Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 16: The definition of Calvin is refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The last definition and opinion is that of John Calvin, who in book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 1 says in these words that the simple and proper definition of a Sacrament is contained: “A Sacrament is an external symbol by which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of his good will toward us, to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn testify our piety toward him, both before him and the Angels, and among men.”
But it is to be observed that Calvin's opinion seems composed out of the opinions of Luther and Zwingli. For that he says the symbol seals the promises to sustain the weakness of faith is taken from Luther; that he adds at the end that by the same symbol we testify among men our piety toward God is received from Zwingli; yet in fact Calvin dissents greatly from each. For although with Zwingli he acknowledges that by the Sacrament we testify our piety to men, yet he denies that this is the only or primary use of the Sacrament, and he fights most keenly, chapter 14 from section 5 to 14, for the opinion of Luther, and solves all the arguments which Zwingli and Bucer make against Luther, though he names none of them. In like manner, although with Luther he affirms that the Sacraments are testimonies of grace and of the remission of sins, yet he understands this far otherwise than Luther. For Luther always speaks of the grace which is then given to a man when he receives the Sacraments; but Calvin speaks of the grace of predestination, and accordingly will have the Sacraments to be testimonies of predestination, instituted to nourish that faith by which a man certainly believes himself to be predestined; from which follows that which Bucer said, that the Sacraments are not true signs, nor profit any but the predestined.
The foundation of this matter is that Calvin thinks (as he treats at length, book 3 of the Institutes chapter 2) that true faith once had can never be lost; for hence it follows that true faith, without which the Sacraments profit nothing, is proper to the predestined, and can in no way be had by the non-predestined. Whence in the Antidote to the Council session 6 chapter 5 he says that Baptism is given to infants because they are reckoned already members of the Church, since they are adopted by God as sons, namely by the grace of predestination; and in the same place session 7 canon 7 On Baptism, he says that the Sacrament makes us certain of the grace of perpetual adoption; and most clearly in the book On the agreement between the Zurichers and Genevans in the Sacramentarian matter, Calvin thus speaks: “We diligently teach that God does not exercise his power promiscuously in all who receive the Sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he illuminates none to faith but those whom he has preordained to life, so by the secret virtue of his Spirit he effects that the elect receive what the Sacraments offer.”
These things explained, this definition is to be refuted; for it is wholly faulty, as will be clear if we run through the several words. The first word is “external symbol.” Which indeed is true absolutely, yet not in that sense in which it is taken by Calvin. For he understands it to be a bare symbol — that is, a symbol which only signifies, but does not work anything; for in the whole definition he puts no other effects of this symbol than to seal the promises of God and to testify our piety. Nor does it stand in the way that Calvin says in the Antidote to the Council of Trent session 7 canon 5 that the Sacraments are instruments of justification; for he understands that they are instruments because they excite or nourish faith, and that not by any efficiency, but merely objectively. Which Theodore Beza explains most clearly in the book On the sum of the Sacramentarian matter, question 2, when he thus says: “Whence that efficacy of the Sacraments? Wholly from the operation of the Holy Spirit, but not from the signs, except inasmuch as by those external objects the inner senses are moved.” So he. By which reasoning certainly even the signs which hang on the doors of public inns can be called instruments of dining, because they move a man to think that in that house a table is prepared. But the Scriptures everywhere teach that the Sacraments are certain things that work, namely which cleanse, wash, sanctify, justify, regenerate: John 3, 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, Titus 3, Acts 22; nay, nowhere do the Scriptures say that the Sacraments are testimonies of the promises of God and of our piety, or at least do not say this so expressly as that which we assert, namely that they are causes of justification.
