begun 3. Either the first Grace is through Christ or not but 't is strange to say That Christ gives inherent Grace to one that 's not united to him but as his designed Head as you phrase it and to one in a State of Condemnation And should make a change in his Nature before a change of State 4. Then Sanctification if Faith be any part of it must be before Justification contrary to the best Protestants and what you have said Your 8th Exception is That I say 't is the Doctrine of Imputation that you banter and you tell us what you say of it in your Book where when I come to the Places you quote here you will see my Remarks on your Sayings And so as to the ninth and tenth it will be spoken to in its proper place And as to the elâ—vâ—nth and twelfth I am of the same Mind I was I shall not spend Time in Vindication and I leave the considerate Reader who understands himself whether I do not give a very fair account of your Opinion whereof by the Quotations of yours out of your former Book you give sufficient Confirmation As to the stating Questions in difference between us you do it not fair The first you say is Preface 2. l. 1. Whether the elect are required to believe that they may be justified This you say I deny R. You should have quoted the Place I say there are Commands in the Ministry of the Gospel unto Sinners to believe and obey the Gospel that they may partake of Justification by Christ's Righteousness but not to perform it as a moral condition that therâ—by they may be qualified for Justification or made meet for it as you say 2. You say it is not whether the Gospel be such a Law that the Acts of Obedience to it stand in the place of Works so as for them we are saved but whether the Gospel assure Salvation for Christ's Merits to such as obey it and their active exclusion of Salvation to such as disobey it This you say you affirm and I deny I 'll tell you what I say The Gospel can't be a Law commanding Obedience as a federal condition of the Promise but upon performance of it the Promise must be a reward of Debt and if the Promise be Justification for the Merits of Christ then its due as Debt upon the said Obedience and tho' you say Justification for the Righteousness of Christ yet that Justification must be the reward of Obedience required in that Law 3. It is not whether we are justified by our Faith as an Act of ours as if they you mean Repentance too as Works or Qualifications were a Jot of that Righousness for which or by which we are justified This I deny Rep. Who says you say its that Righteousness of Christ to which you annex your for or by but for and by this Righteousness we come to be justified by our Faith and Repentance the Duties required in another Law which you tells us is the Gospel Rule i. e. your Law That a Man must be a penitent Believer whom God will justify for the righteousness of Christ This you say you affirm and I deny and that with good reason that our Faith and Repentance must be previous qualifying Duties to our Justification So that a Sinner must repent and believe in a state of Condemnation before he is justified and it s no more than this that for Christ's Righteousness which is our legal Righteousness we shall be justified by or according to our Evangelical 4. Your next Particular is the same and I say as before God doth not justifie us as a judicial Act for any Duty or Act tho' wrought by the Spirit 5. You say It 's not whether we are justified upon believing before any Works which follow the first Act of saving Faith R. No for the Papists own their first Justification to be so but you say If Faith should be ineffectual to Acts of sincere Holiness and to prevent Apostacy and utter Ungodliness would we not be subject to condemnation by Gospel Rule This you say you affirm and I deny R. Let us examin this then and see what you affirm 1. That there 's a possibility true justifying Faith may be ineffectual and so there may be a falling away 2. That till Faith hath brought forth sincere persevering Obedience we are not fully and certainly justified we must be justified by the second Justification before we be secure 3. That Apostacy and utter Ungodliness is prevented by a Gospel Rule of Condemnation that we are made subject to it s a fine way to prevent Apostacy to lay us under a Rule of Condemnation you mean a Sentence For my part I can t see these things hang together nor know what you mean by a Rule of Condemnation but in the sense of the Law working Wrath which is quite contrary to the nature of a Gospel 6. You say and we say That Holiness and good Works are necessary to Salvation but that I deny they are indispensable means of obtaining the Possession of Salvation through Christ R. If I say they are necessary it is enough tho' I may not own them to be indispensible means in your sense as a Law condition is an indispensible means of the Reward and if they be indispensible means the Thief upon the Cross could not have been saved and hundreds more that I doubt not but God saves in the like manner 7. It is not whether Justification Adoption and Glorification be Acts of Gods free Grace which I affirm R. But you said otherwise That forgiving adopting and glorifying and the conveyance of every promised Benefit given on Gods Terms are judicial Acts of God as a Rector i. e. As you after say That Grace is so dispensed by way of judicial rectoral Distribution of Rewards c. Pref. of the 1st Book But