Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	day_n	holy_a	sabbath_n	11,447	5	10.0144	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86280	Certamen epistolare, or, The letter-combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr. Baxter of Kederminster. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon. And 4. J.H. of the city of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr. Fullers late Appeal.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Bernard, Nicholas, d. 1661.; Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.; Harrington, James, 1611-1677.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1687; Thomason E1722_1; ESTC R202410	239,292	425

exemplifying in my many repr●ac●es against extemporary Prayer the holy improvement of the Lords day c. but where I beseech you in what Book or Books of mine may a man meet with any of those many reproaches against extemporary Prayer May you not be again mistaken and find upon a further search that those many reproaches against extemporary Prayer are to be found in D. ●olkinton or in some body else The most that I have said ag●inst extemporary Prayer occurreth in a brief discours touching the form of Prayer appointed to be used before the Sermon Sect. 22. in which you read That whereas the Church prescribes a set form of Prayer in her publique Liturgie from which it is not lawful for any of her Ministers to vary or recede she did it principally to avoid all unadvised effusions of gross and undigested Prayers as little capable of piety as they are uterly void of order and this she did upon the reason given in the Melevitan Council viz. least else through ignorance or want of care any thing should be uttered contrary to the rules of faith Ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium si● compositum as the Canon hath it And again page 348. We plainly see by the effects what the effect of theirs would tend to What is the issue of the liberty most men have taken to themselves too many of that sort who most stand upon it useing such passages in their Prayers before their Sermons that even their Prayers in the Psalmist's language are turned into sin Thus find we in the General Preface That the inconveniencies which the liberty hath brought upon us in these latter days are so apparent that it is very hard to say whether the liberty of Prophesying or the licentiousness in Praying what and how we list hath more conduced to these distractions which are now amongst us and if there were no such effect too visible of this licentiousness which I desire the present state to take notice of the scandal which is thereby given unto our Religion in speaking so irreverently with such vain repetitions and tautologies to almighty God as in extemporary and unpremeditated Prayers is too frequently done seem a sufficient consideration to bring us back again to that ancient form which the wisedom of the Church prescribed to prevent that mischief And finally that men never did so litterally offer unto God the Calves of their lips as they have done of late since the extemporary way of praying hath been taken up ●nd if it were prohibited by the Law of Moses to offer any thing unto God in the way of the legal Sacrifices which was maimed sported or imperfect how can it rationally be conceived that God should be delighted with those Oblations or spiritual Sacrifices which have nothing almost in them but maims spots and blemishes These are my words I must confess but that they are reproaches I must needs deny But first I do not speak these words of all extemporary Prayers in general or more particularly of those which gifted men may make in their private devotions but of those unpremeditated undigested Prayers which men ungifted and unlearned men have poured out too frequently in the Church of God And secondly if they be reproaches they are such reproaches and such only as when a man is said to have been slandered with a matter of truth and for the proof hereof besides the authority of the Council of Melevis before remembred I ma● bring that our incomparable Hooker in the fifth Book of his Eccles Politie Num 25. Who though he actually saw but few did foresee many of ●ho●e inconveniencies which the humor of extemporary Prayer at last would bring into the publique worship of Almighty God for there he tells us of the grievous and scandalous inconveniences whereunto they make themselves daily subject who by their irksome deformities whereby through endless and sensless effusions of undigested Prayers they oftentimes disgrace in most unsufferable manner the worthiest part of Christian duty towards God when being subject herein to no certain order pray both what they list and how they list But behold a greater then Hooker is here even His most Excellent and most Incomparable Majesty the late King CHARLS who telleth us in his large declaration against the Scots That for want of a set form of Prayer they did sometimes pray so ignorantly that it was a shame to all Religion to hear the Majesty of God so barbarously spoken unto and sometimes so seditiously that their very Prayers were either plain libels against Authority or manifest lies stuffed with all the false reports in the Kingdom And what effects he found of them among the English appears by his Proclamation against the Directory bearing date Novemb. 