thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholick Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the Proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in form as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no fallacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the proof of my Major Syl. 2. You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my Proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholick Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholick Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your Proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were always done and that by Christs Institution as my Proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his Successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastors as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuso all and so abstracts from each of them in particular as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors for I say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church that is both the whole body of the Church and all particular Churches the parts of it And hence is solved your argument of the Indians of people converted by lay-men when particular Pastors are dead c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I beleeve the holy Catholick Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say 't is true of an invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediatly before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or part of the whole Church must always have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no lesse then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4.
whatsoever of any Apostolical Church nor was he there to have regard to the order but to the substance of his instances Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and non-sence again by printing institutum for instituuntur so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper and help to patch up a new volum 't is enough for you Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted as you collect from this Text of Tertullian but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent but by means of a visible head who hath preserved all in the unity of faith which subject themselves to him where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome let such Churches be nam'd in your next CHAP. III. More of Mr. Baxters Arguments Num. 32. Mr. Baxters third Argument out of form Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague c. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholick Church was infected with it which is a foul Blasphemy Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants Num. 36. the Popes Supremacy in spirituals essential to the Church Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople Num. 39. Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretiques Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. Baxters against the Popes supremacy in spirituals answered 32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent and not in the sequel or second part therefore I deny the antecedent viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been alwayes visible yet the Protestant hath not been alwayes visible It is fallacia à secundum quid and simpliciter For all that can be pretended to follow is no more then this that the Protestants have been visible as Christians that is so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith nor yet follows so much for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do that is with an infallible supernatural divine faith so that they have not been alwayes a visible Church as Christian though the Roman have been so Hence falls the proof of your consequence 33. Pag. 239. I denie your supposition that when Protestants first pretended to reform what displeas'd them in the doctrine of the Roman Church that thereby they were cured of the plague c. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague all the visible Churches in the world and consequently the whole Catholique Church was infected with it which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian and a horrible blasphemie to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague or any such like mischief Here you trifle again prove the Popes supremacie first to be an usurpation and then take it for a ground of your argument what millions abroad and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of is everie number which you fancie a million Ibid. you frame an objection of your own and then answer it what 's the one or the other to me That which I have objected to be proved by you is no negative but a plain affirmative for 't is this that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Popes Supremacy to have been alwayes visible Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession Your first answer is petitio principii or falsum suppositum that any parts of the Catholique Church much less the most fit can be nominated wherin the Popes Supremacy had not possession Non-proof 34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy c. is only affirm'd by you who are a party but never yielded by us nor legitimately judged or defin'd against us so that sub judice lis est the matter is still in process and you know lite pendente till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties the possessor is to enjoy his title according to all law and reason you therfore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possest in the year 1500 in this our Nation and in all other places where you entred upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suite at law should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession without decree or order from any competent Judge upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself he has convinced by law the others title to be null for in these cases both he and you make your selves judges in your own cause and proceed to an execution without a warrant 35. Page 240. To your question what you must prove I answer 't is this that any Church which has at any time or does now deny the Popes supremacy or remain independent of it has bin allwaies visible Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Popes supremacy I say nothing it being not our case then only they are bound to alledge proof for the denyal of it when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them 36. Page 241. The Smpremacie it self I have proved to be essential to the Church for there can be no visible body without a head But then it is essential to the subsistance of Christian faith in particular persons when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholick Church not acknowledging the Popes supremacy for some time Your first Sylogism is out of form 1 for want of the word ever it should be ever since in your antecedent 2 and in the sequel for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath been visible where as you should say hath been ever or alwayes visible for that only is the present question 3 You suppose the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members which I deny for all hereticks as well as Protestants denyed his supremacy 37. Page 232 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferr'd or attributed not gave or conferr'd a new 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople then the second general Council had done as appeares by the words now that was to be next after Rome so that the principallity which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople was no way infringed by that canon 3
