Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	great_a	holy_a	12,790	5	4.8317	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91862	ʼIgeret HaMaskil Iggeret hammashkil. Or, An admonitory epistle unto Mr Rich. Baxter, and Mr Tho. Hotchkiss, about their applications (or mis-applications rather) of several texts of Scripture (tending cheifly) to prove that the afflictions of the godly are proper punishments. Unto which are prefixed two dissertations; the one against Mr. Baxter's dangerous problems and positions, about the immanent acts of Gods knowledge and will, as if any of those could be said (without blasphemy) to begin in God, in time, and not to be eternal as himself is: or, as if God could be said (without derogation to His infinite perfections) to begin to know and will in time, any thing which He did not know and will before, yea from all eternity: the other, both against Mr. Baxter and Mr. Hotchkiss, about their definition of pardon and remission of sins, in opposition to great Doctor Twisse's definition of pardon, as it is in God from all eternity towards his elect in Christ. / By William Robertson, Mr. of Arts from the University of Edenburgh.	Robertson, William, d. 1686?	1655 (1655)	Wing R1610; Thomason E1590_1; ESTC R208822	104,273	182

pardigme or examplary verb generally used by all Grammarians according to which other Hebrew verbs are to be formed and declined to wit the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pakad so well known in it selfe and in its signification He visited that any School-boy upon two or three days study of the Hebrew Grammar may be made able to inform such wise ones about their mistaking of this original root at least yea the truth is and the greater both your sinne and shame your ignorance and neglect of studying to understand your Lords Original Embassage and Instructions to you in his commission by you to his people receiving thereby the higher and greater aggravation one moneths study of the Hebrew Grammar and Dictionary might have made both or either of you to know so much of the Languag as that it would have prevented all these mistakes and misapplications of Texts of Scripture which you are now so tartly as possibly you may think taxed for yea it would have made you ashamed of those mistakes in the behalfe of others if you had trapped and traced them in such mistakes which doth I say greatly aggravate the guiltinesse of such men chiefly if they be the Lords Embassadours who have spent so much time yea so many years in the study of Philosophy and Philosophical and Metaphysical Authors so much time yea so many years in the study of School-divinity and all the controversies in Scholastical Theology and last of all who have taken themselves to a study of so much time and so many years more as the vast study of Volving over the Voluminous works of the Greek and Latine Fathers is for thus Mr. Baxter gives an account of his studies unto us and yet in all this time nor in all these so many years for such Bookish-men not to set apart a few weeks or one moneth at least for that study which is almost unum necessarium and I am sure it is and ought to be esteemed the chief necessary work prerequired to their function and absolutely necessary to the rational discharging of their office as Embassadours of God to his people to wit for study of so sacred and excellent a language wherin their Lords original Articles of his Embassage to his people are written and delivered this I say doth greatly aggravate such students guiltinesse in their other studies even especially since the study of that language for so little time as is mentioned but of a few weeks might make Embassaduors at least thus far qualified in the knowledge of their Masters words as that knowing the necessary grounds of the Hebrew Grammar they may upon any occasion turn over an Hebrew Lexicon or Dictionary to search out the radical and proper significations of the Hebrew roots and not to be so grossly and paipably ignorant and mistaken in them as to need so rude an information about the Original and Radical significations of them This much of qualification for understanding the Original words of God may be attained unto and acquired in so short a time and with some occasional practice and exercise in it this way as need requires and whosoever doth willingly or carelesly neglect the study of this sacred language this much at least in so far he is not worthy to be stiled no not nomine tenus an Embassadour of God to his people Thus I have been somewhat large in ushering in the three next Texts of Scripture misapplied by Mr. Baxter and you to the present point in question but I have been so the more willingly because there are 3. of them to be together one word wil be but necessary to clear the mistake in them al but chiefly because I do think that what is chiefly intended by such like expressions can never be more then enough pressed to a serious consideration of it to wit that the Embassadors of God in Christ to his people may be stired upto a more diligent study to know and understand their Lord and Masters commission in his own words delivered to them Now the three next Texts misapplyed by Master Baxter and you to prove that the sufferings of the Godly are called in Scripture proper punishments are these following viz. two which Master Baxter doth cite out of the prophesie by Hosea Hos 4. 