BUt againſt this Doctrine, That the Death of Chriſt did as truly relate to his divine as Humane Nature, there are divers Objections brought.

Object. 1. By W. P & J. W. That Sufferings are acts of Impotency and Weakneſs, therefore none but impotent, weak and finite Creatures can ſuffer.

Anſw. This Objection is not only falſe in it ſelf, but alſo highly blaſphemous and injurious to Chriſt Jeſus, rendring him an impotent, weak and fini • e Creature, who is an Omnipotent and • nfinite Creator▪

1ſt. I will prove the Objection is falſe in it ſelf, and grounded upon a groſs Miſtake; and prove the contrary by Scripture.

Though ſome ſufferings are acts of Impotency and Weakneſs, yet all Sufferings are not ſuch; for (not to go ſo far back as to the Apoſtolical Ages, and ſufferings of the primitive Church) never no man of Reaſon and Judgment, accounted that the Martyrs in Qu. Marys days ſuffered through impotency and weakneſs, but on the contrary▪ that which carried them through their Sufferings, was Power and Strength. But much more was Chriſt Potent and ſtrong in the very midſt of his Sufferings, and alſo in his Death; for through Death he overcame and got the Victory, Heb. 2.14. Therefore the Pſalmiſt Prophetically tells, That God, to wit, the Father, laid help upon one that was and is Mighty, to wit, upon his Son, Pſal. 89.19. and therefore the Prophet calls him, The Mighty God, Iſa. 9.6. And David further declares of him, That he is the Lord ſtrong and mighty in Battle, Pſal. 24.10. And hence it is that when the Earth and the Inhabitants thereof were diſſolved, he bore up the Pillars of it, even by his Death, Pſal. 75.3. And hence the Apoſtle tells, That God the Father up • eld the Worlds by the Word of his Power, meaning his Son: wherefore Chriſt teſtifies, That all Power in Heaven and in Earth was given to him, Mat. 28.18.

Whence it is, that the Prophet Iſaiah, prophecying of his bitter ſufferings, puts the Query, Who is this that cometh from Edom (which ſignifies Red) with dyed Garments from • ozrah? This that is glorious in his Apparel, travelling in the greatneſs of his ſtrength? The Anſwer is turned by the Lord himſelf; I that ſpeak in Righteouſneſs, mighty to ſave, to wit, he that trod the Wine preſs alone, which was the only begotten Son of God, Iſa. 63.1, 2, • .

2dly, But J. W. baſely abuſes and perverts the words of the Apoſtle. 2 Cor. 13.4. to prove this his blaſphemous Doctrine. He was • rucified through weakneſs.

Anſwer, This is not the intent of Apoſtle as J. W. would have it) that Chriſt was • eak in himſelf, no more then he ſaith elſewhere, 1 Cor. 1.25. The weakneſs of God is •• ronger then men, he intends not to prove • hereby that God was weak, but only thereby 〈◊〉 ſignifie, that that which did appear weak • nd baſe, in the eyes of baſe and carnel men, 〈◊〉 it was not ſo in the ſight of God; ſo 〈◊〉 death of Chriſt appeared, (and doth ſo 〈◊〉 ) baſe and weak in the Eyes of baſe and • eak men, but glori • us and powerful in the 〈◊〉 of God and his Saints.

But if our Antagoniſt J. W. ſhould make ſo bold with our Earthly Prince as he doth with the Prince of Life, he would hardly eſcape the Penalty of that offence; For what can be a greater Indignity to a Prince and Potentate, then to render him impotent (eſpecially when he is not ſo) Then much more is it a high Diſdain, a great Indignity, a foul Blaſphemy, a black Approbriety, as well as a Scurrility, to fix ſuch an Epithete upon the Wonderful Potentate of Heaven and Earth, Chriſt Jeſus. Again, if Chriſts Death and Sufferings were finite, then that which was purchaſed by the ſame (which was our Salvation) was finite alſo; for a finite Cauſe can never produce an infinite Effect But now our Salvation, which was purchaſed by Chriſts Death, is infinite and eternal, Rom 6.23. therefore his Death and Sufferings were ſo alſo, vertuouſly and meritoriouſly, viz an infinite and et • rnal Perſon did pu • chaſe, by a temporal Death, an infinite and eternal Life and Salvation to Mankind For the Juſtice offended being infinite, the ſatisfaction muſt bear a Proportion there-with, which the Man Chriſt Jeſus ſurely paid, he being infinite, a • before.