the Question is you say Whether it pleased God to leave himself at liberty to justifie the Unbeliever while such and glorifie the Unbeliever and Wicked and alâ—o to damn the penitent godly Believer this Mr. C. affirms and I deny R. You should have shewed the place where I said it that your Charge might have fastned by a Demonstration I marvel you blush not at such things as these 1. Where have I that Expression of Gods leaving himself at liberty It s one of your Terms of Art not mine 2. That he justifies the Ungodly is what the Spirit of God saith and therefore I may 3. But I say in justifiing him he sanctifieth him and whatever a Sinner is he is justified as such not as made holy and sanctified unless you 'l confound Justification and Sanctification as the Papists and Quakers do 4. But when did I say That God doth glorifie an Unbeliever and a wicked Man or damn the penitent and godly Believer Or that in the Covenant of Grace he hath made any such Exception that he may or will do so I suppose that you must
believe as non-elect or Judas therefore some Men shall not be saved Now see how well you agree with the Assembly in this Point ch 10. § iv they say non-elect ones tho' they may be called by the Ministry of the Word and may have some common Operations of the Spirit yet they never truly come unto Christ and therefore cannot be saved You say Forgiveness is an act of Soveraignty and how you will reconcile that to what you say before and after I know not 1. That it 's a judicial Act by a rule of Judgment if so it 's not in that respect a soveraign Act wherein God is free to give faith and forgiveness to whom he will And 2. You say he hath not left himself free to give forgiveness to whom he will of the adult without faith and therefore God must come under a Law to give forgiveness in the way of a Law whereas the same soveraign grace that enclines him to one doth also to the other and both faith and forgiveness are the free gift in the Promise in a way of shewing forth his righteousness Mr. W.'s Arg. 6. The Apostles with all the Saints may be arraigned as fallen from Grace and turned from the Gospel if it be no Rule according to which God applies Christ's Righteousness How should Peter say Repent and be baptized R. I see no Consequence here at all the Argument to me seems to run thus Either the Gospel is a new Law with Sanction or else the Apostles are fallen from Grace And what 's the reason of this forced Argument The Apostles preached That Men should repent and be baptized I hope you will make Baptism too to belong indispensably to the new Law as a Condition but I pray doth the Gospel requiring and calling for Gospel Duties make the Gospel a new Law with Sanction Are not Gospel Duties from Gospel quickning and enlivning a poor dead Sinner to obey the Gospel Commands of Christ to an Unbeliever He doth not deal with him as a Person under a moral Power to answer them and therefore putting him under tryal by his natural strength as all Laws do but Gospel Commands are as Christ's Voice to Lazarus in the Grave Joh. 5.25 I pray by what Law are dead Men capable of coming to Life The Gospel is the power of God to Salvation not the power of Man You alledge the Gaoler's words Act. 16.36 What shall I do to be saved I wonder you should insist upon the words of a Man that knew not Christ and knew no other way of Salvation than by doing Paul indulged him not in this Opinion but taught contrary exhorting him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ which the Apostle always opposed to doing Faith being a Grace that excludes works of any Law yea it self as a work it will ascribe all to Christ and free Grace It 's new Doctrin that a Command to believe should be a Command to work for Life as the obedience to a Law when it calls Men from under the Law and it saith That a Believer is not under the Law but under Grace It should have said you are not under the old Law but you are under the new Law You instance in Gal. 2.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth not denote a priority in time of Faith to Justification but of the end of Faith we should believe for this end that the Grace of Justification by Christ's Righteousness alone may shine into our Hearts by the light of Faith that we may have Peace with God in our Consciences through the Lord Jesus Christ and so we do not only in our first believing but in all other Acts. And this hinders not but that God's gracious Acts prevent ours and causeth them God's love let forth to us constrains us and is the reason of our loving him Justification may be considered as terminating on our Persons and terminating on our Consciences in this last sense the Apostle speaks but note what is the Antithesis And not the Works of a Law If he had not meant the Works of every Law he should have distinguished and said Not by the Works of the old Law but by the Works of the new Law It 's strange he should keep the Galatians in the dark about the Works of the new Law it was but Works that they looked for to joyn with Christ in Justification I am confident this very distinction would have satisfied all the Neonomians of his time Mr. W.'s 7th Arg. The Gospel is at least part of the Rule by which Christ will judge the World this must be a Law if it be a Rule of Judgment R. Your Argument is That Rule by which God will judge the World is a Law but the Gospel is a Rule by which God will judg the