30. Anno 1644. where we are told That by abolishing the Book of Common-Prayer there would be a means to open the way and give the liberty to all ignorant factious or evil men to broach their own fancies and conceits be they never so wicked and erroneous and to mislead people into sin and rebellion and to utter those things even in that which they make for their Prayers in their Congregations as in Gods presence which no conscientious man can assent to say Amen to And hereunto I shall add no more but this viz. that the passages produced before out of two of my Books and countenanced both by sad experience and such great Authorities must needs be either true or false if true they can be no reproaches if false why do you not rather study to confute them then reprove me for them 17. The next charge which you lay upon me and thereby render me obnoxious to a new reproof relates to my reproaches against the holy improvements of the Lords day c. How far your c. will extend is hard to say and therefore had you done more wisely had you left it out especially consider how many doubtful descants and ridiculous glosses were made upon a former c. and happily left standing in one of the Canons Anno 1640. for either I am guilty of more reproaches against piety and the power of godlines or I am not guilty if guilty why do you not let me know both their number and nature that I may either plead my innocence or confess my crime If not why do you thus insinuate by this c that you suppress some other charges which you have against me But letting that pass cum ceteris ●rroribus Where I beseech you can you point me to any reproaches of that day or of the holy improvements of it Much I confess is to be found in some of my Books against the superstitious and more then judaical observation of it which cannot come within the compass of being a reproach unto it Might not the Scribes and Pharisees Si licet exemplis in parvo grandibus uti in the Poets words have charged our Saviour with the

like and reckoned him for a reproach to the holy improvements of the Sabbath by justifying his Disciples in plucking off the ears of Corn upon that day commanding the man whom he had cured of his diseases to take up his bed and walk though upon the Sabbath and finally giving this general Aphorism to his Disciples That the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath Then which there could be nothing more destructive of those superstitions wherewith that day was burthened by the Scribes Pharisees and thereby more accommodated to the ease of the Ox and Asse then to the comfort and refreshment of the labouring man might not the latter Rabines among the Jews defend themselves in those ridiculous niceties about the keeping of that Sabbath Queen-Sabbath as they commonly call it for which they stand derided and condemned by all sober Christians by reckoning them for such holy improvements as D. Bound and his Disciples have since encogitated and devised to advance the dignity of the Lords day Saints Sunday as the people called it in times of Popery to as high a pitch Restore the Lords day to that innocent freedom in which it stood in the best and happiest times of Christianity and lay every day fresh burthens upon the consciences of Gods people in your restraints from necessary labours and lawful pleasures which neither we nor our forefathers have been able to bear though christned by the name of holy improvements The coming out of Barbours's Book Printed and secretly dispersed Anno 1628. but walking more confidently abroad with an Epistle Dedicatory to his Sacred Majesty about five years after declare sufficiently what dangerous effects your holy improvements had produced if not stopt in time and stopt they could not be by any who maintain your Principles that poor man being then deceived into the errour of a Saturday Sabbath a neer neighbour of this place hath been of late by the continual inculcating both from the Pulpit and the Press of the perpetual and indispensable morality of the fourth Commandment as it hath been lately urged upon us But so much hath been said of this by others and elsewhere by me that I forbear to press it further nor indeed had I said thus much had you not forced me upon it for my own defence 18. And for those most unjust as well as uncharitable speeches those bitter reproaches as you call them afterwards which you charge upon me in reference to my brethren whom I take for adversaries when you have told me what they are and of whom they are spoken and where a man may chance to find them I shall return a more particular answer to this calumny also but till then I cannot In the mean time where is that ingenuity and justice you so much pretend too you make it foul crime in me not easily to be washed away with the tears of repentance that I have used some tart expressions which you sometimes call bitter reproaches sometimes unjust and uncharitable speeches against my brethren many of them being my inferiours and the best but my equals and take no notice of those odious and reproachful Attributes which you have given unto your Fathers all of them being your superiours de facto though perhaps you will not grant them to be such de jure You call me in a following passage the Primipilus by which I finde you have studied Godwin's Antiquities or chief of the defenders of the late turgid or persecuting sort of Prelates whither with greater scorn to me or reproach to them it is hard to say the merit of the accusation we shall see anon I note here only by the way in S. Paul's expression that that wherein you judge another you condemn yourself seeing you do the same things and perhaps far worse But to return unto my self take this in general that though I may sometimes put vinegar into my inck to make it quick and opulative as