Christian History Institute Presents Pastwords #51: The Dippers Dipped or the Anabaptists Ducked by Daniel Featley ©2007

The Dippers dipped, or the Anabaptists Ducked and Plunged over Head and Eares, at a Disputation in Southwark; a true relation of what passed at a meeting in Southward, between D. Featley and a company of Anabaptists, October 17, 1642.

Featley (originally Fairclough), Daniel (1582-1645) Anglican priest and controversialist was born at Charleton, Oxfordshire, on March 15, 1582, and became rector of Lambeth (1619) and subsequently also of Acton, Middlesex (1627). The Anglican account of his famous debate (June 27, 1623) with two Jesuits, John Fisher and John Sweet, was published as The Fisher Catched in his Owne net (1623); a Catholic account was issued in 1626. An epidemic of plague caused Featley to publish Ancilla pietatis (1626), a book of private devotions. His Clavis mystica (1636) was a collection of sermons. An account of Featley's other famous disputation (Oct 17, 1642) against four Anabaptists, was published in The Dipper Dipt (1645). At the 1643 Westminster assembly of divines Featley opposed the Solemn League and Covenant with the Scots; his arguments, in The League Illegal, were published (1660) by his nephew. Featley was imprisoned (1643) as a "spy and an intelligencer"; his health declined and he was moved to Chelsea College where he died on April 17, 1645.
--Encyclopedia Britannica.

TO THE MOST NOBLE LORDS, WITH THE HONORABLE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS AND BURGESSES Now Assembled in PARLIAMENT.

ow of all Heretiques and Schismatiques the Anabaptist in three regards ought to be most carefully looked unto, and severely punished, if not utterly exterminated and banished out of the Church and Kingdome.

First, In regard of their affinity with many other damnable Heretiques, both Ancient and Later; for they allyed unto, and may claime kindred with, 1. The Millenarians in the first Age, proclaiming Christs Temporal Kingdome upon earth for a thousand yeares, before the day of Judgment. 2. With the Marcionites in the second Age, who denyed the substance of Christs humane body made of a woman. 3. The Catharists or Novatians in the third Age, who denyed Repentance and restitution to the Church thereupon, to those that fell in time of persecution. 4. With the Donatists in the fourth Age, who re-baptized all those that had received Baptisme before in the Catholique Church. Lastly, with a rabble of Heretiques in the latter Ages, namely, the Apostolici, the Adamites, the Enthusiasts, the Psycopannychists, the Polygamists, the Jesuits, the Arminians, and the Brownists; of all which and their Errours, I have set downe a particular Catalogue, Chap. 2.

Secondly, in regard of their audacious attempts upon Church and State, and their insolent acts, committed in the face of the Sun, and in the eye of the high Court of Parliament. They preach, and print, and practise their Hereticall impieties openly; they hold their Conventicles weekly in our chiefe Cities, and Suburbs thereof, and there prophesie by turnes; and (that I may use the phrase of Tertullian) edificantur in ruinam, they build one another in the faith of their Sect, to the ruine of their soules; they flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both Sexes enter into the River, and are dipt after their manner with a kind of spell containing the heads of their erroneous tenets, and their engaging themselves in their schismaticall Covenants, and (if I may so speak) combination of separation. And as they defile our Rivers with their impure washings, and our Pulpits with their false prophecies and phanaticall enthusiasmes, so the Presses sweat and groane under the load of their blasphemies. For they print not onely Anabaptisme, from whence they take their name; but many other most damnable doctrines, tending to carnall liberty, Familisme, and a medley and hodg-podge of all Religions.

Thirdly, In regard of the peculiar malignity this heresie hath to Magistracie; other heresies are stricken by Authority, this strikes at Authority itself, undermineth the powers that are ordained of God, and endeavoureth to wrest the sword out of the Magistrates hand, to whom God hath given it for the cutting off of all heresie, and impiety; and if this Sect prevaile, we shall have no Monarchie in the State, nor Hierarchie in the Church, but an Anarchie in both.

But why doe I trouble my selfe with these new upstart Sectaries? There is a learned and reverend Assembly of Divines attending on you, who will take care nequid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat. Who prest me for this service? My answer hereunto is as ready as true, That though I were not pressed, yet I was challenged to it. And if I had declined this Combat, as others did, the Adversary would have growne most insolent, and all the City and Borough rung of their vaunting brags, and confidence in their cause, and our diffidence in ours; therefore I gave them a meeting at the time and place appointed. And though I were but one, and they many, yet they were not able to withstand the irresistible and all-conquering force of truth.

