without which there was no sence Mr. Biddle therefore alleadged that in 2. Cor. 5 21. which hee boasted to clear but so they brangled rather then disputed out the time But presently after Mr. Jackson told us that to cleare that Text from all or any such sophisticall evasion it was needfull to consider the Idiom of the Hebrew expression and secondly to weigh those two words Levit. 7. Asham and Chattah which are in the Lexicons promiscuously used in the very same acceptions though there seemeth to be a difference in the degree of Guilt and in this difference the aggravation lieth upon Asham Levit. 7. Then to clear this by Apodeicticall Argument If these two words Asham and Chattah doe commonly according to the Idiotisme of the Hebrew signifie and designe some Calfe Bullock or such like creature as a sacrifice for sin and that Mr. Biddles evasive Allegation be sottishly wicked and against the expresse word then the Text in Isai 53.10 is full clear enough to prove the bloud of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin Assumpt But these two words c. doe commonly according to the Idiotisme of the Hebrew and the phrase of the Spirits expression signifie a sacrifice for sin and designe some Calfe or the like for the same purpose as may clearly appear by Levit. 7.1 This is the Law Haasham not of sin but of the sacrifice for sin or of the trespasse offering c. with Exod. 29.36 Thou shalt make the Calfe Chattah not sin which were absurd but an offering for sin c. with Levit. 16.6 and 11. verses And Aaron shall bring or make to bee brought not the Calfe sin but as the Septuagint renders it the Calfe the sacrifice for sin c. So also in verse 11. and severall other places but these may suffice to shew the vanity of Mr. Biddles evasion and withall that S. Pauls phrase 2. Cor. 5.21 which Mr. Biddle catched at to countenance his captious escape is a meer Idiotisme of the Hebrew tongue He hath made him sin that is to say a sacrifice for sin by laying all our iniquities upon him Isai 53 6. without the which he could never become a sacrifice for sin nor be made a curse as it is said Gal. 3.13 and was intimated by Mr. Jackson who to avoyd the prolixity of a criticall contention in this or any other of like nature will refer himselfe to any learned Theologue or because they cannot endure the name of Divines to any able man in these originall languages Secondly that Mr. Biddles evasive Allegation is sottishly wicked and against the word may appear 1. for then eyther the essence of the soul must be made sin quite contrary to all Philosophy or Divinity which alwayes asserteth sin to be an Ataxie or privation except we should revive the monstrous phantasie of the Manichees or the scandalous imagination of Mathias Illiricus so much scoft at by Cardinall Bellarmine Or secondly made the soule sin i. e. sinfull as one of Mr. Biddles Proselites with a Legall or Law driving Gravity hath averred viz. that Christ died for his owne sinnes which is against the expresse Text of Heb. 7.26 1. Pet. 2.22 And this very place in 2. Cor. 5.21 ton me gnonta amartian that hath not known sin that is to say hath not sinned or hath no experience of sin For so Christ is sayd to learn in matter of sufferings and we also to know when to try by experience what we had by speculation Ergo that text in Isaiah 53.10 is clear enough to prove the bloud of Christ a proper sacrifice from what hath been sayd in Levit. and Deuter. to evidence that the expression of the spirit in Isai 53.10 doeth intend the life and so the bloud by the terme of soule I will but only adde our Saviours own language in John 10.17.18 The Father loveth me because I lay down my life or my soule as it is in the Originall or my bloud according to the Mosaicall Idiotisme the law and rule of Propheticall speech Isai 8.20 which was the bloud of the new Testament powred out a proper sacrifice offered by the command of his father who made him an high Priest as shall bee proved abundantly Argument 2. From Heb. 9.23 IF the opening of the entrance into Heaven Heb. 9 11 12 the consecrating of the same Hebr 10 19 20 and the purging of those who enter Heb 9 14 bee by the blood of Christ or Christs owne bloud then the bloud of Christ or Christs owne blood must needes bee one of those better sacrifices Heb 9 23 or that better sacrifice answering and exceeding those of the Law whereby the blot of sin is purged and the wrath of God is pacified Assumpt But all these were by the blood of Christ or by Christs owne blood as appeareth plainly from the very letter Ergo the bloud of Christ must needs be one of those better sacrifices or that better sacrifice The connexion or consequence of the proposition is infallible by the whole coherence of the Apostles discourse in that Chapter So that no wrested interpretation can beare