posteriora prioribus apud posteros praeponebat universum partibus semper jure optimo praeponitur Orthodox Writers commonly affirm that what they define is the Definition of the Catholick Church i Thus were the Arrians Quartodecimans Rebaptisers Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians even in Ethiopia and Armenia c. esteemed ever since Hereticks for resisting the Definitions of those Councils All who resist their Definitions in matter of Faith have ever since been universally branded with the note of Hereticks whether they were within or without the Empire k Canon universalis Ethiopum prays for the Fathers of the three First General Councils and affirms they were gathered for the defence of the right Faith and not for those of the Fourth Council because the Eutychian Heresie which they hold was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon Epist. Armen primae ad Leon. Imperat. ubi se subjiciunt 4 primis Conciliis in aliâ Epist. ad cundem idem faciunt Episcopi Armeniae Secundae apud Binium pag. 535. Conc. Tom. Extra-Imperial Provinces and Churches have anciently and do yet subscribe to them Lastly not onely all kind of Authority but plain reason overthrows this your Novelty For first the end why these Councils were gathered was to procure peace amongst Christians not in the Empire onely but through the whole Catholick Church and to put a final period to the controversies defined in them as appears from the Authorities now cited out of S. Austin Now if the Extra-Imperial Nations had not been obliged by those Definitions the controversies had still continued among them as much as if no such Definition had been made Secondly if any desired to embrace still the Heresies condemned in them it was but conferring themselves to the Extra-Imperial Churches and they had freedome in conscience from their former obligation as not being bound there to subscribe to the Councils Decrees So that every obstinate Heretick might shake off these Decrees at his pleasure Thirdly if any Nation or Province should have been by force of Arms won from the Empire which was under it in time of these Councils they would ipso facto have been freed from obeying the Decrees and beleeving the Doctrine of these Councils Fourthly if on the contrary any Extra-Imperial Nation had been reduced under the Empire eo ipso it would have contracted an obligation to conform to the Decrees of the said Councils so that Christian belief should have depended on the fortune of War Fifthly if your assertion were true it would follow that now de facto neither Spain France Italy England Denmark Swethland Poland nor any of the Eastern Churches are obliged to subscribe to the Nicene Council and the same is of the rest otherwise then of their free choice ever since they were from under the command of the Empire Nay hence will follow that even those of Germany by reason that is another Empire instituted independently of that in those ancient times and consequently that no Christian Churches in the world have any obligation successively descending down to them of obeying and following the Decrees of the four First General Councils My last reason is that those Extra-Imperial Christians who embraced the Heresies condemned in any one of those Councils never alledged this reason of yours that those Councils had no power to oblige them because they were not under the Empire and I pray you in your next produce any such reason authentically testified to have been alledged by them Baxter Num. 83. See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my Allegations are to the purpose Iohnson Num. 83. Now you will have seen which proofs your or mine have been more to the purpose Baxter Num 84. As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Iohnson Num. 84. You would have given better satisfaction to your Reader if amongst all the Sectaries particularis'd by me pag. 43. in your Book which were to the number of eighteen you had determined which of them you had esteemed Christians univocally so called and which not but whilest you leave him thus in obscurity telling him onely that some of them were not univocal Christians and not telling him which some you mean I believe he will have little satisfaction Yet by justifying the latter part that is almost one half of them in your next ensuing words and excusing some of the rest Baxt. p. 48. he may gather that you account Montanists Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists and Hussites Univocal Christians and consequently true parts of the Catholick Church in your Principles Baxter Num. 85. Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant Usurper will put Nick-names on all that will not bow to him as Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wickliffists Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their Names from the Book of Life Iohnson Num. 85. I have not Baptis'd any of them they were publickly known by these names many a fair year before you or I was born and since I desired to be understood I was to express them in such names as they commonly are known by whether they deserve the names I give them or no is not our dispute now I think they did when I called them so and that they deserve it as much as either Arrians or Donatists or Pelagians c. deserved to be branded with the names of those several Arch-Hereticks that broached them Nor can I yet find that the Roman B. whom you rudely call a Tyrant was more the imposer of those names upon the fore-named Sectaries then upon Arrians Donatists or Pelagians c. Baxter Num. 86. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens Lives and of the Lives of many of your Popes together with their several Doctrines and with Death and Iudgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Arbigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling Grace hath given them repentance unto life Iohnson Num. 86. I humbly beg of God that he deliver you from ever coming to that place where any of those which I mentioned as condemned Hereticks are in the other world I hope he has prepar'd a much better for you But tell me seriously would you indeed be content rather to be with the Albigenses who held Two Gods