The second word is “of his good will toward us.” Which word on a twofold ground is not rightly put in the definition of a Sacrament. First, because from this word it follows that a Sacrament is always a sign of a past, or rather eternal, thing. Which he himself cannot deny, since by good will he understands the grace of predestination; and besides he openly concedes it in the Antidote session 6 chapter 3: “Not from Baptism,” he says, “does their salvation have its beginning, but that which was already founded in the word is sealed by Baptism.” And in the same place: “For unless the promise of life already pertained to them beforehand, whoever should give them Baptism would profane it.” And so he himself concedes that the Sacraments are the seal of a past, nay eternal, good will of God. Nor does this conflict with what he himself says in the Antidote session 7 canons 4 and 5, that the Sacraments are instruments of justification. For he will have the Sacraments, inasmuch as they sustain and nourish faith, to confirm or increase justification (for it is faith that justifies with them); yet he will not have the Sacrament to be the seal of this justification which is had through faith, but of the grace of predestination; nor will he have the Sacrament to bring the first justification, but only increase and confirmation, as he himself more clearly teaches in the little Catechism. For the first justification is had through faith conceived from the preceding sermon. But this whole thing is repugnant to the most plain Scriptures, which attribute to the Sacraments the power of bringing the first justification. For what else is to regenerate, which is attributed to Baptism John 3 and Titus 3, than to make of a man dead in sins a man living with the life of grace? But of this below in its place more fully.
Next, that promise of the grace of predestination is not rightly put in the definition of a Sacrament, both because it would often happen that God testifies falsely, and because no one could without sin baptize another. For he profanes Baptism (as Calvin says in the Antidote session 6 chapter 3) who confers it on him to whom the promise does not pertain; for he compels God to testify a falsehood, namely that he loves him whom in truth he does not love. But no one can be certain of another, whether he be predestined or not; therefore either no one ought to baptize anyone, or he acts rashly and faithlessly, since he exposes himself to the danger of profaning Baptism. To this argument Bucer would answer that the ministers have no intention of baptizing any but the predestined; for so he himself says in the preface of the commentaries on Matthew. But this does not satisfy. For, in the first place, this excuses the minister, but not God — unless perhaps God too sometimes baptizes without the intention of baptizing, which is ridiculous. Next, according to the opinion of the Lutherans and of all the Calvinists, the Sacraments do not depend on the intention of the minister. For Luther writes in the book On the Babylonian captivity, On Baptism, that Baptism is true and valid even if the minister intend not to baptize, but to jest. Nor does Calvin dissent, in the Antidote to the Council session 7 canon 11.
Calvin answers otherwise, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 sections 16 and 17: namely, that God on his part truly offers the promise and the seal of the promise to all who are baptized, whether they receive it or not; and accordingly that God is always truthful. Nor would he say that the ministers even sin if they confer Baptism on those who profess that they believe, if they be adults, or who are the children of faithful parents, if they be infants; for Calvin believes that the children of the faithful are born holy, from that promise of God Genesis 17: I will be thy God, and of thy seed. And the reason why the ministers do not sin is that they have a probable ground whence to gather that those whom they baptize are predestined and holy. But this solution does not satisfy. For, in the first place, if anyone give Baptism to him whom he knows the divine promises not to pertain to, he profanes Baptism, as Calvin himself says, because he testifies a falsehood: why does not God himself profane Baptism, and testify a falsehood, when he gives it to him whom he knows he has not predestined? For God does not do one thing and the minister another, but it is one thing that they do; for God acts through the minister, as is plain John 1: This is he who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost. Besides, the Sacrament not only offers, but also gives a testimony of good will; for so the same Calvin says in the little Catechism: “A Sacrament is a testification of the divine good will toward us.” God, then, gives the seal of good will to him who is baptized, even if he himself does not believe. For without faith the fruit and the thing of the Sacrament is not received indeed, yet the true Sacrament is received, as Calvin also teaches book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 16, where against the Anabaptists he acknowledges that a true Sacrament is given and received among Catholics, where he himself does not think there is any true faith. If, then, God really gives the seal and testimony of good will to him whom he does not love, how does he not lie, and profane the Sacrament?