Object. 2 By J. Wats. Though he which laid • own • is Life for 〈◊〉 was God, yet he did not lay down his Life as God

Anſw. Grant to an Atheiſt liberty to •• igne according to this Rule, & he wil • eaſily pro • e by Scripture, that there is no 〈…〉 D •• il, no Heaven, no Hell, no 〈…〉 Joy or Torment, &c • or 〈…〉 is ſaid, There is one God, according to J. W. he is not ſo as God. God ••• ated the Heavens and the Earth, but according to this Rule) he did not do it as God Chriſt dyed, but according to this Rule, he did not dye as Chriſt. But enough of theſe groſs Abſurditie • ; this is the ready way to introduce Atheiſm.

Object 3▪ But when a Man dyes, his Soul doth not dye with his Body, but ſurviveth it: ſo when Christ dyed, his fleſh ſ • ffe • ed and dyed, which wa • his humane Nature, but as to his Godhead or Divine Nature, it was in Paradiſe that day with the Thief, when his Body hung dead on the Croſs; for as Soul and Body is one Man, ſo God and Man is one Chriſt.

Anſw. As to the firſt part of the Objection▪ 〈…〉 Soul of our Sa • iour did ſurvive his 〈…〉 with the Soul of the 〈…〉 hung on the Croſs 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 O • j • ction, 〈…〉 Nature, it was 〈…〉 Body hung dead on the Croſs 〈…〉 Opinion doth not 〈…〉 to be the very •• me with the 〈…〉 who ſaid, That Chriſt 〈…〉 So • l, but his 〈◊〉 Nature 〈…〉 . But to anſwer 〈◊〉 directly▪ As to th • little Godhead, we find it not d • ſti • c • ly 〈…〉 th • Pa •• ion of Chriſt, either be •• re 〈…〉 ; but a • to Chriſt • Godhead or H •• d, 〈…〉 himſelf • n any ſence with reſpect to his • ivine or human Na • ur • , neither diſtinctly no • 〈◊〉 , but his Father; therefore the Apoſ ••• 〈◊〉 , 2 Cor. 11.3. The Head of Chriſ • as God; and God the Father to be ſure, 〈◊〉 in Heaven, as we 〈…〉 before and 〈◊〉 . But the • , if 〈…〉 Pe • ſon of the Son of God 〈…〉 ••• rnity; I ſay then we can no more ſay to ſpeak properly) that the Perſon of the Son of God, which was from Eternity, was in Paradi • e any more than he was on the Croſs, and 〈…〉 in the G • ave; for altho' it was his Body of fleſh only that hung on the Croſs after he had given up the Ghoſt) and laid in the Gra •• ; • et this Body was not a meer humane Body, but was as truly d • vine as it was humane. Hence it is that hi • divine nature lay in the Grave An although it was his divine Nature which was in Paradiſe that day with the Soul of the Thief, yet that divine Nature was his humane Soul, as truly as his humane Body was divine in the Grave; for Chriſts Body and Soul is and was both divine and humane, which were the conſiſtent parts of the Perſon of our Mediator. So then it hinders nothing, becauſe the Soul of our Mediator was in Paradiſe that 〈◊〉 (which was 〈◊〉 truly divine as h • mane but that his Body of fleſh, which hu • g on the Croſs, and after was laid in the Grave, 〈…〉 divine alſo. For 〈…〉 ha • e humane Soul doth properly belong 〈…〉 ; ſo in like mann •• , 〈…〉 being as truly divine 〈…〉 muſt be ſo alſo▪ • or ſuch a • the Soul i • , 〈…〉 the Body.

But that only • he fleſh of our Lord ſuffered, is 〈…〉 upon a great Miſtake; and this is evident 〈…〉 , when the Soul hath le •• the 〈…〉 the • ody 〈…〉 when the Soul is departed. 〈…〉 our crys out, My Soul is exceedi •• 〈…〉 unto Death, Mat. 26.38. and therefore the Prophet 〈…〉 , His Soul 〈…〉 ▪ Chriſts was made an Off ••• ng for Sin, Iſa. 53.10. meaning, hi • Soul, as well as 〈…〉 our ſin • .

Nex • 〈…〉 the l • ſt part of the Objection, As Soul 〈◊〉 • ody 〈◊〉 one Man▪ ſo God and Man is one Chriſt ▪ So then, • ccording to this 〈…〉 •• militude, ſeeing the Body of a M • n is incapable of ſuffering o • feeling pain, when the Soul is depa •• ed, as was before ſhe • n, ſo alſo the Mank •• d of Ch • iſt had been inca • able • f ſuffering o • feeling pain, if the 〈◊〉 had depart •• •• om it.

