Yea Beza himself who seeing what might be said for Universal Redemption from this Text endeavours to put in a bar, yet concludeth thus: Et fortasse sic potest ista sententia explicari acsi declaretur istos non posse rursum renovari, quoniam rursus oporteret Christum crucifigi & illis ludibriis exponi, quod fieri amplius non potest, illo semel pro mortuis credituris crucifixo, nec in gratiam istorum apostatarum rursum crucifigendo: quam sententiam si amplectamur uti sane probablis & commoda mihi videtur, &c.] I will add no more (though many more might be added. Now according to this exposition it is evident that it is implied that Christ died for these men: or else there seems no force in the Argument to prove their sin unpardonable, and themselves unrecoverable. For the Holy Ghost here plainly intimateth ⟨p. 333⟩that this unrecoverableness is the fruit of their Apostasy; and that they were not unrecoverable before they were Apostates; and yet the reason of their uncureableness lies in this, that it is necessary to their pardon and cure that Christ should die again, which cannot be: Now it implieth that he died for them as they were in their state before Apostasy, or else on this reason it might be said as well that their recovery and pardon was as impossible then, and so their Apostasy should not be the reason, but Christs not dying for them at all should be it: Which is plainly contrary to the Text.
Yea Beza himself who seeing what might be said for Universal Redemption from this Text endeavours to put in a bar, yet concludeth thus: Et fortasse sic potest ista sententia explicari acsi declaretur istos non posse rursum renovari, quoniam rursus oporteret Christum crucifigi & illis ludibriis exponi, quod fieri amplius non potest, illo semel pro mortuis credituris crucifixo, nec in gratiam istorum apostatarum rursum crucifigendo: quam sententiam si amplectamur uti sane probablis & commoda mihi videtur, &c.] I will add no more (though many more might be added. Now according to this exposition it is evident that it is implied that Christ died for these men: or else there seems no force in the Argument to prove their sin unpardonable, and themselves unrecoverable. For the Holy Ghost here plainly intimateth ⟨p. 333⟩that this unrecoverableness is the fruit of their Apostacy; and that they were not unrecoverable before they were Apostates; and yet the reason of their uncureableness lies in this, that it is necessary to their pardon and cure that Christ should die again, which cannot be: Now it implieth that he died for them as they were in their state before Apostacy, or else on this reason it might be said as well that their recovery and pardon was as impossible then, and so their Apostacy should not be the reason, but Christs not dying for them at all should be it: Which is plainly contrary to the Text.
