Collection of Discourses, Part 1

Collection of Discourses · Part 1

p. 1A PREFACE TO THE THIRD PART OF … his Catechiſme touching Sacraments. Wherein is ſifted and refuted the ſlaunderous and Satyricall Declamation of Bellarmine, prefixea before the ſecond Tome of his Disputations, touching the Sacraments. *⁎*

THE third part of the Catechiſme ſetteth downe briefly the true doctrine of the Sacraments, diſcovering withal at large the very fountaines thereof; not only clearing to the capacity and conceite of younge beginners the chiefe controverſies of our time, eſpecially of Baptizing of Children, Tranſubſtantiation, Conſubſtantiation, and Excommunication (depending on the doctrine of the Sacraments) but alſo diving ſo far into the depth of them, that even the diligent and learned ſort may therewith all reſt ſatiſfied. Many controverſies and contentions of wrangling p. 2Sophiſtes are there of purpoſe lefte vndiſcuſſed: for why ſhoulde a learner bee wearied with that, wherevpon thoſe ſubtile diſputants cannot themſelues as yet reſolue? or why ſhould men be ouercurious & coſtly in trimming vp a trifle? notwithſtāding, by thoſe ſolid grounds of doctrine it may eaſily app…te, how vaine and varying from Gods word they are, howſoeuer they vaunt themſelues to the view of the ſimpler ſort in rich ſeeming robes of reueren…, but pretended Antiquity. For Truth is a touch-ſtone, ſeruing for the triall both of it ſelfe, and alſo of error.

But we ſhall hereafter finde occaſion to tal… of theſe matters in our publike ſchooles more at large. For the preſumption of the Ieſuites is growne to that height of impudēcy, that nothing can be ſo abſurdely diſputed by their ſchoole men, whereupon they doe not thinke themſelues able by their ſophiſtry to ſet ſo faire a varniſh, that both learned, and vnlearned ſhall accept it for currant Catholique. And if there bee any (as doubtleſſe there are many things) ſo groſſe & falſe, that they admit no colour, then with ſhameleſſe oaths they face vsus downe, that they were neuer written, or ſo much as once approued by any of their Catholiques. For theſe (if I bee not deceiued) are thoſe three impute Spirites, Apoc. 16. 13Rev 16:13lately ſpewed out of the mouth of the Dragon, to bewitch the Monarches of the worlde, and vnderunder-proppe the ruines of Popery.

Here they diſpute buſily, whether Sacraments be p. 3thinges reall, or rationall, or accidentally compoſed and conſiſting of things and wordes? and therefore Whether they may properly bee defined, or no? and if they may, whether the vulgar definition (that is, A viſible ſigne of inviſible grace,) doe indifferently agree vntounto them all? Coldely indeede and ſlenderly they teach, that Sacramentes are viſible and ſenſible ſignes, ſignifying an holy thing by way of likenes & proportion: but perverſly they deny that vntounto them is required the expreſſe commandement of God in Scripture; they deny that in them is any promiſe of grace and remiſſion of ſinnes, yea or ſo much as annexed vntounto them by the ordinance and appointment of God: in a word, they deny that they are ordained to ſtir vp, nouriſh, & confirme our faith. But they maintaine, that they are the cauſes of grace in vsus, that they beſtow grace vponupon vsus, that they are the inſtruments of iuſtification, that of themſelues they effect grace, iuſtification,Opus operatum. and ſanctification by the very worke done, that is, by the naturall power and vertue of the ſacramental action it ſelfe thereunto appointed by God; or (as others wil) by the power of God aſſiſtant to the things ſigned, according to covenant, euen without faith or in warde motion of the receiver. And this force and efficacy they attribute onelyonly to ſacraments of the New Teſtament: as for thoſe of the Olde. ſome there are which leaue vntounto them only the bare and naked ſignification of iuſtification; others beſides that doe alſo yeeld the effect of iuſtification, but only in regarde of the p. 4worke of the worker, Opus operā tis.that is in reſpect of the devotion and deſert of the vſer. And here againe ſome except circumciſion, as iuſtifying through the vvorke done; others reckon it with the reſt. And this is that ſtale ſtuffe of the olde ſchool…-men, which theſe late iuncketters hauehave nowe againe ſumptuouſly dreſſed, and diſhed out to the world for delicates.

Eſpecially Bellarmine the Arch-ſophiſt of this age doth flatter himſelfe in theſe follies,Bellarmine a calling diſputant. that he is fully perſwaded he can obſcure the cleere ſunneſhine. And therefore inſolently and ill-beſeeming the duty of ſo great a diſputant, he ſlaundereth & taunteth our Doctors (moſt of them now dead) neither ſhewing nor obiecting to them falſhood or paralogiſmes in their proofes, but onelie with ſcorne and diſdaine giving them the lie, & the lie: which ſtrange manner of diſputation is now taken vp for a faſhion amongſt thoſe railers. But the moſt worthy Divines Whitaker, Danaeus, Sibrandus & the reſt hauehave now ſo diſcovered the folly of that moſt inſolent man, that even the leſuites themſelues are aſhamed of their Galiah, and beginne to repent them of his too great liberty vſed in diſputation.Bellarmines ſaty…all pref…e to his 2. Tome of of Sacraments examined and ….

He hath prefixed before his ſecond Tome of diſputations which lately hee ſet forth about the ſacraments A Satyricall Declamation or Libelling speech, wherein he profeſſeth that he will play▪ Stage-part, and repreſent vntounto his Romiſh auditory a ſpectacle not vnpleaſant, concerning the furious p. 5contentions of Heretiques. His maine purpoſe therein is to oppoſe our Doctors betweene themſelues each againſt othe…, and by his vpſtart ſophiſtry to de barre vsus the ſpeciall vſe of the Sacraments, namely the ſea…ing of the promiſe of grace, and ſtrengthning of our faith. But how perverſely he dealeth I hauehave here thought good briefely to declare.

