Antioch to Rome But in case this had been true which I will shew hereafter to be false his illegal consequeÌ„ce does not follow for tho' the Authors do not agree about the begining of the wâ—â—cks of Daniel c. 9. v. 24. prophesyiÌ„g the comâ—iÌ„g of Christ or how many years Saul did reign in Isrâ—el or how many years there are since the creation of the world shall we infer that Daniels prophesie never began that Saul never reign'd in Israel and that the world was never created no we leave such illegitimate consequeÌ„ces to Whealy who as it seems cannot infer better His secoÌ„d argument is he that suffers â—ebuâ—e is not superior to him that giâ—es it but Peter suffer'd rebuke from his â—â—llow Apostle Paul Gal. c. 2. v. 11. 12. â— â—herefore Peter was not superior to Paul This maâ—or is evideÌ„â—ly false as apâ—ears in the first book of KiÌ„gs c. 13 â—here we read that Saul tho KiÌ„g of Israel suffer'd to be rebuk'd by Samuel and in the second book of Kings c. 12. that David suffer'd to be rebuk'd by Nathaâ— finally we read in the 6th Chap. of St. John that our â—aviour suffer'd not only the Jewes but also the very Disciples to reprâ—hend his words â—hen he told them that he wouâ—d gâ—ve them his flesh to eat and his blood to drinke we see also by dâ—â—ly experience that Kings Magistrates and superiors are reprehended by their inferiors not only privatly but in publick Sermons wâ—en they preach against the â—ices of the said superiours indeed we see that the Prince of Orange has been often rebuk'd these six or seaven yearâ— past by Whealy in his yearly Almanacks wherein he reflects with the vâ—lest expressions imaginable on their â—acred Majesties King â—ames his Queen the Prince of Wales whereby the Prince of Orange himself is consequently rebuk'd yet never order'd the Author to be punish'd As for that action of Peter not eating meat with the Gentiles for which he was rebuk'd by Paul let the adversary know that if Peter had 〈◊〉 then eaten with the Gentiles he would â—â—â—harply reprehended by 〈…〉 the Jewes Pharâ—siâ—s who thought it to be unlawfull by any means to keep company eat or drink with the Genâ—â—â— anâ— so Peter beiÌ„g between these â—wo extreams he thought it beâ—â— to eat with the Gentiles and in so doing he is not only excus'd but highly commended by all the Eastern and Greâ—ian Faâ—heâ—s in their commentary on the aforsaid text and St. Chrisostome in his commentary on the 10. Chap. of the Acts affirms that it was done by divine dispensation which evidently appears Actâ— c. 1 v. 7. 8. 9. where we read that Peter was 〈◊〉 commaÌ„ded to eat with the Gentiles And the motive that mov'd St. Paul to reprehend him was fearing leâ—t that others who would not be in the same circumstances wherein Peter then has been or dispens'd with as he was should be lead by his example for inferiors are commoÌ„ly led by the examples of their superiors which to prevent in that point St. Paul thought it convenient to reprehend him whose humility for not contradicting Paul his inferior is most highly prays'd by the following Fathers viz St. Cypâ—ian in his Epist to Quintus St Augustin in his â—9 Epist St. Gregorie hom 18 oâ— EzekiÌ„el saying thus behold St. Peter reprehended by his owne inferior and does not feâ—◠〈◊〉 reprehension As for these texts which the adversary brings out of St. Pauls second Epist to the Cor. c. 11. 5. and c. 12. v. 11. they prove nothing against Peâ—er's supremacy for Pauls inteâ—tion was to sâ—op â—â—e mouths of some adversaryes he had among the Câ—rinthians that oppos'd his Doctrine alleaging it to be grounded â—n some subtile and sophistical arguments and not thought by Christ as that of Peter John Jameâ— was consequently ought not to be of any great Authority which suspicion occasion'd him to declare in the aforesaid text that he was not inâ—erior to anâ—â—f the Apostâ—es that is to say that his Doctrine was as true of as much Authority being written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost â— as any of the Apostles Doctrine which is true but nothiÌ„g to tâ—e present purpose Whealy's third argument he that is accus'd by other and pleadâ— his cause before them is not supeâ—â—or â—â— those that accâ—ses him or before whom he plead but St Peter was acâ—us'd before the rest of the Apostles â—lended his cause before them at Hieruâ—alem Acts. c. 11. v. 1. c. therefore Peter was not superior to â—he rest of the Apostles The major is false for tho' a King is accus'd by some of his own subjects