvulis non spernenda est, nec omnino credenda esset nisi Apostolica esset traditio; the custome of our mother the church, in baptizing infants, is no way to be sleighted or rejected; neither were it at all to be beleeved if it were not an Apostolicall tradition. As for the continuance continuance of it, the hystorie of all ages of the church confirms it; neither can there be brought an instance in any Christian church in the world that denyed baptisme to children, til this sect arose in Germany, since the reformation began there, in the dayes of Henry the eight.
After the testimonies of scriptures, and the practise of the catholike church, we have a third proof drawn from evidence of Reason; against which, if it be excepted that the eye of reason in matter of faith is but dim; and therefore, that such arguments are no way convincing: I answer, that it is true, that such arguments drawn from reason, as have no other ground but philosophicall axioms, or sensible experiments are of little force in matter of faith, which is above reason; but such reasons as have ground and foundation in scripture, and are firmly built upon those foundations, are of exceeding great force, and such are those I purpose to alledge.
First,Arguments drawn from reason for …bristening children. where the disease is, there ought the remedy to be applied.
But the disease, to wit, originall sin is in children, as well as men. For, all have sinned in Adam, Rom. 5. 12. and are by nature the children of wrath, Ephesi. 2. 3.
Ergo, the remedy which is baptisme, ought to be applied to children as well as men.
Secondly, those who are comprised within the covenant of grace, ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme. For to them appertain both the promises of the new testament and the seal thereof, which is baptisme.
But the children of the faithfull are comprised within the covenant of grace, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant.
Ergo, children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme.
Thirdly, no means of salvation ought to be denyed to the children of the faithfull, whereof they are capable.
But baptisme is an outward means of salvation, whereof children are capable under the gospel, as well as the children of the Jews were capable of circumcision under the law.
Ergo, baptisme ought not to be denied to children.
Fourthly, all those who receive the thing signified by baptisme, ought to receive the outward sign. It is the argument of St. Peter, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we?
But the children of the faithfull receive the thing signified by baptisme; to wit, regeneration and remission of sins.
Ergo, they ought to receive the sign; to wit, the baptisme of water.
The proposition or major is proved alreadie; the assumption or minor is thus proved; Christ bad children come to him, and he blessed them; (and said) of such is the kingdom of God, Mar. 10. 16. and that their Angels continually behold his Fathers face in heaven, Mat. 18. 10. and unlesse the Anabaptists will grant that children are regenerated, and receive remission of sins, they must needs hold that all children are damned, which is a most uncharitable and damnable assertion.
The ANABAPTISTS Objection.
Yea, but the Anabaptists object, Mat. 28. 18. Go teach all nations, baptizing them. Whence they would infer that none are to be baptized but those to whom the gospel hath before bin preached; & consequently, that children ought not to be baptized before they can hear and understand the gospel preached to them.
ANSWER.
1. The setting preaching before baptizing doth no more prove that preaching must alwaies go before baptisme, then the naming repentance before faith, (Mar. 1. 15. Repent, and beleeve the gospel) proves, that repentance goeth alwayes before faith, which the Anabaptists themselves hold not.
2. Christ setteth in that place preaching before baptizing for two reasons, neither of which make any thing against the baptisme of children. The first is, because it is the more principall act of the ministeriall function, for it is preaching which through the operation of the holy Spirit begetteth faith, which the sacraments only confirme; preaching draweth the instrument as it were of the covenant between God and us, whereunto the sacrament is set as a seal. Secondly, because Christ there speaketh of converting whole nations to the Christian faith, in which alwayes the preaching of duplicate page duplicate page the word goeth before the administration of the sacraments. For, first men beleeve, and after are admitted to baptisme, but after the parents are converted, their children being comprised within the covenant are admitted to baptisme; and whensoever any proselyte is to be made, this course is likewise to be taken, they must professe their faith before they be received into the church by baptisme: but the case is different in children, they have neither the use of reason to apprehend the gospel preached unto them, nor use of their tongue to professe their faith, and God requireth no more of them then he hath given them; the like course God himself took in the old law, before any men of riper years were circumcised, the commandement of God was declared, and his covenant made known unto them, but children were circumcised the eight day before they were capable of any preaching unto them, or such declaration.
Nothing remaineth, but that the two objections concerning the doctrine of the Trinitie in the beginning propounded by D. F. for no other end, but to try how well verst these ring-leaders of the Anabaptists were in the more necessary points of catechisme; he answered:
The first was framed out of Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternall, to know thee to be the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Iesus Christ. If the Father be the only true God, how is the Son or the holy Ghost very God? Hereunto the Anabaptists gave two answers; the first, blaspemous, the second, unsufficient and impertinent, as appears in the beginning of the conference. The true answer is, that Christ, Ioh. 17. prayeth to God, and not to any of the three Persons particularly; for though he useth the word Father, v. 1. yet Father is not there taken for the first Person in Trinity, but as a common attribute of the deity, as it is also taken, Mat. 6. 9. Our Father, v. 14. your heavenly Father, Gal. 1. 4. God and our Father. Jam. 1. 27. Before God and the Father. 1 Pet. 1. 17. If you call him Father, who judgeth without respect of persons: So then, the meaning is, O God, Father of heaven and earth, This is life eternall, to know thee to be the only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Iesus Christ. According to which interpretation, this text is parallel to that of the Apostle, one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man; the man, Christ Iesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5.
The second objection was out of Ioh. 15. 26. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father. If the spirit proceed from the Father only, how do we say in the Nicen creed, and that other of Athanasius, and in the Letany, which proceedeth from the Father and the Son? To this none of the Anabaptists gave any answer at all, yet the answer is very easie; for the spirit is said to proceed from the Father in the place above alledged, because he proceedeth from the Father originally, not because he proceedeth from the Father only, for he is elsewhere called the spirit of the Son, as well as of the Father, Gal. 4. 6. And in this very text, Ioh. 15. 26. it is said, the spirit whom I will send you from the Father; which sheweth that the holy Spirit hath a dependance from both. To whom, three Persons and one only true God, be ascribed all glory, honour, power, and dominion, for evermore.
FINIS.