Firſt of all he goeth about to ſhew out of Luther, Of the word Sacr…ment.Caroloſtadius, Melancthon, Zwinglius, and Calvin, that the worde Sacrament hath beene by diverſe, and thoſe our wrighters, partly received, partly reiected. As if the Schoole-men themſelues did neuer doubt or diſpute about the originall ſignification, propriety, and vſe of a Sacrament? And if at any time our wrighters hauehave ſeemed to make queſtion of the worde, yet it is a cleere caſe, that by conſent of all it hath beene hitherto receaved in our churches▪ and retained vntounto this day without controverſie. Wherefore that which he ſpeaketh of Luther and Melancthon is plainely frivolous. The opinion of Caroloſtadius (a man gauled by Luther) none in a maner hauehave followed. With Zwinglius he doth manifeſtly cavil. For he indeed could hauehave wiſhed the word Sacrament had never beene receaved by the Germanes; but why? truely for no other reaſon, but becauſe he deteſteth the horrible abuſe of a Sacrament, in ſwearing thereby: a thing (alaſſe!) to familiar with the Germanes. As for Calvin, that he ſhould little allowe of the word, and reprehend it, yet not accompt it a matter p. 6worthy the ſtriuing about, it is an impudent deviſe of the Ieſuits, which without ſhame hee might babble out in his theater at Rome, frō whēce Calvines Chriſtian Inſtitution is exiled.Inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 14. They who with iudgement ſhal read the whole 13. Section wherevnto afterwardes the Ieſuit pointeth, ſhall ſee that Calvin doth not reprehend the word, but the ſubtility of Sophiſts, who out of the ſignification of the Latin word do impugne the confirmation of our faith by Sacraments.

Then comming to the nature of a Sacrament, he bringeth forth vponupon the ſtage Luther, Zwinglius, and Calvin as it were skirmiſhing there-about betweene themſelues: ſaying, that Luther would hauehave the Sacramentes to be only teſtimonies ordained by God, for the ſtirring vp of our faith: Zwinglius certaine engadgings of our ſelues vntounto God: laſtly, Calvin ioining (as it were) both opinions into one, would hauehave them to be ſignes of Gods louelove towardes vsus, ſealing our faith; and teſtimonies againe binding vsus vntounto Godlineſſe. And this is the conflict. But indeede the Ieſuite would faine ſhew his auditors a fault where none is.

The conſent of Calvin & Luther in this point is ſo evident,Of the nature and force of a Sacramēt. that it needes no proofe. That the opinion of me…re tokens and markes of our binding and profeſſion is by way of cavill fathered on Zwinglius, the Ieſuite himſelfe afterwardes vnwittingly witneſſeth, where he writeth, that the opinion of Caroloſtadius and the Anabaptiſtes touching meere tokens of our profeſſion hath beene as wel by others, as p. 7by Zwinglius confuted, and almoſt quite buried: And this that he write…h is true. For Zwinglius both elſewhere, and alſo in his booke wrighten to the Princes of Germany, doth plainly enough expoūd himſelfe wrighting after this manner: The verie ſignes are ſo ordained by Chriſt himſelfe, that even by their analogie and proportion they prevaile very farre, in le…ding vsus vntounto the thing preſent by faith and contemplation. And afterwardes more plainely; The Sacraments are not in vaine; for they ſhewe vsus the ſaluation giuen by God, thither they …ourne our thoughts, & continually EXERCISE OVER FAITH which immediatly they promiſe, & drawe vsus to brotherly charity. And whileſt all this is don, one & the ſame Spirit worketh in vsus, who inſpiringe ſomtymes without meanes, ſomtymes with meanes, draweth whither, how farre, and whom it pleaſeth him. Thus farre Zwinglius. Now wh…t could hauehave ben ſpoken more clerely touching the conſent betweene Luther and Caluin, then that Sacramēts were ordained for this end, namely to leade vsus by ſimilitude & proportion vntounto the thing preſent by faith, to declare vntounto vsus our ſaluation, to turne our thoughts, to exerciſe our faith, and to be meanes and inſtruments of the holy Ghoſt? Is this of Sacraments to make meere tokens & markes of our Profeſſion & obligation vntounto Chriſt, and his church? the Ieſuite doth openly wrong our Doctors.Defence of Luthers opinion … as Sacraments confirm… faith.

Neyther doth he ſtay here, but hath a farther fling at eueryevery of them by courſe. He exclaimeth on the opinion of Luther, that ſacraments ſtrenghthen p. 8our faith, as ſo abſurd, that nothing poſſibly could be deviſed more abſurd. And why, I pray? Becauſe (forſooth) that is the vſe of miracles: for this is the ſume of all he ſaith.

But abſurd is the Ieſuite himſelfe,Ideo … differē ren… gener…am ab vnà ſpecie quia &c. who therefore remoueth the Generall Difference from one Kind, becauſe it agreeth with the other; whereas he cānot be ignorant, that General Differences are cōmonly & indifferently in all their Kindes. Is not this the generall vſe of all diuine ſignes, to put men … mynde of Gods pleaſure & benefites, and to ſeale vntounto vsus the certainety of our faith in his promiſes? for therfore doth God …incke thoſe ſignes with his word, that ſo he might prouide for our weaknes, & confirme vntounto vsus his promiſes. Yf the Ieſuite make doubt hereof, let him ouer-runne the ſcripture from the firſt Sacrament or immortality in Paradiſe, vntounto the laſt ſignes of …he ſmall comminge of Chriſt; & he ſhall finde they agree all in this, as well vniuerſall, as particular; as well thoſe that were deliuered in things naturall, as miraculous; as well ordinary, as extr…ordinary:) But I hope he will not deny that a miracle is a diuine ſigne & Lombard himſelfe can teach him that a Sacrament is one ſorte of diuine ſignes.Lib. 4 …. 1. How farre miracles & Sacramēts agree in their vſe. Miracles therfore & ſacraments agree in this vſe, but that miracles are ſeales, either of the whole doctrine in generall, or of ſome certaine promiſe; Sacraments, onelyonly & eſpecially of the promiſe of grace.

Neyther makes it to the purpoſe that he ſaith miracles are of themſelues knowne, E…ſ… …ta.& depend not any p. 9way on preaching; & that Sacraments are not vnderſtood, vnleſſe they be confirmed by the teſtimony of the word: … speaketh … the force of miracles is vaine. They may indeed of themſelues ſtrike into …, but they can no more of them ſelues teach & confirme that heauenly doctrine whereof they are ſeales then can the Sacraments without declaration of their doctrine. Beſydes, how followes this? … themselues do not ſeale vntounto vsus the promi…es, as … they do not at all ſeale thē. Suppoſe miracles hauehave force & efficacy of themſelues; that hinders not but that Sacraments alſo may hauehave their force & efficacye by the appointment of God. For both naturall, & miraculous, and alſo voluntary ſignes doe ſignifie, though in one ſorte the flame be ſignified by ſmoake, in an other the power of God by miracle, in a third the promiſe of grace by ſacrament.