But ob •• erve, the Union between Body and Soul, 〈…〉 the Myſtery • e • wix • the Divine and Humane Natures in • hriſt, neither 〈◊〉 like unto it, but darkens it, and makes it more obſcure than it is in it ſelf; for this Union 〈…〉 by reaſon of that Union, the huma •• Soul doth not become the humane Body, no • the human • ody doth not become the humane Soul.

Object. 4. But Chriſt ſaith, He had • ower 〈◊〉 lay 〈…〉 his Life, and he had power to take 〈…〉 again, John • 0.18. And that Peter ſaith, He was put to death in the fleſh, but quickened by • he Spirit, 1 Pet. 3. • 8. By theſe w • underſtand his divine Nature, which did not dye, raiſed his humane Nature, which did dye.

I Anſwer briefly, In that he raiſed himſelf, • nd was quickened by the Spirit, it relates to • he Power and Efficacy of his Immortal and Mediatory Soul, together w •• h the concurring • nd joynt-working of his Father there-with, 〈◊〉 raiſing up his 〈◊〉 • ody from the dead▪ but this proves not that 〈◊〉 Soul, which wa • immortal, and quickened h • s • ody, was any 〈◊〉 divine, than the Body or Fleſh 〈…〉 was.

Object. 5. God is Ʋnchangeable, and there • fore 〈◊〉 cannot • y • .

Anſw. As to God the Father this is true, but as to God the Son, it is falſe; for God the Son dyed, as I have before proved.

Object. 6. It was Chriſts fleſh, or the 〈◊〉 that ſuffered, Heb. 10.20.

Anſw That Chriſts fleſh ſuffered, I grant▪ In the ſence that I have b • fore ſhewn. Bu • th • t his fleſh is a Vail, I deny, neither is i • an • where ſo called in the Scripture; for whe • e the Apoſtle ſaith, By a n • w and living way▪ which he hath conſecrated f • r us through th • Vailpunc; viz • is Fleſh, he doth not mean that his fleſh i • th • Vail, but his fleſh, or himſelf, 〈◊〉 made the way for us through the V • il▪ to 〈◊〉 the viſible Heavens, as the ſame Apoſtle elſe where cleare it, Heb. 6.1 • , •• . • hich Hope we have 〈…〉 Author of the Soul, • oth 〈…〉 within the Vail, 〈◊〉 the • ore-runner 〈…〉 High Pr •• st 〈◊〉 , &c. H •• e Jeſus d • d 〈…〉 him • elf, but through the Vail 〈…〉 Heaven • , according as it was 〈…〉 forth under the L •• , by • he high Pri • ſt entering i • thro • g • the Vail that hung b • tween the Temple and the • ol • place (on wh • ch was depainte • all the Images of the Coe • eſtial 〈◊〉 which ſignifi • d the partition • etwixt Heaven and Earth▪ into the Holy of H •• ies, once every year This ſignifying, that the everla • ting High-Prieſt ſhould 〈◊〉 in once through the whole Heavens, into H • aven it ſelf for all. Therefore if we read the words of the Apoſtle thus, we ſhall have his meaning. Heb 10 20. He (that is to ſay • his fleſh hath conſecrated for 〈◊〉 a new and living way, through the Vail, viz. the viſible Heavens.

Object 7 The P • operties of the M • nkind 〈…〉 agree with the Properties of the Godhead.

Anſw. To this Objection I ſhall lay down Sam Clark's anſwer verbatim, 〈…〉 Divinity, p. 267 By reaſo • 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 of this Perſon 〈◊〉 Union, whatſoever may be verified of either of thoſe Natu • es, the ſame may be truly ſpoken of the who • e Perſon, from whetherſoever of the Natures • t be denominated▪ Then Obſerve, no diſagreement in the Properties.

O • j • ct. 8. But t • is Doctrine of Chriſts dying as 〈◊〉 , doth neceſſarily conclude two Gods, becauſe you ſay, that God the Father was in Heaven when Go • the Son dyed; and this ſeem • to be contra • y to Scripture, which 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 O •• Go • , Iſa. 44 6, 8. chap. 45 5, 18, 21. Mark 12.32. 1 Cor. 8.4.