World therefore I deny the Minor 1. You say Part of that Rule I pray what 's the other part Will the Rule of Judgment have two parts Do you mean the old Law will be another part Or will God judge some by the old Law some by the new 2. It 's not likely that God will judge the World by any more than one Law and that the Law of Creation and that by which he governed the World that Law which hath been the Standard of Righteousness from the beginning of the World to the end 3. It 's likely to be that Law that all the World are become guilty by they shall not be guilty by one Law and judged by another 4. It 's likely to be that Law that Men's Consciences accuse or excuse by 5. It 's likely to be that Law that will reach Jews Christians Infidels and all that never had the written Law or Gospel 6. If the Gospel be a Law then to try by it must cease to be a Gospel for it will bring execution of Indignation and Wrath no good Tidings I suppose you will not say the Sentence Go ye cursed is Gospel Well you say The Work of that day is not to try Christ No sure I believe not but Christ must sit upon his Throne judging the World Nor whether Christ's Righteousness was imputed to all that Believe but will be to decide the cause of all Men to silence all Apologies c. 1. I suppose you mean to decide Believer's state which hath been undecided till then 2. To prove that the rest of the World had not Faith As for the first sort I would know whether their Tryal will be before the Resurrection or after Before it can't be they must be raised first and those that die in Christ shall rise first And it s said Bâ—essed and happy are they that have part in the first Resurrection and how shall they be raised Incorruptible in Glory like to Christ at his Appearance immediately carryed up into the â—ir to meet the Lord. Is it likely that now they are Clothed with all this Glory at the Resurrection they shall come to stand a Tryal for Justification Surely their state
the Law is essentially distinct from both Put go on His Will revealed in a way of Governmâ—nt here 's the Precept that binds to Duty here 's a Promise made to them that comply and a Threatning denounced against such as rebel R. These look like Essentials of a Law of Works such was Adam's Law there was God's Will for Duty in a way of Government revealed a Promise to him if he complyed and a Threat denounced in case he did not Now then that Law which hath all the Essentials of a Covenant of Works is a Covenant of Works but your new Law by your Description hath all the Essentials of a Covenant of Works Therefore you say 2. This is a Law of Grace and it s made by our Redeemer for fallen Man R. Say you so 1. That which is made and executed in a way of Judicial Proceeding is not a Law of Grace for Grace and judicial Proceeding is diametrically opposite But you say it 's a Law in a way of Government by a Law therefore of Judicial Proceeding 2. You say it s made by our Redeemer Is it made with our Redeemer I suppose you must mean so because you say for fallen Man then Christ covenanted in our stead which you deny elsewhere and he is to perform the Conditions for us 3. You say All the Benefits of it are founded on Christ's Righteousness as the immediate Cause of them R. And where are the Duties founded in Man's Natural Power and Will No you l say in Election absolutely as to the first Grace Well then here 's the Benefits secured in Redemption absolutely I hope and the first Grace in Election Now if you can tell us where to get Security for after Graces and Perseverance we should have this whole Covenant absolutely secured Effectual Ability to perform the Duty i. e. the first Duty is provided for you say in Election But is after Duties provided for there if so election is the sole Covenant Condition for Duty and Redemption for Benefits Thus you may mangle the Grace of God Again you say God doth not fix on these Terms for any Worth in them or Profit to him R. It s true he did not fix on Adam's Terms for any Worth in them what proportion could the forbearing an Apple bear to eternal Life or what Profit would it have been to God if Adam had let the Apple hang on the Tree or persevered all his Days in Holiness Mr. W. The Gospel is the Instrument or Sign by which this Will of God is expressed this is not the Language of God in Adam's Law R. An Instrument in this Sense is a Law Deed or Conveyance engrossed or enrolled which is but a small adjunct to the Law The Scripture of the Old and New Testament are called Instruments because they are the enrollments of this Will of Christ and his Testament ratified by his Death and you say the Gospel is a Sign the Seals of the Covenant are Signs but the Covenant of Grace is not a Sign unless you mean it signifies God's Will and Pleasure in Government and so did Adam's Law and was the Language of it Mr. W. It sixeth that Rule of the Promise which Mr. C. p. 33. is at a loss to know R. And so are more than I for you say It s not the Promise nor the Precept where to find a Rule for the Promise in the Law I know not if it be not in Promise or Precept will you say its the connection of Precept and Promise if so it s the Rule rather of the Law forma perquam lex est is it God's Rule to dispense by or our Rule to claim by it may be you mean both Precepts and Promises are desparata at least therefore what your new Term is I suppose you do not know what it is yourself no more than your other new Rules of Sin which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and misery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since in stead of clearing the Oustion you have confounded it I will take the true state of it from a Man that would speak his Mind more intelligeably in these Matters The Question stated Scrip. G. Justific Contr. 