mistake it or are ignorant of it But Sir now I think on 't I told you there were two places in your little Book which I liked better then many others in your Book besides One of them I have already given you with my observation on 't to be made use of as need requires The other followeth and that is pag 148. 149. A passage you have there liking me no less then the former and in this it liketh me better that it is out of the Old Testament and that you do take notice of a very remarkable observation I wish you had always so remembred and bethought your self so seriously as to have remembred it where-ever there were occasion which is this Sir That one and the same word in the Hebrew is many times differently rendred by our Translators By the face of God is sometimes say ye meant his favor and so it is taken Ps 51. 11. it being the self-same word in the Original excellently well and emphatically observed as is used ver 9. although it be differently rendred by our Translators better yet remarked e. g. in v. 9. face in v. 11. presence So then I see Sir and I do heartily commend you for it that you do think it deserves to be taken notice of where the Translators do diversly render the Original or do differ in one place from their translation of the same word in another place And so ye do think I suppose likewise that it should be observed when they give divers words in the Hebrew one and the same translation And all those Sir and many others and such like varieties in the translation as when in one and the self-same place they do give different or divers readings of the Hebrew words or phrases c. I think are necessarily to be diligently searched into and compared with the Original before a man can be rightly termed an Interpreter of the Word for the satisfaction either of himself or his hearers And therefore Sir if you fail to be so accurate in your observations between the Translation and the Original hereafter especially if there be more necessity of accuracie in observation then is here for the truth is I see little either of necessity or pertinencie of such accuracie here it being a business that a hundred have in their mouths and put in books that never knew a word in the Original that the same word in the Hebrew is translated sometimes face and sometimes presence or some such common and tristing expressions which they have somewhere catcht to make use of thereby to bear the world and their hearers or readers in hand that they are expert forsooth in the Hebrew criticisms But I say all is well if you be always as accurate in your explications of the Original and comparing it with the Translation when places occur of some more material consequence to be opened But I fear me Sir it prove far otherwise with you and that you have been more accurate I know not upon what account in this punctilio when no need required it except to shew that you had something really of that which you would be ashamed the world should know that you were altogether ignorant of I say I fear you have been more exact here and that unnecessarily then ever I shall find you all your book over again even there where you bring Texts of Scripture to prove your opinions in matters controverted and in dispute with your adversaries If this prove not true Sir then I have lost my conjecturing faculty in such like cases and if it do prove true then I hope you will remember that such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed about the Original c. Thus Sir I have done with the first part of that equitable estimate I put upon your writings having declared what I think praise-worthy in some passages of them and how far The other part of my estimate followeth which I hope you will not take in ill part since I have put that which so highly commends you before and have shewed quam strenue how manly you have behaved your self in those praise-worthy passages and withall I have had observations upon them so clearly arising from them that they must several times be made use of particularly as we go on Now therefore I come to declare unto you some passages which did not a little offend and dislike me some of which being altogether falshoods and those in this matter are not small ones averring such things to be in the Word of God which are not in them others are meer needless impertinences or gross mistakings all of them bewraying and be-speaking aloud Sir that such a wise one must suffer himself to be informed about the words in the original c. Some of those mistakings are singly and onely your own others are common to your self and your sharp-sighted Patron under the same culpable mistaking or ignorance with you and therefore he also must himself be informed about those his errors in the original The first place then that be-speaks to me here a necessity in you of information about the original I did finde by casting my eye upon the Margent of the very Page going before your so exact Explication of the original in reference to the translation which we touched last to wit Page 128. where the truth is Sir I must tell you in the entrance again and put you in minde of it that I must speak my thoughts freely to you what ever they be as I have a reasonable occasion and therefore I say that in the forecited place you have one not onely of the grossest mistakes that I think was ever put in a Print Book but also one of the most impertinent falshoods putting that upon and in the words of God by one of his Prophets that there is not the least shew nor appearance of nay that there is the quite contrary evidently bespoken in the words themselves and which is worst of all in the translation also so that I profess Sir I wonder not a little how such a mistake should have arisen in a rational head you are for your own ends in the Page instanced before explaining what is meant in Scripture by the face of God which sometimes is put say you for the favour of God and sometimes for the wrath and displeasure of God and here we are directed with a reference to the Margent where you do place as a special observation these words In this sense the face of God say you is sometimes stiled the back of God Jer. 18. 17. When I did cast my eye upon your words I thought somewhat strange of them for I had never remembred that ever I had observed any such expression as that should import the face of God to be stiled the back of God And I thought I did ow you thanks for shewing me such a phrase if there were indeed any such I did presently therefore turn to the place and there