the case requireth yet there is nothing of securrility or malice in it nothing that savoureth of uncharitableness or of such bitter reproaches as you unjustly tax me with But when I meet with such a firebrand as M. Burton whose ways you will not seem to justifie in that which followeth I hope you cannot think I should pour Oyl upon him to encrease the flame and not bring all the water I had to quench it whither soul or clean Or when I meet with such unsavoury peices of wit and mischief as the Minister of Lincoln Diocesse and the Church Historian would you not have me rub them with a little salt to keep them sweet The good Samaritan when he undertook the care of the wounded passenger is said to have poured into his wounds both Oyl and Wine that is to say the Oyl to cherish and refresh it and the Wine to cleanse it Oleum quo foveatur Vinum quo mordeatur as I have read in some good Authors he had not been a skilful Chyrurgion if he had done otherwise one plaister is not medcinal to all kind of sores some of which may be cured with Balm when others more corrupt and putrified do require a lancing but ●o I shall not deal with M. Baxter nor have I dealt so with others of his perswasion insomuch that I have received thanks from the Ministers of Surrey and Buckingham shire in the name of themselves and of that party for my fair and respectful language to them both in the Preface to my History of the Sabbath and the Conclusion to the same 19. But you go on and having given me some good councel which I shall thank you for anon you tell me that besides those many bitter reproaches of my Brethren which I take for adversaries I rise unto such bloody desires of hanging them as the better remedy then burning their Books For this you point us to the History of the Sabbath pag. 2 pag. 254. and in the general Preface to Ecclesia vindicata Sect. 8. In which last place we find it thus That partly by the constancy and courage of the Arch-Bishop Whitgift who succeeded Grindal Anno 1583. the opportune death of the Earl of Leicester their chief Patron Anno 1588. and the incomparable pains of judicious Hooker Anno 1595. but principally by the seasonable execution of Copping and Thacker hanged at Saint Edmonds bury in Suffolke for publishing the Pamphlets of Robert Brown against the Book of Common-prayer they became so quier that the Church seems to be restored to some hopes of peace Nothing in this that savoureth of such bloody desires as you charge upon me I am sure of that and there is little more then nothing in the other passage where speaking of D. Bound's Book of Sabbath-Doctrines and the sad consequents thereof I add that on the discovery of it this good ensued that the said Books were called in by Arch Bishop Whitgift in his V●sitations and by several Letters and forbidden to be Printed and made common by Sir

cutting off and tearing up all roots that do naturally shoot and spring up into such branches To conclude if the Congregation of the People in law to be made had such power as was shewn and in the law so made the ultimate Appeal lay unto the Sanhedrim why are not here two Estates in this Commonwealth each by Gods own Ordinance and both plain in Scripture Well but when they came you will say to make unto themselves Kings what ever power they had formerly was now lost this at best were but to dispute from the folly of a people against an Ordinance of God for what less is testified by himself in those words to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not raign over them The Government of the Senate and the people is that onely which is or can be the Government of Lawes The Government of Lawes is that onely which is or can be the Government of God and not of men He that is for the Government of Lawes is for the Government of God and he that is for the Government of Man is for the Government of a Beast Kings no question where the ballance is Monarchical are of divine right and if they be good the gr●atest blessing the Government so standing can be capable of but the ballance being popular as in Israel in the Gretian in the Scicilian Tyranny they are the direst curse that can befall a Nation Nor are Divines who will alwaies have them to be of divine right to be hearkened too seeing they affirm that which is clean contrary to Scripture for in this case saith Hosea They have set up Kings and not by me they have Princes I knew it not Pharoah may impose the making of Brick without the allowance of straw but God never required of any men or of any Government that they should live otherwise then according to their Estates It is true if a Man want make him a servant there are rules in Scripture that enjoyn him the duty of a servant but shew me the rule in Scripture that obligeth a man who can live of himself unto the duty of a servant Hath God less regard unto a Nation then a man yet the people of Israel continuing upon a popular Agrarian though God forewarned them that by this means they would make themselves servants would needs have a King whence saith the same Prophet O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self but in me is thine help I will be thy King which foretells the restitution of the Common-wealth Where is any other that may save thee in all thy Cities and thy Judges of whom thou saidst give me a King and Princes I gave th●e a King in mine anger that is in Saul and I took him away in my wrath that is in the Captivity so at least saith Rabbi Bechai with whom agreed Nachmony Gers●ho●e and others Kimchy it is true and Maim●●ides are of opinion that the people making a