9. and Hos 12. 2. and one which you do cite out of the prophesie by Amos Am. 3. 2. The words of al those three Texts which you do aim a● as making for your business are these Hos 4. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upakadti gnalaiv derachaiv I will visit upon him or them his or their ways And Hos 12. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uliphkod gnal Jag akob kidrachaiv and to visit Jacob according to his wayes And so Ames 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnal ken Ephked gnalechem Et col gnavozotechem Therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities Now there is not a word in any of those three Texts that signifieth punishment or to punish How then can any or all of them prove that the sufferings of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture there is onely the Translators glasse put upon one word which deceives your cyes in all the three yet without any mistake in them for in all the three paces which doth not a little aggravate the faultinesse of your so gross mistake as was before explained they put the radical and proper signification of that word in the margen which you do wilfully overlook as not making much for your business for there is onely in those three Texts three Tenses of the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pakad which all the world almost or atleast all in the world that hath ever learned any thing of Hebrew knoweth that it doth not signifie to punish but that the radical signification of it is he visited and hence in the 1. pers of the preterite tense in kal it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pakadti I have visited but with Vau conversive before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upakadti and I shall or will visite as in thr first of these three texts Hos 4. 9. and in the infinite kal with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liphkod to visite as in the second text Hos 12. 2. and in the first pers sing of future kal it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephkod I shall or will visite in the third Text Amos 3. 2. as any one that hath learned so far in the Hebrew Grammar as Amo is in the Latine Rudiments or Accidents knoweth and could have informed you about the resolving and proper signification of those three words in those three Texts of Scripture and then any rational Consideration could have informed you that the word visitation or to visit being spoken in reference to affliction or suffering for offences is as well applicable to visitations out of Mercy as to visitations out of Justice and so may as well be taken for

first and then ●el such wise ones as do affirm it that they must suffer themselves to be informed about the original where they are so grosly mistaken into it As to that other Text out of this Chapter to wit ver 22. there can be no other thing said to it then to this and the former for it is the same mistake of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon iniquity which Mr. Baxter will have properly to signifie punishment or to signifie proper punishment although the Translators in that verse also and at that word in that verse do put a marginal note thus or iniquity and therefore Mr. Baxter can no more translate the word there by punishment then his adversaries will translate it by iniquity and with more reason will they translate it so because it is the proper and radical signification of the word and there is no forcible reason to alter the proper signification of the word in that verse On the contrary there seems more reason to keep it in the Text then either to take it away or to set it in the margen Which that it may appear we shall onely look upon the text and leave it The words then are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam gnavonech bat tzion Thy iniquity is accomplished or absolved O daughter of Zion that is thou hast now begunn to break off thy sins and so to finish your sinful wayes by repentance therefore the Lord will also accomplish or finish his corrections upon you and put an end to them seeing you have put a period to your sins he will not any more carry you captive c. as followeth in the rest of the verse Now since this may be the meaning of the words in their proper signification how will Mr. Baxter force us to take his improper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon iniquity to take it for punishment and all to prove his opinion that the afflictions of the godly are properly called punishments When that although we should gr●●● that in some such places those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah might be translated in a general sence punishment yet that would be but by a figurative and metonymical way of speech taking the words which properly and radically doe signifie iniquity or perversness and sin to import also iniquity and sin in the effects or the effects of sin and iniquity to wit all sorts of afflictions and sufferings for sin and then punishments or sufferings for sin in that general sense will comprehend as well fatherly chastisments out of love which your adversaries will affirm are alwaies meant when these words are taken to bespeak the sufferings of the godly for sin and that upon this good reason because words properly signifying chastisements or corrections from love are often attributed to the afflictions of the godly