hands and feet c. to God by averring that such corporeal members are properly in God It were borrid blasphemy to speak so Yet the strength of your Argument would fall to the ground if it were for no more but this as it might be prosecuted But Sir my main business is to deny the Antecedent or the first Proposition and to put you both to prove it by averring and asserting in terms of contradiction to your Proposition That the Scripture doth not call the sufferings or afflictions of believing and godly persons punishments I say the Scripture cals them not punishments at all either properly or improperly Well Mr. Baxter being put to it as suspecting it would be denied him he proves it with a catalogue of several Scriptures I shall view them as he layeth them down Sir and I shall present both to your view and his what I do find in them The first place which he brings to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called Punishments in Scripture is Levit. 26. 41 43. I have turned to these two verses and I find no such thing in the words of God by his servant Moses in those Texts nay there is not so much as any mention made at all there of the word punishment how can it then prove that the afflictions of the godly are not only chastisements but proper punishments For these Sir are the words of God themselves in that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veaz jirtzu et gnavonam Now Sir there is no mention expresly here of their punishment at all but only of their sin as any that know any thing of Hebrew at all in the very first look upon the words will presently perceive For there is only thus much expressed in them And then or and if they will or shall accept of their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jirtzu being the third person plural fut kal they shall accept or be well pleased with c. from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah He was well pleased with or he accepted c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavonam is only in the verbal translation of it their iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 am being the affix their and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon signifying properly only iniquity or perversity for the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavah which doth properly signifie He did perversly or he did wickedly or he perverted his way So Sir the word punishment is not here at all how then is it applied to the sins of the godly here But you will say the sense must be supplied some way And I grant there must be some good sense made as far as we can of all words of Scripture But how Must only the Baxterian or Hotchkissian sense be taken as good and orthodox especially of those places of Scripture which they think may serve for their turns when they have sensed them as they please No Sir we will not do so except you could bring us to that streight that we could probably sense them no other way then you do But here the case is clear that a sense quite and clear contradicting yours as to the present question may be put upon the words as well and as probably if not more probably then yours to wit by supplying the word correction or chastisement And then the words will run thus And if they accept of the chastisement of their iniquity And then where is your proof from this Text that the afflictions of the Godly are not only chastisements but proper punishments Nay from this Text thus translated it is inferred against you that they are chastisements and not punishments because the Scripture calls them not so And yet you do say it does Sir and in this Text but are you not ashamed in saying so And that this supplement of the Text by the word chastisement is as probable as by punishment and a great deal more probable is to me past question if it were but upon this account That no where else can you produce any place or Text of Scripture where the express word punishment is attributed to the afflictions of the godly but in very many places the word chastisement or correction is attributed to their afflictions Now which is most probable the Baxterian sense by putting in a word to the Text that hath no parallel to it in all the Hebrew text or by supplying the Text by a word that is often used elswhere when the Scripture speaks expresly to the point in question I profess Sir upon this one consideration I would count your sense rather nonsense then to put it before this sense which upon this ground I say is most probable because your sense is supplied by a word no where in Scripture and the other sense is by a word frequently used in Scripture If you do but so much as name the Translation to me Sir or any thing from it then 1. I 'll name to you again what in the story before is related in the case supposed That all the people cry out upon my