King displeased God not in the matter but in the form onely as if the root of a Tree the ballance of a Government were form onely and not matter nor do our Divines yet who are divided into like parties see more then the Rabbies Both the Royalists and the Common wealths men of such sort that is whether Divines or Talmudists appeal unto the letter of the Law which the Royalists as the translators of the Bible render thus When they shall say the Commonwealths men a● Diodatus thus If thou come to say I will set a King over me like all the Nations that are about me thou shalt in any wise set him King over the● whom the Lord thy God shall chuse The one party will have the Law to be positive the other contingent and with a mark of detestation upon it for so where God speaketh of his peoples doing any thing like the Nations that were about them it is every where else understood but let these which are no niceties be as you will who seeth not that to argue from this place for the necessity of the King is as if one from that foregoing should argue for the necessity of the Judges The words are these Thou shall come unto the High Priest and to the Levite which as was said was unto the Sanhedrim and that is or to the Judge that shall be in those dayes yet that the Judge not by any necessity implyed in these words but through the meer folly of the people came to be set up in Israel is plain by Josephus where he showes that the Israelites laying by their Arms and betaking themselves unto their pleasures while they did not as God had commanded root out the Canaanites from among them but suffered them to dwell with them suffered also the form of their Commonwealth to be corrupted and the Senate to be broken the Senators nor other solemn Magistrates being Elected as formerly which both in word and fact is also confirmed by the Scripture In words as where it is thus written When Josuah had let the people go that is had dismissed the Army and planted them upon their popular ballance the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the Land and the people served the Lord all the days of Josuah and all the days of the Elders that out lived Josuah that is while the Sanhedrim continued after him but when the Elders hereof came to dye and the people elected them no successors they did evil in the sight of the Lord and having broken their civil Orders forsook also their Religion the Government whereof depended upon the Sanhedrim and served Baalim And for the matter of fact included in these words it farther appears where Judah saith unto Simeon his brother Come up with me into my lot that we may fight against the Canaanites and I likewise will go with thee into thy l●t so Simeon went with him By which the Tribes leaguing at their pleasure one with another it is plain that the Sanhedrim their common ligament was broken now except a Man shall say that this neglect of Gods Ordinance was according unto the Law of God there is no disputing from that Law to the necessity of the Judge which hapned through no other then this Exigence quippe aut rex quod abominandum aut quod unum liberae civitatis consilium est Senatus habendus est wherefore the judge of Israel was not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen onely by his providence not imposed by the Law but provided by it as expedient in case of necessity and if no more can be pleaded from the Law for the Judge against whom God never declared much less is there to be pleaded from the same for the King against whom he declared so often There is nothing more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God the Judges and the King no otherwise then through the imprudence

civitates regibus parebant c. At the first saith he Cities were Governed by Kings and so still at this day are such Nations as descended of men accustomed to the King by Government For every houshold is governed by the eldest as it were by a King and so consequently are the Colonies or Companies multiplyed from thence governed in like sort for Kindreds sake Which words of Aristotle seconded by the general practice of all Nations I look on as a better Argument of the Original institution Divine Right of Kings that great Philosopher in the 4th Book of his Politicks cap. 2. giving unto the Regall Government the attribute of Divinissima or the most Divine then to fetch either of them from the institution of the first King among the Hebrews so that you might have spared the labour of showing the inconsequences of arging from a contingent case to a matter of absolute necessity as from the making of the first King amongst the Hebrews to the necessity of making Kings in all other Nations unless you could have found some adversary to contend withal And with like thrift you might have saved your self the trouble of proving that the words of Moses in Deut. 17. v. 18. touching recourse to be had unto the Judge which should be in those dayes in some certain cases inferred not a necessity of having any such supream Judge as God raised up from time to time to govern and avenge his people in their greatest misery unless you have met with any which I know not of which trust as much to that Text of Scripture for those supream Judges as you rely upon it for the Court of Sanhedrim of which more anon The corollary wherewithal you close this passage I like well enough had you grounded your discourse on some clearer Text For I conceive as well as you that those Judges are not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen onely by his providence not imposed by the Law but provided by