Anſw Its true, this Doctrine of two Gods is not only carped at, but denyed almoſt by all, albeit all, almoſt, bu • Quakers, confeſs in words, there are three Perſons, which are each of them a God, but yet they believe it not. But as for the Quakers, becauſe they do not ow • that he that is God can be a Perſon, they therefore think it unreaſonable to believe that Jeſus of Nazareth, the outward Pe • ſon, the Son of the Virgin Mary was God-m • n, o • that God-man could be born of Mary, an • therefore they ſay they do not find ſuch Expreſſions, as that Mary was the Mother of GOD, Chriſt God-man, any where but in the Popes Canons. And further argue, as they think, to prove the Doctrine abſurd, That it is Non ſence and Ʋnſcriptural Language to tell of God bring Co-creator 〈◊〉 the Father, or that God had glory with God; 〈◊〉 not this (ſay they) imply two Gods, or that God had a Father? And this (it is true) they do ſuppoſe, as others alſo do, to be a dangerous Hereſie; ſee D.L's News of a Trumpet, p. 4. quoting W. P. and p. 30 quoting G W.

But, 2dly, In all theſe places of Scripture alledged againſt this Doctrine, there is nothing that contradicts what I have affirmed, for where-ever the Scripture ſaith, There is but One God, it is either with reſpect to God the Father, and ſo it is explained, 1 Cor. 8.6. or elſe with reſpect to all the three Perſons in the Trinity, and intends the one ſole Object of our Worſhip, becauſe the Father, Son and holy Ghoſt are all equal, in reſpect of Nature, & therefore they muſt be equally worſhipped under one Notion of divine Worſhip. And hence I conceive that the Title Godhead doth appertain to all the three Perſons concre • tively, and implyes all whatever is worthy of, or ought to be worſhipped by us, Acts 17.29. Rom. 1.20. where • the ſecond Perſon in the Godhead or Trinity, being our Mediator and middle Perſon in the Trinity, a • the ſtreams and lines of divine W • r • hip, equally due to all the three Perſons, meet in h • m as the Center of the ſame; for we muſt come unto God by him, and conſequently muſt worſhip the Father in the Son, as alſo the holy Ghoſt. Therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, That the fullneſs of the Godhead dwells Bodily in him; that is, the Obiect of our Worſhip, reſpecting Father, Son and holy Gho • t, is h • m the Son▪ as well as that the ſeven Spirits of God do reſt upon him, Iſa. 11.2. Hence then, when-eve • it is 〈◊〉 ▪ There is but One God or to that purpoſe) as in thoſe places of Iſaiah and Mark▪ &c. mentioned in the Objection, it is intended, • hat there is but one Godhead or object of divine Worſhip conſiſting of three Perſons, Father, Son and holy Ghoſt ▪ and includes all, but excludes neither▪ • ccording to that place of John, 1 John 5 7. There is Three that • ear Record in Heaven, the Fath • r, the Word and the Spirit, and theſe Thre • a •• One O • e in rega • d they are of one Natu • e and kind of Being, and ſ • muſt be wor • hippe • eq • ally a • one; Th • ee in regard • hey are • h • ee particular Perſo •• , and 〈◊〉 one of theſe • hree Perſons is a God▪ ſo 〈…〉 we may truly and properly ſay, there are three Gods, viz. God the 〈…〉 and God the holy Ghoſt But i • a 〈◊〉 and Object •• e ſence o • r • ſpect, th • re is 〈◊〉 One God.

3dly, 〈…〉 ſ • ems to be like unto that of 〈…〉 & Stoick Philoſophers, who did encounter Pa • l, Acts 17▪ • 8. ſaying of him, 〈◊〉 will this Babbler ſay? He ſeems to be a ſetter forth o • ſtrange Gods, becauſe he preached unto them Jeſus and the Reſurrection. In which preaching, you may be ſure St. Paul preached Jeſus to be God, which made them thus carp a • hi • Preaching. But now, th • ſe are not Pagan Philoſophers, but pretended Reformed Chriſtians, that do not only ca • p at it, (to whom Jeſus Chriſt ſeems to be a ſtrange God • but do condemn ſuch Doctrine for Hereſie, and the • erſon that preacheth it to be a Heretick Bluſ • , O Heavens, and be aſhamed O Earth!