and pleads his cause before the Paâ—lâ—ment or a Prince before a Council â— superior before his community It does not argue that the King has no superemmency over the Paâ—â—ment the Prince over his Council the superior over his câ—â—munity otherwise it might be lawfully inâ—er'd that our Saviour had no superemmeâ—cy over his own Disciples before â—hoâ— he was often accus'd by the Jewes as appears Matt. c. 21 Maâ—ke c. 15 Lâ—ke c. â—3 Iohn â—â— 7 8. As for that which Whâ—aly brings out of Peter's second â—pist c. 3. v. â— ti 's not to hiâ— puâ—pose tho' he deceiâ—fully wrests it in order to infâ—r aâ— uâ—atural consequence for it was Peâ—erâ— iâ—â—cut in that Chap. to assure certain people of Christs coming to judgment c. and to thinke the paâ—â—ence of God to conduce to their salvatioÌ„ as Paul write to them in his Epistles so thâ—t it was necessary for Peter to speake in the plural number but perhaps Whealy by some new fâ—und Ariâ—meâ—ick may make two into one â—â— foâ— I acknowledge that Peter ought to speake in the singular number but it is too late for Wâ—ealy after so many ages to pretend to teach him how ought to expresse himself in matters of such great consequences Whealy's fourth argument he that is sent is not superior to him that sends him but when the Apostles at Hierusalem heaâ—d that Samaria receiv'd the word of God they sent to them Peter Iohn Acts. c. 8. v. 14. therefore Peter was not superior to the rest of the Apostles this major is false for one may undergo such a mission by his iÌ„feriors advise of his own accord with out any subjection to those that sendâ— him as is evident in the second book of Kings c 15 where we read that Sâ—muel sent Saul tho' King to destroy Amalâ—â—k the children of Israel sent Phine has their high Priest and superior to the chiâ—dren of Ruben Gâ—d then in the land Gâ—lead as may be seen in the 2â— Chap of Joshua v. 13 and finally Hâ—rod sent the wisemen over whom â—e had noâ— pâ—wer to Beâ—helem to searge diligâ—â—tly for the child Matt c 2. v 8. so that Whealy can make no advantage of Peters missioÌ„ to Samaria which favours not his design in the â—esâ— but rather confirms the contrary whereas he
golden censer there was given unto him much incense that he shou'd offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the throne the smoake of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hands we read in the 2. book of the Maccabees c. 15. that Judas Machabeus had seen Onias the high Priest and Jeremiah the Prophet after their death interceding to God for the people of Israel and that this book is Canonical I will prove in my answer to the next point we read also in the 15 c. v. â— of Jeremiah that the Lord spoke unto him saying thus Tho' Moses and Samuel stood before me yet my minde cou'd not be towords this people cast them out of my sight and let thâ—â— go forth which words our Lorâ— wou'd not have said If Moses â— Samuel tho' dead were not woâ—â— to interced for the Jewes whiâ—â— may be confirm'd out of Exodâ— c. 32 v. 13. where we read thâ—â— Moses himself beg'd of the Lorâ— to shew his mercy to the peoplâ— for the sake of Abraham Isaac aâ—â— Israel his own servants for as Theodoret q. 67. on Exod sayeâ— Moses thinking himself so â—â— insufficient to pacifie the Lordâ— he sets down not only his oâ—â— promise but also the aforsaiâ— Patriarchs merits that the rebâ— the Lord might be more williâ—â— to have commisseration upon thâ— people and pardon them whicâ— then he did as is manifest by the 14 v. of the same chap. Moses also endeavour'd an other time to pacifie the Lord's fury thro' the aforsaid Patriarchs merits assistance as is evident out of Deut. c. 9. v. 27 wherre he sayes thus remember they servaÌ„ts Abraham Isaac and Jacob looke not unto the stoubbornness of this people nor to their wickedness nor to their sinne Was it not for the sake of Abraham tho' dead his son Isaac obtain'd several requests favours from the Lord Genesis c. 26. v. 3. 4 5. 24. wou'd not the Lord divide Salomon's Kindom give it to his servants If it had not been for the sake of David as may be seen ïn the 3 book of Kings c. 11. v. 11. 12. was it not for the sake of David Aby as obtain'd that his son Asa reign'd in Jerusalem as may be seen in the same book c. 15. v. 4. was it not also for the sake of David tho' dead the Lord sav'd the city of Jerusalem from being destroy'd by the Assyrians as is evident out of the 4th book of Kingâ— c. 19. v. 32 3â— â— 20. v. 6. when Salomon beg'd any great request from the Lord was not he wont to set down the merits of David that thereby he might the sooner obtain his request as may be seen in the 131. Psalm v. 1. 