i● as an Expedient in case of necessity 22. But before I come to examine the Text of Scripture on which you ground both the Authority of the Sanhedrim and those supream Judges which governed in their several times the affairs of Israel I must first see what form of Government it is which you chiefly drive at and in comparison whereof you so much vilifie and condemn the Regall And fi●st the Government you drive at mus● be plainly Popular and such Popular estate call i● Timocraty or a Democratie or what else you please into which the old Agrarian laws must be introduced for the better settling of equality amongst the people And such a Common-wealth as this you fancy to be most agreeable to the natural liberty of Mankind and Divine institution There is nothing say you more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God p. 14. and settled on a popular Agrarian p. 12. And that the Restitution of their Common-wealth was fore-signified in these words of the Prophet Hosea I will be thy King cap. 13. 10. But if you have no better grounds for the Institution then for the Restitution of this Common-wealth they are too weak for foundation of so great a building The Prophet speaks in that place particularly to the house of Ephraim v. 1. the people of the Realm of Israel v. 9. as appears more distinctly by their kissing the Calves the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel v. 2. Of whose reduction to their native Country after their being carried away captive by Salmanasser King of Assyria there is nothing signified in the Scripture in the way of prophesie nor no relation of it as a matter of Fact Nor can you show me any clear and evident text by which I may be sure that this Commonwealth was instituted by God considering that Moses during the whole time of his life governed authoritatively and supreamly without any appeal unto the people or unto any other power either co-ordinate with him or superior to him which I believe is more thenyou can show me in any Duke of Venice or any State-holder of the Netherlands or any other Prince in a Common-wealth which onely serve as second Notions in a State to put their business into form and give date to all publick instruments as the Keepers of the Liberties not long since in England Nor do I finde that Josuah abated any thing of that power which Moses had advising sometime with the Elders of the people but not governed by them so that the first Government amongst the Israelites had more in it of the Regal then the popular Forms to which they did desire to return again upon the apprehension of the Anarchy and confusion under which they lived when there was no King in Israel as in other Nations And as for your Agrarian laws your Popular Ballance as elsewhere upon which this Commonwealth is supposed to be settled I conceive it will be very hard for you to prove that also For though the Land of Canaan was divided by Lot amongst the Tribes yet neither had the Tribes themselves their equal portion nor every family in those Tribes their equal shares in those unequal portions with one another some of the Tribes enjoying little or nothing of the lot which had fallen unto them and some of the Families of those Tribes being scattered up and down the Country as Jacob had prophesied of Simeon in the Book of Gen. which utterly destroyes that popular Agrarian on which this Common-wealth is supposed to be founded and in which you say they might have continued but that they desired to have a King like other Nations 23. Your second Argument for a preferring a popular Estate before a Monarchy is derived from reason and that reason grounded on the natural liberty of all mankind which cannot better be preserved them in popular Governments God never required as you say of any Man or any Government that they should live otherwise then according to their estate that there are rules in Scripture to show the duty of a servant to such whose wants have made them servants but that there is no rule in Scripture that obligeth a man unto the duty of a servant which can live of himself And finally having askt this question whether God hath less regard of a Nation then he hath of a man you tax the Israelites for making themselves servants by desiring a King to be set over them when they might have continued as they were in a free condition But first that natural liberty of Mankind which our great Polititians so much talk of hath no ground in nature for as servants are bound by positive Lawes to obey their Masters so women are bound by the law of Nature to submit themselves unto their Husbands and children by the same law to be obedient to their parents This if the Scripture had not taught you you might have learnt from Aristotle as he did from Homer