Lord Ambassador there that his Lordship was but an Ambassador by name only and no ways fit for the thing it self since he could only judg of his Soveraigns Instructions and Commission unto him but by Translations 2. Sir I 'll freely tell you that though I do as much esteem of our latest Translation as you or any can rationally do accounting it better and much more accurate then I believe any vulgar Translation that is in the Christian world yet I must not take the Translation that now is nor no Translation that can be made in the world by humane industry to be my Original that is I must not go with the Translation to go against Reason with the Original or to go against a more reasonable and probable translation of the Original as always I shall esteem that to be which is made up where the sense is doubtful by adding to such words as are conform to other parallel places of Scripture rather then that which is framed of a word or words which is no where extant in a parallel place to the Text in question although it should have Mr. Baxter's approbation and Mr. Hotchkiss's both annexed unto it But such is the Translation before approven and therefore it is more rational and probable then the other notwithstanding both your authorities in backing it Thus Sir though you have not been advertised of a long while now yet I hope you remember That such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed about the Original when they are ignorant of it or in any great mistakeing about it And so much for the information of Mr. Baxter and you about the misapplication of this first Text of Scripture as to you But before I leave this Text I would briefly propose to the Learned whether there might not another more probable interpretation be put upon the words then either of those and that is by
of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velo jachati and would not miss the mark c. And hence by a metaphor he sinned by missing and going astray from the mark or scope which he should alwaies eye and aim at to wit the Glory of God and his Law And hence is this Nown in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chete sin or a going astray from the Law of God so that the word doth not signifie properly and in it self any thing at all of the punishment of sin It is true indeed that Lexicographers and Translators because of some places and texts of Scripture which must be supplyed either by the addition of some words that are not in the Text or by the explication of some words in the text some other way then their radical proper and used significations doth bespeak therefore they do generally say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chet or chete and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah sometimes to put some probable interpretation upon some texts of Scripture may be explained as not onely to import sin but also to import and denote the punishment of sin But then again Sir it is but where they are necessitated to it for to explain the Scripture when there can be no other probable interpretation of a text whâ—ch whether it be so or not here we shall see ere we leave this Text and further when they â—oe thus explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chete or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon to import the punishment of sin they do take the word pena peccati or punishment of sin generally or in a general sence as importing all sufferings or afflictions about sin as the cause or occasion of them either loving and fatherly chastisements or proper vindicative and revenging punishments proceeding from a Judge of justice punishing offenders Now when the word is taken in this general sence by the Translators and Expositors and so put in to any Text of Scripture may not your adversaries expound and translate it and the Text where it is put in by chastisements and improper punishments proceeding from fatherly love especially if the Text speak of the godly as well as you may doe proper punishments proceeding from the justice of a Judge Doe you think Sir that your adversaries will take the dictates of your will to be the Rules and Laws by which to interpret the original Scriptures which your own understanding for ought can be seen by your writings is altogether without knowledge and ignorant of this were indeed a blind following of a blind guide to take a mans will for a rule in things that he knows not I hope Sir that Master Baxter will not take to himselfe nor will any of his greatest admirers ascribe unto him so much authority nor to you both being joyned together as that staret pro ratione voluntas vestra aâ—aâ—que haec etiam in rebus quibus est caeca And if they will not ascribe to you so much then you may easily conceive that they will use their own authority in interpreting this place of improper punishments that is of fatherly chastisements out of love onely and ascribe as much to it as you do use your authority in sensing it of proper punishments proceeding out of justice from God as a Judge yea they will think somewhat more of their own authority if they know any thing more of the Original it selfe then you doe for then they can back their authority with this reason that in all the Original Text of the Hebrew the express word punishment is not attributed to the sufferings of the Godly in no other place but the word chastisement or correction out of love is many times attributed to them and therefore that that word that is attributed to them in other places of Scripture ought far rather to be made choice of to put in where the meaning and sense of the place is any thing doubtful about these sufferings then that word