A true Relation of what passed at a meeting in Southward, 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:

Scotchman: Master Doctor, we come to dispute with you at this time, not for contention sake, but to receive satisfaction: We hold that the Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved lawfull by the Testimonie of Scripture, or by Apostolicall tradition; if you therefore can prove the same either way, we shall willingly submit unto you.

D. Featley: Are you then Anabaptists? I am deceived in my expectation, I thought that the end of this meeting had been to have reasoned with you about other matters, and that my task would have been to have justified our Communion-Book, and the lawfulnesse and necessity of comming to the Church, which I am ready to doe. Anabaptisme (which I perceive is the point you hold) is an heresie long since condemned both by tghe Greek and Latine Church, and I could have wished also that you had brought Scholars 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 Original 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 frar onely as it agreeth with the Originall, which (as I am informed) 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, since 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.

Scotchman: This M. Doctor, is nihil ad Rhombum, we would know of you whether the Baptisme of Children can be proved lawfull (as we said before) as it is practised among you.

D. Featley: Whereas you say this my Question is not ad Rhombum, you mistake the matter: For it is ad Rhombum, if you know what the Phrase meaneth. Is not the form of Baptisme this, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost? Therefore 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 onely in riper yeers, or chilodren 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 beleeve that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Sonne? if you doe so, how then doe you answer the words of our Saviour, John 15.26. The Spirit which proceeds from the Father? there is no mention at all of proceeding from the Sonne, but the Father onely. To the latter of these Queries nothing was answered, by either of them; to the former they both answered. First the Scotchman.

Scotchman: We never intend to deny that every Person in Trinity is God, for the Text you alledge, it proves not what you bring it for.

Here the Text being read, the Scotchman answered, Christ opposeth his Father, as the true God, to all false gods.

D. Featley: I doe not urge the word true, for that indeed is spoken in opposition to false gods, but the work onely, and thus I frame the Argument. If God the Father be the onely true God, then the holy Ghost is not God. But God the Father is the onely true God; Ergo, the holy Ghost is not God.

Scotchman: The Father is said to be the onely God in respect of Essence.

D. Featley: This Answer containes in it Blasphemie; for if the Father be the onely true God, in respect of Essence, then is not the Sonne 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 interposing, said,

Cufin: I come not here to dispute, but to receive satisfaction of some doubts, which if you can resolve me in, I shall 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 onely God, and no creature is so.

D. Featley: It is very true, that onely excludes all creatures; but whereas you say that these words are spoken by Christ, as Man only, it cannot stand with the Text; for it is added, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. Christ faith it is life eternall to know the Father to be the onely true God, and whom he hath sent, Jesus Christ; but it is not life eternall to know Christ onely as Man, but as true God and Man, and so a perfect Mediator: neither is Christ said onely the Son of God, in respect of his temporall generation, as Man; but also in respect of his eternall generation, as he is the second Person in Trinity; this Answer therefore of your is not sufficient nor pertinent.

Sir John Lothall: M. Doctor, the companie is not satisfied with their Answers, I pray, resolve the doubt your selfe.

D. Featley: I will, as soone as they have propounded their objections; for, I moved these Questions onely to make it appeare to the Auditors, how unfit these men are to take upon them the office of Teachers, who are so imperfect int he Fundamentall point of Catechisme. Now let them propound what Questions they please.

Cufin: What is the nature of a visible Church? What is the matter and forme of it? or what is the visible Church of Christ made up of, by authority of the Scriptures?

D. Featley: Your Question is, XXX? What makes a visible Church?

Cufin: Yes.

D. Featley: I answer, according to the Scriptures, and the joynt consent of all Protestant Churches in the world, French, Dutch, etc. in the Harmony of Confessioins, that the sincere preaching of the Word, and the due administration of the Sacraments, constitutes or makes a true visible Church. The Papists make many notes of the Church, as Antiquity, Universality, Succession, Miracles, and divers other: but the Reformed Churches make but two onely, namely, those above mentionis.

Cufin: What is a true particular visible Church?