After this he ſcoffes at that compariſon (as fooliſh) wherein our wrighters lyken the worde to Princes Charters o… Letters Patentes, II That the … & a writ…, a Sacrament & a … is not absurd.and the Sacrament to their ſeales: maintaining the contrary, that the word rather ſhould be called the ſeale of the ſacrament, thē the Sacramēt the ſeale of the worde. And why ſo? Becauſe (ſaith hee) as the ſeale without the wrighting hath his force, and not the wrighting without the ſeale; ſo the word of God euen without ſacrament hath very great authority, the Sacrament without the worde none at all. But twiſe ridiculous and fooliſh is the Ieſuite: firſt in attributinge p. 10force to the ſeale without the wrighting, & none to the wrighting without the ſeale: ſecondly in making the worde a ſeale, becauſe of it ſelfe it hath authority. For (tell me Bellarmine) what force hath the Popes leaden bull? or what doth it ſeale vntounto you being plucked from his pardon? and if you deny that the wrightings & charters are acknowledged without their ſeales; I anſwere that this is neither generally, nor of it ſelfe true.foreign. Did you neuer ſee any billes, handwritings, acquittances, or reſcriptes of Princes ratifyed without their ſeales? The wrightings even of good men, much more of Princes, & moſt eſpecially of God himſelfe, hauehave and deſerue ſufficient authority in themſelues, as appeareth in times paſt how the wrightings of Emperors were wont to bee confirmed rather by markes ſubſcribed, then by waxen ſeales. But by accident, that is, by reaſon of the fraile faith & life of man it is now come to paſſe, that wrightings though confirmed by many ſeales are ſcarſely ſure enough. Now what folly is it in you, of the word to make a ſeale, becauſe without any ſacrament it is of ſufficient authority? whatſoeuer is in it ſelfe authenticke, will you preſently take that for a ſeale? A ſeale is the viſible ſigne of any writting, whoſe vſe is not ſo much to adde authority, as to aſcertaine vsus of the truth. Such a ſigne is not the word of God. But it is more fitly compared vntounto wrightings, becauſe therein God inſtructeth his Church in his will, & doth as it were bequeath p. 11vntounto it certaine goods, or good things. It hath in it ſelfe authority from God the author; the ſacraments are thereunto added as ſeales, not (as you ſuppoſe) that from them it might receiue authority, but that by them God might ſtrengthen our feebleneſſe & infirmity. For they are viſible pictures, or rather the promiſes themſelues attired in certaine ceremonyes, & (as it were) viſible wordes, Tract. 80. … c. 15. & contra …. 19. cap. …6.as Auſtin pretely termeth them; becauſe they picture and preſent vntounto our eies thoſe benefites which the vvorde ſoundeth vntounto our eares. But more credit is giuen to a thinge ſeene then onelyonly heard.

Thirdely he cavilles with Luther in this ſorte.III Baptiſme of children doth not di…prooue the ſtrēgthning of our faith by ſaments. If a ſacrament were nothinge els but an inſtrument to ſtirre vp and nouriſh …aith in vsus; why are infantes, mad men, and men aſleepe ſometimes baptized in the Church? But why doth he not lykewiſe make a queſtion of**For they alſo are chriſtened amongſt Pap…ſtes. belles, churches, & altars? let your church (if it will) baptize madde men, and men aſleepe: as for infantes of the church of Chriſt, we anſwere that they indeed although wanting the vſe of reaſon are notwithſtanding baptized, becauſe of the commaundement and promiſe of God. But (you will ſaye) they do no beleeue: ergo baptiſme confirmes not their faith. Deny not what you know not. They belee…e not as men of age: ergo beleeue they not at all? yf this be true, why may not this alſo be as true? they are not reaſonable as men of age: therefore they are not reaſonable at all. To them is promiſed the holy Ghoſt p. 12workinge faith in vsus, to them is promiſed the grace of the couenant…, & the kingdome of God. And although actually they do not beleeue, yet why may they not as well by inclination beleeue through grace, as by inclination they ſin through nature? As therefore they beleeue: ſo baptiſme is vntounto them a ſeale confirming their faith. But who ſayd a Sacrament was nothing elſe but an inſtrument to ſtirre vp, & nouriſh our faith? there are more vſes of a Sacrament beſides this. But admit baptiſme doe not confirme fayth in inſants; yet it will confirme them when they are come to age. For the fruit of baptiſme is not reſtrayned to one moment;Auguſt. li. 4. ca 4. de Bap. Lomb. lib. 4. diſt. 4. ca. 7. witneſſe Auſten & Lombard himſelfe. Yet are they to be baptized, that their adoption & regeneration may be ſealed vntounto thē, and they diſtinguiſhed from Infidels: which things, as they are not to be accounted nothing; ſo truly we doubt not but that through baptiſme they are imparted & ſealed vntounto the infantes of the church, not (as you teach) becauſe of the worke don, but in regard of the Inſtitution & appointment of Chriſt. Thus therefore the Ieſuite ſeeth how the baptiſme of Children doth not diſſemble or take away the confirmation of faith.

But here maſking wholy vnderunder a vizard of the Anabaptiſtes, Bellarmines ſophiſtical dilemma for Anabaptiſts recorted.Infants (ſaith he) who while they are in baptizing crye & ſtruggle, either vnderſtand what is doing, or not: yf they doe not vnderſtand, neyther doe they beleeue, and are in vaine baptized; & then the Anabaptiſtes preuaile: yf they vnderſtand, then are p. 13they willfull ſinners, & ſacrilegious, & then againe the Anabaptiſtes preuaile. Indeed the ſtage-man playeth his part cunningely. But what if with an armed dilemma (as he termeth it) I ſhould lykewiſe ſay? The Ieſuite, that writt this, is eyther a good man, or a cauiller. If a good man, he ſhould not ſo hauehave tyed, & then wee hauehave the better: if a cauiller, he ſhould not be beleeued, & then againe we hauehave the better. Is not this the like reaſon? Either horne and part of the Ieſuites dilemma is deceiptfull: and in the former there is a double fallacy.Fallacia eſt▪ à ſecundum quid, cùm ſic colligit. Firſt frō that which is but partely true he concludeth as if it were ſimply and wholy true; as where he reaſoneth thus, Infants do not vnderſtand: ergo they do not beleue; it is true of the actes and vſe, not of the poſſibilitie of beleefe. I meane that poſſibilitie, not which wee hauehave by nature,Eſt eti… ̄ paralogiſmus non cauſae. but by grace of that promiſe, I will be thy God, & the God of thy ſeede,. Secondly he diſputeth from that which is no cauſe as if it were a true cauſe, thus, Infants do not actually beleeue: ergo they ought not to be baptized. For the cauſe of baptizing of infants is not the actuall vnderſtandinge or beleefe of infants, but the promiſe pertaining vntounto them,Act. 12. 38.Acts 12:38 as being children of the couenant, & Church, as Peter wittneſſeth, Let every one be baptized in the name of Ieſus Chriſt &c.: becauſe to you and to your children is the promiſe made.