Besides, that the minister sins is proved. For although he have a probable ground for believing that he who professes faith is predestined, yet he has no certitude. For it can happen that he lies in saying he believes; it can also happen (as Calvin confesses book 3 of the Institutes chapter 2 section 10) that he thinks he believes, and yet in truth does not believe. But to testify something in the name of God, a most true certitude is required, nor does a probable opinion suffice; as is plain in a similar case of an oath. For it is not lawful to use an oath, that is, the testimony of God, in a matter which we opine to be true, but only in a matter which we are most certain to be true. Nay, a far greater certitude still ought to be required in the Sacrament, according to the adversaries, than in our oath; for the Sacrament is, as it were, an oath of God. And the oath of God differs from ours in this, that when a man swears, he it is who asserts something, though he calls God to witness. Whence our oath can be false without any injury to God; as if one swear what he thinks he certainly knows, and yet in fact is deceived; for then God gives no testimony, nor does he sin who called God to witness of a falsehood, because he believed himself altogether certain; as if perhaps he saw one man killed by another who was most like a third whom he himself had never seen. But in the Sacraments, according to the adversaries, God himself affirms, and in a manner swears, that he who receives the Sacrament is elect and just. But God cannot be deceived by any error. Therefore he most grievously sins who confers the Sacrament on him whom he does not certainly know to be just and elect, because he compels God to lie. Besides, even if the minister certainly knew that he who professes faith, or is the son of a faithful man, is just and elect, yet what will he do if there be offered to him for baptism an infant who is the child of a Turk or a Jew, and his parents, though unbelievers, willingly suffer him to be baptized and to remain among Christians? For if he baptize him, he profanes Baptism, since he has no sign by which to understand him to be predestined; but if he do not baptize him, he acts against the use of the whole Church.
But someone will perhaps object on Calvin's behalf that the Catholics are in the same straits, since they too give the Sacraments to those of whom they do not know whether they are disposed, and yet affirm them to be signs of grace divinely instituted. I answer: The Catholics suffer no straits. For they say that the Sacraments are efficacious causes of grace, unless an obstacle be placed; and at the same time signify the infusion of the same grace, so far as is on the part of the Sacrament itself; finally that the same Sacraments are signs of that effect which grace produces, wherever it is absent. For as the water of Baptism washes the body, so the grace of the Savior washes the soul; which indeed is perpetual and infallible, nor depends on the disposition. For the disposition helps that one may receive grace; but that grace, wherever it is, washes away the filth of the soul, if it find any, is intrinsic to it and inseparable.
The third word in Calvin's definition was “promises.” And indeed of the promise of the remission of sins we treated in the refutation of the definition of the Lutherans; but Calvin speaks of the promise of the good will of predestination, which can be refuted far more easily. For no such promise exists in the whole Scripture; for all the promises include some condition, as of faith, or penance, or another virtue, and in all these the condition of perseverance. For He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved, Matthew 24. But there is no one who without a special revelation can promise himself perseverance. And hence can be refuted plainly all the testimonies which they bring. The chief is that of Genesis 17: I will be thy God, and of thy seed after thee. But this too requires the condition of faith and perseverance; for the seed of Abraham (as the Apostle expounds Romans 4 and 9) are not the children of the flesh, but of faith — that is, those who imitate Abraham in faith, they are his seed, with whom the covenant of God intervenes. And certainly, as one begins to be the seed of Abraham when he begins to believe, so he ceases to be it if he cease to believe. But who can certainly persuade himself that he will never depart from the faith? Especially since both faith and perseverance in faith are gifts of God.
