Which is the true church? the whole Christian world, as headed only by Christ…

Ans. Yes, if the word forgiveness signify the effect, or his act as sufficient to that effect: For it is in his power to discharge, acquit, or forgive another, by a mere general remission or discharge, though he remembered but one or no particular at all: But if by forgiving you mean an act of his will whose object is the crime as well as the punishment, and evil consequents remitted; he so actually forgiveth in his own mental act no more than he knoweth: But his general forgiveness sufficeth to all the ends without it; and such a sufficient remission goeth commonly by the name of full forgiveness: But instead of speaking to the point in hand, you play with ambiguous words of another sense and subject. Forgiving another is an act of the Will, whose effect is extrinsical; and as a man may burn a house, or give away or sell a house, and all that is in it, though he know not what is in it; so a man may remit all debts or penalties to another, or the King may pardon all crimes by an Act of Oblivion, without knowing what they are: But if the question were about an intellectual act, whose object doth specify it intrinsically in the mind; As whether the King actually know the particular crimes which he pardoneth? If you say that he knoweth the particulars actually in confuso, because the only knoweth in general that some crimes there are, this is but to talk against all the usual •ense of mankind, and to call that, An actual knowing of particulars in confuso, which other men call, No actual knowledge of particulars, but only of generals, which in some cases may be called a virtual knowledge of Particulars, (which is no actual knowledge of them) and in some not. But if he had heard some imperfect confused Narratives of the crimes themselves, this might be called, An actual conferred knowledge of them.

Ans. Yes, if the word forgiveness signifie the effect, or his act as sufficient to that effect: For it is in his power to discharge, acquit, or forgive another, by a meer general remission or discharge, though he remembred but one or no particular at all: But if by forgiving you mean an act of his will whose object is the crime as well as the punishment, and evil consequents remitted; he so actually forgiveth in his own mental act no more than he knoweth: But his general forgiveness sufficeth to all the ends without it; and such a sufficient remission goeth commonly by the name of full forgiveness: But instead of speaking to the point in hand, you play with ambiguous words of another sense and subject. Forgiving another is an act of the Will, whose effect is extrinsecal; and as a man may burn a house, or give away or sell a house, and all that is in it, though he know not what is in it; so a man may remit all debts or penalties to another, or the King may pardon all crimes by an Act of Oblivion, without knowing what they are: But if the question were about an intellectual act, whose object doth specifie it intrinsecally in the mind; As whether the King actually know the particular crimes which he pardoneth? If you say that he knoweth the particulars actually in confuso, because the only knoweth in general that some crimes there are, this is but to talk against all the usual ense of mankind, and to call that, An actual knowing of particulars in confuso, which other men call, No actual knowledg of particulars, but only of generals, which in some cases may be called a virtual knowledg of Particulars, (which is no actual knowledg of them) and in some not. But if he had heard some imperfect confused Narratives of the crimes themselves, this might be called, An actual confed knowledg of them.