In the latter part of his argument is the ſame ſophiſme. Infantes when they are to be baptized cry. struggle, & often vſe miſhapen & diſtorted motions. But why? is it becauſe they ſtriue againſt the ſacred p. 14action of baptiſme? no, but becauſe ſome other thinge grieueth them, as that they endure ſome paſſion paynefull to their tender infancye. But what thinkes the Ieſuit of thoſe Infants which were vnderunder bloudy circumciſion? what thinkes he of Abraham an oldeman? of the males of his familye? & of the Sichemites? was there (thinkes he) no ſtruggling? no miſhapen or diſtorted motion? Or why ſhould he rather terme infants ſacrilegious, then he doth his Veſtal Nannes, who in tune of their confeſſion, penance, and communicating (ſo leſſoned by the E…ers) do often let fall many à tender teare? who in ſacred actions vſe more miſſhapen motions then the Preiſt at Maſſe? nay did the Ieſuit himſelfe never weep for devotion in ſaying Maſſe, and ſo proue himſelfe ſacrilegious? Bellarmine… ſo great a Doctor (me thinke) ſhould be a ſhamed of ſo childiſh trifles. Here what Auſtin ſayth of this matter. Wheras infants ſtriue as much as they can by cryes & ſhrinkings, Epiſt. 75. ad Dard.it is not imputed vntounto them, & all their reſiſtance is accounted nothing &c. becauſe they know ſo little what they doe, that they are not thought to do it. the like vntounto this we may read, in his 23 Epiſtle, & in his 4. booke & 25. Chapter of Baptiſme againſt the Donatiſtes.

In the end he diſmiſſeth Luther with this frūp. I pray … what Gospell, Apoſtle, or Prophet did he euer read that Sacraments of the new Teſtament were ſeals of the worde of God? was it (belike) in the Gospell of Saint Luther? But where as he ſayth were ſeales of p. 15the worde of God, for were ſeales of the promiſe of grace, it is but a cunning peece of forgery, thereby to make vsus ſeeme to repoſe all the authority of Gods worde on the Sacraments, which we before hauehave refuted. Thus he preſumes to pul a dead lyon by the beard, whoſe very lookes, were he liuing, he durſt not abide. But I pray, Sir, tell vsus firſt in what Goſpell you read that Sacraments are not ſeales of the promiſe of Grace, nor confirme our faith, but that they beſtowe grace, that they iuſtifie & ſanctifie, if they be of the old teſtament, by vertue of the very actiō of the receiuer; if of the new, by the worke done, evē without faith, or any good intēt, or motiō of the receiuers (wheras contrary-wiſe the ſcripture ſpeaketh playnly, that Circumciſion profitteth… them that keepe the lawe, Rom. 2. 26.Rom 2:26but to the tranſgreſſors thereof it is vncircumciſion. Mar. 16. 16.Mark 16:16Thoſe which beleeue and are baptized ſhall be ſaued. 1. Cor. 11. 28.1 Cor 11:28Wee muſt examine our ſelues, … ſo eate of this holy bread) In what goſpell (I ſaye) reade you this? Belyke in ſom Layolan or Gregoriō Calendar. Now one the other ſide hearken where Luther hath reade, that ſacramēts are ſeals of the promiſe of grace. God ſayth of circumciſion,Gen. 7. 11.Gen 7:11 That it may be a ſigne of the couenant betweene me and you. But Paule interpreteth this couenant to be grace, Rom. 4. 11.Rom 4:11& the righteouſneſſe of fayth. Exo. 12. 13.Exod 12:13Of the Paſſeover, That bloud ſhall be vntounto you for for a ſigne vponupon thoſe houſes where yee are, that ſeing that bloud I may paſſe over you. But this Paſſeover did ſignifye the grace of Chriſt. 1. Cor. 5. 7.1 Cor 5:7Of Baptiſme, Mat. 28. 28.Matt 28:28Baptize all nations in the name (that is, in the p. 16authority, commaundem…nt, & ſteede) of the father, Act. 22. 16.Acts 22:16the ſonne, & the holy Ghoſt. And: Ariſe, waſh away thy ſinnes. And, Baptiſme is the waſhing of new birth. Tit. 3. 5.Titus 3:5Baptiſme ſaueth vsus. not that wherewith wee waſh away the filth of …, but that whereby with a good conſcience we make requeſt vntounto God. 1. Pet. 3. 21.1 Pet 3:21Of the Lords Supper:1. Cor. 11. 25.1 Cor 11:25 This cup is the new teſtamēt in my blood. Alſo Doe this in remembrance of me. This if you vnderſtand you hauehave the thinge you ſought for, namely where in ſcripture Sacraments of both lawes are ſaid to be ſeales of grace. (For why, as you vſe to ſay, ſhould ſacraments of the new teſtamēt be of worſe conditiō thē thoſe of the old?) if you do not vnderſtand, you are not worthy to be called a maiſter in Iſrael, which know not that**Forma… foreign eſſe. Baſil. lib. 3. contra Eunon. naturally it belongeth vntounto all ſacraments to ſignifie & ſeale vntounto the faithfull ſome promiſe of grace. Liſten farther vntounto the Fathers of the Church, as Baſil, who confeſſeth plainly what you deny impudētly: foreign, that is, For baptiſme is the ſeale of ſaith. Tertull. li. de poenit.And Tertullian, ſpeaking of baptiſme in this ſort;Auguſt. de cat. rud. cap. 18. This waſhing is a ſeale of our faith: And Auſten, who termeth the ſacraments certaine viſible ſeales of heauenly thinges. Do you not now bluſh at your owne queſtion, Where red Luther this?