in Scripture but never is there a word properly signifying punishment attributed unto them as well as proper punishments proceeding from the wrath justice and revenge of God as a Judge which they will grant unto you to be meant when those words are taken to import the sufferings of the wicked for their sins But upon those grounds Sir they will tell you that the Eagles eyes doe see very much and very far indeed if they can see so far in those two words as to prove by them that the afflictions or sufferings of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture proceeding from the justice of God as a Judge and not onely chastisements and corrections proceeding from him as a Father out of love when the two words you prove it by doe not signifie properly punishments of sin at all but onely sin and iniquity it self or if by a metonymie they may be taken for the effects of sin and iniquity yet then they import and may be translated chastisements out of love in reference to the sins of the godly as well as proper punishments out of wrath and justice which are the portion of the wicked for their sins And then they wil conclude Sir that such Wiseeagle-eyed-ones must suffer themselves to be somwhat better informed about the original then to conclude that from those two words it is proven that the afflictions of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture and that therefore other texts are to be brought to prove the point then any where these two words have all the force to prove it the which indeed is done by you both if to any better purpose then hitherto it will be seen by that which followeth The fifth place or Text of Scripture which Mr. B. and you do misapply to prove that the Sufferings of the Godly are called in the Scripture proper punishments is Ezra 9. 13. In which as in each of all the Texts following cited by you both when I have turned to the place I doe see you both so palpably culpable not onely of such palpable ignorance of the original patents and articles of your commission but also of such negligent or wilful inconsideration of the very translation it self that I doe professe whither you will be ashamed of it or not I know not but I am sure you should for I am both ashamed and sorry in your behalf to let the world know although I cannot other waies doe but am necessitated to it 1. Because such deceivings of the world are already published and therefore the publishers of them ought to be made publiquely and pungently to resent it And 2. that such ignorant or inconsiderate mistakings and such false deceivings of others by those mistakes or mistaking misapplications may be headed taken notice of prevented and shunned hereafter before they be published to the publique injury of the Christian world thorough such misguidings of their Guids That such eminent Ministers in the Church of England in those blessed be God so knowing daies are so grosly delinquent and deficient and so notoriously faulty in that which ought to be their chief employment because it is their first and chiefest part of the work and function they are called to viz. The study of their Lord and Masters words in which he hath delivered his Embassage to his people And for the ground of such an accusation how weighty soever it may seem to be I shall need no more to underprop it then the bare proposal of the former Text and the rest following cited by you both adding only this explication that such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed about the Original when they are ignorant of or mistaken in it themselves or when they would mislead others into the same mistakings with them First then for the words which you aym at in Ezra 9. 13. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ki attah Elohenu chasachta lemattah megnavonenu Now Sir I say that he who would prove from those words that the sufferings of the godly are called in Scripture not onely chastisements out of

from this root at all as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakk●h should signifie properly to punish but rather the quite contrary for the root in Kal is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah which radically only signifieth he was pure clean or innocent and in piel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nikkah it importeth he made pure and clean or he made innocent and hence he declared innocent or he did absolve and acquit as not guilty Whence our translation most frequently renders it by holding guiltlesse as in the third Commandement Exod. 20. 7. c. For the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo jenakkah the future piel 3. person singular will not hold him guiltlesse c. absolving or clearing and acquitting from guilt as Exod. 34. 7. and Nah. 1. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakkeh the infinitive piel to absolve clear or acquit by making innocent as it were lo jenakk●h abselvenda non absolvet sive declarando innocentem non declarahit that is surely or certainly he will not clear acquit nor absolve or he will not at all or altogether clear acquit or absolve c. by making or declaring innocent as it were And so here in this Text Jer. 46. v. last and 30. v. 11. Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakkeh the infinitive piel as before lo anakkecha the future piel 1. sing with the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cha thee verbatim and word for word translated they are rendered thus absolvendo non absolvam te sive dectarando non declarabo te innocentem that is in or by acquitting clearing or absolving I will not clear absolve nor acquit thee altogether by declaring thee altogether innocent The meaning of which phrase is certainly I will not altogether acquit thee by declaring thee altogether pure and innocent when thou hast offended because I have determined to chastise and correct thee though out of love and in measure when thou dost offend as the words immediatly preceding these in the same verse do clearly import and expresse and the sence of it is the same which the same word importeth Exod. 20. 7. in the third Commandement for as there the Lord determineth not to hold guiltless by declaring altogether innocent him whosoever he be whether godly or wicked who shall dare to prophane his holy name by taking it in vain but one way or other he will make it manifest that he doth not acquit nor clear any as altogether innocent and without fault and gnilt in so doing So here J●r 46. and 30 he doth indeed threaten the remnant of the godly some way or another to make it manifest that he doth not approve of their failings and faults and that he will not hold them altogether guiltlesse by declaring them altogether innocent when they have offended against him but that rather he will by some dispensations of his providence evidence to themselves their own guiltyness and manifest to the world his taking notice of it after they have offended him by their sins And this is all which can be made out from the proper and known signification of those words But when the question is more particularly proposed what are those dispensations of divine providence by which he notifyeth this his taking notice of the offences of the godly viz. Whether they be proper punishments proceeding from God as a judge out of justice and vindictive wrath or vengeance or whether they be onely fatherly corrections from God as a loving father out of love and mercy to reclaim his own from their sinfull waies I do think this a very scriptural reason and Christian-like answer that if the Spirit of God in Scripture doth very frequently give out the sufferings of the godly by the name of chastisements and corrections but never by the name of proper punishments that then the Saints sufferings are more scripturally at least to be called rather chastisements and corrections then proper punishments but the antecedent or first proposition is true viz. That the Scripture doth often call the sufferings of the Saints corrections as in those very words of Jer. 46. 28. 30. 11. Yet I wil not make a full end of thee but I will correct thee in measure And so shew that I will not altogether or wholly hold thee guiltlesse c. as is before explained when thou doest sin and of fend me but no where doth the Scripture call the Saints sufferings proper punishments for if it doth I desire you would but inform me of it by your next if you can more fully and clearly then in this and then I do promise you to challenge my self for challenging you as not being able to do it therefore the consequent or the last proposition is also true viz that Christians ought rather to call the Saints sufferings chastisements and corrections then proper punishments The last two Texts which Mr. Baxter citeth in that sixth argument of his dispute in his Aphorisms to prove that the sufferings of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture are out of Lev. 28. ver 18. and 24. But as they are the last of his citations out of Scripture in that place so they are especially one of them the greatest and the grossest of his mistakes about the Scriptures original if any can be greater then some of yours and his that have been examined before for the evident proof of which it will be onely necessary in a word or two to ranscribe the Texts and render them in their proper and radical signification The words then mistaken of one of them viz. Lev. 26. ver 24 are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vehikkiti etchem gam ani c. and Verbatim they are rendred thus and onely thus properly as any that ever hath read but two or three Psalms in the Hebrew Text understandingly cannot but know at the very first sight of the Text for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hikkiti is so frequently used in the Hebrew Text and so frequently translated in its proper and radical signification of smiting that none who knows any thing in the Hebrew roots can be ignorant that this is the true genuine proper and radical signification and translation of these words And I will smite you yet seven times more c. for the mistaken word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hickiti is the first singular of the preterite tense in hiphil I have smitten but with Vau conversive before it I will smite from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nacah not used in kal but in hiphal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hickah he smote he did smite or strike c. And it is constantly thus translated as Esay 11. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word velickah eretz and he shall smite the earth c. and 2 King 13. 18. And he said smite upon the ground and he smote thrice c. where the same word is used in the imperative singular and the third pers sing future in hiphal as every