This whole answere to our second obiection is no∣thing else but a meere cauil of the Treatisers: For though the whole action, being vna et continua actio adminis∣trationis sacramenti, as you-name it, be called Baptis∣me: Yet it is so called, a digniori parte, and therfore we may very wel, & ought alwaies to distinguish, between those things, which are essentiall in this action, and those things, which are accidentall, betwene those thinges which are for substance of Baptisme, and those thinges which are for decency, & ornament. For ne ij quidem, qui ista excogitarunt, vel ab alijs introducta defenderunt, a∣liud esse censuerunt, quam Baptismi ornamenta.
No, say you, you must not so distinguish, but you must take Baptisme as we doe:* 1.1 for otherwise None of the Popish additions, whereby they defile that holy Sa∣crament, are in Baptisme, for those which apud Bellarmi∣num Baptismum comitantur, are not impious: Al this not∣withstāding, you must giue vs leaue to distinguish those things which in their owne nature are distinct: True it is that none of those quae apud Bellarminum Baptismū comi∣tantur, are of their owne nature impious, neither are they of the essence of Baptisme, and therfore wee hold, that they which are Baptised, in the Church of Rome, are rightly Baptized. But if those apud Bellarm: are not im∣pious, as you say, why call you them Antichristian? and if they be Antichristian, how are they not impious? we see your kind affectiō towards our Church: Our signing with the Crosse in Baptisme is Antichristian, as you