water against the cleare and unforced evidence of the word What Mr. Biddle hath said is very obscure and incertaine what hee can say to intangle the evidence of this argument let him briefly discover so as we may examine the truth of his conception and we shall either fairly accept or fully refell it But let every sound Christian diligently observe how the spirit of Christ in that part endeavoureth an exact parallell betweene the typicall of the Old and the true bloud of the New Testament even to the word of sprinkling Heb. 9 20 21 with cap. 10 22 and to that purpose speaketh of purging heavenly things â—o make the blood of Christ answerable to that of Bulls â—â—d Goats which purged also the holy of holies Into which though the people never entred yet thither it seemeth their uncleanesse extended Levit. 16 14 16 17. Even so as if the impurity of our nature and its operations had so penetrated the Heavens made them unclean as it is phrased Job 15 15 that they also may be purged together with the true antitype of the Ministeri all vessells But the Argument is cleare without examaning what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth intend which is not the question now except one would cavill And then hee may consider Ephes 2.6 with Coloss 1.20 And so conceive aright without a Corrector no more then what is meant by the eternall spirit cap 9 14 which in due place shall be declared to designe something Antecedent to the powring forth of that blood of the New Testament Mat 26 28 and to intend the very deity of Christ which is eternall and did so offer its owne blood Act. 20 28 But let him avoid such digressions deale only with the Argument as it standeth directed unto him Argument 3. Ex Hebr. 9 26 with Heb. 7 27 1 Cor. 5 7 Ephes 5. IF
A SUDDAIN ESSAY With a sincere desire to vindicate Christianity or the Common Faith From the superlative Heresies or phantasticall Novelties of all selfe-particular Sciolists endeavouring the subversion of the same by seven Arguments used in Opposition to Mr. John Biddle Febr. 18. and Febr. 25. 1654. at his School in Coleman-street By Richard Jackson Master of the Free Grammar School in Sedbergh and Preacher of the Gospel in Garsdale LONDON Printed by THO. HARPER 1655. To his Highnesse the Lord Protector of England Scotland and Ireland Sir THis bold addresse is made not to move for any secular aide or armed assistance either to maintaine the Arguments or mall the adversary The Catholick faith once delivered to the Saints is a truth which humane authority seldome understandeth nor ever ought to change or alter Magistrates in my conceit may doe well to countenance what they conceive to be right and Canonicall so they doe not for the interest of their own sense by secular compulsion suppresse all different Opinionists walking orderly in reference to the worlds polity When Kings or Parliaments act otherwise I am in great fear t is more for their own ends then advance of the faith which as all other Religions may bee retained as an instrument of tyranny so one of the Turks hath acknowledged not as a saving truth And therefore I could not think but that the late Parliament incurred some reproach in so casting this learned Opinionist into Prison contrary to the notorious example of some Calvinisticall Magistrates in Geneva medling with a more superlative Heretike Servitus the Spaniard and quite against the moderation of such able mn as was that pious Bishop of Marseilles Salvianus So giving scandalous advantage to our clamorous Adversaries who conclude an absolute necessity of secular compulsion subordinate to Ecclesiasticall power without the which sects will abound and baffle the ablest of Bishoply Doctors saying also it is irrationall to think that these Arrian questions can be definitively resolved by a criticall libration of dead and uncertaine words as if in these mysteries the spirit were not Gramatically plaine Therefore deeming this opinion better corresponding with the prophane and ignorant then with the pious and able in Scripture understanding in the first place I humbly Petition your Highnesse that mine Adversary may be free to write what he pleaseth in answer to the Arguments or for his own Assertion for upon pretended feares they have refused the proffered way of giving and receiving just satisfaction and in this faiâ—e way if I cannot wrap him up in such apparent obstinacy against thâ— evidence of the word as the indifferent must acknowledge I 〈◊〉 then openly confesse mine ignorance and presumption knowing full well that in my defaylance Christ hath many others with spirituall weapons sufficiently armed for the worke unto which they are called and excited by reason of the combate and opposition of the contrary minded which is an eminent effect of a fatherly providence so provoking