A SUDDEN ESSAY, With a sincere desire to vindicate Christianity, or the Common Faith: From the superlative Heresies, or fantastical 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 Highness the Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland.  
Sir,  
THis bold address is made, not to move for any secular aid or armed assistance, either to maintain the Arguments, or maul the adversary. The Catholic faith, (once delivered to the Saints) is a truth which humane authority seldom understandeth, nor ever ought to change or alter. Magistrates, in my conceit, may do well to countenance what they conceive to be right and Canonical, so they do not for the interest of their own sense, by secular compulsion, suppress all different Opinionists, walking orderly in reference to the world's polity. When Kings or Parliaments act otherwise, I am in great fear 'tis more for their own ends, then advance of the faith, which as all other Religions may be 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 calvinistical Magistrates in Geneva, meddling with a more superlative Heretic, 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 Ecclesiastical power, without the which, sects will abound, and baffle the ablest of Bishoply Doctors; saying also, it is irrational to think, that these Arrian questions, can be definitively resolved, by a critical libration of dead and uncertain words, as if in these mysteries, the spirit were not Gramatically plain. Therefore deeming this opinion better corresponding with the profane and ignorant, then with the pious and able in Scripture understanding; in the first place I humbly Petition your Highness that mine Adversary may be free to write what he pleaseth, in answer to the Arguments, or for his own Assertion; for upon pretended fears they have refused the proffered way of giving and receiving just satisfaction, and in this fai●e way if I cannot wrap him up in such apparent obstinacy against th● evidence of the word, as the indifferent must acknowledge, I 〈◊〉 then openly confess mine ignorance and presumption, knowing full well that in my defaylance, Christ hath many others, with spiritual weapons sufficiently armed for the work, unto which they are called and excited by reason of the combat and opposition of the contrary minded, which is an eminent effect of a fatherly providence so provoking truly pious souls to awake from that lethal security wherein long tranquillity had plunged them: so that if we counter poise the good accrueing by these men's rousing of their zeal and forces, with the loss sustained by others straggling out of the way, the profit will at length surmount the prejudice by plain and Apodeicticall Arguments against all heretical novelists, Phanaticke opinionists, and Atheistical Epochists, abounding heerabouts, who have Apostarized from the primest reputation of strictest profession into the horrible darkness of irreligion, making that very thing an unanswerable argument for liberty; from the which, Papists, and some of our Protestant Grandees with a self 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 clear reflection serve to refel those hyperephanian fancies which obey pride as a father; for he is not to be found, I fear, amongst the phanaticke or new fangled, who had not rather be leader of some straggling troop though in the path of perdition, than an humble Disciple in the school of truth, evinced by Scripture evidence. But this and the rest are humbly referred to your Highness further examination, in a reverend regard to your gracious 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 Highness' 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 counsel of God from the Scriptures Prophetical, and that he did declare according to his obligation, than the Apostle Paul did declare & preach the blood of Christ (which is the blood of the New Testament poured out) to be a proper sacrifice for sin.  
Assumpt. But the Antecedent is evident from the places alleged, 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 expressly asserted his soul a sacrifice for sin (which is a term in the Old Testament, and in the Mosaical Phrasiology, unto which Isaiah referreth himself and all others, chap. 8.20.) aequipollent to that of blood, than the Consequence is undeniable.  
Assumpt. But one of the Prophets hath expressly so asserted, Isa. cap. 53.10. Ergo, the Consequence is undeniable, the Consequence is unquestioned, etc. The Assumption was proved thus, Deut. 12.23. Take heed that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is the soul, as it was then evidenced by the express words both of the Hebrew Original, and the Greek Septuagint or Translation. Again, by Levit. 17. 1●.14. where the Greek and Hebrew Texts were both alleged again as speaking expressly, that the soul of all flesh is in the blood etc. And (saith the Lord) I have given you the blood upon the Altar to make an expiation of your souls, for the blood is that which maketh an expiation for the soul, 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 blood, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest to propitiate for the sins of the people, and therefore that he was an high Priest, before he came in heaven, according to our nature assumed, and his blood so assumed which was his life, (as touching the flesh 1. Pet. 4.1.) the most proper part by which he did sacrifice himself, 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 withal, that here it must signify a sacrifice for sin, without which there was no sense. Mr. Biddle therefore alleged that in 2. Cor. 5 21. which he boasted to clear: but so they brangled rather then disputed out the time. But presently after Mr. Jackson told us, that to clear that Text from all or any such sophistical evasion, it was needful 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 Gild, 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 do commonly according to the Idiotism of the Hebrew, signify and design, some Calf, Bullock, or such like creature, as a sacrifice for sin, and that Mr. Biddles evasive Allegation, be sottishly wicked, and against the express word; then the Text in Isai. 53.10. is full & clear enough to prove the blood of Christ a proper sacrifice for sin.  
