far from being Schism that being cast our 〈◊〉 that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours 〈◊〉 the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humor came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church For not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church And in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism Page 366. The truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one Age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation more necessary so far is it from making it more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves what reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an Argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them Page 541. Saint Augustine saith not only in that place but in very many others that Saint Peter did sustain the Person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven That he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter non habent illustrem intellectum nisi eum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestasse personam have no clear sense but â—hen they are referred to the Church whose person he did 〈◊〉 Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that Saint Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church It primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church Pag. 544. His Lordship saith your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no body collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more powerto the representing body of it than a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise than with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing body had failed in trust or truth And this power no body collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it His Lordship saith that the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning faith it hath not by an immediate institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example CHAP. II. Some Animadversions on his Preface § 1. THE impartial searchers after truth have hitherto thought that a strict method at least agreeable to natural Logick is more effectual than confusion or wordy popular haranges And that the controversie should be very cleerly stated before it can be profitably argued And therefore that first all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed that men may not mean several things and not understand each other and to Define and distinguish where it is needful and then Affirm or deny and then effectualy prove But why this worthy person doth far otherwise with us both before and now it is more his part than mine to give the reason I dare not say he cannot Nor I dare not say he can but will not but all that I can say is that he doth not and I know not why § 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreasonableness c. Is so much answered already by Mr. Lob that I will not lose time by doing much to the same again And there is a posthumous book of Dr. Worsleys called The third part of naked Truth which hath strenuously handled the same chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency against unnecessary Impositions It being supposed though not there expressed 1. That he speaketh not against the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which must be determined one way or other As Time Place Utensils Translationwords Metres tunes c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws by Blasphemy Treason Murder Fornication c. is not to be tollerated because he erroniously thinks he keepeth them § 3. His sad saying that there is no improbability that the Jesuites should be the first setters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer Mr. Lob hath opened as it deserveth in part but to say all that it deserveth would seem so harsh that I have reason to think that it would but more offend than profit him § 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth The cause of his impatience I leave to himself But that it is much within him I must conjecture when in his defence of Bishop Laud I read him saying to the Papists To speak mildly it is a gross untruth And yet wen I speak not so plainly to him and I think never more sharply he accounts it a continued Passion Rage Railing Intollerable indiscretion c. Do I give him harder words than these Yet I profess I smart not by them I take them for very tollerable words in comparison of his miscarriges in the cause in hand Several sorts of men I have found think other men speak in passion 1. Those that hear and read with passion They think that which angers them came from anger 2. Those that are too high to be dealt with on even terms and think the plain speech which agreeth to others is a contempt of such as them 3. Those that commit miscarriages so gross and defend causes so bad as have no names but what are disgraceful and then take all that is said to anatomatize their cause and errours to be said against themselves
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
in all Cities Corporations or Places aforesaid though their example might have drawn many as mine did where I was 11. Ministers and Corporations and Vestries were not then bound to swear or subscribe that it is unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to resist any commissioned by the King when the Keeper of his Seal may sign Commissions to seize on the Kings Forts Garrisons Navies and Treasuries to deliver up the Kingdoms to Foreigners to destroy Parliaments Cities and Laws I am sure Hooker Bilson or Arch-Bishop Abbot subscribed not this nor were such Conformists Are all these no difference of case Sect. 8. There is 2. a great difference in the drift and tendency of the Impositions They were at first to quiet a Popish Nation while the true Doctrine took possession and rooting and to avoid the cavils of those Papists that charged the Reformers with forsaking all the Church But what they have been used for these last forty or fifty years I leave the Reader to judge 1. By the Complaints of all the Parliaments since then