17. My true Sense is That the Covenant of Grace is such a Law as that the sincere Acts of Faith and Obedience and perseverance therein are the Conditions upon which eternal Life and Salvation is promised with a Penalty of eternal Death threatned upon the non-performance only I say that sincere Faith and Repentance are the moral qualifying Conditions of the Continuance of our justification and enjoyment of Heaven And this is a true Account of the Notion how yourself understands the Gospel to be a new Law as I could prove from your own Expressions even to every word here in this Account you might therefore have spared yourself and me the labour about your confused stating the Question R. Before I answer your Arguments I shall promise a few things 1. It being a great End of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace to restore fallen Man and in so doing to magnifie the Law he makes full atonement for the breach of it brings in Everlasting Righteousness procures New Obedience to the perceptive part of it teacheth it by his Grace and works it by his Spirit and whereas in the Covenant of Works Obedience was the Way to and Condition of the Promise he makes the Promise the Way to and Condition of Obedience commanding no more than what he hath promised 2. When we say the Gospel is not a New Law with Sanction we deny it not to be a Testament that hath its ratification in the Death of Christ the Testator wherein also the Law of Works had its Sanction in respect of Penalty for all those that shall be saved by him as to satisfaction for their sins 3. That Rule and Government which Christ exerciseth over his Church as it comes to him by right of Redemption so that Obedience we give to him is part of that Eternal Life which he hath purchased and restored to us and both his government and our subjection thereto is of Promise and none of the least Blessings and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace 4. As the Matter of all Precepts requiring Sanctity and Obedience of Heart and Life moral and instituted absolutely considered primarily belong to the first Law of Works and so are binding in a natural relation unto Unregenerate and Regenerate as they are the Commands of God the Creator and the least Transgression requires a Punishment due to the Breach of the whole Law So our Obedience becomes Gospel-Obedience 1. From our being restored to it in Christ the second Adam 2 In that it flows from a new Life given we must live before we can do 3. From the end of performance it 's not for Life as a Law-Reward of it but for the sake honour duty to and enjoyment of Christ and in the most grateful returns of his grace and love to us
Christ can't satisfie and merit for us without the Interposal of a Gospel Rule the meaning whereof is That Christ hath not legally satisfied for us till we have done something in conformity to the said Rule that may give validity to the satisfaction of Christ and make it pleadable as such so that Christ hath neither satisfied nor merited till we make up the Complement whereby it becomes legal 4. What mean you by a legal Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant If you mean by Christs satisfaction and obedience to Adam's Covenant we have our legal Right to Glory we say it for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believes and through his Righteousness we have a Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant Christ's Righteousness is our legal Righteousness as it respects the Perfection and Justice of God in that Covenant and it s our Evangelical Righteousness as it s in the behalf of and bestowed upon undone Sinners But you say this Doctrin excludes Forgiveness Why Because it brings in Forgivness meerly upon Christ's Righteousness alone But how makes it Christ's Sufferings needless when it lays all upon the Righteousness of Christ imputed as the Matter and Form of our Justification Or how doth it deny proper satisfaction when it makes Christ's Righteousness all the satisfaction And your Doctrin makes it but an improper and remote satisfaction yea and imperfect And lastly you say it destroys Christianity This is so gross a Charge as that it is to be exploded with Detestation if the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as our legal and evangelical Right and Title to Life and Salvation destroys Christianity we may burn our Bibles But you go on 5 You affirm That all sinned and dyed in Adam and in Christ are all made alive owning Christ's influence both real and publick as before explained R. All this is nihil ad Rhombum you own not hereby the Imputation of Adams Sin to his Posterity but that Sin and Death are only Effects of Adam's first Sin i. e. influential you own not that all Men were legally condemned in Adam as a publick federal Person standing in their stead In the same manner you always speak of the Righteousness of Christ as influential to our Forgiveness and that the imputation of it is only bestowing the Effects But whether we were in Christ before Faith as we were seminally in Adam