Assumpt. But these two words etc. do commonly according to the Idiotism of the Hebrew (and the phrase of the Spirits expression) signify a sacrifice for sin, and design some Calf, 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 trespass offering etc. with Exod. 29.36. Thou shalt make the Calf (Chattah) not sin, which were absurd, but an offering for sin, etc. with Levit. 16.6. and 11. verses. And Aaron shall bring, or make to be brought, (not the Calf sin) but as the Septuagint renders it, the Calf the sacrifice for sin, etc. So also in verse 11. and several other places, but these may suffice, to show the vanity of Mr. Biddles evasion: and withal that S. Paul's phrase 2. Cor. 5.21. (which Mr. Biddle catched at to countenance his captious escape) is a mere Idiotism 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 avoid the prolixity of a critical contention, in this or any other of like nature, will refer himself to any learned Theologue, (or because they cannot endure the name of Divines) to any able man in these original languages.  
Secondly, that Mr. Biddles evasive Allegation, is sottishly wicked, and against the word, may appear: 1. for then either the essence of the soul must be made sin, quite contrary to all Philosophy or Divinity, (which always asserteth sin to be an Ataxy or privation) except we should revive the monstrous fantasy of the Manichees, or the scandalous imagination of Mathias Illiricus, so much scoffed at by Cardinal Bellarmine.  
Or secondly made the soul sin, i. e. sinful, as one of Mr. Biddles Proselytes, with a Legal or Law driving Gravity, hath averred, viz. that Christ died for his own sins, which is against the express 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 said 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 blood of Christ a proper sacrifice, from what hath been said in Levit. and Deuter. to evidence that the expression of the spirit in Isai 53.10. doth intent the life and so the blood, by the term of soul. I will but only add our Saviour's own language in John 10.17.18. The Father loveth me because I lay down my life, or my soul, (as it is in the Original) or my blood, according to the Mosaical Idiotism, the law and rule of Prophetical speech, Isai 8.20. which was the blood of the new Testament poured out, a proper sacrifice, offered by the command of his father, who made him an high Priest, as shall be 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, be by the blood of Christ, or Christ's own blood, than the blood of Christ, or Christ's own blood, must needs be 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 Christ's own blood; as appeareth plainly from the very letter, Ergo, the blood 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 bear water against the clear and unforced evidence of the word. What Mr. Biddle hath said, is very obscure and incertain, what he can say to entangle 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 refel it. But let every sound Christian diligently observe, how the spirit of Christ in that part endeavoureth an exact parallel between the typical of the Old, and the true blood 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 which though the people never entered, yet thither (it seemeth) their uncleanness 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 vessels. But the Argument is clear without examaning what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth intent: which is not the question now, (except one would cavil. And then he may consider Ephes, 2.6. with Coloss. 1.20. And so conceive aright without a Corrector) no more than what is meant by the eternal spirit, cap, 9, 14, which in due place, shall be declared, to design something Antecedent to the pouring forth of that blood of the New Testament, Mat, 26, 28, and to intent the very deity of Christ which is eternal, and did so offer its own blood Act. 20, 28, But let him avoid such digressions & deal 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 Christ could not be a slain sacrifice, as the word signifieth, but by the wounding of his body, and pouring out of his blood, than the blood of Christ so poured out is much more properly styled a sacrifice.  
The reason is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Assumpt. But Christ could not be (as the word signifieth) a slain sacrifice, but by the wounding of his body, and pouring out of his blood.  