that is no where attributed to them at all in the text This reason Sir I esteem more of then of a hundred of your bare assertions running only thus our will and pleasure is c. if you offer any thing to back your authority from the translation you must be told again that in the case supposed the Embassador is put to prove his Tenets from the original words and writs of his Lord and Master as if there were not a translation of them to be looked upon we would see an excellent probation of them then or else you prove nothing And again I say tâ—â—translation makes no more for you nor again you for they take the word punishment in so general a sense as it comprehends chastisements only out of love as well as proper punishments out of justice as from a Judge and so either of them may be chosen to be the proper meaning of the place as there is most reason for it and for that let the reason going before be considered viz that the expresse word punishment at all either proper or improper is never in the Hebrew Text attributed to the Saints sufferings but chastisement and correction very often therefore chastisement ought far rather to be put in to supply a defective sense because it is a Scriptural word applyed to the sufferings of the people of God then punishment for it is not All this is said Sir in defence of the Text supposing it granted unto you that you do bring it in pertinently as to the subject in question at least to wit the afflictions of the Godly But 2. Secondly what if an adversary to you should deny that here there were any thing spoken with any reference to the sufferings of Godly men at all more nor of wicked men how should you then prove by this Text that the sufferings of the Godly are called punishments in Scripture truly Sir I would favour your adversaries this far if that were alledged that there is not word in this verse that hath any particular reference to Godly men but onely to men in general for first there is in the first part of the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mahjitonen Adam chai Why should a living man complain Now Sir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam chai doth import only â— living man or a man in natural and earthly lifâ— and I think there be more such a hundred to one then there are Godly men and so in the end of the verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber is a general name for man and if it have any particular limitâ—â—on it is this a strong man not godly man for the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gabar he prevailed he was strong c. and hence man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber from strength which appellation for signification the Latines use calling man Vir a viribus Now Sir I could wish from my
heart that all strong men were godly men yea that all men living were godly men for then I would be sure that I were one my selfe but I suspect it in many others as I many times fear it in my selfe that it is not so as I would gladly wish to have it and if the Text speake 1. nothing of punishments here at all for there is not a word signifying punishment in the original of this Text. Nor 2. nothing of Godly men here at all then how can this Text call the afflictions of godly men proper punishments The onely thing you can say here is that the whole lamentations and so this place is in the name of the whole Church but be it so yet your Antagonists can tell you that in the whole Church there are bad as well good yea many more bad then good there are wicked as well as godly yea too too many more wicked then Godly especially when any Universal affliction is laid upon the whole Church as here it was when all of them were led captive their land laid desolate Now Sir they would tell you that therefore although the Text did mention proper punishments as it doth mention no punishment at all yet they would say they were infflicted upon the Church for an Universal Deluge of wickedness which did overspread the land and the outward face of the Church but that yet notwithstanding these punishing strokes of justice upon the whole land and the wicked in it were but chastizing corrections out of fatherly love upon the persons of the godly in it even amidst all their common sufferings with the wicked in common calamities and that therefore those sufferings of the Church and Land were but to be called punishments in reference to wicked because they were inflicted by God as a Judge out of justice upon them but in reference to the persons of the Godly in which relation the question was stated they were to be called but chastisements of love because they did proceed from God as a Father in mercy to them Doth not Master Baxter and you prove your points excellently well Sir when you bring a Text to prove that the afflictions of godly men are called properly punishments in Scripture in which 1. there is not a word in that Text signifying punishment 2. There is not a word in that Text signifying a godly man And 3. when that we have supposed all that you would have to wit that both these were in the Text yet you do not prove your point and if when we have gratified you with the supposition of all that you require and yet you do not prove your points I pray Sir tell me by your next when will you prove them in the mean time till then such wise ones must be contented to suffer themselves to be informed about the original when they are so grossly mistaken into it I have done Sir with speaking my thoughts to Mr. Baxter and you upon the second place brought to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture and I think if I mistake not I have told you that you have not