D. Featley: A particular company of men, professing the Christian fatih, knowne by the two marks above mentioned, the sincere preaching of the Word, and the due administration of the Sacraments.

Cufin: Is the Church of England such a Church?

D. Featley: It is so.

Cufin: How prove you that?

D. Featley: First, I answer, I need not to prove it, but you are to disprove it. For as Hooker teachest, in his Ecclesiaticall 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, and 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, and the Sacraments lawfully and righly administred, is such a Church

But in the Church of England the Word is sincerely preached, and the Sacraments lawfully administered.
Ergo, the Church of England is such a Chruch.

Cufin: I deny that in the Church of England the Word is sincerely preached, or the Sacraments rightly administred.

D. Featley: I have here two things to prove.
1. That the doctrine of the Church of England is agreeable to Gods Word.
2. That 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 and 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.

Cufin: I deny that the 39 Articles and the Book of Common-Prayer are agreeable to Gods Word.

D. Featley: I will 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 impugne 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.

Cufin: For the 39 Articles, I know not what they are, I never saw them that I remember.

D. Featley: Then for ought you know they are all conformable to Scripture, at least you can except against none of them. Now for the Book of Common-prayer, it consists partly of Psalmes, Epistles, 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?

Cufin: I except against your administration of Baptisme, it is not rightly administred in your Church; for you baptize children, and that is not agreeable to Gods Word: If you say it is, how doe you prove it by Scriptures?

This D. F. undertook to prove out of Scripture, but before he alledged any text of Scripture for it, another Anabaptist interposed.

Anabaptist: You say your Church is a true Church; that cannot be: for the true Church compels none to come to Church, or punishes him for his conscience, as the Church of England doeth.

D. Featley: Josiah was supream Governour of the true Church in Judah and Israel, but Josiah compelled all Israel to come to the house of God and worship him there, 2 Chron. 34.33. So Josiah 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 civil Magistrate to the true worship of God.
Anabaptist: Josiah compelled them to come to Jerusalem; but that law is not now in force.

D. Featley: There is a three-fold law of God delivered by Moses. 1. Ceremonial. @. Judiciall. and 3. Morall.

Anabaptist: Prove that any ought to be compelled by the Gospel.

D. Featley: That which Josiah did agreeably to the morall law, bindeth us under the Gospell; for Christ in the Gospell both repeateth and confirmeth this Commandement of loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our soul, calling it he first and great Commandement, Mat. 22.37,38. Therefore our Princes are as much bound, as Josiah 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 heare Gods word and receive the sacraments, for this Christ teacheth in the Parable recorded by St. 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, goe to the highwayes, 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 oversight of you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your soules, etc. To which if we adde those places in 1 Tim, 2.3. and 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. an undenyable Argument may be framed, to convince your conscience, after this manner.
All lawfull superious, either temporall or spirituall, commanding lawfull things, are to be obeyed.
But your lawfull superious 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.

Anabaptist: The Word of God doth not command us to come to your Steeple-houses, the King hath nothing to doe to command us in that kind.

D.Featley: The king hath power to command you in all things that are lawfull, 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, to worship him in spirit and truth.
Ergo, the King hath power to command you to come to our church.

Anabaptist: The King makes an Idol of the Church, where doth Christ command us to come to it?

D. Featley: Where he commandeth us to heare the Word preached; for, in our Church the Word of God is preached, and therefore there we ought to heare it.

Anabaptist: I am not so averse, but if one of our societie should preach in Olaves, or Mary Overis Church, I would heare them, I would come where the Church is gathered, for therein I obey Christ.

D. Featley: Then you will heare none but one of your society, as if your society were the true church, 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, nor Flocks, there is not a true church. But amongst you there are not lawfull Pastors, nor Flocks.
Ergo, no true Church.

Anabaptist: We have amongst us lawfull Pastours.

D. Featley: There are no lawfull Pastors, but those who are sent, Rom. 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.

Anabaptist: None amongst us teach, but they have Ordination; for they are elected, examined and proved.

D. Featley: Have you imposition of hands of the Presbyterie?

Anabaptist: Wee are not bound to tell you; If you will come to our Church you may see.

Cufin: I pray you M. Doctor come to the point: how prove you the Baptisme of children to be lawfull by the Word of God?