So diſmiſſing Luther he ſettes vponupon Zwinglius, taking vponupon him to laſh (for ſooth) & ſcourge his opinion That Sacramentes are ſignes of engadging our ſelues vntounto God. But we hauehave already proved that here the Stage-mā doth but play the caviller. p. 17At the length rouzing himſelfe more terribly againſt Caluin, Of …Betweene Luther (ſaith he) & Caluin this is the difference, that whereas hath …ake the Sacraments teſtimonies or ſcales of Gods promiſe, Luther will hauehave that promiſe to be of preſent iuſtificatio…, …Caluin of eternall election. And leaſt he ſhould … to ſay an vntruth, he cites a place out of Cal…n, Antidor. concili…, Seſſ. 6. ca. 5. as if he ſhould there ſay, that infants are baptized, not to the end they might be receiued into adoption of the ſonnes of God, but that vntounto them the promiſe of life might be ſealed, vntounto whome before by grace of predeſtination it pertained.Cauill And out of the 7. Seſſion and 8. Canon, as if there hee ſhould wright, that the right end and vſe of ſacraments is this, to aſcertaine vsus of the eternall ado… tion & grace, whereunto before the foundation of the world we were predeſtinated, Thus farre the Ieſuite, but all impudently & without ſhame. For Caluin in neither place ſpeaketh one …ote of eternall electiō, or the grace of predeſtination. Only in the former this he ſaith: Inſants are for this reaſon baptized, becauſe they are heires of the promiſe. For vnleſſe the promiſe of life did before pertaine vntounto thē, that man ſhould prophane baptiſme, whoſoeuer did but miniſter it vntounto them. In the latter theſe are his wordes. Allthough baptiſme be the hand-wrighting of that mutuall obligation which is betweene God & vsus, yet the eſpeciall vſe thereof is, to aſſure vsus of free remiſſion of our ſinnes, and perpetuall grace of adoption. But is this to deny that ſacraments are ſeales of the promiſe of preſēt p. 18iuſtification? Is this to reſtraine ſacraments onelyonly to thinges paſt, as namely to the grace of electiō? But this is Bellarmines truſt and fidelity in citing the wordes and ſentences of the Fathers and our Doctors. Such are his two whole▪ volumes of diſputations, namely a rude rable of falſe quotatiōs, which if the learned ſhall vouchſafe in courteſie to examine, they ſhall ſoone ſee this doubtie diſputant left as as dry as a kexe. But to the purpoſe. That the ſacraments are ſeales of our eternall election, although I deny not but that in the lawfull vſing and worthy receiuing of them it is moſt true yet remember I not, that Caluin hath any where thus written, nay the Vbiquitaries of our daies ſlander Caluin & Beza as maintainers of a cleane contrary error, to witt, that they vtterly deny the ſacraments to be ſeales of our election: which alſo is altogether falſe. But the ſimple & naked truth of Calvines doctrine is this. Sacraments profite beeing vſed a righte, and doe exhibit ſeale and confirm… grace vntounto the worthy receiuer, not in regard eyther of the worke wrought, or the deſerte of the worker, but in reſpecte of the promiſe of God inſtituting or ordaininge them, as alſo through the faith of the worthy receiuer. And here by grace he vnderſtandeth euen our ſaluation it ſelfe, together with all the precedent cauſes, meanes, and conſequentes thereof, ſuch as are, our free election, remiſſion of ſinnes, regeneration, ſanctification, and life eternall: So that by the name of grace he cōpriſeth, both grace paſt and already giuen, togither with that which is preſēt p. 19and to come, but eſpecially that which is there in the ſacramente exhibited and preſent. For euen our election before the world was, is ſealed and and aſſured vntounto vsus by the ſacraments, not as it is from aleternities decreed by God, or as a thing done heretofore and paſt, but as the preſent and conſtante decree of God reuealed in the Goſpell concerning our ſaluation in Chriſt, and by the ſame ſacramentes everlaſting life is confirmed not as a future good, but as already we hauehave takē poſſeſſion thereof by faith.

For confirmation of this truth I could produce an infinite number of teſtimonies out of Caluin his Chriſtian inſtitution: but it ſhall ſuffice to refute the Ieſuite by the coūter-poyſon of his Coū ſels: Can: 7. on the ſacraments Caluin ſaith thus: God in the ſacramēts doth promiſe grace not only of election, but alſo of iuſtification, Can. 4. Sacramentes are ſeales of the Gospell. And can it bee denied but that the Gospell is a promiſe of actuall & preſent iuſtification by faith? Can: 8. In baptiſme God waſheth vsus by the bloode of his ſon, & by his ſpirite doth regenerate vsus. In the ſacrament of the ſupper he feedeth vsus with the body and blood of Chriſt. Can 7. of baptiſme: this is a principall part of baptiſme, that is aſſureth us of free remiſſion of all our ſins: & what is this els but preſent suſtification? and theſe may ſerue to cōvince the Ieſuit of a militious ſlāder, cōcerning the ſeals of our electiō, that Calv… vnderſtandeth them not onelyonly of things paſt.

But who ſeeth not his abſurd collection, that if the Sacraments may goe for ſeales of our eternall p. 20election, that then they ſhall not be ſeales of preſent iuſtification? Are not election & iuſtification ſubordinate, and conſequents one of the other? ſo farre are they from aboliſhing one the other, that the contrary ſhould rather be infered; they are ſeales of our eternall election, therefore of iuſtification & preſent grace. For iuſtification is ſo proper, & naturall an affecte of election, that there can be had no certainty of the latter, without aſſurance of the former. For they who are iuſtified in Chriſt, Eph: 1. 4.are alſo choſen to him before the foundation of the world. Whome God hath pr…deſtinated theſe alſo hath he called, Rom 8. 30.Rom 8:30iuſtified, and glorified. Now then let the Ieſuite with open mouth exclāe on Caluins opinion as falſe, abſurde, dangerous, and impious. And why forſooth falſe? Becauſe (ſaith he) Caluin, contrary to that which the Scripture teacheth, reſtrayneth Sacraments only vntounto the thinge paſt, namely to the grace of election. But this cauill is already refuted.

And why abſurde? Becauſe (ſaith he) he reacheth that by the Sacraments the promiſes are ſealed vntounto our conſciences, & yet that infantes are lawfully baptiſed, which noyther hauehave vſe of reaſon nor conſcience. But we hauehave already ſufficiently proued, that neyther infantes borne in the Church of beleeuing parentes, are altogether voyde of reaſon o… faith, if we reſpecte the promiſed grace, although actually they hauehave neyther the faith nor reaſon, which is in thoſe of riper yeares: nor that baptiſing of Children & confirmation of their faith p. 21by Sacraments is therfore to be differred becauſe they doe not beleeue, ſeeing of the Sacramentes there are other endes & purpoſes whereunto they are ordained.