truly pious soules to awake from that lethall security wherein long tranquillity had plunged them so that if wee counter poyse the good accruing by these mens rousing of their zeale and forces with the losse sustained by others stragling out of the way the profit will at length surmount the prejudice by plain and Apodeicticall Arguments against all hereticall novelists Phanaticke opinionists and Atheisticall Epochists abounding heerabouts who have Apostarized from the primest reputation of strictest profession into the horrible darkenesse of irreligion making that very thing an unanswerable argument for liberty from the which Papists and some of our Protestant Grandees with a selfe confounding sottishness do obstinately assert compulsive authority for this point throughly sifted will induce by degrees an orderly discussion of all these articles wherein he differeth from the unanimous consent of those who are called Orthodox and by a cleare reflexion serve to refell those hyperephanian fancies which obey pride as a father for hee is not to bee found I feare amongst the phanaticke or new fangled who had not rather bee leader of some stragling troupe though in the path of perdition then an humble Disciple in the schoole of truth evinced by Scripture evidence But this and the rest are humbly referred to your Highnes further examination in a reverend regard to your gratious aequanimity great ability to distinguish the chiefest Argument of a prime magistrate really apprehensive imperare liberis which very thing to the Princes of this world seemeth impossible Your Highnesses humble servant in the truth 〈◊〉 Jackson Argument 1. from Act. 20.26.27 and cap. 26.22 with Rom. 16.26 IF the Apostle Paul were obliged to declare the whole counsell of God from the Scriptures Propheticall and that hee did declare according to his obligation then the Apostle Paul did declare preach the bloud of Christ which is the bloud of the New Testament powred out to be a proper sacrifice for sin Assumpt But the Antecedent is evident from the places alleadged Ergo the Consequent is infallible viz that Paul the Doctor of the Gentiles did so declare and preach The Consequence of the Proposition which Mr. Biddle denied is proved thus If one of the Prophets have expresly asserted his soule a sacrifice for sin which is a terme in the Old Testament and in the Mosaicall Phrasiology unto which Isaiah referreth himselfe and all others chap. 8.20 aequipollent to that of bloud then the Consequence is undeniable Assumpt But one of the Prophets hath expresly so asserted Isa cap. 53.10 Ergo the Consequence is undeniable the Consequence is unquestioned c. The Assumption was proved thus Deut. 12.23 Take heed that thou eate not the bloud for the bloud is the soule as it was then evidenced by the expresse words both of the Hebrew Originall and the Greeke Septuagint or Translation Againe by Levit. 17 1â—.14 where the Greek and Hebrew Texts were both alleadged again as speaking expresly that the soule of all flesh is in the bloud c. And saith the Lord I have given you the bloud upon the Altar to make an expiation of your soules for the bloud is that which maketh an expiation for the soule which Mr. Jackson then compared with that in Heb. 2.14.17 observing unto us by the way that the son of God participated of our flesh and bloud that hee might bee a mercifull and faithfull High Priest to propitiate for the sinnes of the people and therefore that he was an high Priest before he came in heaven according to our nature assumed and his bloud so assumed which was his life as touching the flesh 1. Pet. 4.1 the most proper part by which he did sacrifice himselfe or suffer for us to purge our sins To this Mr. Biddle had nothing then to reply but captiously sought evasion from the double signification of the Hebrew word Asham asserting that it signified sin which Mr. Jackson acknowledged but averring withall that heere it must signifie a sacrifice for sin
Christ could not be a slain sacrifice as the word signifieth but by the wounding of his body and powring out of his bloud then the bloud of Christ so powred out is much more properly stiled a sacrifice The reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assumpt But Christ could not be as the word signifieth a slaine sacrifice but by the wounding of his body and powring out of his bloud Ergo the bloud of Christ so powred out is much more properly stiled a sacrifice I never had Socinus his writings nor any time to read Mr. Biddles Books having my spirit oppressed and memory burdened with importunate businesse of far baser nature and therefore according to Aristotle more Narcotical to all intellectuall abilities such pettifogging Mammonists as pride themselves and fatten their insulting envy if they can captive poore suiters and intangle