Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

But if any will needs deny this most probable interpretation, and expound it efficienter, [that they do as much as they can to kill Christ again by their malice and contempt, and making him to be but as a malefactor, do approve of the Jews crucifying him] (as Grotius and many more expound it) still it intimates that their sin did put him to Death once before or else, what force is there in the Argument? For it seems to run thus, [they, that as much as in them lieth, put Christ to Death twice (or a second time) are remediless: But so do these Apostates, Ergo, &c.]

Now if their sin (as the pro-causa meritoria) had no hand in his Death at first, how can they be therefore remediless for endeavouring it a second time? For it was but once by them. And if the same sin was pardonable in those that not only in desire but in act, did put him to Death, viz. the Jews; then it appears that it was a pardonable sin: And that the same sin, ⟨p. 334⟩(nay the Conatus or mere desire of it) which was pardonable then, should become unpardonable since, as it is a fancy, and hath no Scripture proof; so it is apparently false, seeing it supposeth that the Law of Christ is not now the same as then, which is false.

Now if their sin (as the pro-causa meritoria) had no hand in his Death at first, how can they be therefore remediless for endeavouring it a second time? For it was but once by them. And if the same sin was pardonable in those that not only in desire but in act, did put him to Death, viz. the Jews; then it appears that it was a pardonable sin: And that the same sin, ⟨p. 334⟩(nay the Conatus or meer desire of it) which was pardonable then, should become unpardonable since, as it is a fancy, and hath no Scripture proof; so it is apparently false, seeing it supposeth that the Law of Christ is not now the same as then, which is false.