before we were born which his federal Headship did suppose the being thus in Christ before Faith I deny R. You here grant our seminal being in Adam and that Adam's federal Headship supposed it and therefore we were seminally and federally in Adam before we were born Why speak you it not positively whether it was so or no That we were federally and seminally in Adam and that our Sin and Death was in him there we lost original Righteousness and thence the Imputation of his very first Sin to all his Posterity by vertue of our federal standing in him and by reason of our being seminally in him the corruption of the whole Nature was in him and naturally descended to us If it be so why are not the Elect as to Righteousness and Life in the same manner in the second Adam federally and seminally before they believe i. e. before they are born again in him federally as to Righteousness and seminally as to the new Nature Christ being their Righteousness and Sanctification whereas the Apostle runs the Parallel so fully and plainly as he doth Rom. 5 But all this is but shuffling the Cards to make People believe your Principles are what they are not most of whom cannot tell what you hold when you have darkened and confounded the Question by your manner of stating it You say I object against you the denying of the Doctrin of Imputation why do you not deny the Charge but only distinguish so upon it as to confirm it If your Principles are Truth why do you not speak them out but fill us with your cloudy Expressions and Distinctions which you charge us for why speak you not plainly That you deny the Suretiship of Christ as you know you do That you deny Christ to be a publick Person in the Sense as the soundest Protestants have always held him to be which last you do here in effect positively do That we were neither federally nor seminally in Christ before Believing Which if so I am sure you must deny the whole Doctrine of Imputation and what you pretend to can be no more than what the Socinians do And how can you say you are not against the Confession and I am when the Assembly saith Confess c. 8. sect 1. That Christ is ordained of God the Head and Saviour of his Church See Pinchin the Sâ—cinian and Mr. Norton's answer p. 353. Dialo I grant that all Mâ—nkind are one with Adam by a natural Union as proceeding from the same Root but I fear Mr. Forbes doth stretch out our natural Union with Adâ—m to a personal to the end that he might make Adam's personal Action to be ours by imputation Norton The scope of Mr. Forbes is to prove the Imputation of Christ's Passive Obedience and that only in his Dea h to bâ— the Matter of our Justification c. We consent to Mr. Forbs as to the Argument taken from the Comparison but dissent from him as concerning the Restrictions the Reason of the Comparison being founded upon the Conditions of the Persons and Divine Institution it holds betwixt such Acts aâ— thâ— first and second Adam acted as publick Persons Adom therefore being in that Act of Disobedience only a publ ck Person hence that Act only is imputed unto his Seed But Christ bâ—ing in all his Acts of Obedienâ—â— a publick Person hence therefore all the Acts of Christ's Obedience are imputed to his Seed As upon supposition Adam's continuing in Obedience because he had then continued a publick Person all the Acts of his Obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousness had been imputed to his Seed according to the nature of the Covenant of Works unto their attaining of Jusâ—ification by the Law The Uniâ—n between Adam and his Posterity was not personal nor only natural but mystical It was a Conjunction of the Person of Adam and all contained iâ— his Loyns in one Spiritual Body by the Insti ution of God whereby he was as their Head they as his Members to stand or fall with him standing or falling Mr. Norton sums up Pinchin's Errors under three Heads 1. In his denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the Punâ—shment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53 5 6. thereby leaving the Elect to perish in theâ—r Sin 2. Denying that Christ as Goâ—-Man Mediator obeyâ—d the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our Surety contrary to Gal. 4.4 5. Matt. â— 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psal 40.8.7.8 Rom. 3.31 thereby rendring 〈…〉
promised the very obedience it self Therefore no body denies obedience to the Gospel and subjection to it from the grace of Adoption as Children not as Slaves under the rigour of a Law Those places that speak of taking vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel 2 Thess 1.8 1 Pet. 4.17 they shew only that the curse of the Law will fall more heavily upon them for disobedience to God in the Gospel Impenitency and Infidelity being Sins the Law of God doth condemn and judge and Christ will come at the last day clothed with Law-Vengeance which is called flaming fire and will proceed against all sinners those that are ignorant of God and those that are disobedient to the Gospel and judge them by one and the same Law tho' some that have added to their other sins the rejection of Christ and so lye under aggravations of their sins and are become more inexcusable may be accounted worthy of sorer degrees of punishment and judged thereto by the same Law Mr. W.'s Arg. 3. Justification is a Judicial Act therefore it must be by a Law R. You should have formed your