Scholars in the wofull Labyrinth of Law practise are spitefull enemies of the publike good no lesse then of truth and piety Hence it is that I cannot certainly say how farre this Argument reacheth him for his Answer was neither directly nor distinctly returned but he seemed to me by shuffling so to overshadow the Text as if Christ were not a sacrifice in being wounded upon the Crosse and slain heer on earth but only by his personall appearance in heaven where he ever liveth to make c. Heb. 7 25. Therefore that this Argument may clearly reach him and conclude absolutely against him I shall frame another Syllogisme from Eph. 5 2 Heb. 9 26 cap. 7.27 with 1 Cor. 5 7. That which is expressed in the preterperfect tense as a thing done on earth in the sight and for the example and imitation of all true Christians in one kind of way and which could not be effected but by sufferance which was but once nor could nor needed to bee reiterated that can never be interpreted truly of his personall appearance in heaven to make intercession for us but must needs intend some proper sacrifice of himselfe heere upon the earth Assumpt But that Christ should be a slaine or bloudy sacrifice unto death as Divine Justice required for due satisfaction and the word signifieth 1 Cor. 5 7 is expressed in the preterperfect tense as a thing done in the sight of men and for their example and imitation in a kind Eph. 5.2 which could not be but by sufferance and was but once nor could or needed to be reiterated Heb. 9 25 26 Heb. 7 26 as the very letter of these Texts doth clearely intimate Ergo that Christ should be such a slaine Sacrifice or bloudy unto death c. can never be interpreted of his personall appearance in heaven by the act of intercession but must needs intend some sacrifice heere on earth which is that of the nature assumed both of body and bloud especially so often inculcated The Proposition is undeniable from the Law of Dissentanees or rather Disparataes for of Christs intercession in heaven how can it be sayd hee hath given himselfe for us as a slaine sacrifice which the word thusia there signifieth being derived of thuein to kill as in Hebrew Zebach a slain sacrifice of Zabach Mactare to kill which none will contradict not disposed to cavill Secondly how can that giving or presenting of himselfe be presented to us for example seeing in that action hee never fell under humane sight or observation Thirdly in that sense it may be said he will give himselfe for us again and againe so often as we stand in need of the spirit and of speciall application in times of perillous tentation but cannot as a slain sacrifice for that death can have no more dominion over him nor he any more to suffer in the flesh Rom. 6 9 with 1 Pet. 4 1. For the Assumption called the minor it is evident in every part of it from the expresse words of the Texts recalling but to mind the true signification of thusian a slain sacrifice which may bee cleared from Matthew 22 4. 1 Cor. 5 7. Mine oxen and my fatlings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slaughtered c What in Scripture were called Sacrifices espetially explatory were to be destroyed If living creatures by slaughter as other things by combustion and some by effusion and the bodies of those offered for sin to be burned without the Camp which is the reason why some one in Euseb called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fume or exhalation which ascendeth from the burning when God by inspiration did order Abel and others successively to officiate by expiatory sacrifice he intended but to shadow out the supream sacrifice of all to be expected Dan. And therfore not only the use of the thing was to be offered unto God but also the very life and substance of it which occasioneth this word and phrase Ephes 5.2 in correspondence to the types And because I would have Arguments to exceed in weight rather then number Mr. Biddle may for further illustration take notice that the Apostle in Heb. 8.3 plainly gathereth and concludeth that hee could not have been an high Priest except he had that sacrifice which he could offer viz our humane nature both of body and bloud Vid. Gen 22 7. That Divine Justice required such a sacrifice for due satisfaction may be easily made manifest afterwards and illustrated also from the eminent instance of Zaleucus This third Argument is coincident with that which I used upon our former day of Debate Febr. 18. 