the Government with him you should then turn the Text and say that God took of the Spirit which was upon the seventy Elders and put it upon Moses for otherwise his wisedom cannot be said to have been greater for having so many wise Assistants no more the personal vallour of a Prince may be said to be greater then it is by having many men of valour in his Council of War or the beauty of a Queen said to be greater then before by having many beautiful Ladies attending on her And so your argument against apealing from the Sanhedrim as the supream Court to Moses as the supream Prince is brought to nothing Which notwithstanding you conceive so highly of the Sanhedrim because it hath some resemblance to the Senate in a popular estate that you make it to be a State distinct from the rest of the people and all this to no other purpose but to multiply the number of estate in every Nation that Kings and such as have the power of Kings may not be ridden only with the bitt and bridle but a Martingal also For if the Congregation of the people in Law to be made had such power as was shown but whither it be shown in your Papers or any where else I am yet to seek and that in Law so made the ultimate appeal lay unto the Sanhedrim as you can never prove it did when there was any King in Israel you ask this Question Why are not here two Estates in this Common wealth each by Gods own Ordinancce and both plain in Scripture Which Argument or Question needs no other Answer but that a male suppositis ad non valet Argumentum ad ●ejus concessa as the Logicians use to tell us You must have plainer Texts of Scripture to prove this Ordinance of God which here you speak of or else the Sanhedrim and the people could not mak two distinct Estates in that Common-wealth as you say they did 30. Now for the clearer proofs of this that is to say that there lay no appeal to Moses from the seventy Elders you have recourse to those words in Deut. 17. 8. where it is said That if there arise a Controversie within thy gates too hard for thee in judgment then shalt thou come unto the Priest and to the Levite or to the Judge that shall be in those days and they shall shew thee the sentence of Judgment upon which Text you first deliver this gloss viz. that by the Judge which shall be in those days we are to understand those supream Judges which governed the affairs of Israel from time to time betwixt the death of Joshua and the raign of Saul Secondly That by the Priests and Levites we are to understand the Sanhedrim according to the sense of all Authors as they stand both Jewish and Christian And thirdl● by these words within thy Gates the Jethronian Judges because they sate and gave judgment in the Gates of their Cities And thereupon you raise this Conclusion without doubt or hesitancy That by the clear sence of Scripture all matter of appeal in Israel lay unto the Sanhedrim And yet perhaps it may be said that the sence of that Text of Scripture is not so clear as you would have it the words being otherwise glossed and therefore otherwise to be understood then you seem to do For First How may we be assured that the Pri●sts and Levites made such a considerable number in the Sanhedrim as to be taken in this place for the woole Court Some which are skilled in all the learning of the Hebrews telling us that the 70. Elders were first chosen by six and six out of every Tribe which make up 72 in all And yet say they they passed by the name of the 70. Elders ad retundationem numeri for the evenness and roundness of the number even as the 72 Disciples Post haec autem designavit dominus ali●s Septuaginta duos saith the vular Latin Luk. 10. 1. are for the same reason called the seventy If so there could but six Priests and Levites be chosen into that great Council admitting that the Tribe of Levi were at that time reckoned to be one of the Twelve and therefore it is very improbable that the Priests and Levites should stand here for all the Sanhedrim but if the Tribe of Levi were not accounted at that time amongst the Twelve as they were not afterwards then could there be no Priests or Levites in that Court at all at the first institution of it though afterwards when Ten of the Twelve Tribes were fallen from the house of David the Priests and Levites might be taken in to make up the number And thereupon it needs must follow that Moses i● that place did not intend the whole Sanhedrim by the Priests and Levites or lookt upon the Priests and Levites as the greatest and most considerable thereof Secondly It is affirmed by some Christian Writers that the Priests and Levites here mentioned are to be understood in their single capacities and not as parts and members of the Iewish Sanhedrim for when a matter seemed too hard to be determined by the inferiour Judges they are enjoyned saith Deodat to go to the Priests by way of consultation and Enquiry to be informed of the true sence and meaning of Gods Laws The Priests being great Lawyers among the people understanding and experienced in the meaning of Gods Law according to which judgement was to be given in all the cases comprehended therein for which we cannot have a better proof then that of the Prophet Mal. cap. 2. 7. where it is said that the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts Nor is it so certain as you make it that by the Judge who should be in those dayes we are to understand the supream Judge or Judges or any of them who governed the affairs of Israel as aforesaid For Ainsworth who had well studied the Iewish Rabbines understands these words of the Sanhedrim it self By the Judge saith he is understood the high Councel or Senate of Judges which were the Chiefs or Heads of the Fathers of Israel And this he doth not onely say of his own Authority but refers himself in generall to the Hebrew Records and more particularly to Rubbige Maimony in his tract of Rebels ca. 1. Sect. 4. By both it is agreed that this direction is not given to the parties themselves who had any suit or controversie depending in the low Courts but to the Judges of those Courts and to them alone for which I must confess I can see no reason in the Text or context 31. For if you look into the first words of that chapter we shal find it to be a general direction to the people of Israel by which they are commanded not to sacrifice to the Lord their God any bullock or sheepe wherein is blemish or any ill favouredness