save one 2. By the History of Arch-Bishop Laud's Tryal 3. By Dr. Heylin's History of his Life 4. By the writings of Divines such as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Parker Dr. Pierce Arch-Bishop Bromhall and many more such and by the Papists historical collection out of such See Dr. Heylin's description of the Reconciling Plot Anno 1639. Arch Bishop Bromhal saith Vindicat. p. 19. c. Whereas Mr. Baxter doth accuse Grotius as a Papist I think he doth him wrong nay I am confident he doth him wrong And I have read all that he alledgeth to prove it but without any conviction or alteration in my judgment I will endeavour to give some further light what was the Religion of Grotius He was in affection a friend and in desire a true Son of the Church of England And on his Deathbed recommended that Church as it was legally established to his Wife and such other of his Family as were then about him obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it The said Bishop though no Papist saith pag. 81. I know no members of the Greek Church who give them the Papists either more or less than I do Compare this with the Council at Florence and the Patriarch Jeremiah's Writings and the present sence of the Greek Church and we may know his mind But my ground is not the authority of the Greek Church but the authority of the Primitive Fathers and General Councils which are the representative Body of the Universal Church P. 82. To wave their last four hundred years determinations is implicitly to renounce all the necessary causes of this great Schism And to rest satisfied with their old Patriarchal power and dignity and Primacy of Order which is another part of my Proposition is to quit the modern Papacy name and thing Pag. 84 85. That Christians may joyn together in the same publick devotions and service of Christ 1. If the Bishop of Rome were reduced from the Universality of Soveraign Jurisdiction jure divino to his principium unitatis and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sence of the Councils of Constance and Basil and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we 2. If the Creed were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first General Councils with only necessary explications and those made by the Authority of a General Council 3. And some things whence offences have been given or taken be put out of the Divine Offices Whether Christians ought not to live in holy Communion and come to the same publick worship of God free from all schismatical separations Pag. 93. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch and after at Rome is a truth 2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles is the unanimous voice of the Primitive Church 3. Some Fathers and Schoolmen who were no sworn Vassals to the Roman Bishop do affirm that this Primacy of Order is fixed to the Chair of St. Peter P. 97. Though the Bishop of Rome had such a Primacy of Order by Divine Right or Humane it would not prejudice us at all nor is worth the contending about But 1. It is not by Divine Right in foro exteriore 2. Nor elsewhere interiore but executive according to the Canons Whereas I said that Protestants that consent not to the Popes Patriarchal Power over us in the West will fall under the reproach of Schism he saith p. 104. c. Must a man quit his just right because some dislike it Their dislike is but scandal taken but the quitting of that which is right for their satisfaction should be scandal given If they be forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks it is by their own wilful humors or erroneous Conscience other force there is none 2. Whether is the worse and more dangerous condition to fall under the reproach of Schism or to fall into Schism it self Whosoever shall oppose the just power of a lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding is a material Schismatick at least P. 107. It 's unsound arguing to deny a man his just right for fear lest he may abuse it as a Patriarchal Power was the Bishop of Rome's just right They who made the Bishop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers not excluding the Apostles and Christian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils what Laws they made in this case we are bound to obey for Conscience sake till lawfully repealed by vertue of the Law of Christ Much more he hath to this purpose and p. 112. for uniting the Church Catholick on humane terms and p. 117. against the peoples liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture and after at large that concord must be on humane terms p. 122. Grotius judgment was and mine is moderate but had not this man been so owned by many now I had not cited so much of his And for Grotius I have over and over cited his own words and shall not now repeat them And was this the drift of Conformity of old 3. Sect. 9. Another difference is in the effects for with us things not universally or absolutely determined by God are to be used or refused as they do more good or hurt 1. Then open Preaching and gathering Assemblies by Nonconformists would have greatly offended the Prince but our King at Breda and in his three first Declarations and by his Licenses and connivence shewed such wisdom and clemency as intimated less displeasure at our liberty 2. It would have deprived most of the Nonconformists of their hopes of publick liberty in the Parish Churches which most of them enjoyed but we had neither possession nor expectation of such a thing 3. It would have hindred and hazarded the progress of the Reformation but our preaching hath done more to stop the progress of the Syncretism or of Popery Others know this whatever you frivolously