D. Featley: It seems you will willingly fall upon no other point but this of Anabaptisme; which Heresie was condemned neere fifteene hundred years ago. Here, after a long space, the Scotchman puts in a word, saying,

Scotchman: Not sixteen hundred years ago.

D. Featley: If it were but a thousand, it is long enough, being condemned by the whole Christian Church, Greek and Latine.

Cufin: Sir, that is neither here nor there, you know what the woman of Samaria said, John 4. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that at Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship they continued in an error above 2000 years.

D. Featley: You are mistaken in your Chronologie, for there were not 2000 years between Jacob and Christ. 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 forts 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.

Scotchman: We desire to have it proved by Scripture.

D. Featley: Our proofes out of Scripture are two forts; some probable, some necessary.
First probable; as where it is said in the Acts 16.33. That the Apostle baptized the Goaler, with all that belong 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 probability there were some children.

Scotchman: I cannot tell that; let us heare your necessary proofes out of Gods word.

D. Featley: There is a good ground, reason, or warrant for the baptizing of children now, as there was of old for circumcising them. But old children were to be circumcised; many plaine places there are where that was commanded.
Ergo, now by the same warrant they are to be baptized.

Scotchman: We deny that there is the same warrant or ground now for the baptizing of children, 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 heare the word preached, Matth. 28. Goe teach and baptize.

D. Featley: 1. That which circumcision was in the old law to the Jews, that is Baptisme now to us, the Sacrament of entrance into the Church; for so S. Augustine and all found 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 appeares, Rom. 4.11. to bee a seal of the righteousness of Faith. But for the same end also was baptisme instituted, to bee a seale of the covenant of grace, and the free remission of our sinnes 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 Gospell, though they have not actual faith, nor can make profession thereof, yet may and ought to receive the Sacrament of Baptisme, which is a seale of the covenant of grace, and righteousness by faith.

Anabaptist: Children ought not to be baptized, because there is no command for it.

D. Featley: Mark, I pray, how uncertaine they are in their grounds; sometimes they say that children are not to bee baptized, because they have not actuall faith, 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.1.

Scotchman: Prove it by Scripture that they ought to be baptized.

D. Featley: So I will; First, I will alledge you the text of Scripture, and then frame my argument from it; the place of Scripture is, John 3.5. Verily, verily, I say unto you,* except a man be borne of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God. My argument from this place for the baptizing of infants is this:

If none can enter into the Kingdome of God, but those that are borne 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 Kingdome of God; (that is, ordinarily) for we must not tye God to outward meanes.
But the former is true,
Ergo, the latter.

Scotchman: By this your reason, it would follow that all that are baptized are regenerated, and none regenerated but those who are baptized; what becomes then of those who dye without baptisme?

D. Featley: I conceive the same of them as of those among the Jewes who dyed before they were circumcised; 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 faith, 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 meanes of their salvation.

Cufin: This text speakes not of children, but of men; children are not men.

D. Featley: You might as well and better say, that women are not men; and doe you think that women ought not to be baptized? this text speakes of children as well as those in riper yeares, male, or female; for, as the Apostle speaketh, In Christ there is no difference of sexe or age.
All that are to enter into the Kingdome of God, ought to borne of water and the spirit.

But children enter into the Kingdome of God as well as men of riper yeares.
Ergo, children ought to be borne againe with water, etc.

Anabaptist: How prove you that children enter into the Kingdome of God?

D. Featley: All those that are holy enter into the Kingdome of God.
But the children of the faithfull are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14.
Ergo, they enter into the Kingdome of God.

Anabaptist: The Apostle meaneth that such are not bastards.

At which the company laughing, as a ridiculous answer, as if all that were not bastards were holy; or that no children could bee holy in the Apostles sense who were base-borne. Another Anabaptist came in and propounded a question concerning Lay-mens preaching.

Anabaptist: I will prove unto you M. Doctor, that neither you, nor such men as you are ought to preach, but such only ought to performe that office of preaching, as are appointed by us.

D. Featley: How prove you that?

Anabaptist: Those who are ordained Ministers by ungodly men, ought not to preach. But you, and others as you are, be ordained by ungodly men.
Ergo, you ought not to preach.

D. Featley: I deny both your Propositions. 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. Judas the Apostle, and Nicholas the Deacon, were ungodly men; yet the ministeriall acts they did, either in preaching the word, or administering the Sacraments, were never accounted void. Secondly, I deny that our Bishops were ungodly men.