The fourth word is “to our consciences,” with which word can be joined that other, “to sustain the weakness of faith.” That these words are not rightly put in the definition of a Sacrament is witnessed by the Baptism of little ones, which is a most true Sacrament, even according to Calvin, and yet in little ones there is no conscience, nor actual faith, for the sustaining of which the Sacrament would be necessary. And indeed, if the promise is, as it were, a charter, and the Sacrament, as it were, a seal, the conscience will be, as it were, the paper or wax; how, then, where there is no paper, can a charter be written or sealed? Now, that the Lutherans say little ones actually believe while they are baptized has already been refuted above; nor does Calvin dare to affirm this, though he was not willing to reject it, as is plain from book 4 of the Institutes chapter 16 section 19. Calvin answers, then, that the Baptism of little ones works in the consciences of the little ones when first they begin to have the use of reason, even though it was conferred before; for afterward they remember the Baptism received, and by that sign nourish and sustain their faith, book 4 chapter 16 sections 20 and 21. Which he says also of those who were baptized among the Catholics and afterward become Calvinists, book 4 chapter 15 section 17. But at least we rightly prove that the Calvinists do not act rightly in baptizing infants; for it would be far more useful to baptize them as adults, when they are capable of faith. For of the Baptism which we receive in infancy we have no knowledge except from the narration of others; and accordingly we have no certitude but human faith, which can deceive. Next, even if we were most certain, yet things seen move more than things heard; wherefore it would be better, for nourishing faith, to be baptized as an adult than as an infant. But to nourish faith is the primary end and use of Baptism, as is plain from the definition; wrongly, then, do they baptize infants. Nor can they answer that infants are baptized lest perhaps they perish before they grow up, and so depart without the grace of God; for Calvin in the Antidote session 6 chapter 5 and elsewhere teaches that predestined little ones are saved even without Baptism, but the non-predestined perish even with Baptism. Nothing, then, can he say, except that infants are baptized for this cause alone, that they may be admitted into the external Church, or profess that they are members of the external Church. But this too does not solve the argument. For according to the opinion of Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 sections 5 and following, the principal end of the Sacraments is to seal the promises for nourishing faith; the less principal end is to profess oneself a member of the external Church. But the less principal end ought not to impede the more principal end; therefore infants ought not to be baptized among the Calvinists, since among them, in the Baptism of infants, on account of the less principal end, the more principal end is impeded.
The fifth word is “seals,” of which word we said many things in the refutation of the opinion of Luther; as also of the remaining words we said above in the refutation of the opinion of Zwingli. It remains, then, that we refute their arguments.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Refellitur definitio Calvini. Postrema definitio, ac sententia est Joan- nis Calvini, qui lib. IV. Instit. cap. 14. §. 1. his verbis dicit, simplicem, et propriam contineri definitionem Sacramenti : « Sa¬ cramentum, externum est symbolum, quo benevolentiae erga nos suae promissiones conscientiis nostris Dominus obsignat, ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatem : et nos vicissim pietatem erga eum nostram CAPUT XVI. 369 tam coram eo et Angelis, quam apud ho¬ mines testamur. » Est autem observandum, Calvini senten¬ tiam compositam videri ex Lutheri, et Zwin- glii sententiis. Nam quod ait, symbolum obsignare promissiones ad sustinendam fi¬ dei imbecillitatem, ex Luthero sumptum est; quod addit in fine, eodem symbolo nos testari apud homines pietatem nostram erga Deum, et Zwinglio est acceptum : tamen reipsa plurimum dissentit Calvinus ab utro¬ que. Nam etiam cum Zwinglio agnoscit, Sa¬ cramento nos testari hominibus pietatem nostram, tamen negat hunc esse solum, vel primarium usum Sacramenti, et acerrime pugnat, cap 14. a §. 