4thly, But for a further Demonſtration of his Truth, Obſerve, By reaſon that thr •• Divine Perſons do conſiſt of one divine Nature, equa ••• par • icipant of all Divine Honour and Worſhip, The Object of VVorſhip, reſpecting all the thr • e Pe • ſon, becomes o •• , in reſpect of 〈…〉 of that Nature, i • which all the 〈…〉 . And this is the 〈◊〉 Reaſo • • herefore it is ſo after 〈…〉 ſhooted for joy; for ſo it ſtands in the H • brew, as the learned inform me.

Object. • Chri • t ſaith unto Phillip, He that hath ſeen m • , hath • een the Father, Jo • . 14. • . Then 〈…〉 th • Father and the Son be two Perſons, ſeeing 〈…〉 in the Father, and the Father in him? verſ 10.

Anſw. That Chriſt and his Father are and were from Eternity diſtinct Perſons, is granted (at leaſt in words 〈◊〉 my Antagoniſt • . W. for he ſaith, Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the ſecond Perſon in the Trinity [Then there was a firſt] did truly come down from Heaven So then, according to this, when Chriſt ſaith, He that had ſeen him, had ſeen the Father, he means, not that he that had thus ſeen him, had ſeen 〈…〉 of the Father; for, a • that rate, God the Father would be ſeen in the ſhape of a Man. But th •• I conceive is the meaning, in ſhort; juſt 〈◊〉 if we ſhould ſee a Friend at a diſtance, are we do not know him to be our Friend, we do not account that we ſaw our Friend at all, becauſe we did not know him to be 〈…〉 that by ſome ſtrong Reaſons, that ſhould • ver • a •• ance ou • Miſtake, we be convinced to the contrary.

So, he that ſaw 〈◊〉 , and conſidered him not truly and really • o, by a ſtrong Perſwaſion and Belief, that he was the Son of God, they ſaw him under a miſtaken Notion, and ſo in that ſence they did not ſee him at all. Hence our Saviour argues with Puthip, verſ. 9. Have I been ſo long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? And verſ. 7. • e tells them, If they had known him, they ſhould have known the Father alſo, viz. they that truly and really knew and believed in the Son, that he was the Son that was ſufficient to convince them that he had a Father, ſeeing he was the expreſs Image of the Father, none need to ſay to him, 〈…〉 the Father, for they that had thus ſeen him, had ſeen the Father, viz. in that conſideration that they were aſſured thereby that he 〈◊〉 a Father·

But as to the laſt part of 〈◊〉 Objection, That Chriſt was in the Father, and the Father in him, the meaning is explained, John 17.23. viz Chriſt was in the Father as the Diſciples were in him, by a 〈…〉 , no • perſonal Union, in the concu • rence and agreement of all things.

Object. 10. J. Wa • s doth again object, Chriſt is true God, 1 Jo. 5.20. and God is a Spirit, Joh. 4.24. But a Spirit hath not fleſh and bones, Luke 24 39. and therefore no • Blood. From whence it appears, Chriſt, who wa • God, could not ſuffer and dye.

Anſwer, This is exactly agreeable with the Doctrine of the Quakers, who argue from the Spirituality of Chriſt, That, th •• • ody of Fleſh, Blood and Bones, was not Chriſt, but a divine Spirit within tha • Body. And hence they and others call that Body a Garment, a Vail, a Cloathing, and upon this very • round they de • the outward Perſon to be the prope • Son of God, which although J. W. and others 〈…〉 to word the matter, yet they mean 〈…〉 the ſame, as the Reader may 〈…〉 in this objection; For if it 〈…〉 from this, 〈◊〉 becauſe a Spirit hath 〈◊〉 Fleſh and Bones, and Chriſt being God, and God a Spirit, That therefore that outward Perſon, conſiſting of Fleſh and Bones, was not Chriſt, • hen all whatever the Quakers affirm concerning Chriſt will be true, and the contrary Doctrine, in oppoſition to them, will be falſe. And then why ſhould ſuch a Racke • be made againſt them, by this J W. (his Presbyterian and Church of England 〈◊〉 ,) about their Heriſies, ſeeing they do ag • ee with them • o exactly in the things con • rover • ed? For never could the Quaker have a better way of arguing to prove his Tenets by, then this which John Wats doth uſe in this Objection, and according to this, he and othe • s ought to ſubmit themſelves, and acknowledge their faults unto the Quakers, and forever after • ay their hands upon their mouths, and be ſilent, with ſhame, and not oppoſe the Quakers in theſe things, ſeeing they believe the very ſame themſelves. Hence our Saviour faith, by way of reproof Thou Hypocrite (ſaith 〈◊〉 ) first caſt out the 〈…〉 thy 〈◊〉 Eye, and then ſhalt thou ſee clearly to cast the 〈◊〉 out of thy Brothers Eye. And S. Pa •• ſaith, That that Man is in •• cu •• ble, whoſoever 〈…〉 , that judgeth another, when he that judg •••• 〈◊〉 the ſame things. But ſo it 〈◊〉 , as the Apoſtle ſaith, they pervert theſe, as they do the other Scriptures to their own deſtruction, both Quakers and others. Therefore if they were not too proud, and would candidly hearken to me, by Gods help, I would convince both Quaker and them of their groſs Miſtake, as well as damnable Hereſie.