Anabaptist: They that persecute good men are ungodly men.
But all your Bishops persecute good men.
Ergo, the Bishops are ungodly men.

D. Featley: I answer: first, 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 lawes, and disturbe the peace of the Church.

Anabaptist: Yea, but they are good men whom your Bishops persecute, and you cannot except the Bishop of Armah; for when I was called in question before the high Commission, the Primate of Ireland sate there, and by silence gave consent.

D. Featley: The Primate of Ireland was never a Judge in our high Commission in England, as it is well knowne: sometimes hee might fit with the rest, but hee 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 heare our preachers, but only some of your owne sect, and those no better then meer Lay-men.

Anabaptist: We doe not read of any such distinction in the word of God, as Lay-men and Clergy-men, these are Popish distinctions; the word Lay is not in all the Scriptures.

D. Featley: No more is the word Trinity, nor Sacrament, nor many others read in Scripture, yet the sence of them is there, and so is the distinction of Clergy and Laity; for God commandeth that the people should learne the law from the Priests mouth; the Priests were no other then the Clergy, and the common people the Laity.

Anabaptist: Their Priesthood was not the same with yours.

D. Featley: It was the same for substance, but not for ceremony and manner of worship their Priesthood was typicall, ours Evangelicall; they by the figures of the ceremoniall law fore-shewed Christ to come, we preach that Christ is come.

Anabaptist: Can you prove any such distinction in the new Testament?

D. Featley: We can: 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 4. 12.29. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? That is, all are not so.

Anabaptist: Deacons preached, they were Lay-men, therefore may Lay-men preach; I instance in Steven, etc.

D. Featley: The Deacons were not meer Lay-men, but men full of the holy Ghost, and of wisdome, 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;

Cufin: In the 8 of the Acts we read plainly, that, after that great persecution of the Church at Jerusalem, they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Judea, and Samaris, except the Apostles; and that they who were scattered abroad went everywhere, preached the Gospell; and that God gave a blessing to their preaching, it is plaine, Acts 11.13. Againe, (Peter faith) 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.

D. Featley: They that were scattered and preached the Gospell, 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 Saint Peter; hee speaketh not there of publike preaching, and administring the Sacraments, which appertaineth onely to Pastours by their speciall function; but of edifying one another, and teaching and admonishing in private, according to the Precept of S. Paul, Colos. 3.16. Let the word of God dwell richly among you, in all wisdome, 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.

Cufin: That is all we desire to doe, as Frumentius did.

D. Featley: That was no preaching publikely by vertue of a Pastorall function, or expounding Scriptures, 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 Christianity; 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 hee had so happily begun.

Another Anabaptist: The Scripture puts no difference betwixst publike and private; it is as lawfull to worship God in a private house, to preach there, as in one of your Steeple-houses.

D. Featley: The Apostle puts a difference, 1 Cor. 11.22. What? Have you not houses to eat and drinke in? Or despise ye the Church of God?

Anabaptist: The word in the originall is Ecclesia, not Templum, which never signifieth your Steeple-house in all the Scripture.

D. Featley: The word Ecclesia is taken diversly in holy Scripture: sometimes,
1. For a company of men, and that either of the wicked, as Psal. 16.5. Odi Ecclesiam malignantium. Or, of the godly, Acts 20.28. & 11.26. etc.

2. For the place of their publike meeting; and so the word Ecclesia is here taken.

Anabaptist: If the people of God meet in a private place, is not that then the house of God?

D. Featley: There is a publike house of God, that is, a place sequestred from common use, and dedicated to Gods service, and there is a private house of God, as we read, Rom. 16.5. where some of the faithfull privately meet, and that also is called the Church; greet the Church in thine house: and in such private houses it is lawfull 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 repaire, 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 a Pastour, or Minister of the word, who are not able to reprove and convince Hereticks, and all gainsayers: but your lay and unlettered men are not able to convince Hereticks, and stop the mouthes of gain-sayers, because they can alleage no Scripture but that which is translate 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.

Scotchman: Will you say that those learned men who translated the Bible at Geneva committed any error in their translation?

D. Featley: I will; and for instance, Luke 22.25. in the Geneva translation, printed in 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 original it is Energetai, that is, benefactors, or bountiful; yet this place hath been 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, whereas there is never a word in the text that signifieth either Lord or gracious, neither doth 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.