5. usque ad 14. pro sententia Lutheri, et solvit omnia argumen¬ ta, quae Zwinglius, et Bucerus faciunt con¬ tra Lutherum, tamotsi neminem eorum no¬ minat. Pari ratione, licet cum Luthero affir¬ met Sacramenta esse testimonia gratiae, et remissionis peccatorum : tamen id longe aliter intelligit, quam Lutherus. Hic enim semper loquitur de gratia, quse tunc datur homini, cum Sacramenta percipit : At Cal¬ vinus loquitur de gratia praedestinationis, ac proinde vult Sacramenta esse testimo¬ nia praedestinationis, ad eam fidem alen¬ dam instituta, qua homo certo credit se esse praedestinatum; ex quo sequitur id, quod Bucerus dicebat, Sacramenta non esse vera signa , nec prodesse nisi praedesti¬ natis. Fundamentum autem hujus rei est, quod existimet Calvinus (ut ipse fuse tractat, lib. III Institut. cap. 2.) veram fidem semel ha¬ bitam, numquam posse amitti : hinc enim sequitur veram fidem, sine qua Sacrameflta nihil prosunt , esse propriam praedestinato¬ rum, nec eam ullo modo haberi posse a non praedestinatis. Unde in Antidoto Concilii ses. VI, cap. 5. dicit, Baptismum dari infantibus, quia censentur jam membra Ecclesiae, cum sint a Deo adoptati in filios , nimirum per gratiam praedestinationis : et ibidem sess. VII, canon. 7. deBaptismo, dicit, Sacramen¬ tum reddere nos certos de perpetua adoptio¬ nis gr.atia : et clarissime in lib. de consen¬ sione interTigurinos, etGenevcnses in re Sa- cramentaria, sic ait Calvinus : « Sedulo do¬ cemus, Deum non promiscue vim suam exer¬ cere in omnibus, qui Sacramenta recipiunt; sed tantum in electis. Nam quemadmodum non alios ad fidem illuminat quam quos prae¬ ordinavit ad vitam ; ita arcana spiritus sui Tom. III. virtute efficit, ut percipiant electi, quae offe¬ runt Sacramenta. » Ilis explicatis refellenda est haec definitio: tota enim est vitiosa, ut perspicuum erit, si percurramus singula verba. Primum verbum est : « Symbolum exernum. » Quod quidem verum est absolute, non tamen in eo sensu, quo accipitur a Calvino. Ille enim intelligit esse nudum symbolum , id est, symbolum quod solum significet , non autem operetur aliquid : Nam in tota definitione non ponit alios effectus hujus symboli, nisi obsignare Dei promissiones, et testificari pietatem no¬ stram. Neque obstat, quod Calvinus dicat in Antidoto Concilii Trid. sess. VII, can. 5. Sa¬ cramenta esse instrumenta justificationis; nam intelligit esse instrumenta, quia exci¬ tant, vel alunt fidem; idquenon per aliquam efficientiam, sed mere objective. Id quod explicat clarissime Theodorus Beza in lib. de summa rei Sacramentariae quaest. II. cum sic ait : «Unde efficacia illa Sacramentorum? a Spiritus sancti operatione in solidum, non autem a signis, nisi quatenus externis illis objectis interiores sensus moventur. » Haec ille. Qua ratione certe signa etiam, quse in foribus publicorum hospitiorum pendent, instrumenta dici possunt coenationis, quia movent hominem, ut cogitet in ea domo pa¬ ratam esse mensam etc. At Scripturae passim docent, Sacramenta esse res quasdam operantes , nimirum quae mundent, lavent, sanctificent, justificent, regenerent : Joan. III, I. Corinth. VI, Ephes. V, ad Tit. III , Actor. XXII, imo nusquam Scripturae dicunt, Sacramenta esse testimo¬ nia promissionum Dei , et nostrae pietatis, aut certe non tam expresse hoc dicunt, ut id quod nos asserimus , nimirum quod sint causae justificationis. Alterum verbum est, « benevolentiae erga nos suae. » Quod verbum duplici nomine non recte ponitur in definitione Sacramenti. Pri¬ mo ; Quia ex hoc verbo sequitur, semper Sa¬ cramentum