1ſt. Then there is one Chriſt which is God, to wit, a Spirit, they grant in the Objection, and this the Quakers alſo allow. And the Scriptures prove, that there is but one Chriſt 1 Cor. 8 6. Eph. 4.5 And alſo that one Chriſt ſuffered and dyed, • om. 5.6 8. Then it will fo •• ow by a natural conſequence, ſeeing it is granted, that there is one Chriſt, which is true God, viz. a Spirit, and that there is but one Chriſt, as the Scriptures declare, and alſo that one Chriſt ſuffered and dyed. That this one Chriſt which ſuffered and dyed, was true God, and conſequently true God ſuffered and dyed.

2dly. But then they will object again, How is it poſſible that a Spirit can dye?

Anſw. Yes, this is poſſible that a Spirit can dye; for Chriſt is ſaid to be the quickening Spirit, 1 Cor. 15.45. and Chriſt dyed, Rom. 5.6, 8. therefore it is poſſible for a Spirit to dye.

3dly, But as to thoſe Scriptures which J. W. brings in his Argument, to prove that Chriſt did not dye; becauſe Chriſt is God, & God is a Spirit, and a Spirit hath not fleſh and bones, J. Wats concluſion muſt naturally follow, That therefore that outward and viſible Perſon that Thomas handled his hands and his feet, conſiſting of Fleſh (Blood) and bones, was not Chriſt. This is, I preſume, the natural conſequence of his Argument.

And becauſe he hath baſely abuſed and perverted thoſe Scriptures, to patch and piece this his vile Argument together, I ſhall endeavour to undeceive his unwary Reader, and to rectifie that miſtake, and ſhew the Truth of the ſaid Scriptures.

As to the firſt, That Chriſt is true God, 1 Joh. 5.20 I need ſay nothing to that. But as to the next, That God is a Spirit, Joh. 4.24. Hence men would infer as though (to ſpeak with Reverence) God were a meer nothing, becauſe our Saviour ſaith to the Woman of Samaria, God is a Spirit. It ſeems J. Wats and others would gather from hence, that God was not a perſon, but only a Breath, or Air, every where preſent alike. But this our Saviour ſpeaks not in oppoſition to Perſon, but in oppoſition to the carnal and legal Conceptions and groſs Miſaprehenſions of many Jews, as well as Samaritans, of ſome particular Prophecies, Iſa. 2.3. • alluding to Goſpel▪ worſhip, which they did (through miſtake) conceive was to be confined unto the litteral Jeruſalem, as though God would except of no Worſhip, but what was performed in that City, as appears by the words of the Samaritan Woman to our Saviour, Joh. 4 2 • . But to that end our Saviour might rightly inform her of the ſole intention and purpoſe of the God of Iſrael, in erecting this legal Worſhip at Jeruſalem, was to introduce and bring in a perpetual and everlaſting Worſhip in Goſpel times; which ſhould not conſiſt in ſuch Shadowy and Worldly Ceremonies, as thoſe u • der the Law, but in Spirit and in Truth, tells her, That God to whom this worſhip is to be given, is a Spirit; viz. ſuch a Divine and heavenly Perſon, that cannot be confined only, to Jeruſalem, as a place which could be eſſential to the acceptance of that worſhip, which ſhould be given to him; but doth reſpect all places alike, and doth inviſibly attend, every one, in every time, and in every place, when and whereſoever with a gracious acceptance) this evang • lical (not Legal) worſhip is performed to him, in Spirit and in Truth.