Anabaptist: Though we cannot prove the letter to be well translated, that matters not much, for the letter of the Scripture is not Scripture.

D. Featley: That is blasphemy, I pray take notice of it, he denieth the letter of the Text to be Scripture.

Anabaptist: The letter of the word of God is not Scripture, without the revelation of the spirit of God; the word revealed by the spirit is Scripture.

D. Featley: Very fine Doctrine; if God reveale not to us the meaning of the Scripture, 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?

Anabaptist: By experience. For, whatsoever is written in the word of God commeth to passe, concerning Christ and Antichrist; experience is the best Doctor that teacheth us.

D. Featley: This reason alone will not prove the Bible to bee Gods word; for Moses saith, If a false Prophet shall arise, and fore-tell any thing ,and 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.

Anabaptist: There is no false Prophet in the Scripture, the pen-men thereof were all true Prophets, and spake from the mouth of God.

D. Featley: I grant you they did; yet by this argument alone; you cannot convince an atheist, or a Mahumetan: for in Mahomets Alcaron it is said, that Mahomet was a true Prophet, and that the Angell 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 downe in Scripture; as namely, of the destruction of the Temple, and the dispertion of the Jewes into all nations.

Anabaptist: Travellers can testisie the truth of that. Besides, some here, I doubt not, can witnesse.

D. Featley: I believe it; but these travellers their report, and the testimonie of those witnesses you speake of, are no ground of our Christian Faith; you see therefore that you are still to seeke, and not able to convince any Jew, Pagan, or Mahumetan, out of your translated Bible without other helps of learning, which you want.
Secondly, 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 alleadged divers texts out of the new Testament before: whereunto I will adde the fearfull judgements of God in the old Testament, which tell upon Lay-men who medled with the Preists Office. As first, the judgements that fell upon Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, Numb. 16.3. Yee take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is amongst them: wherefore then lift yee up your selves above the congregation of the Lord? verf. 28. And Moses said, if these men die the common death of all men, or if they bee visited after the visitation of all men, the Lord hath not sent me. verf. 31. And as soon as hee had made an end of speaking all these words, the ground clave asunder that was under them, verf. 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, Vzzah, who put forth his hand to stay the Arke, 2 Sam. 6.6,7. And when they came to Nachons threshing floore, Uzzah put his hand to the Ark of God, and held it, for the Oxen did shake it. v. 7. And the Lord was very wroth with Uzzah, and God smote him in the same place for his fault, and there he died 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, is pertaineth not to thee, Uzziah, to burne incense unto the Lord, but o the Priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated for to offer incense: goe forth of the Sanctuary, 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 rase 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 forehead, 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 the husband-men and heards-men, that tooke 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:

Cufin: M. Doctor, I am more lawfully called to preach the word than you; and that I will prove by Scripture.

D. Featley: You will have a hard task of it; 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 arificer as you are.

Cufin: He that is called by saints to preach, is better called, then be that is called by ungodly men.
But I am called by saints.
Ergo, my calling is better than yours.
"You are like the Pharisees, who justifie your selves; what arrogancie and pride is it in you, to tearm your societies a company of saints?

D. Featley: Neither were you called by saints, nor I by ungodly men.

Cufin: I am called by those who live in no known sins.
But you are called by bishops, who lived in known sins.
Ergo, I am more lawfully called then you

"Such a company of saints, as you are, two of your holy society was lately accused for a Rape.

D. Featley: How can you know that none of your society live in known sins, who cannot say so of your selfe? 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 forgiveness 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?

Cufin: I doe not deny but I have.

D. Featley: And doe you not know that these are sins?

Cufin: I know they are.

D. Featley: Then by your own confession you live in known sins.

Cufin: Though I know the, yet I do not approve of them.

D. Featley: And can you prove, 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 the, who knew not he man who he was: take heed of these slanders, the tongue that lyeth stayeth the soul.

Cufin: Whosoever he was, he was but a particular man, and Christ gave the power of ordaining to his church, not to any particular men.

D. Featley: Though Christ hath given this power to the church, yet some particular men in the church ought to execute this power of ordination.

The issue of the conference was: first, the Knights, Ladies, and Gentlemen, gave the Doctor great thankes: secondly, three of the Anabaptists went away discontented, the fourth seemed in part satisfied, and 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.