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
neither known nor believed distinctly or expresly yet they are known or believed in confuso confusedly and implicitly by the knowledge or belief of their general proposition 8. Why misconceive you the notion of implicite faith it is not as you conceit therefore no faith at all of all the particulars in Scripture because he who has it understands not distinctly many truths contained in Scripture for a Christian has implicite faith because such determinate truths being de facto contained in Scripture by believing all that is contained therein he believes confusedly or implicitly every one of the said truths though he have not distinct knowledge of many of them 9. But most of all I wonder why you take my second answer in a quite other sense then I intended it for your second question being this whether I mean by faith the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part c. My Answer is this of all either Explicitly or Implicitly that is that those of the Catholick Church must believe all the very same Articles and points of faith by an Explicite faith in order at least to some of them and by an Implicite faith in order to the rest so an explicite faith of some Articles is necessary to all who actually believe with a Divine faith now you would make me say as appears by your Reply that implicite faith is sufficient in relation to all points of faith whatsoever as if I held it not necessary to believe any thing at all explicitly for you press me thus they must live in unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what God hath revealed or without it which inference you could never urge against me if you had supposed me to hold that some explicite faith is alwayes necessary to salvation in such as are capable of actual belief for whilst they have explicite faith of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith nor could you with reason draw any such consequence from my speaking in this distributive sense both because it is the ordinary sense of the Schools where an explicite faith of some Articles is held necessary to salvation and because my Answer connaturally admits of that sense And lastly because though the words precisely in themselves were capable of your affixed sense yet when words are of a doubtful meaning no man with reason can bind his words to one determinate sense but must leave the determination to him who framed the proposition 10. But now let us try a while what will follow from your Doctrine of Implicite Faith as that term is ordinarily understood by us To believe any point in our ordinary sense say you is not to believe it now our ordinary sense as I have declared is so to believe that point that we have no distinct or expresse knowledge of it but onely a confused understanding because it is contained in confuso under this Proposition I believe all that God has revealed or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in Canonical Scripture Let us therefore settle this Assertion out of your Doctrine whosoever believes all that God has revealed or all that is in canonical Scripture believes no one particular point contained confusedly in those Propositions which he understands not with an actual understanding in particular to be revealed farther then as contained in those Propositions this is your Doctrine now I subsume But no man knoweth all that God hath revealed to wit with that actual understanding of every particular required by you immediately before as is above explicated this minor is yours Ergo say I no man believes all that God hath revealed now I proceed if no man believe all that God has revealed then you believe not all that God has revealed this is evident then further whosoever believs not all that God has revealed is no good Christian nor in state of Salvation But you believe not all that God has revealed Ergo you are no good Christian nor in state of Salvation See you not how fair a thred you have spun against your self or will you say that he who believes not all which God hath revealed is a good Christian if you will you may but sure if you doe so no good Christian will believe you and that you may see how far you are out in asserting this that one cannot truly believe what he understands not actually and in particular or no farther then as the particulars are contained in that universal proposition I believe all that God has revealed or that is in Scripture when you recite the Nicene Creed wherein you professe to believe that God is creator of all things visible and invisible I demand do you truly believe as you professe to believe when you say those words if you do not you make a profession against your own Conscience if you do then you may believe with an actual Belief that he is Creator of many particular things both visible and invisible whereof you have no actual understanding or which are wholly unknown in particular or distinctly to you or by any other knowledge then as confusedly contained in the word all you recite the Athanasian Creed and there professe to believe that all men shall rise at the last coming of Christ and give an account of their works and yet you have no actual knowledge of many thousands and millions of them The like is of St. Paul when he tells us all men are to stand before the Tribunal of Christ c. shall we say that St. Paul believed not as he professed to believe Acts 24.5 14. Credens omnibus quae in Lege Prophetis scripta sunt yet cannot we suppose that he had then an actual understanding of every particular contained in them II. And that you may see by instances how untrue your Assertion is a Christian I suppose has by vincible or culpable oblivion forgot some grievous Sinne of his Life past he comes to the point of Death he is heartily sorrowfull even for the pure love of God for all his sinnes committed against the Law of God without any actual remembrance or understanding of that forgotten sin and so dyes must not one say in your Principle that such a Penitent had no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin implicitly because he had no actual understanding of it what horrid Doctrine would this be the like is of one who forgives from his heart all Injuries done against him but has no actual Remembrance of some of them does he not therefore actually forgive even those which he has forgotten a thousand like Examples might be brought which I leave to your learned consideration having been something with the longest in this Point because I know it imports much to make a true understanding betwixt us 12. why are you so wavering and inconstant in your Propositions first you say that few or none have an actual understanding or belief