Argument and then it would have run thus It Justification be a Judicial Act then the Gospel must be Law but Justification is a Judicial Act Therefore 1. I deny the Consequence of the Major for it may be a Judicial Act in respect of the first violated Law first a gracious Act of imputing Christ's righteousness to us that may answer the demands of that Law and then a Judicial Act of acquitting us from the condemnation of it accounting us in this manner righteous by this Law and therefore there 's no need of another Law for our justification tho' it be a Judicial Act. You say in Justification is a right to Impunity and can any thing but a Law give this but I tell you it must be the Law that 's offended must discharge in a way of justice from punishment and not another Law unless the Pardon be by prerogative or repeal Mr. W.'s Arg. 4. The Gospel gives a right to its Benefits upon believing R. The Gospel gives nothing but benefits to sinners Faith is one of the great benefits and there 's a connexion of benefits of different nature in the Gospel-gifts but our right to all as a federal condition is in Christ and it 's safe enough to speak of Gospel-Worthiness and Rewards but they are founded in Christ not in any Law-Righteousness of ours Mr. W.'s Arg. 5. If God have no Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by thâ—n God will not nay cannot save the non-elect tho' th y should believe in Christ Say not they will not believe hath not God declared he will save them iâ— they believe R. First Here you change the terms putting Rule for Law and God's Rule for Man's therefore you conclude not the Question 2. You make a Pro syllogism Your Argument should regularly run thus If God hath Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by thâ—n the Gospel is a Law but God hath other Gospel-rules to confer glory by besides c. Therefore 1. Your Consequence is denied for if you will have God's way of conferring grace or glory to be a rule to him the particular application thereof depends wholly upon his good will and pleasure and the manner it self and that 's the rule of all rules and so the rule of conferring grace and glory is all one But suppose God's manner of conferring glory be the rule you mean God never propounded but two ways of doing it one in a way of free grace and absolute promise and the other in a way of debt to us by a rule of justice now your Consequence will sink for God's rule in bestowing grace and glory upon sinners is to do it in a way of free grace by promise and gift and not in a way or by the rule of a Law or distributive Justice 2. For your Minor it 's this That God hath a Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by which you prove thus If God hath not c. then he cannot nor will not save the non-elect if they believe But he will save the non-elect if they believe therefore this Argument necessarily supposeth that God hath a Rule of Salvation altogether independent on Election and distinguishing Mercy whereby others may be saved if they will and you take it for granted that the non-elect will believe for you say say not they will not believe Your Minor is flatly denied for that general Proposition He that believes shall be saved concludes not that a non-elect person shall believe or be saved it 's false Logick so to do there 's no more in it than in this Proposition Every Man is a rational Creature therefore if a Horse be a rational Creature he is a Man This connex Proposition hath a verity in the connexion but determins not any truth in the antecedent or consequent that a Horse will ever be a Man or a rational Creature So here he that believes shall be saved therefore then if the non-elect believe they shall be saved if Judas believed he should be saved but this says not that Judas will believe or be saved Yet you say hath not God declared he will save them if they believe I say no where he hath not said I will save a non-elect person if he believe more than he hath said a Horse shall be a Man if he can use reason or speak or a Man shall be a Horse if he have four feet There 's hundreds of such Instances The fire consumes all combustible matter if I throw my Coat or Cap inâ—o the fire it will be burnt but this doth not determin that I will throw it into the fire or that it will be burnt but rather the contrary that there will be neither one nor the other Therefore how bold and illogical is it for you to conclude that God will save the non-elect upon an imperformable condition for whatever hath no other foundation than an impossible condition can never be but the salvation of the non-elect can be founded upon nothing but an impossible condition for it can have no other condition according to you but believing and this is impossible because according to you also Faith is from Election and therefore it 's a contradiction to talk of saving non-elect or God's making a Rule to save them upon supposition of their having that which he never intended to give them The general Proposition runs thus All Men that shall believe shall be saved a general contradiction here will not divide truth from falshood Viz. No Man shall believe therefore no Man shall be saved but to divide truth from falshood and fix it on a subject the contradiction must be special or proper and then that general Axiom and Application specially or properly makes this Syllogism All Men that believe shall be saved some Men shall shall not