1654. viz. whatsoever agreeth to the whole principally in respect of any essentiall part is more properly praedicated of that essentiall part then it is of the whole Assumpt But to be a proper sacrifice expiatory agreeeth to the person of Christ 2. Cor. 2.10 by reason of the humane nature assumed viz. the body Heb. 10.10 and the bloud especially Heb. 9 22 with Math. 26 27 28. Ergo the bloud or the body is more properly stiled a sacrifice This Argument thus urged intangled us in a tedious and disorderly contest before the non-intelligent Mr. Biddle denying the Proposition and giving an instance against it which seemed too grosse and insufficient so that at length by a comparison I brought him off it to the acknowledgement of Theologicall axiome viz. that if any one should call him or me Gowry fellow in reference to a Gowty legge then Gowtinesse were more properly praedicated of that integrall part then of the whole c. So likewise for the other alleadged viz that whosoever denominateth any thing so or so is much more properly such then that which it so denominates If Apollos for his tongue be entituled an eloquent man then his tongue is much more properly so intituled I hope Mr. Biddle will not balk the best sence of what is alleadged Argument 4. SEeing the slight esteem Mr. Biddle had of Divines I durst not alleadge that axiomaticall Assertion of the most Dianoeticall Doctor amongst all those Latine lights who from the Church have shined unto the world in life and Doctrine
however casually by increasing snuffes obscured viz. that the passion and death of Christ is a most true and perfect sacrifice Which Mr. Biddle seemeth for as yet I have found no clearnesse or constancy in his assertions to make together with the blood powred out but onely as certaine previous actions to that sacrifice or oblation without any distinction of these words used by him in my hearing which was not made upon the Crosse when hee lost his owne life But onely by his presentation in Heaven where hee liveth for ever To which purpose as I remember he used an illustrating assertion viz. that the bringing and killing of the beast the powring out of the bloud and the burning of the body were not the sacrifice but the taking of the bloud of the Goat or Bullock so making an atonement by carrying it into the Holiest of all c. Therfore some things heere had need be interposed not to increase the number or trouble the tenour of our Discourse used in our Diatribe but onely to clear the candle of whatsoever obscureth or may entangle the inexpert in the word of righteousnes Heb. 5.13 Wee must proceed to a fourth Argument against that pretence of some previous actions as distinct from and therefore not formally proper to the sacrificing If the presenting of the Beast before the Tabernacle made it a sacrifice the killing and powring out of the bloud were the proper sacrificing of that beast and then that the taking of the bloud and the sprinkling of it about the Altar of Incense in the holy place were only a typicall circumstance to shew the efficacy of that bloud formerly sacrificed c. and so to shadow out Heb. 10 1. the vertue and efficacy of Christs bloud once offered by which he entred as it is assorted already and now ever liveth to intercede for us so to obtaine for our consolation the Holy Ghost in our greatest calamities of conscience Then the denying of Christ to bee a proper sacrifice by assuming our nature and presenting himselfe in the same heer upon the earth Heb. 10 6 7 8 9 and especially by powring out his bloud upon the Crosse Heb. 10 10 as if yet hee were no sacrifice for all that nor any purgative efficacy in his bloud so offered but only by the offering and presentation of his person in heaven is a most abominable slighting of the bloud of God Act 20 28 and brainsick errour as shall be evidenced Assumpt But the former part of the Antecedent is most evident from those Books of the Law Exod. Levit. Numbers And the other clause or part of it is apparently proved by what is already alleadged from Heb. 9. Ergo the Consequent is conclusive and infallible Truth like vertue cleareth its way as it goeth so heere I hope And to this purpose on Febr. 18. I insinuated against his mysticall asseverations from Heb. 9 27 that there was a vast disparity between these two terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer and to appeare but it was not resented or observed except by himselfe though the Apostle in that Chapter separateth the apparition from the oblation far enough bringing in and establishing the one upon the by passed efficacy of the other which is already evidenced and upon his appearing utterly denying all further oblation Observe but the Text and you must needs see it Heb. 9 24 25 not that hee should offer himselfe c. though some may easily see a difference between sacrifice and oblation for that some things may be offered which are not sacrificed yet are they promiscuously used in reference to the person of Christ Eph. 5 2 Heb. 10 10 with cap 9 â—6 But neither the Holy Ghost nor the Greeks I trow did ever use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an oblation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. an