10. which is in the Protestant bible the 132. Psalm Now let the reader consider what a great happiness it is to have a faithfull friend and Patron in great honour and request with God almighty thro' whoâ—e merits and intercission one may obtain several benefits which otherwise wou'd not be granted as the premisses do evidently make-out for as God almighty was graciously pleas'd thro' the bountifullnesse of his infinite mercy to grant for the merits and intercession of these Patriarches who then were but in Limbo Patrum so many benefits and requests to those whom they protected in this world why also now in the law of grace wou'd not the same God most mercyfully grant us any lawfull request for the intercession and great merits of his holy Mother beloved Apostles faithfull Martyres and true Confessors who are in great honour and request residing with himself in â—eaven Especially being this dose not derogate to the honour of Christ as I will prove by the following passage If it be unlawfull to invocate Angel Saints either it is because they kâ—nown not what we say or because it wou'd derogate to the honour of Christ who is said to be the mediator betwen God man according to that of John in his first Epist c. 2. v. 1. not for the first as I have already shew'd and shall confirm it by the following examples We read in the 4th book of Kings c. 5. v. 26 that Eliâ—ha knew tho' abâ—eÌ„t Gehazie's Simonie and in the c 6th v. 12. that Elisha also knew what was said in the King of Syria's private Chamber in the 15th c. v. 10. of Luke that the Angels of God doth rejoyce at the conversion of a sinner which is the greatest secret that one can have yet it can be known to the Angels and also to the Saints in heaven either by a distinct revelation from the clear vision of God's essence or by the visioÌ„ of themselves as S. Gregorie in his 2. book of Dialogues c. 3. affirms saying thus what is it that there they know not where they know him who knowes all Neither dose it derogate to the honour of Christ for the Church of Rome certainly believes Christ to be the chief Mediator betwen God and man as St Paul affirms in his Epist to Timothy c. 2. v. 5. therefore she dose not allow to invocate Angels or Saints in order to obtain any request immediatly and directly from themsleves for she acknowledges that to be a folly consequently not to be in their power So that she only allows to beg of them to join their prayers intercessioÌ„ with those of the faithfull that thereby they might the sooner easier obtain from God their requests thro' the meriâ—â— and inâ—eâ—cession of Jesus Christ which is manifest out of St. Leo's 2 Oration de Jejunio and also by the publick Orations of the Church wherein she implores the intercession of Angels and Saints for she wou'd have them to be efficacious thro' the assistance and merits of Christ it is therefore they alwayes end with the following words Per Domiâ—um nostrum Jesum Christum Filiâ—m â—â—um qui tâ—cum vivit et regnaâ— in unitate spiritus sainti Deus per osnnia saecula saeâ—ulorum A men whereby the reader may plainly perceâ—ve that the invocations of Saints dose not derogate to the honour of Christ otherwise St Paul might be accus'd for beseeching the Romans Colossians Hebreâ—s Theslalonians to assist himself in his prayers and also to pray for him to God as is eâ—ident by St Paul's own Epistles to the Romans c 15 v. 30. to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 18. 19. to the Colossians c. 4. v. 3. in his first and sâ—cond to the Thessalonians c. 5 v. 25. c 3. v. 1 so that the Adversary must either Confess the invocation of Saints not to derâ—gate Christ's honour or else to condemn St Paul's Doctrine for I dâ—fie him ever to make-out that the intercession of those who live in this world is acceptable to God nâ—t the intercession of â—hose who are coÌ„firm'd in grace glory or that one is prejudice to Christ