proved it by that text although we should take it after the meaning that it is usually translated in but in this Text also I have my thoughts about another construction and interpretation of the place without supplying the defective sence of it either with the word punishment or chastisement for the truth is if probably I can make construction and congruous interpretation of the very words of the original in any Text or the context thereof I doe not willingly bring a word from elswhere to supply the defective sense of that Text and this sence I shall propose to your consideration if you please and to the judgement of the learned in the language In the verses going before the dispensations and providences are all of them vindicated to be good and just and therefore the Prophet infers in this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mah jitonem Adam chai geber gnal chataav Now I say at the very looking of the words over again there is one sence I think may rationally be given of them which likes me very wel and which I shall presently subjoyn when I have touched the emphasis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jitonen which is the future hithpael third person singular of the Conjugation hithpael from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anan he mourned or lamented and in hithpael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hitonen properly he bemoaned himself he lamented over himself as it were and hence he murmured repined or fretted in and over himself because of his doleful condition some one way or another He was grieved In himself because of some one evil or another upon him The signification of this word being thus noted I think the words might not unfitly be understood thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mah jitonen adam chai why doth a living man repine murmur or fret in himself as it were against God in the evil of affliction which his providence hath justly brought upon him Rather as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber gnal chataav let a man murmur repine and grieve at his sins Or why should living man bemoan himself and complain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jithonen grievously in himself at the evils which the good hand of God hath brought to fall on him rather let him bewail and bemoan his sins which are the cause of all Let a man complain and bemoan over his sins for these are worse then all other evils that he can endure besides them So that we need not name or mention punishment at all in the words but onely this Why should a living man fret or murmur and repine or bemoan and complain in himself to wit against God and his dispensations or at the evil spoken of and intimated in the verse and verses going before Let a man complain and bemoan himself or be grieved in himself over his sins and so repent of them as the exhortation is at large laid out in the verse following and then shal be an end of all our evil and misery Or in a word the words might be thus explained and taken as if they were in the first part of the verse a question and in the last part of it an answer to it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mah jithonen adam chai What should a living man most or chiefly as it were complain of or be most grived and vexed at as the word jithonen importeth and the answer to the question is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geher gnal chataav a man should chiefly be grieved in himself over his sins more then over or for any thing else as it were There is another Text that much inclineth me thus to explain the words taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jithonen to express a mans murmuring repining fretting greeving and complaining in himself against God and his
fatherly love but proper punishments out of revenging justice doth nothing else but instead of proving the point both shame himself and abuse others for there is nothing in them being Verbatim translated but this for or seeing thou our God hast kept back restrained withdrawn reserved or with-held for this is the radical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chasachta being the 2d pers sing of preter kal. from the root in the third person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chasach which onely importeth these significations to with-hold to draw or keep back to restrain to take away c. below or beneath which is the onely signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mattah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lemattah from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 netah to decline c. our iniquities So that there is not a word of punishment here And how then can it be proved from this place that the word punishment properly taken for the vengeance of Vindictive Justice is attributed to the sufferings of the Godly in Scriptures if it be said that the sense of the place doth carry and import so much your Antagonists will answer 1. That the question is whether the word it self punishment be in the Scripture applyed to the sufferings of the Godly and that therefore if you bring not a Text that hath expressely in it a word properly signifying punishment you are quite extra Rhombum and do bring nothing to the point in controversie 2. They will tell you that even as to the sense of this place there is nothing more in it then there is in these words Psalm 103. verse 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l◠cachataenu gn sahlanu velo kegnavonotenu gamal gnalenu He hath not done to us according to our sins neither hath he rewarded us according to our iniquities truly I would not a little wonder why this place in the Psal 103. is not listed and numbred by you amongst the rest in the Catalogue of mis-applyed Texts of Scripture to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are proper punishments were it not for this consideration that you do see nothing your self with your own eyes but all and onely with your Spectacles for if the Translation-glasse had been put before your eyes here thus he hath not punished us according as our sins and iniquities have deserved as the Translators in a general sense might as rationally have rendred those words Ps 103. ver 10. as they have done those Ezr. 9. 