apparition If they did then produce an instance from some Classick Author for I suppose you able for such a purpose if it be possible for any to find such a place Lastly to clear all this upon which I have interposed between the Arguments briefly If Christs entring once by the sacrifice of himself that is to say of his own bloud Heb. 9 11 12 be holden forth by the spirit as in a certain Antitypicall opposition onely proper in being opposed to the entrance of the High Priest each yeere with others bloud Heb. 9 25.26 with v. 11 12 then the spirit never intended to teach us any comparative opposition between Christs oblation and the high Priests entrance into the holiest of all as if Christ could not offer or sacrifice himselfe till hee came in Heaven the oblation consisting in Christs entrance by which he became to be the high Priest of our profession as Mr. Biddle seemeth of opinion though that overthroweth the proportion and long coherence of the parallell so apt and Grammatically plain Argument 5. From Rev. 3 6 9 with John 1 29 1 Joh. 1 7 and 1 Pet. 1 18 19 with Rom. 3 25. THat which purgeth and redeemeth from sin both Positively and Negatively and effectually reconcileth us unto God upon our faith or application that must needs be offered as a true and proper sacrifice to the same end and purpose Assumpt But the bloud of the Lambe the Lord Jesus purgeth and redeemeth from sin both Positively and Negatively and effectually reconcileth us to God upon our saith or application Ergo The bloud of the Lamb the Lord Jesus was offered as a proper sacrifice to the same end and purpose The Proposition or major as they call it is manifest from the third Book of Moses declaring the end and institution of the sin or trespasse offerings Levit. 5 5 6 7 8 9. with verses 15 and 16. So also cap. 6 6 7. with cap. 9.7 8 9 10 11 15. and cap. 16.16 7 8 9. and verses 11 12 13 14. so he shall not die So in verse 16 17 18 19. All which and divers other places make it evident that these were sacrifices instituted for such ends and purposes because they did so purge and make atonement that is to say reconcile and redeem from death temporall according to the tenour of that Covenant under which the people then stood though in comparison they were but carnall ordinances extending only to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9 1 13. The Assumpt or minor as he calls it is clear from those places alleadged Revol 5 6 9. Joh. 1 29. 1 Joh. 1 7. Heb. 9 15. 1. Pet. 1 18 19. Rom. 3.25 with Eph. 1 7. Ergo The Conclusion is infallible and undeniable To the Assumption Mr. Biddle sayd that the bloud of Christ had an influence upon the remission of sins and towards reconciliation But what is this influence think we For wheras he would and did tie me to the expresse words of the text this word is strange to the text and serving only for some untouth interpretation Doth it imply any
such formall object of faith as is the bloud of Christ Ro. 3 25. unto which as it is the bloud of God Act. 20 28. faith relateth with an infallible adherence as the onely prime foundation in effect of all our consolation heer and of all our future hopes heerafter else it is but a vain term to avoid the evidence of the text An influence and is that all for ought I yet understand by that term he might say that Christs riding upon an Asse hath or had an influence upon the Jewes and our reconciliation therefore let him explain if he be not to seek what we should conceive by it for upon his clear explication I shall willingly confesse mine own weakness if I doe not make his conceit in this very thing appear so absurd and nonsensicall to any impartiall man that may bee found that it subverteth the great mystery of our most holy faith upon which as I told them dependeth all our consolation heer and all hopes of salvation hereafter Of the which mystery of Godlinesse truly so stiled Mr. Biddle seemeth in this novell imagination either grosly ignorant or prophanely contemptuous Secondly afterwards and obiter as wee use to say Mr. Biddle alleadged that of Numb 19. concerning the red Cow c. concluding from thence as I thought that a thing may be purgative of sin and yet no sacrifice I did not then cause the place to be read or examined for I did not remember the originall word what it would bear nor did I deem it pertinently urged at that instant But so soon as ever it came in my mind the same night when I came at my lodging I looked for it and the first Bible I opened rendred it expresly a sin offering and so it is by the two last words of the Hebrew text Num. 19 9. yea all the circumstances doe there ver 2 3 4 5. so concur to constitute a formall sacrifice that I hope Master Biddle in his serious thoughts will acknowledge it And that therefore mine Argument is in that