Ergo, the blood of Christ so poured out is much more properly styled 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 business of far base nature, and therefore according to Aristotle, more Narcotical to all intellectual abilities; such perifogging Mammonists, as pride themselves and fatten their insulting envy if they can captive poor suitors and entangle Scholars in the woeful Labyrinth of Law practice, are spiteful enemies of the public good, no less then of truth and piety. Hence it is, that I cannot certainly say, how fare 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 Cross, and slain here on earth, but only by his personal appearance in heaven, where he ever liveth to make etc. Heb. 7, 25. Therefore that this Argument may clearly reach him, and conclude absolutely against him, I shall frame another Syllogism 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 be reiterated, that can never be interpreted truly, of his personal appearance in heaven, to make intercession for us, but must needs intent some proper sacrifice of himself here upon the earth.  
Assumpt. But that Christ should be a slain or bloody 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 clearly intimate. Ergo, that Christ should be such a slain Sacrifice, or bloody unto death etc. can never be interpreted of his personal appearance in heaven, by the act of intercession, but must needs intent some sacrifice here on earth, which is that of the nature assumed, both of body and blood especially, so often inculcated.  
The Proposition is undeniable from the Law of Dissentanee, or rather Disparataes; for of Christ's intercession in heaven, how can it be said, (he hath given himself for us, as a slain 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 cavil. Secondly, how can that giving or presenting of himself, be presented to us for example, seeing in that action he never fell under humane sight or observation? Thirdly, in that sense it may be said, he will give himself for us, again and again, so often as we stand in need of the spirit, and of special application in times of perilous 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 express words of the Texts, recalling but to mind the true signification of thusian, a slain sacrifice, which may be cleared from Matthew 22, 4. 1 Cor. 5, 7. Mine oxen and my fatlings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, slaughtered &c, What in Scripture were called Sacrifices, especially 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 supreme sacrifice of all to be expected. Dan. And therefore 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 than number, Mr. Biddle may for further illustration take notice, that the Apostle in Heb. 8.3. plainly gathereth and concludeth, that he could not have been an high Priest, except he had that sacrifice which he could offer, viz our humane nature both of body and blood 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 essential part, is more properly praedicate of that essential part, than it is of the whole.  
Assumpt. But to be a proper sacrifice expiatory, agreeth to the person of Christ, 2. Cor. 2.10. by reason of the humane nature assumed, viz. the body Heb. 10.10 and the blood especially, Heb. 9, 22, with Math. 26, 27, 28.  
Ergo, the blood or the body is more properly styled a sacrifice.  
This Argument thus urged, entangled 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 gross and insufficient, so that at length by a comparison I brought him off it, to the acknowledgement of Theological axiom, viz. that if any one should call him or me Gowry fellow, in reference to a Gouty leg, than Gowtinesse were more properly praedicate of that integral part, then of the whole, etc. So likewise for the other alleged, viz that whosoever denominateth any thing so, or so, is much more properly such than that which it so denominates. If Apollo's for his tongue be entitled an eloquent man, than his tongue is much more properly so entitled. I hope Mr. Biddle will not balk the best sense of what is alleged.   

Argument 4.  
SEeing the slight esteem Mr. Biddle had of Divines, I durst not allege that axiomatical Assertion, of the most dianoetical Doctor, amongst all those Latin lights, who from the Church have shined unto the world in life and Doctrine, however casually by increasing snuffs 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 clearness, or constancy in his assertions) to make (together with the blood poured out) but only as certain 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 Cross when he lost his own life; But only by his presentation in Heaven where he liveth for ever. To which purpose (as I remember) he used an illustrating assertion, viz. that the bringing and killing of the beast, the pouring out of the blood, and the burning of the body, were not the sacrifice, but the taking of the blood of the Goat, or Bullock, & so making an atonement by carrying it into the Holiest of all etc. Therefore some things here, had need be interposed, not to increase the number, or trouble the tenor of our Discourse used in our Diatribe, but only to clear the candle of whatsoever obscureth, or may entangle the inexpert in the word of righteousness, Heb. 5.13.  