not rashly searâ—â— them over â—est you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ— our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ— Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ— dose not believe it to be his true fleâ—h falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall â—o find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â—1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâ—orn to give you his own body therefore let us hâ—arken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâ—es our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering â—hese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ— his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌ„ts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that â—its above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌ„g the same may be seen in his 8â— Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌ„swers sayiÌ„g thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Câ—râ—s◠〈…〉 in his own haâ—ds wâ—e gâ—v◠〈…〉 body he said thi◠〈…〉 he caâ—rid that bâ—d◠〈…〉 In his â— book 〈…〉 legis eâ— Prophet c 9 he sayes â—he following wâ—rds wâ— receive the Mediator of God man Ieâ—us Christ with a fuâ—l heart mouth gâ—vâ—ng us his own flâ—sh blood to be 〈◊〉 dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understâ—nd the true master divine redeemer kiÌ„d Saviour recommending unto us our price his own â—lood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌ„tary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌ„st PetiliaÌ„s letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â— 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ— in several other places which wouâ—d be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâ—ll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ— sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that â—s to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ„ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌ„t in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ„ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâ—ve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌ„our The coÌ„sequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâ—us the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substâ—ntially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if â—t was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ„ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâ—e holy Eucharist with
for the Martyres as they did for other people who dy'd because they knew that they did not want their payers but they wanted the Martyres â—rayers and in his 29. Ser of the Saints speaking of St Peter's Miracles he sayes thus If then the shadow of his body coul'd relieve how much more now the plenitude of his vertue If then a certain noise of him passing â—prevaic'd to these who beseech'd him â—â— much 〈◊〉 â—his 〈◊〉 graâ—s â—f the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may see â—ore of St 〈◊〉 Aâ—thorities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vâ—rbis Aposâ—oli â—â— his 〈◊〉 Qâ—â—◠〈◊〉 his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4. and in â—◠〈◊〉 â—n the 19. â— of 〈…〉 〈…〉 proâ—◠〈…〉 with the Authâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 General Coâ—cil of 〈…〉 Faâ—ers 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â— earnest◠〈◊〉 Flâ—â—ianus then 〈…〉 themselves as 〈◊〉 â—â— by the â—â— Action we â—â—reâ—d in the Bishopâ— of Euâ—â—ps 〈◊〉 to â—â—eo the Empâ—â—â—r 〈…〉 in the â—ater end of this Council that they declar'd themselves to acknowledge that holy Proâ—erius was register'd in the Cathologue of Marty res that they beg'd God Almighty to be favourable mercifull to themselves thro' his intercessioÌ„ all which Authorityes do evideÌ„tly make out that the Catholicks of the Primitive Church where accustom'd to invocate Saints Chap. 10 Proving that Purgatory was believ'd by those of the Primitive Church For the better intelligence of this point let the reader know that altho' the sinners crime is forgiveÌ„ yet the sinner under gose some temporal punishment as is manifest Numb c. 12. v 1. 2 10 14 where we read that when the sin of murmuring was forgiven to Mary by Moses intercession yet in punishment thereof she had the leprofie for the speace of seven dayes and was oblig'd to levâ— the whole camp during that time When the Israelites sinn'd against God and offer'd to rebel against Moses tho' their sinnes â—eâ—e forgiven thro' the Lord's infinite mercy and by the intercession of Moses yet in punishmeÌ„t of their crime several of them dy'd in the wilderness and never â—as admited to come to the land of promise Num â— 14 v. 19. 