2dly, The next place which J. W. perverts, i • Luke 24.39. the words of our Saviour to his Diſciples to rect, 〈◊〉 their incredelity concerning him; that he was riſen from the Dead, which they much ſcrupled and queſtioned whether it was him or no, when they ſaw him, but ſuppoſed it was a Spirit; He ſaith unto them, Behold my hands and my • eet, in which were the print of the nails, wherewith he was nailed to the croſs▪ and evident token that he was him, and a convinccing argument, that it was not a Spirit. And further to confirm them, that it was himſelf riſen from the dead, and not a Spirit, he bids them handle him; and the reaſon is, that thereby they might be certified that he was not a Spirit, as they ſuppoſed; For a Spirit could not be ſo handled, neither had it Fleſh and Bones, as they ſaw him to have. Now then the next thing to be enquired into, is, What a ſort of Spirit this is, which is here ſpoken, of which the Diſciples did ſuppoſe our Saviour to be? It muſt be ſuch a kind, of Spirit that did uſe to appear ſometimes, in the primitive Age, and therefore our Saviour, when he walked on the • ea, was deemed to be ſuch a Spirit, Mat 14.26. by thoſe that were in the Ship; and thoſe were ſuch a kind of Spirits, that the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth from A • g • ls, Acts 238. wherefore it was not an A • gel▪ which was ſuppoſed▪ for Angels have been & may be touched, but this could not. Chriſt himſelf was a Spirit, as well before as after his Incarnation▪ & that before his Incarnation he was capa • le of Tangib •• ity, Gen. 32.25. Then ſeeing theſe Spirits of which Chriſt was ſuppoſed to be one of, was neither ſuch a Spirit that Chriſt was, either before or after his Incarnation (to ſpeak amply) neither an Angel • nei • her • Man; becauſe theſe are capable of Tangi ••• ity, but this was not; Therefore ſuch 〈◊〉 muſt needs be the Souls of departed, Saints, which did ſometimes appear to mo • tal Saints, and theſe had not fleſh and bones, becauſe they were not riſen from the dead, and therefore could not be touched, as we may ſee in the caſe of the Soul of Moſes appearing in the Mount, with • lias; He could not be 〈◊〉 from the dead, becauſe Chriſt was not then riſen, who was the firſt that did riſe from the dead, Acts 2 • .2 • . And this in all probability was the opinion of the Di • cip •• s, they might think it was the Spirit o • 〈…〉 Chriſt, it being ſo lately that he was 〈◊〉 , but it was 〈◊〉 for them to 〈◊〉 that he was riſen from the 〈◊〉 .

Hence it appears to be a grand abuſe put upon the ſacred Scriptures, to bring this place, Luke 24.39. about Spirits, and parrallel it with that in John 4.24 making thereby God to be ſuch a Spirit as this ſuppoſed one, and ſo equalize the Creator with the Creature, and to make the Scriptures claſh and contradict themſelves (which is very grateful to Atheiſts) ſurely is very impious work; and ſo to argue from particulars to univerſals, That becauſe ſome Spirit • have not fleſh and bones, therefore no Spirits have. This is no good arguing or reaſ •• ing 〈◊〉 men are ſaid to be Spirits, 1 Joh 4. 〈…〉 3. Then according to J. W. Men have not fleſh and bones. Christ is the quickening Spirit, then according to him, he had not fle • h and bones, and conſequently he that had ſuch, was not Chriſt. Theſe are groſs abſurdities. But God the Father hath not fleſh and bones as we have, neither an Angel, neither ſuch Spirits as theſe, and therefore ſuch Spi • its cannot dye, becauſe they are immortal Spirits.

I ſhall ſum up all, relating to this Objection in this Argument.

The Apoſtle Peter ſaith, in effect. That whoſoever denyes the Lord that bought them, they bring in damnable Hereſies.

But the outward and viſible Perſon▪ conſiſting of Fleſh and Bones, was Chriſt, true God, the Lord that bought us.

Therefore they that ſhall deny this, they bring in damnable Hereſies, denying the Lord that bought us. But this J. Watts and his faction, and all that juſtifie him, have done, Therefore, &c.

Object. 11. It was his Body (or humane Nature) which was prepared to do his Fathers Wi •• in, and that ſuffered, Heb. 10.5▪ But his divi •• Nature did not.

