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. 17.1 [...].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 [Page 2] 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, 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, [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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.

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, [...]o make the blood; of Christ answerable to that of Bulls [...]d Goats, which purged (also) the holy of holies. Into [Page 6] 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.

IF 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.

[Page 7]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 [Page 8] 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 [Page] [Page] [Page 9] &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 [Page 10] 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.

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 [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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, [...]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 [Page 13] 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.

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.

[Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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.

[Page 16]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 [Page 7] 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 notwithstāding 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.

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. 1 [...], 20 Matth. [...]6, 28. Heb. 8, 6, 12. Ergo, the bloud of Christ (so sprinkled and powred out) was sa­cificed bloud or bloud of the sacrifice.

[Page 18]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.

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 hath been made the servant of circumcision. [Page 19] Rom. 15.8, submitting himselfe by our nature, assumed unto circumcision, that so under the Law he might answer the Law for us, and by death destroy him who had the power of death: all which evidently appeares from these texts, Gen. 2, 17, Rom, 6, 23. with Rom, 8, 32, 33, 34, and Gen. 3, 15, with Heb. 2, 14.15, for as Zalucus lawgiver to the Locrians, after that he had made adultery punishable by losse of both the eyes, although as an absolute Prince he might have pardoned his son, though convict of the sin, & so have dispensed with the Law in his perticular, yet as a just Prince, or as such as hee desired to be reputed, hee could nether pardon nor dispence.

So though I repute it full of irreverence and prophane presumtion, to dispute what is within Gods absolute power, what not, or any way to limit that by the Law or rule of our speech or reson. Yet, Salva dei Justitia & very­tate, saving his justice and truth, hee could not pardone our sins without punishing them, nor abollish the curse, with­out undergoing it, nor distroy the death without enduring it, neither could he so have conquered sin, curse, and death, as to swallow them up to absolute victory, if he were any other kind of person, then wee confesse him, nay now and belleve him to be.

Now to prove the disjunction necessary, take but notice of the opposition of those two parts in the Proposition, and then you will aprehend, viz. that if the truth and justice of God had not required such a sacrifice as necessary, it had been both cruelty and more then Stoicall temerity, or rashnesse, to make a person of that dignity, innocency, and meritoriouse eminency, so to suffer the extreamest of all reproaih and punnishment. Mr. Biddle seemed rather to [Page 20] slight or decline rather then answer any thing to this Argu­ment, so opposed, saying no more then what I have heard some moderne Jewes assert upon such like occasion; But if upon second thoughts he can aver any thing, to avoide the force of it, and not in so doing, abandon the very basis of the common faith and christianity, it shall be presently examined and acknowledged.