But why pernicious and dangerous. Becauſe he teacheth that the children of the faithfull are borne iuſt and holy, and hath perſwaded many that the ſacraments are not neceſſary vntounto the receiving of the grace of Chriſt. Whence it is come to paſſe, that many contemne the ſaid ſacraments, and in the meane while the ſoules of many infantes never purified by the ſaving vvaters of baptiſme, abide in perpetuall corruption. And is it in deed pernicious to teach, that the children of the faithfull are borne holy, that is, not ſtraungers, but heires of the covenāt, according to that promiſe; I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeede? That therefore is likewiſe pernicious which the Apoſtle teacheth;Rom. 11. 16Rom 11:16 If the roote be holy, the branches alſo are holie. And the vnbeleeving wife is ſanctified by her huſbande, Cor. 7. 14.elſe were your children vncleane; but now they are holy. And this is the chiefe comfort of godly parentes, that they knowe that both branch and roote are ſanctified, that is, that they & their children may from their mothers wombe plead priviledge in the covenant with God, by vertue of the free promiſe made vntounto them and their ſeed after them.

But they are by nature the ſonnes of wrath? Who knowes not that? Calvin teacheth both that they are the ſonnes of wrath in regard of nature; and ſonnes of the covenant in reſpect of grace: according to that of Saint Peter; Act. 3. 25Acts 3:25Yee are the ſonnes of the Prophets & p. 20nall election, that then they ſhall not be ſeales of preſent iuſtification? Are not election & iuſtification ſubordinate, and conſequents one of the other? ſo farre are they from aboliſhing one the other, that the contrary ſhould rather be infered; they are ſeales of our eternall election, therefore of iuſtification & preſent grace. For iuſtification is ſo proper, & naturall an affecte of election, that there can be had no certainty of the latter, without aſſurance of the former. For they who are iuſtified in Chriſt, Eph: 1. 4.are alſo choſen to him before the foundation of the world. Whome God hath prodeſtinated thoſe alſo hath he called, Rom. 8. 30.Rom 8:30iuſtified, and glorified. Now then let the Ieſuite with open mouth ex…āe on Caluins opinion as falſe, abſurde, dangerous, and impious. And why forſooth falſe? Becauſe (ſaith he) Caluin, contrary to that which the Scripture teacheth, reſtrayneth Sacraments only vntounto the thinge paſt, namely to the grace of election. But this cauill is already refuted.

And why abſurde? Becauſe (ſaith he) he teacheth that by the Sacraments the promiſes are ſealed vntounto our conſciences, & yet that infantes are lawfully baptiſed, which neyther hauehave vſe of reaſon nor conſcience. But we hauehave already ſufficiently proued, that neyther infantes borne in the Church of beleeuing parentes, are altogether voyde of reaſon or faith, if we reſpecte the promiſed grace, although actually they hauehave neyther the faith nor reaſon, which is in thoſe of riper yeares: nor that baptiſing of Children & confirmation of their faith p. 21by Sacraments is therfore to be differred becauſe they doe not beleeue, ſeeing of the Scramentes there are other endes & purpoſes whereunto they are ordained.

But why pernicious and dangerous. Becauſe he teacheth that the children of the faithfull are borne iuſt and holy, and hath perſwaded many that the ſacraments are not neceſſary vntounto the receiving of the grace of Chriſt. Whence it is come to paſſe, that many contemne the ſaid ſacraments, and in the meane while the ſoules of many infantes never purified by the ſaving vvaters of baptiſme, abide in perpetuall corruption. And is it in deed pernicious to teach, that the children of the faithfull are borne holy, that is, not ſtraungers, but heires of the covenāt, according to that promiſe; I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeede? That therefore is likewiſe pernicious which the Apoſtle teacheth:Rom. 11. 16.Rom 11:16 If the roote be holy, Cor. 7. 14.the branches alſo are holie. And the vnbeleeving wiſe is ſanctified by her huſbande, elſe were your children vncleane; but now they are holy. And this is the chiefe comfort of godly parentes, that they knowe that both branch and roote are ſanctified, that is, that they & their children may from their mothers wombe plead privilege in the covenant with God, by vertue of the free promiſe made vntounto them and their ſeed after them.

But they are by nature the ſonnes of wrath? Who knowes not that? Calvin teacheth both that they are the ſonnes of wrath in regard of nature; and ſonnes of the covenant in reſpect of grace: according to that of Saint Peter; Act. 3. 2….Acts 3:2Yee are the ſonnes of the Prophets & p. 22of the covenant. That is ſpoken againſt the Pelagians denying originall ſinne; this againſt the ſophiſtes, tying grace to the ſacraments: neither of theſe is perniciouſly taught, becauſe either … & according to ſcripture. Let Calvines Chriſtian inſtitution be ſearched, and his Commentary on thoſe words of Saint Paule; we are all by nature the ſennes of wrath. Thence may the Ieſuite, and Selneccer, and Hunnius, and all the rabble of Calvines adverſaries learne, that originall ſinne is as naturall vntounto vsus as poiſon to a ſerpent, & yet nevertheleſſe the children of the faithful are a ſeede bleſſed even from their mothers wombe. Or if it like them better) let them heare and reconcile David confeſſing of himſelfe,Pſal. 51. 5.Ps 51:5 Behold I am borne in ſinne, and my mother cō ceived me to inquity. And yet elſe-where he comfortes himſelfe in this manner,pſa. 71. 4. 5. On thee hauehave I depended from the time wherein I was borne, and from my mothers wombe thou art my God: or God himſelfe cōplaining in this ſort of mans nature.Gen. 6.Gen 6 The thought of mans heart is wicked from his childhood, and yet Ieremie witneſſing, Before I framed thee in thy mothers belly I knew thee; & before thou cameſt out of her womb I ſanctified thee. Thus the Ieſuite ſees in what reſpect Calvin ſaith that infantes are borne holy: namely not ſimply, and wholy, but in ſome ſort I ſhall hardly beleeue vnleſſe the Ieſuites ſhewe it, that it is found in Calvin that they are borne iuſt. For in this life it is not all one to be holy, and to be iuſt.

Now whereas hee patcheth this vntounto the reſt, that Calvin hath perſwaded many, that the ſacraments p. 23are not neceſſary vntounto the receiving of the grace of Chriſt, and that therevpon hath followed the contēpt of baptiſme with the deſtructiō of many ſouls, this is partly a cavill, & partly a plaine ſophiſme. A cavill that Calvin ſhould altogither deny the neceſſity of ſacramēt, a ſophiſme in imputing to his doctrine the contempt of baptiſme, which the Ieſuite faineth to hauehave enſued therevpon.