13. then be sure it would have been set down by you with the first of them But then 3. Your Antagonists would have answered you that in both those places the sense may be taken and that more rationally because more agreeably to other Scriptures which do often apply the word Chastisements to the Saints sufferings but never the word punishment quite contrary to your opinion in this controversie thus thou hast with-held from us below our iniquities and hast not dealt with us according to our sins nor rewarded us according to our iniquities to wit because in that thou hast not punished us with strokes of vengeance and vindictive justice as thou hast done to the wicked and ungodly who were never acknowledged by thee as thy peculiar people but thou hast onely afflicted us with chastisements of mercy and fatherly love as thou doest to all thy own children from thy fatherly care of their future wel-being And then Sir they will ask you where is your proof from these and such like places of Scripture that the sufferings of the Godly are proper punishments nay they will further ask you if that from those same places which you bring to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called proper punishments it may not rationally be deduced that they are not proper punishments from the justice of a judge but onely chastisements out of fatherly love and if you say that Mr. Baxter and you do sense the places other ways they will instantly reply that for all that they can see in your writings the sight and sense of you both as to the point in question is but no sight or non-sence it being nothing at all in it self but onely by other mens Glasses and this much Sir I think may be rationally said to back the former accusation of mistaking the original in this place and as to the other part of it viz. your negligent or willfull inconsideration of the translation it self or your so superficial looking thorough that Glasse I do conceive it most clearly thus to be by your selves bewrayed because that in all the English Bibles with the Marginal notes at those words in Ezra 9. 13. thou hast punished us lesse then our iniquities deserve there is this note put in the Margin Heb. thou hast with held below our iniquities which importeth that that is the formal proper and radical signification of the Hebrew words and therefore the truest translation of them this being so your Adversaries will ask you did never Mr. Baxter or you so much as look not upon the original it self but upon one of those Bibles with the Marginal notes which doth oftentimes most properly render the signification of the Hebrew words if you have looked upon such Bibles did you it so carelesly as you would not so much as trouble your self with the casting of your eye aside to view those Marginal tranflations if you did loog upon them yet did you knowingly and willfully pass them over as regardlesse of the authority of your Masters Original Writs and Words when they make nothing for you but are rather against your tenets The truth is if those and such like questions were proposed to me for to answer in your behalf I would and I do leave them wholly to be answered by your selves if you be able and old enough for it for I professe I am not because I account what is aimed at in them to bee by you no lesse then inexcusably unanswerable in that I do esteem your negligence in studying to understand your Masters own words no lesse then inexcusable and that therefore the onely answer I can give in your be half is that such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed of the original when they are ignorant of it or mistaken in it There are two other Texts of Scripture following by Mr. Baxter and one other joyned by you with the former of Ezra 9. 13. but all three misapplied grossly by you both to prove the point that the sufferings of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture in examination of the which three places I shall put them altogether because the mistake of them all lieth in one Hebrew word and that the most vulgarly known Hebrew root in the whole language it being as much known to all that have ever heard any thing of the Hebrew Grammar as Amo is to all who have ever heard any thing of the Latine Grammar because it is the