esse signum rei praeteritae , seu potius aeternae. Id quod ipse non potest ne¬ gare, cum per benevolentiam intelligat gra¬ tiam praedestinationis : et praeterea id aper¬ te concedit in Antidoto sess. VI , cap. 3 : « Non a Baptismo, inquit, initium habet eo¬ rum salus , sed quae jam in verbo fundata erat , Baptismo obsignatur. » Et ibidem : « Nisi enim jam ante ad eos pertineret vitee promissio , Baptismum profanaret, quis¬ quis illis daret. » Itaque concedit ipse , Sa- 24 370 LIBER I. cramentorum esse sigillum praeterit», imo aeternae Dei benevolentiae. Neque hoc pug¬ nat cum eo quod ipse dicit in Antidoto, sess. VII, canon. -4 et 5. Sacramenta esse instru¬ menta justificationis. Nam vult quidem Sa¬ cramenta, quatenus fidem sustentant, etalunt, confirmare, vel augere justificationem; (fi¬ des enim est, quae justificat apud. ipsos) ta¬ men non vult Sacramentum esse sigillum hujus justificationis, quae habetur per fidem, sed grati» praedestinationis; nec vult Sa¬ cramentum adferre primam justificationem, sed solum augmentum, et confirmationem, ut clarius ipse idem docet in parvo Catechis- mo. Prima enim justificatio habetur per fi¬ dem conceptam ex concione praecedenti. At hoc totum repugnat apertissimis Scri¬ pturis, quae tribuunt Sacramentis vim adfe- •rendi primam justificationem. Quid enim aliud est regenerare, quod tribuitur Baptis¬ mo Joan. 111. et ad Tit. III. quam ex homi¬ ne mortuo in peccatis, facere hominem vi¬ vum vita gratiae? Sed de hoc infra suo loco fusius. Deinde non recte ponitur in definitione Sacramenti illa promissio gratiae praedesti¬ nationis, tum quia saepe contingeret, Deum falso testificari , tum quia nemo posset sine peccato alium baptizare. Nam baptismum profanat , (ut Calvinus dicit in Antidoto * sess. VI, cap. 3.) qui illud confert ei , ad quem non pertinet promissio : Nam cogit Deum testificari falsum, nimirum se eum di- ‘ligere, quem revera non diligit. At nemo po¬ test certus esse de alio, sitne praedestinatus, an non : ergo vel neminem debet ullus bap¬ tizare , vel temere , et infideliter agit, cum se periculo exponat profanandi Baptis¬ mum. Ad hoc argumentum responderet Buce¬ rus, ministros non habere intentionem bap¬ tizandi, nisi praedestinatos ' sic enim ipse dicit in praefatione commentariorum in Mat¬ thaeum, At hoc non satisfacit. Nam in primis hoc excusat ministrum, sed non Deum, nisi for¬ te etiam Deus aliquando baptizet sine inten¬ tione baptizandi, quod est ridiculum. Deinde ex sententia Lutheranorum , et Calvinista- rum omnium, Sacramenta non pendent ab intentione ministri. Scribit enim Lutherus in lib. de captivitate Babylonica, de Bap¬ tismo : Baptismum esse verum, et ratum, etiamsi minister intendat non baptizare, sed ludere. Nec dissentit Calvinus in Antidoto Concilii sess. VII. can. II. Calvinus aliter respondet, lib. IV. Institut. cap. -13. § 16 et 17. Deum videlicet ex parte sua vere offerre promissionem, et sigillum promissionis omnibus, qui baptizantur, sive illi recipiant, sive non; proinde Deum sem- per esse veracem. Nec ministros etiam pec¬ care diceret, si Baptismum conferant iis, qui profitentur se credere, si adulti sint, vel qui filii sint fidelium parentum, si sint in¬ fantes : Nam filios fidelium, sanctos nasci credit Calvinus, ex illa promissione Dei Ge¬ nes. XVII : Ero Deus tuus , et seminis lui ( 1). Ratio autem, cur non peccent ministri, est, quia habent probabilem rationem, unde col¬ ligant illos, quos baptizant, esse praedesti¬ natos et sanctos. Sed h»c solutio non satisfacit. Nam in primis, si quis Baptismum praebeat ei, ad quem scit non pertinere divinas promissio¬ nes, profanat Baptismum, ut ipse Calvinus dicit, quia falsum testificatur : cur non pro¬ fanat Deus ipse Baptismum, et falsum tes¬ tificatur, cum illum praebet ei, quem scit se non praedestinasse? Non enim aliud agit hic Deus, aliud minister, sed unum est, quod agunt : Deus enim per ministrum agit, ut patet Joan. I : Hic est, qui baptizat in Spi¬ ritu sancto (2). Praeterea Sacramentum