Indeede he doth not binde God and grace vntounto the ſacraments, nor falſly placeth in thē an abſolute neceſſity, as do theſe Sophiſters. His purpoſe is only with Bernard to cond…ne, not the abſence, but contempt of ſacramentes. But is this to perſuade many that ſacramentes are not neceſſary. Heare (I pray you) what himſelfe hath written of this matter in his …ſtitution. Now (ſaith hee) even hereby it appeareth that their conceit is to be caſſiered, who adiudge all that hauehave not beene baptized vntounto eternall death, &c. The promiſe of God is manifeſt: whoſoever beleeveth in the ſonne ſhall not ſee death, nor come into iudgment, but is already paſſed from death into life. Which I would not hauehave ſo taken, as if I meant that baptiſme might be contemned without offence (for I am ſo farre from excuſing this contempt, that I affirme the league and covenant of God thereby to bee violated and broken) thus much it ſuffiseth to proue, that it is not ſo neceſſary, that we muſt needes thinke him damned, who ſhall be debarred all meanes and opportunity of obtaining it. But if we yeeld to their deviſe we muſt without exception condemne all thoſe whom any chance ſhall hinder from baptiſme, how great ſo ever bee their …, p. 24whereby Chriſt himſelfe is poſſeſſed. And in his Antidot … (ſaith he) that the vſe of thoſe helpes of our ſalva…n which Chriſt hath giuen vntounto vsus may be ſaid to be nec…ry, … there is opportunity of receiving …. Howbe… …he faithfull are alwaies to bee admoniſh… that the neceſſary of a ſacrament is none other the… … wherevnto the power of God is not to …. Indeede there is no good man whoſe … tremble at that …, The Sacramēts ARE THINGS SVPERFLVOVS, &c. Theſe are his word▪ which thoroughly retort and refell the ….

But children are borne holy, therefore they need not be baptiſed, whence en…th a contempt of baptiſme. Nay rather contrarywiſe becauſe they are borne holy, that is, ſons and heires of the covenant, they had neede be baptiſed. For (ſaith Calvin elſewhere) they are not received into the church by baptiſme for any other reaſon, but becauſe before they were borne they did appertai…e vntounto the body of Chriſt. Otherwiſe the children of Chriſtians ought no more to be baptized then the children of Turkes. Wherefore Peter exhorteth the lews to be baptiſed in the name of Ieſus Chriſt. Wherefore? becauſe (ſaith he) the promiſe was made to you and to your children. This therfore is the reaſon why baptiſme is due vntounto our children and not vntounto the children of Turkes becauſe they from their mothers wombs are childrē of the promiſe, which theſe are not. Wherefore the contempt of baptiſme cannot enſue on that, which vntounto the godly, is the chiefe motiue of deſiring p. 25and miniſtring baptiſme: neither neede we to feare leaſt that ſhould turne to the deſtruction of ſoules, wherevpon is grounded the eſpeciall comfort of parentes & children, togither with the iuſt deſire of baptiſme. And if the Ieſuite proceed therefore to accoūt the baptiſme of childrē vaine, becauſe the infants of the church even from their birth are reckned in the covenant: let me intreate him to learne of his maiſter Lombard, that baptiſme is a ſacrament of remiſſion of ſinnes before graunted through faith. But O heavy ſentence pronounced by the Maiſter of Sentences, Infantes dying vnbaptiſed, though in carrying vntounto baptiſme are damned! O not onelyonly pernicious, but impious alſo and cruell divinity of the Ieſuites, enthralling God vntounto elements, chaining his power with abſolute neceſsity (wil he nil he) vntounto ſignes and ſacraments, condemning no leſſe bloudily, then impiouſly vntounto hel many thouſands of infantes who without any faulte of theirs coulde not bee baptized, yea although they be adiudged by Chriſt himſelfe vntounto the kingdome of heaven. I know the authority of Auſtine is here pretended, who writ that infantes dying vnbaptiſed muſt needes be damned, but to milde and gentle damnation. And if they ſo applaud this error of that moſt holy & learned Father, why doe they not as well mainetaine an other of the ſame Fathers, altogither relying on the ſame … that infantes likewiſe without receiving the … ſ…pper cannot bee ſaved? Heerevnto they force Saint Ambroſe, but the learned not without good cauſe p. 26doe rather thinke that Prosper was the author of thoſe books wherein this is found then Ambroſe. For what Ambroſe thought may appeare by his oration of the death of Valentinian; as alſo how godly is the iudgement of Bernard concerning the godly not baptized: God be mercifull vntounto me. For I cannot desparre of ſaluation, for want onelyonly of the water of baptiſme: I can not accoumpt faith vaine, I can not confoud hope or forgoe charity, eſpecially it onelyonly impoſſibility, & not contempt forbidde that water.

Laſt of all the Ieſuite inueigheth againſt the opinion of Ca…uen as impious. But why! becauſe (ſaith he) it maketh the ſacraments falſe, the miniſter ſacrilegiouſe, Gea himſelfe altar, & as it were pertured. For if a ſacrament be a diuine oath & ſeale, wherby the promiſe of eternall election is ſealed, then as often as it falleth out (which is very often) that the reprobate are baptized, euen ſo often is cōmeth to paſſe that the wordes of the ſacrament are falſe, & God himſelfe altar in the mouth of the miniſter. This iniurious vntruth is more ſharpe & ſhameleſſe then all the reſt, whoſe bull-warkes notwithſtanding, builded forſooth on the ſeales not of preſēt grace but onelyonly of election already paſt, we hauehave ſufficiently battered. The reſt is anſwered in a worde: that ſacraments do promiſe and ſeale vntounto vsus the grace of God, if they be in their right vſe: which is not, when they are received by the reprobate. This only might ſuffice to cauſe the Ieſuites cavill to vaniſh like ſmoake before the winde. Howbeit I am content to anſwere more diſtinctly.