part of this Assertion irrefragable viz. the bloud of Christ therefore a proper sacrifice because purgative c. Now lest he should avoid these two Arguments as he seemed to indevour by making them only previous actions to the offering and presenting of his person in heaven this may be fairly firmely and briefly opposed from the words of the texts alleadged viz. If the Scripture do imply the person of the Mediatour as praevious to those actions of sacrificing his own body and bloud according to the clearest conceptions of the most Catholike Doctors in the Church of Christ then these actions can never in common apprehension be conceived and taken as praevious onely to the persons oblation or presentation of himselfe in heaven which Mr. Biddle taketh as equipollent terms from Math. 2.11 nor by the curious neyther without some palpable affectation of novelty and singularity But the Antecedent is very true ergo the Consequent The Assumption is clear from Heb. 1.3 where the Greek Idiom is very observable when he had purged our sins by himselfe Heb. 9.26 Col. 1 20. 1. Cor. 5.7 Ephes 5 2. or the offering himselfe hee did or hath sate down at the right hand c. And how can hee offer himselfe so but by the yeelding of his body and the powring out of his bloud Tit. 2 14. Heb. 10. 10. Matth. 26.28 Heb. 9.14 And therefore is the spirit so exact in expression to wit that he might reconcile unto himselfe having made peace through the bloud of his Crosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through him referring all unto his person as also Ephes 2.13.14.15.16 To say nothing of the most punctuall correspondency between the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so emphatically used Heb. 2.17 to answer the Hebrew Caphar so often used in the old Testament for purging or expiating to shew the perfect accomplishment of typicall sacrifices in that true bloud of the Covenant so sprinkled or powred out from such a person as is called our Passeover 1. Cor. 5.7 Nor should Mr. Biddle slight but reverently examine whatsoever such have well sayd according to the word as we have reason to stile able Doctors of Divine mysteries and graciously instructed in the main for notwithstaÌ„ding any accidental errour yet none of us can without highest impudence thinke our selves comparable to them in vertue or piety knowledge or judgement wisdome or sufficiency I wish therefore he would peruse and seriously ponder how Austen expresseth himselfe upon those foure things considerable in every sacrifice 1. To whom 2. For whom 3. By whom 4. What. Lib. de Trinit 4. cap. 14. So I think hee might see enough for his satisfaction and without any shame receive it from such an Authour Argument 6. From Heb. 13.20 VVHatsoever is bloud of the Covenant powred out and sprinkled the same is sacrificed bloud or bloud of the sacrifice shed for obtayning the end of the Covenant that is to say remission offins as appeareth by Levit. 7 2. cap. 5 9. cap. 9 9 cap. 8 15. compared with Hebr. 9 19.20 22. Assumpt But the bloud of Jesus Christ sprinkled or powred out upon the Crosse is the bloud of the everlasting Covenant shed for the remission of sins and iniquities never to be remembred any more as appeareth plainly from these texts Heb. 1â— 20 Matth. â—6 28. Heb. 8 6 12. Ergo the bloud of Christ so sprinkled and powred out was sacificed bloud or bloud of the sacrifice This Argument was slightly offered Feb. 25. 1654. in way of refelling Mr. Biddles fancied evasion from Argument 2. and especially that which is Argument 5. by saying that it cleansed and reconciled not as a sacrifice but as the bloud of the Covenant c. which seemeth a cold distinction without a difference But let him answer distinctly upon deliberation and if hee doe not acknowledge this Argument as Apodeicticall I doubt not but to make it evident that he is grosly ignorant of the New Testament according to the true nature and tenour of it which rightly understood must needs destroy or subdue those hereticall novelties which exalt themselves against the truths of Jesus Argument 7. Gal. 2. ult EIther the bloud of Christ so sprinkled and powred out was a proper sacrifice necessarily required for due satisfaction to divine Justice or God the Father is to be accused of monstrous cruelty in so giving up his son Ioh. 3 15. and the son himselfe of temerity in that he would bee made a curse Gal. 3 13. and exposed to reproach and punishment without a cause Gal. 2.21 by that shamefull death of the Crosse Philip. 2 6 7 8. Assumption But God the Father is not to be so accused c. nor the son neither nor can bee without highest Blasphemy Ergo the blood of Christ so sprinkled and powred was a proper sacrifice necessarily required for due satisfaction to divine justice and to make good his truth which is the reason why he