non solum offert, sed etiam praebet testimonium benevolenti»; sic enim idem Calvinus ait in Cateohismo parvo : « Sacramentum est divina; erga nos benevolentiae testificatio. » Pra;bet igitur Deus sigillum benevolenti» ei, qui baptiza¬ tur, etiamsi ipse non credat. Nam sine fide non percipitur quidem fructus, et res Sacra¬ menti, tamen percipitur verum Sacramen¬ tum, ut Calvinus etiam docet lib. IV. Instit. cap. 13. § 16. ubi contra Anabaptistas agnos¬ cit verum Sacramentum dari, et suscipi apud Catholicos, ubi non putat ipse ullum esse veram fidem. Si igitur Deus revera pra?bet sigillum, et testimonium benevolentiae ei, quem non diligit, quomodo non mentitur, et Sacramentum profanat ? Praeterea, quod minister peccet, probatur. Nam etiamsi habeat probabilem rationem credendi, eum qui profitetur fidem, esse praedestinatum, tamen non habet certitudi¬ nem. Potest enim fieri, ut ille mentiatur se (1) Gen. XVII, 7. — (2) Joan. I, 33. CAPUT XYI. • 371 credere ; potest etiam fieri (ut Calvinus fate¬ tur lib. III. Instit. cap. 2. § 10.) ut putet se credere, et tamen revera non credat. At ad testificandum nomine Dei aliquid, requiritur verissima certitudo, nec sufficit probabilis opinio : ut patet in simili de juramento ; non enim licet juramento, id est, Dei testi¬ monio uti in re, quam opinamur veram, sed solum in re, quam certissimi sumus esse veram. Imo longe major adhuc requiri' deberet certitudo in Sacramento secundum adversarios, quam in juramento nostro : Nam Sacramentum est, quasi juramentum Dei. Differt autem juramentum Dei a nostro, quod cum homo jurat, ipse est, qui asserit aliquid, licet Deum in testem advocet. Unde potest esse falsum juramentum nostrum, sine ulla Dei injuria; ut si quis juret, quod putat se certo scire, et tamen reipsa deci¬ piatur : tunc enim Deus non dat testimo¬ nium, nec ille peccat, qui Deum in testem falsitatis citavit quia credebat omnino se esse certum; ut si forte vidit unum ab alio occidi, qui erat simillimus alteri, quem ipse numquam viderat. At in Sacramentis secun¬ dum adversarios, Deus ipse affirmat , et quodammodo jurat illum, qui Sacramentum suscipit, esse electum et justum. Deus autem non potest ullo errore decipi. Ergo gravis¬ sime peccat, qui Sacramentum confert ei, quem non certo scit esse justum et electum, quia cogit Deum mentiri. Praeterea etiamsi minister certo sciret eum, qui profitetur fidem, vel est filius ho¬ minis fidelis, esse justum, et electum, tamen quid faciet si offeratur illi baptizandus in¬ fans, qui sit filius Tureae, aut Judaei, et pa¬ rentes ejus, licet infideles, libenter patiantur eum baptizari, et manere apud Christianos? Nam si eum baptizet, profanat Baptismum, cum nullum habeat signum, quo intelligat illum esse praedestinatum : si vero non bap¬ tizet, facit contra usum totius Ecclesiae. Sed objiciet fortassis aliquis pro Calvino, in iisdem angustiis versari Catholicos, cum etiam ipsi Sacramenta praebeant iis , quos nesciunt an sint dispositi, et tamen affirment esse signa gratiae divinitus instituta. Respondeo : Nullas patiuntur Catholici augustias. Ipsi enim dieunt, Sacramenta esse causas gratiae efficaces, nisi ponatur obex ; et simul significare ejusdem gratiae infusio¬ nem, quantum est ex parte ipsius Sacra¬ menti : denique esse eadem Sacramenta signa ejus effectus, quem facit gratia, ubi¬ cumque abest. .Ut enim abluit corpus aqua Baptismi; ita abluit animam gratia Salva¬ toris : quod quidem perpetuum, et infalli¬ bile est, neque a dispositione pendet. Dispo¬ sitio enim juvat, ut gratiam quis recipiat, sed quod gratia, ubicumque est, abluat sor¬ des animae, si quas inveniat, intrinsecum est illi, et inseparabile. Tertium verbum in definitione Calvini erat, « Promissiones. » Et quidem de pro¬ missione remissionis peccatorum disserui¬ mus in refutatione definitionis Lutherano- rum, sed Calvinus loquitur de promissione benevolentiae praedestinationis, quae longe facilius refutari potest. Nam nulla exstat ejusmodi promissio in tota Scriptura : omnes