p. 27A ſacrament doeth not become falſe, though ſometimes it bee in vaine miniſtred vntounto the reprobate making ſhew of faith. For in it ſelfe it ſtil remaineth a ſeale of grace, though not vntounto thē, becauſe they beleeue not: as the ſonne howſoever in it ſelfe glorious and gliſtring, yet ſhineth it not vntounto the blinde, becauſe they ſee not. For it is a ſigne, conditionall, ſo offering and ſealing grace vntounto vsus, that withal on our parts it requireth faith & converſion: which whoſoeuer bring not with them, it neither beſtoweth nor ſealeth vntounto them any thing, neither is it vntounto them a ſacramēt, that is, a ſeale of grace, through their owne fault: for it is no vſe but an horrible abuſe of a ſacrament, to be received of the reprobate without faith. The ſcripture every where teacheth that nothing can be accounted a ſacrament without the vſe therevnto appointed by God:Rom. 3. 35.Rom 3:35 If thou be a tranſgreſſor of the law thy on cumciſion is made vncircumciſion. And This is not to eate the Lordes ſupper. Cor. 11. 20.And he which offereth an oxe, Eſ. 66. 3.Isa 66:3is as if he offerea a dogge. The baptiſme of Simon. Magus was a true ſacrament, but not vntounto him,Act. 5. 21.Acts 5:21 for his hypocriſie, as Peter witneſſeth, Thou haſt no part nor fellowſh p…nth buſineſſe, for thy hearte is not right. That ſop in the Lords ſupper was a true ſacrament, but poiſon to Iudas, not becauſe in it ſelfe it was evill, but becauſe the evill man did evilly receiue that which was good. To conclude, by Lombard his owne confeſsion, baptiſme is alike holy, whether miniſtred vntounto the good or evill: & therefore alike true. But will you cal Peter ſacrilegious, p. 28becauſe to Simon Magus a reprobate, but profeſſing the Apoſtolique faith, he in Gods name oſtered grace, and to his power ſealed it by baptiſme? But this he did not abſolutely, but with conditiō if he truely beleeued: as Phillip ſaid vntounto the Eunuch, thou maiſt bee baptiſed, if thou beleeue withall thy heart. If therfore he did not truely beleeue he ſealed nothing vntounto him, as rightly faith your friend Lombard, The viſible baptiſme did nothing profit Simon Magus, becauſe he wanted the inviſible. Moreover he diſcharged his duety, which was not to ſearch the ſecrets of hearts, or ſounde the vnmeaſurable gulfe of Gods predeſtination, but to baptiſe the profeſſors of faith, whether hypocrites, or no. For the church iudgeth not of things ſo ſecret, but only the hart-ſearching God. The like reaſon ſerveth for all other Miniſters, which ought to iudge of thoſe that are to bee baptiſed, not according to Gods predeſtinatiō, but mans profeſſiō & Chriſts commandement. This if they doe, themſelues are not ſacrilegious, but the reprobate hypocrits who vnreverently and irreligiouſly preſſe to the ſacraments.

But fie on that his blaſphemy, where hee ſaith, that if ſacraments bee miniſtred vntounto reprobate hypocrites yet vnrevealed, then God muſt lie by the mouth of the miniſter. Did God (thinkeſt thou) lie by Peters mouth when he baptiſed Simon Magus? He ſetiouſly and ſincerely by his word & ſacrament offereth adoption and grace vntounto al, purpoſing alſo to beſtow it, but cōditionally, if they beleeue: & cō mandeth p. 29thē to beleeue, and receiue by faith the grace offered. But to infidels and hypocrites he is ſo far frō promiſing or ſealing any grace of adoption and election whē they force themſelues vntounto the ſacrament, that he threatneth them with a terrible and feareful iudgement. Hee therefore is true in offering, howſoeuer the grace offered to the vnbeleeuers be of none effect.

But (ſaith the Ieſuite) he doth not onelyonly offer, Art. 2.but indeede alſo beſtowe it, when men are indeede baptized. We graunt it. For this Calvin alſo confeſseth in Antidot. Artic. Pariſ. ſpeaking on this manner. The godly do all confeſſe that in baptiſme is offered, Antidot. Concil. Seſſ. 7. in Can. 7.yea & exhibited or giuen vntounto vsus both remiſſion of our ſins, & grace of the holy ſpirite. But (ſaith he els where) theſe good fathers by reaſon of their groſſeneſſo doe not here obſerue, that what grace ſo euer is by ſacraments beſtowed on vsus, muſt notwithſtanding be imputed vntounto faith; For he which ſondereth faith from the ſacramērs, doth as …f he ſeuered the ſoule frō the body! God therefore doth indeed giuegive that which he offereth, but vntounto thoſe that beleeue. To the vnbeleeuing he neyther promiſeth nor performeth any thinge as longe as they continew in their vnbeleife: & that through their owne fault; becauſe by infidelity they refuſed the good offered, & as much as in them lieth, make a mocke of God which offereth it. This Cauill therefore of the leſuites is no leſſe impudent and blaſphemous againſt God, then was that of the Iewes, who accuſed God of perfidiouſneſſe, vnleſſe he would performe the couenant p. 30evē to the vnbeleeuers: which the Apoſtle retorting: ſhall (ſaith hee) their vnbeleife make the faith of God vaine? Rom. 3. 3.Rom 3:3God forbidae. Let God be …, & eueryevery man a lyar.

Well then. Let vsus now returne the Ieſuites blaſphemy vponupon his head. Both he & his mailler Lombard teach, that reprobation is nothing elſe, but that ſome there are on whom God will hauehave no mercy. For ſo doeth the maiſter of ſentences define it. Suppoſe thē that the Ieſuite even by the very worke wrought either of baptiſme or of the maſſe ſhould beſtow the grace of ſanctificatiō vponupon Simon Magus or the like reprobate, ſhall not hee and the ſacrament become now ſacrilegious, in conferring grace on a reprobate, of whom God will hauehave no mercy? may ſhall not he make God himſelfe a lier and contrary to himſelfe, in his name beſtowing, or teſtifying (vnleſſe he altogither exclude God out of the ſacraments) that God himſelfe beſtoweth the grace of ſanct…fication on a reprobate, on whom notwithſtanding hee hath for all eternity decreed to beſtowe nothing, and on whom God will hauehave no mercy. From this blaſphemy howe the Ieſuite can acquite himſelfe maintaining his opinion of the worke wrought, let him looke to it. But howſoeuer he acquite himſelfe. he muſt withall diſcharge Calvin of the cavill deviſed againſt him.

Let this ſuffice briefly for anſwere to the perverſe peeviſhneſſe of this ſtage declaiming Ieſuit. The reſt which hee diſputeth towardes the ende p. 31pertaineth nothing to vsus: well they may prevaile vponupon thoſe againſt whom they were vvritten, namely Swenckefield & his brethren Vbiquitaries, common corrupters of the doctrine of Chriſt his perſon, and the ſacraments.