20 â—â— â— 24 3 7. also when David sinn'd against the Lord his crime was forgiven but in punishment thereof his son dy'd the â— book of Kings â— 12 v 13 14 18 finally we read in St Paul's first Epist to the Cormthians â— 11 v 30 that several of the Cormthians were mortifi'd by the Lord and also that some of them dy'd because they receiv'd unworthily the holy Sacrament but then their sins has been forgiven as is evident by the 32 v where St. Paul sayes the following words but when we are judg'd we 〈◊〉 chastized by the Lord that we shu'd not be condemn'd â—hereby the reader may plainly 〈◊〉 that God dose not 〈◊〉 the punishment as 〈…〉 forgiven the 〈…〉 â—emency and infinite mercy changes that eternal punishment into some temporal affliction 〈◊〉 if the sinner dose not undergo in this world he must suffeâ— for it after his dâ—ath before ever he shall enter into the KiÌ„gdom of â—eaven for nonâ— is receiv'd there untill he is even as clean fâ—om all manner of sin and fault as he was immediatly after his Baptism as witnesseth that of Iohn 〈◊〉 c 21. v 27 This presuppos'd I may lawfully inferr that therâ— must be some place of temporâ—l punishment â—â— order to purifie and cleanse nosâ—â—ouls who doe not perform 〈…〉 world and 〈…〉 sins to which â—ternal punishmeÌ„t is not due for it wou'd be a most uÌ„reasonable thig of us to believe that he who immediatly has been in the state of grace and dyes suddenly after speaking an idle word or committing some other smal offence shu'd be oblig'd to everlasting torments even as he who suddenly dyes without any kind of repentance after committing murder adultry or some other great crime therefore being he cannot inter the into heaven by reason of that small offence he must go to some other place untill he is purâ—â—i'd which I shall prove by the following argument what ever the old and new Testament the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church several Councils true and wonderfull revelations affirms ought to be believ'd by all Christians but the old and new Testament the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church several Councils true and wonderfull revelation affirms that which the Church of Rome calls Purgatory to be a place of temporal punishment wherin some souls are chastiz'd and purifi'd after leÌ„ving this world therefore Purgatory ought to be believ'd by all Christians the consequence is evident â—s we shall see hereafter and the major cannot be deny'd by any true Christian as for the minnor I will prove it after the same order wâ—ereiâ—â—â—'s fâ—â—â—'d therefore I â—ill begâ—n 〈◊〉 the Auâ—â—oâ—â—es of the old Testament We finâ— in the 6â— Psâ—â—â— which is the 〈◊〉 â—n the 〈◊〉 English 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 â—18 〈◊〉 O sâ—â— c. 〈◊〉 â—8 â—t 〈…〉 his perpetualâ—y and â—o câ—asâ—en one in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is â—o punish hiâ— seveâ—ly 〈◊〉 this â—ite iâ— order 〈…〉 and so concluds wâ—â—â— the following words O Lord 〈◊〉 pâ—eas'd to 〈…〉 in this woâ—ld thâ—â— I 〈◊〉 â—ot wâ—nt thaâ— correctiÌ„g â—ire And it â—hall 〈◊〉 to pâ—sse that he that is leâ—t iâ— zâ—â—â— and â—e that remaineth in Jerâ—salem shaâ—l be call'd â—oâ—y when tâ—e Lord that haâ—e wash'd away the 〈◊〉 of the daâ—gâ—â—ers of zion shall have puâ—g'd the bloâ—d of Jerusalem from the â—idâ—t the â—o by the spirit of jugedment and by the spirit of burning Isaih c. 4. v 3. and 4. which text according to St. Augustin in his 20th book of the City of God c. 25. mâ—â—ns the releasment â—hich souls do get from the burning fire of Purgatory Micah c. 7. v. 7. 8. and 9 â— will look unto the Lord. I will wait for the God of my salvation my God will heare me rejoice not against me O! mine enemy when I fall I shall arise when I sit in darknesse the Lord shall be light onto me I will beare the indignatioÌ„ of the Lord because I have sinn'd against him untill he plead my case and execute judgement for me he will bring me forth to the light and I shall behold his righteousnesse Which words as St. Hierome affirms in his commentary on the last c. of I saiah means the releasment of those souls who do suffer in Purgatory fire Zechariah c. 9. v 11. you also by the blood of they covenant have brought forth your prisoners out of the pâ—t wherein there is no water Sâ— Peteâ— speakïg of those Prisoneâ—s in his 〈◊〉 Ep. c. 3. v. 18. 19 20 sayes thus for christ also hath once suffer'd for sins the just for the unjust that he might briÌ„g us to God beiâ—g put to death in the flesh but quickened by the spirit by which also he went and preach'd unto the spirits in prison which sometimes were disobedâ—ent when once the long suffering of God waited in the dayes of Noah while