The remembrance of all this drew me to say all the Truth which I thought useful to cure mens over-much censuring the Lutherans and the new Prelatists And now the thanks they give me is to turn the censure on my self for saying so much to excuse them Just so did Mr. Pierce by me My religious neighbours scrupled Communion with their neighbour Prelatists saying All the drunkards and swearers and ignorant ungodly people that had no religion were fierce for Bishops Liturgy and Ceremonies and they durst not joyn with them while they profaned the Sacrament I was far from justifying them but to abate their overmuch censuring I told them that in some Countries where custome had brought some particular sin from under disgrace we could not judge one graceless whose whole lives else were pious temperate and just for sometime committing that particular sin and it was hard to say how oft this might fall out As breaking the Lords day in Geneva and Holland some petty Oath in some Countries that use it and such like For this charity to the Prelatists what doth Mr. Pierce but turn the charge of favouring such gross sin against my self as if I had been compounding it with godliness I leave you all therefore hereafter better to defend your selves § 13. About their appointing the Cross to work Grace morally and that Sacraments work it not physically he saith I misrepresent or misapply both the Popish and Protestant doctrine of Sacraments And for the first he saith It overthrows all that I say that they all hold that Sacraments work grace ex opere operato where there is no actual impediment and it's heresie to say They are bare outward professing signs Answ Did he think that this is inconsistent with the opinion that they work it morally They distinguish between the Principal Agent the instrumental Operator and the Receiver And they say that the Sacrament conveyeth Grace by the will of the Principal Agent God ex opere operato and hath not its effect ex opere operantis And that opus operantis is that which vim habet ex bonitate devotione ejus qui operatur that is from the Ministers goodness And doth not the English Canon say the same But opus operatum is that which is effectual modo fiat sicut lex praescribit whether the instrument be good or bad But it must be sicut lex praescribit And when they come to the Receiver they require in him more than the opus operatum to the effect viz. that he intend as Aquinas speaketh 3. q. 68. a. 7. to receive Baptism which is the beginning of a new life and that he have faith a. 8. c. ex parte gratia quam quis per baptismum consequitur exigitur in suscipiente fides ex parte vero Characteris non necessaria est The Character is received without real Faith but Grace is not And what that Character is how little they are agreed see at large in Wotton de Reconcil Peccat Durandus and the wisest say it is but the Relation of one that hath received the external tessera or badge of Christianity which none deny And ad 2. he saith the Church quantum in se non intendit dare baptismum nisi habentibus rectam fidem sine qua non est remissio peccatorum Et propter hoc interrogat accedentes ad baptismum an credant And citeth Austin that without true faith it is not received to salvation And Art 9. he concludeth that seeing God doth not compell men to righteousness it 's manifest that feigned comers obtain not the benefit of baptism And ad 3. inter ficte accedentes he numbers them that come in mortal sin not willing to leave it and be conformed to Christ And your own words imply all this that the Receiver must put no hinderance while they make the want of necessary intention desire true faith repentance to be the hinderance leaving the subject uncapable of the Grace of the Sacrament of Baptism § 14. It irketh me to repeat but you constrain me Scotus and Okam and then I need not say how many more confute Aquinas at large for calling Sacraments so much as instruments giving Grace as he explaineth it And so doth Pet. Aliaco Camera◠briefly in 4. q. 1. B. C. concluding that Sacraments are no Causes of Grace properly but improperly because Deus in sacramentis ordinavit sic agere non quod ipsa sacramenta agant And that a sacrament neither by its own virtue nor by any virtue given it is any proper efficient cause of any disposition in the soul previous to grace or of grace it self but a condition sine qua non dispositiv improperly called Causa dispositiva Moralis non effectiva sed receptiva Yet they grant also a Moral objective causality by signification Brianson in 4. q. 1. fol. 6. concludeth 1. doc sacramenta non sunt graliae causa effectiva sed solum per modum meriti per ea datur gratia citing Ricardus Scotus Aureolus Franc. Perusius c. against Thom. Alexand. herein Yet saith Baptismus indiget fide quae est dispositio fundamentum omnium sacramentorum vel in se ut in adultis vel in alio ut in parvulis Suarez de Legib. l. 9. c. 6. p. 748. Col. 2. de Circumcis Nam etiam ipsa fides parentum er at conditio necessaria sine qua non Et tamen de illa dici non potest Quod Gratiam daret Infanti ex opere operato nec quod gratiam contineret etiam nec causa justificans parvulos dici potest nisi late improprio modo sicut dicitur de quolibet remedio vel conditione sine qua non And Brianson also saith in 4. q. 4. doc 1. fol. 34 Quod ficte recipientes baptismum non habent gratiam baptismi dicunt Scholastici Yea even Hildebrand in one of his Roman Councils concludeth that the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance give not pardon to the impenitent and uncapable Petrus à S. Joseph Thes univers de sacram p. 93. saith Sacramentum est signum sensibile divinitus institutum longo tempore durans sanctitatem aliquam saltem externam that is Relative separation to God which is the true Character with them conferens veram significans And p. 101. Sacramenta novae legis conferunt gratiam idque ex opere operato immediate Duplicem scilicet aliam respondentem dispositioni aliam ipsi sacramento cum antiquae adultis nullam conferrent nisi ratione dispositionis Sacramenta novae legis non producunt gratiam physice sed tantum moraliter But I must spare the Reader By this he may understand 1. That they hold not to the opus operatum as efficient of Grace in the Sacraments of the old Law and so not to Sacraments as Sacraments 2. That they put opus operatum against opus operantis and not against the necessary disposition of the Receiver which consisteth in Faith Repentance intention