We 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 kill and pouring out of the blood were the proper sacrificing of that beast; and than that the taking of the blood, and the sprinkling of it about the Altar of Incense in the holy place, were only a typical circumstance, to show the efficacy of that blood formerly sacrificed etc. and so to shadow out, Heb. 10, 1. the virtue and efficacy of Christ's blood once offered, by which he entered, (as it is assorted already) and now ever liveth to intercede for us, so to obtain, for our consolation, the Holy Ghost, in our greatest calamities of conscience. Then the denying of Christ to be a proper sacrifice by assuming our nature, and presenting himself in the same here upon the earth, Heb. 10, 6, 7, 8, 9 and especially by pouring out his blood upon the Cross, Heb. 10, 10, as if yet he were no sacrifice for all that (nor any purgative efficacy in his blood so offered) but only by the offering and presentation of his person in heaven, is a most abominable slighting of the blood of God, Act 20, 28, and brainsick error, 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 alleged from Heb. 9  
Ergo, the Consequent is conclusive and infallible.  
Truth like virtue cleareth its way as it goeth; so here I hope. And to this purpose on Febr. 18. I insinuated (against his mystical asseverations) from Heb. 9, 27, that there was a vast disparity between these two terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to offer, and to appear, but it was not resented or observed, except by himself, 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 he should offer himself, etc. 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 instance from some Classic 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 Christ's entering once by the sacrifice of himself, that is to say, of his own blood, Heb. 9, 11, 12, be holden forth by the spirit, as in a certain antitypical opposition, only proper in being opposed to the entrance of the High Priest, each year with others blood, Heb. 9, 25.26. with v. 11, 12, than the spirit never intended to teach us any comparative opposition between Christ's oblation, and the high Priests entrance into the holiest of all; as if Christ could not offer or sacrifice himself till he came in Heaven, the oblation consisting in Christ's 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 parallel 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 blood of the Lamb, 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 blood 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 trespass 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 temporal, according to the tenor of that Covenant, under which the people than stood, though in comparison they were but carnal 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 alleged, 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 said, that the blood of Christ had an influence upon the remission of sins, and towards reconciliation. But what is this influence think we? For whereas he would and did tie me to the express words of the text, this word is strange to the text, and serving only for some untouth interpretation. Doth it imply any such formal object of faith, as is the blood of Christ, Ro. 3, 25. unto which, (as it is the blood of God, Act. 20, 28. faith relateth with an infallible adherence, as the only prime foundation, in effect, of all our consolation here, and of all our future hopes hereafter; else it is but a vain term to avoid the evidence of the text. An influence, and is that all? for aught I yet understand by that term, he might say, that Christ's riding upon an Ass, hath or had an influence upon the Jews, 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 confess mine own weakness, if I do not make his conceit in this very thing, appear so absurd and nonsensical, to any impartial man, that may be found, that it subverteth the great mystery of our most holy faith; upon which as I told them, dependeth all our consolation here, and all hopes of salvation hereafter. Of the which mystery of Godliness, truly so styled, Mr. Biddle seemeth in this novel imagination, either grossly ignorant, or profanely contemptuous.  
Secondly, afterwards and obiter, as we use to say, Mr. Biddle alleged that of Numb. 19 concerning the red Cow, etc. 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 original 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 rendered it expressly, a sin offering: and so it is by the two last words of the Hebrew text, Num. 19, 9 yea all the circumstances do there ver. 2, 3, 4, 5. so concur to constitute a formal 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 blood of Christ therefore a proper sacrifice, because purgative, etc.  
Now lest he should avoid these two Arguments (as he seemed to endeavour) by making them only previous actions, to the offering and presenting of his person in heaven, this may be fairly, firmly, and briefly opposed from the words of the texts alleged, viz. If the Scripture do imply the person of the Mediator, as praevious to those actions of sacrificing his own body and blood according to the clearest conceptions of the most Catholic Doctors in the Church of Christ, than these actions can never in common apprehension be conceived and taken as praevious only to the persons oblation or presentation of himself in heaven, (which Mr. Biddle taketh as equipollent terms from Math. 2.11.) nor by the curious neither, 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 himself, Heb. 9.26. Col. 1, 20. 1. Cor. 5.7. Ephes. 5, 2. or the offering himself, he did or hath sat down at the right hand etc. And how can he offer himself so, but by the yielding of his body, and the pouring out of his blood, 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 himself, having made peace, through the blood of his Cross, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through him, referring all unto his person, as also Ephes. 2.13.14.15.16. To say nothing of the most punctual 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 show the perfect accomplishment of typical sacrifices in that true blood of the Covenant, so sprinkled or poured 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 said according to the word, as we have reason to style able Doctors of Divine mysteries, and graciously instructed in the main; for notwithstanding any accidental error, yet none of us can without highest impudence, think ourselves comparable to them in virtue or piety, knowledge or judgement, wisdom or sufficiency. I wish therefore he would peruse and seriously ponder, how Austen expresseth himself upon those four 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, he might see enough for his satisfaction, and without any shame receive it from such an Author.   