Anſw The holy Ghoſt doth not intend at all by this phraſe, A Body haſt thou prepared me, that therefore nothing of the ſubſtance of that Body was Divine, and from Eternity; for although the Son of God did really take a ſubſtance of the Virgin Mary, which he had not from Eternity, which after this his aſſumption or Incarnation, was eſſential to his Body, as well as Soul, by which meant he was made fleſh, yet notwithſtanding his Body and Soul did conſiſt of pre-exi • tant matter and ſubſtance, which was divine & eternal; neither do the words here imply as though his Body was here intended abſtractively from his Soul, no more than elſe-where it is ſaid by the Prophet, The Lord (to wit, his Father made his Soul an Offering for ſin, doth imply, his body i • excluded from being an Offering, Iſa. 53. • 0. but the whole Perſon of the Son of God is there included, to wit, that fourth Perſon that appeared in Nebuchadnezars Furnace, is the Body here ſpoken of, that is thus prepared for ſufferings. Hence then, in this expreſſion or phraſe [A Body] is a peculiar Emphaſis, and hath a particular alluſion to the Sacrifices under the Law, to wit, the Bodies of Beaſts, Heb. 13.11. for every High-Prieſt under the Law was ordained to offer Gifts & Sacrifices, wherefore it was neceſſary that this Man, to wit, the Son of God, ſhould have ſome-what to offer (becauſe he was a Prieſt, not after the order of Aaron, but after the Order of Melchizadeck made a Prieſt forever, Heb. 8.4. chap. 6.20▪ chap. 10.4.10. Now then, his Offering or Sacrifice was not to be any Bodies or Body of a Beaſt as it was under the Law, which could never take away ſin (nor make him that did the ſervice perfect, as pertaining to the Conſciences, Heb 9.9. but his own Body, viz. his own Perſon or his own ſelf, whom God, even his Father, had thus fitted and prepared for Sufferings, that he might be the one Attonement, Rom. 5.11. The One Sacrifice, Heb. 10.12. The One Offering, v. 14. And thus the ſame Apoſtle explains himſelf in divers places of the ſame Epiſtle, Heb. 7.27. W • o. (meaning Chriſt) needeth not daily, as thoſ • High-Prieſts, to offer up Sacrifices firſt for his own ſin, and then for the Peoples; for this he did once, when he offered up [Himſelf.] Then Note, his Body, which was the Sacrifice, was himſelf, his own Perſon. Heb. 9.12. Neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own blood, &c. for if that by ſprinkling the Ʋnclean, ſanctifie, &c. how much more ſhall the Blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit (to wit, by the potency and ſtrength of his own Spirit, which was eternal) offered up himſelf without ſpot unto God, &c. Heb. 9.28. Christ was once offered to bear the ſins of many, &c. And v. 26. But now once in the end of the World, hath he appeared to put away ſin, by the Sacrifice of himſelf. S • eing then it was impoſſible (as the Apoſtle ſaith) that the Blood of Bulls and Goats ſhould take away ſin, Heb. 10.4. yet it was the Will of God the Father nevertheleſs, that ſins ſhould be taken away by one Sacrifice, that ſhould be the ſubſta • ce of, and put an end to all thoſe Typical ones. Therefore the Kingly Prophet. David fore-ſeeing this by the Spirit of Prophecy, perſonating the Son of God▪ as he was • Type of the ſame, phraſeth it after this manner, Pſal. 40.6. Sacrifices and Offerings thou wouldst not, &c. The Apoſtle a •• edging theſe out of the Pſalms, applies them unto Chriſt, when he is come into the world, and ſaith, Heb. 10.5 wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he ſaith, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not, but a Body haſt thou prepared me; and that is this Body or Anti-typical Offering; for the Sacrifices and Offerings, and burnt Offerings and Offerings for ſin, which were done under the Law, God had no pleaſure in, Heb. 10▪8. therefore there muſt be another Sacrifice prepared, by which his Will may be done, in which he could have pleaſure, and that muſt be Gods own Son made fleſh, who is ready to do his Fathers will. And therefore he ſaith, Lo, I come to do thy Will, O God, v. 9. And then th • Apoſtle notes upon it, By the which will we ſanctifie • , •• rough the offering of the Body of Jeſus once for all, v. 10. Not any Body of a Beaſt, but the Body of the Son of God, or the Son of God himſelf. Thus then it appears that the Body that was thus prepared for a Sacrifice, was a divine and eternal Perſon.

Object. 12. But how is it poſſible that an outward and viſible Perſon, of ſuch dimenſions 〈◊〉 bigneſs, could be in a Virgins Womb?

Anſw. Theſe ſort of Objectors are rather to be termed Cavelle • s with and Carpers at the Omnipreſcency of God; they would meaſure & limit Gods Power by their own ſhallow Capacities. But in ſhort, all things are poſſible with God. They may as well ſa • , it was impoſſible for Chriſt to come in amongſt the Diſciples the Door being ſhut, and yet this is a truth, but we cannot demonſtrate how it was done.