eyes yet since there are Bibles of several sorts had he never so much as a care to purchase to himself a Bible with the Marginal notes if he never did this was his further fault and further tends to his blame if he did acquire such a Bible with these Marginal notes did he not make use of it when he made use of expounding and interpreting Scriptures if he did not so much as make use of that little help that was besides him though small in it self yet somewhat it is and may be made good use of by understanding Viewers of it many times then I say his faulty negligence was greatest of all in that since he would not so much as look upon that little help which he had besides him understood and might so easily have used it if he did look upon the Text and see this reading upon the Margin could he but know that that note imported that that word might as well have been translated iniquity as the punishment of iniquity if he conceived this much then he could not but know that then it was not a sure place for him to make use of against his adversaries because he could not but know that if the word could be translated either wayes they would choose that way which was not against them as well as he did that way which was for him if he did know all this much and yet would put down this place amongst others then I say his mistake was willing and wilful and so the most heinous of all for hee both willingly did himself mistake and did willfully do what in him lay to put his mistake upon others and that apparently with such confidence in his leading way that he beleeved his approbations would bee taken for Oracles and without any proof though there was as much reason against them as for them as those Marginal notes do import that there is as much reason to translate the one way as the other But I shall never after this account his words Oracles in the interpretation of his Masters original Articles and if they be not so there they can not bee so in consequences deduced from them Thus Sir I entreat you to shew Master Baxter that he must suffer himself to be informed about the Original when he mistakes it either unknowingly or wilfully now as to our translation of this place I would speak a word but of it here and that is this that although they have indeed here the proper signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon to wit iniquity set in the marginal notes yet I could have wished it had been put in the translation it selfe and the marginal notes left void as to this word in this place for first as is said before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon never signifieth radically nor properly punishments onely sometimes if the sense can no other wayes be made out then if the Text so necessarily require it punishment of iniquity in a general sense comprehending all sufferings inflicted for sin as well chastisements out of fatherly love as proper punishments as from a Judge out of justice as was before explained may be put in for to supply the otherwise inevitable defective sense of the Text yet I do not remember of any such place observed where there is such necessity But of this Text in hand Lam. 4. 6. the truth is I cannot conceive why they have put for the translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon punishment of iniquity at all either in text or margen and my reason is because I cannot so clearly see how the punishment of the sin of Judah and Jerusalem was greater then the punishment of Sodom for though it was great indeed yet fire and brimstone was not rained down upon them nor they utterly destroyed without a remembrance or remnant left of them any more upon earth as the Sodomites were whose overturning and destruction was in a moment as is said in the verse here But upon the other hand if we translate the words as they do of themselves properly and radically offer themselves to our consideration in their own proper and radical signification thus for the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater then the sin of Sodom Then the meaning may be such as when Christ saith if the great works had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah which have been done in thee they had repented long ago c. That is the sins of the people of God by reason of the great aggravations of them against so great light and knowledge of God and his wayes revealed to them against so many wondrous works done for them amongst them and against their enemies c. may well be compared with the sins of the worst of men and may far goe beyond them in the comparison There is I doe see indeed one consideration in the context that it seemeth the Prophet takes much notice of and that is that the prolonging of a lesse violent affliction is more grievous then a violent stroak of present destruction But I doe not see that that comparison is aimed at in this verse I doe rather think that in it the Prophet gives an humble acknowledgement of the reason of all the miseries which was upon them and of all the sad stroakes which he mentions both before this verse and after it as if the meaning were thus Surely in consideration of all those calamities upon us the iniquity of the daughter of my people hath been greater for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vajigdal importeth the preter tense although it be the future because of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vau conversive put before the future then the sin of Sodom which God overthrew in a moment as it were c. However this is sure that though we should grant that punishment and proper punishment were here meant yet you may remember Sir that it was told you though all that which you require were granted to you it will not prove your point because those heavy judgments were upon the whole land and upon the body of the people for the universal spreading of wickedness and wicked men over the land unto which wicked men indeed they were proper punishments inflicted out of justice upon them yea and upon the whole land for their so heinous sins yet still wil your adversaries answer you that those common calamities were not proper and personal punishments but onely chastisements of love as from a Father upon the persons of the Godly Thus I say you will not prove your point though it were granted to you that such Texts speak of proper punishments But to say that there are proper punishments mentioned in a text where there is nothing mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah iniquity and sin bewrayes such gross unskilfulness and ignorance in the Hebrew roots that I can scarce speak any thing to it but smile at it