Argument 6. From Heb. 13.20.  
Whatsoever is blood of the Covenant poured out and sprinkled, the same is sacrificed blood, or blood of the sacrifice, shed for obtaining 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 blood of Jesus Christ sprinkled or poured out upon the Cross, is the blood of the everlasting Covenant, shed for the remission of sins and iniquities, never to be remembered any more, as appeareth plainly from these texts, Heb. 1●, 20 Matth. ●6, 28. Heb. 8, 6, 12. Ergo, the blood of Christ (so sprinkled and poured out) was sacificed blood or blood 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 blood of the Covenant, etc. which seemeth a cold distinction without a difference. But let him answer distinctly upon deliberation, and if he do not acknowledge this Argument as Apodeicticall, I doubt not but to make it evident, that he is grossly ignorant of the New Testament, according to the true nature and tenor of it, which rightly understood, must needs destroy or subdue those heretical novelties, which exalt themselves against the truths of Jesus.   

Argument 7. Gal. 2. ult.  
EIther the blood of Christ (so sprinkled and poured 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, joh. 3, 15. and the son himself of temerity, in that he would be made a curse, Gal. 3, 13. and exposed to reproach and punishment, without a cause, Gal. 2.21, by that shameful death of the Cross, Philip. 2, 6, 7, 8.  
Assumption. But God the Father is not to be so accused &c. nor the son neither, nor can be without highest Blasphemy.  
Ergo, the blood of Christ, so sprinkled and poured 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. Rom. 15.8, submitting himself 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 appears 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 loss 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 particular, yet as a just Prince, or as such as he desired to be reputed, he could neither pardon nor dispense.  
So though I repute it full of irreverence and profane presumption, to dispute what is within God's absolute power, what not, or any way to limit that by the Law or rule of our speech or reason. Yet, Salva dei Justitia & verytate, saving his justice and truth, he could not pardon our sins without punishing them, nor abolish the curse, without undergoing it, nor destroy 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, than we confess him, nay now and believe 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 apprehend, viz. that if the truth and justice of God had not required such a sacrifice as necessary, it had been both cruelty and more than Stoical temerity, or rashness, to make a person of that dignity, innocency, and meritorious eminency, so to suffer the extremest of all reproaih and punishment. Mr. Biddle seemed rather to slight or decline rather than answer any thing to this Argument, so opposed, saying no more than what I have heard some modern Jews assert upon such like occasion; But if upon second thoughts he can aver any thing, to avoid 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.   

Mr. Biddle:  
THough I have reason to understand you better than some of your Advers●r●●s, having so lately been an ear witness of your Assertions, yet by a more naked Discovery, I can better evince the enormity of your new conceits: If you therefore abound it that candour and ingenuity which you accused me to want, then let your deliberate Answer be distinct and punctually directed to what pincheth; never stand upon strictest terms us at the contest, when you and your Auditors would tie me to prove by express text, viz. the blood of Christ to be, not only a proper, (or the chief) but the only sacrifice, for so we may lose the principal, and stray it in the throng of Incidents, which I earnestly desire to avoid. Whatsoever I have said for your better satisfaction, according to the sense of that sacred Doctor (August contra advers. Leg. & Prophet.) viz. quoniam singulari, & solo vero sacrificio Christi sanguis pro nobis effusus est: which I durst not there allege, lest there both he and I should be disdained, but did rather assert the error of your assumed Principle from our Saviour's answer to the Sadduces, and that testamentary instance of Matth. 26.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the ponderation of words used by the Apost Gal. 3. arguing a main principle not evidently appearing in the text: to say nothing how they were written for our search, and that Aristotle saith enough to make that absurdity evident: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FINIS.