enim promissiones includunt conditionem aliquam, ut fidei, aut poenitentiae, aut alte¬ rius virtutis, et in his omnibus conditionem perseverantiae. Nam : Qui perseveraverit us¬ que in finem , hic salvus erit , (1), Matth. XXIY. Nemo autem est, qui sine speciali revela¬ tione sibi promittere possit perseverantiam. Atque hinc refutari possunt omnia plane testimonia quae illi adferunt. Primarium est illud Genes. XYI1 : Ego ero Deus tuus, et semi¬ nis tui post te. Sed hoc etiam requirit conditi- nem fidei, et perseverantiae : Nam : Semen Abrahce (ut exponit Apostolus Rom. IV et IX.) non sunt filii carnis, sed fidei, (2) id est, qui imitantur Abrahamum in fide, illi sunt ejus semen, cum quo intercedit pactum Dei. Et certe, ut quis incipit esse semen Abrahae, cum incipit credere, ita desinit esse, si de¬ sinat credere. Quis autem certo sibi potest persuadere, se numquam a fide discessurum? praesertim cum et fides, et perseverantia in fide, dona Dei sint. Quartum verbum est, « Conscientiis nos¬ tris, » cum quo verbo jungi potest illud aliud, «ad sustinendam fidei imbecillitatem.» llaec verba non recte poni in definitione Sa¬ cramenti, testatur Baptismus parvulorum, qui est verissimum Sacramentum, etiam apud Calvinum, et tamen in parvulis non est conscientia, nec actualis fides, ad quam sustentandam sit necessarium Sacramentum. Et sane si promissio est veluti diploma, et Sacramentum veluti sigillum , conscientia erit veluti charta, vel cera : quomodo igitur, ubi nulla est charta, diploma scribi poterit* (1) Matth. XXIV, 13. — (2) Gen. XVII, 7; Rom. IV, 13; 372 • LIBER I. vel obsignari? Porro, quod Lutherani dicunt, parvulos actu credere, dum baptizantur, jam est supra refutatum, neque id Calvinus affirmare audet, tametsi nec rejicere volue¬ rit, ut patet ex lib. IV. Institut. cap. 16. § 19. Respondet igitur Calvinus , Baptismum parvuloiura operari in conscientiis parvulo¬ rum, cum primum illi usum rationis habere incipiunt, etiamsi antea collatus fuerit : re¬ cordantur enim postea Baptismi accepti, et eo signo nutriunt, et sustentant fidem suam lib. IV. cap. 16, § 20 et 21. Quod etiam dicit de illis, qui apud Catholicos baptizati sunt, et postea fiunt Calvinistse lib. IV. cap. 15 § 17. At saltem recte probamus, non recte facere Calvinistas, quod baptizent infantes : Nam longe utilius esset, eos baptizare adul¬ tos, quando fidei sunt capaces. Baptismi enim, quem in infantia accipimus, nullam habemus notitiam, nisi ex narratione alio¬ rum : proinde nec certitudinem habemus, nisi fidei humanae, quae fallere potest. Deinde etiamsi certissimi essemus, tamen magis movent res visae, quam auditae; quare me¬ lius esset ad fidem alendam, baptizari adul¬ tum, quam infantem. Sed alere fidem est primarius finis, et usus Baptismi, ut ex de¬ finitione patet; male igitur illi baptizant infantes. Nec possunt respondere, baptizari infan¬ tes, ne forte pereant antequam adolescant, et eo modo decedant sine gratia Dei : Nam Calvinus in Antidoto sess. 6. cap. 5 et alibi, docet, parvulos praedestinatos etiam sine Baptismo salvari, non praedestinatos autem, etiam cum Baptismo perire. Nihil igitur dicere potest, nisi baptizari infantes ea solum de causa, ut admittantur in externa Ecclesia, seu profiteantur se esse membra Ecclesia! externae. At hoc etiam non solvit argumentum. Nam ex sententia Cal¬ vini lib. IV. Instit. cap. 14. §5. et seq. finis principalis Sacramentorum est, obsignare promissiones ad alendam fidem ; finis minus principalis est, profiteri se esse membrum Ecclesiae externae. Non autem dcbetfinis mi¬ nus principalis impedire finem magis princi¬ palem ; non igitur debent infantes baptizari apud Calvinistas ; siquidem apud eos in Baptismo infantium ob finem minus princi¬ palem, impeditur finis magis principalis. Quintum verbum est, «Obsignat », de quo verbo multa diximus in refutatione senten¬ tiae Lutheri; ut etiam de reliquis verbis su¬ pra diximus in refutatione sententiae Zwin- glii. Superest igitur ut argumenta eorum re¬ fellamus.