2. Mens believing will not cause Christ to Die for them, nor is it a condition of it, as if Christ would Die for Men if they will believe; Believing presupposeth Christs Dying for us, and what then can be their meaning that say Christ Died and Satisfied for all men if they will Believe? When they say absolutely withal, that he Died not for all at all, but only for the Elect, that they might believe. Will they say that he Died for the Non-elect, if they will believe? Then either they must mean that he underwent the Penalty, and left it undetermined quorum loco, in whose stead and for whose sins it should be, till their believing determine it: But 1. This is as much denied by those whom I oppose, as by me. 2. And it is a contradiction. For it is Essential to Punishment to be propter peccatum; that Relation is its formal Nature, as it differs from Affliction in general; And therefore Christ suffered no Punishment, if it were not determinately for Sin: And the meritorious cause is considered as before the effect, and not after it; Or else if they speak of [Believing] not as any condition on mans part, but a Divinely-infused Character of those for whom Christ Died, then the sense of their words is but this [Christ Died ⟨p. 165⟩for the Non-elect, if they be Elect] or [Christ satisfied for all men, if all men be Elect] or [Christ Died in stead of all, if he will give Faith to all.] And who sees not that these words are a plain Negation, and all one with these [Christ satisfied not for all] q. d. [I leave in my Will such a Legacy to Titus, if Titus be not Titus, but Sempronius] what Lawyer knows not that is a denial, or an illusory nothing! And how then can this bind men to Love and Gratitude.
2. Mens believing will not cause Christ to Die for them, nor is it a condition of it, as if Christ would Die for Men if they will believe; Believing presupposeth Christs Dying for us, and what then can be their meaning that say Christ Died and Satisfied for all men if they will Believe? When they say absolutely withal, that he Died not for all at all, but only for the Elect, that they might believe. Will they say that he Died for the Non-elect, if they will believe? Then either they must mean that he underwent the Penalty, and left it undetermined quorum loco, in whose stead and for whose sins it should be, till their believing determine it: But 1. This is as much denyed by those whom I oppose, as by me. 2. And it is a contradiction. For it is Essential to Punishment to be propter peccatum; that Relation is its formal Nature, as it differs from Affliction in general; And therefore Christ suffered no Punishment, if it were not determinately for Sin: And the meritorious cause is considered as before the effect, and not after it; Or else if they speak of [Believing] not as any condition on mans part, but a Divinely-infused Character of those for whom Christ Died, then the sence of their words is but this [Christ Died ⟨p. 165⟩for the Non-elect, if they be Elect] or [Christ satisfied for all men, if all men be Elect] or [Christ Died in stead of all, if he will give Faith to all.] And who sees not that these words are a plain Negation, and all one with these [Christ satisfied not for all] q. d. [I leave in my Will such a Legacy to Titus, if Titus be not Titus, but Sempronius] what Lawyer knows not that is a denyal, or an illusory nothing! And how then can this bind men to Love and Gratitude.