first and then â—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 grâ—â—â— 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
made upon such offences If I offend you by writing thus freely unto you little regarding your authority as you may perhaps perswade your self when you are in terms of opposition to the truth by your tenets and hereupon you resolve to punish me by writing as tartly back again to me and if I being afraid of such a correction did come and sue to you for pardon and if you were pleased freely to pardon me or to pardon me upon condition I would recant what I had written which will not I suppose be until I see good reason for it but if I should and thereupon if you did purpose not to punish me here I would acknowledg my self pardoned my ofsence of you but I know no obligation to punishment by law between you and me which would be dissolved in this case for there was only your purpose to punish me But says Mr. Baxter a purpose to punish is no obligation to punishment nor makes it due These are his very words and they seem to carry reason with them though I must insert this that he draweth not an Eagle-eyed consequence from them in my apprehension But thus far is clear from them if they be true that therefore no obligation to punishment in this case can be dissolved because there was none by law to be dissolved but only a purpose in you to punish which if you were pleased to pass from I would acknowledg it to be a pardon and thank you too if ever I should reckon the thing it self a punishment So that in such cases as this and the former it is clear that there may be a dissolving of the obligation to punishment where there is no real and cordial pardon as also there may be real and cordial pardon where there is no dissolving of obligation to punishment Therefore these two are really different and may be separated the one from the other and so they are not one and the same thing neither can the one be the definition of the other Now what think you fittest to say in desence of the Eagles eyes for me thinks they are a little dim here Perhaps you will say as you do elswhere He is of age let him answer for himself And truly I am contented to hear you both and I profess I know not what either of you can say until I hear you only it may be that you will say for him as I suspected you would say for your self that these cases are only between man and man and that it is far otherwise when we speak of the pardon remission and forgiveness of God But I suspect that as this shift was but a staff of reeds in your own hand so neither will it hold water for him For first I say that the Doctors definition doth agree universally to Pardon both as it is in God and as it is in man or as it is an act of God and as it is an act of man In both it is a purpose or resolution of the will not to punish and therefore it is a more proper definition them either his or yours which is not universal of all Pardon in general And secondly I doubt if Mr. Baxter will own you in this difference for he several times brings arguments and reasons as he thinks together with similitudes and comparisons from pardon amongst men in confirmation and illustration of his sense of the pardon of God But thirdly I shall but take the case first mentioned against his Definition and alter it a little and I am confident to clear it to be so fully applicable to Gods pardon and forgiveness also against his definition that both of you shall be put to your wits end to seek what to answer to it or what to say in defence and behalf of those definitions the brats of your own brains And thus I put you both to it The Definition of Pardon which both of you do approve for you say you will not contradict Mr. Baxter in his Definition which is this Pardon is the dissolving of the obligation to punishment by the law or in a law-law-sense Now do you think that this is a perfect definition and that as it is distinct from and taken in opposition to the Doctors definition of pardon Yes you maintain it or endeavour to do so at least totis junctis viribus tooth and nail as the word is But answer me then this one Argument as it comprehends all what followeth and taketh in also all that is spoke before against the Definition and I profess I shall publiquely maintain it with you That Definition which neither doth agree universally to Pardon as it is in man nor to Pardon as it is in God is a most imperfect Definition But the Baxterian Definition taken as distinct from and as it opposeth Twisse's Definition of Pardon is such Therefore it is a shame to talk of it I prove the Minor for I suppose it only needs proof because of those Maxims of perfect Definitions Cuicunque convenit definitio ei convenit definitum contra cui non convenit definitio nec ei convenit definitum contra definitio definitum reciprocantur c. I say those Topical Maxims make the Major unquestionable and for the Minor I prove it thus by parts First it doth not agree universally to Pardon amongst men To prove which I first take the cases before instanced and do suppose them as brought in again in this place against the Definition in the very words by which they are before expressed to disprove it and then further I add this case unto them Suppose once again that a King and a State had a number of Rebels and Traitors the Law hath put an obligation universally upon them all and upon all that shall ever be found in arms with them to the punishment of death yet perhaps amongst them there may be some of the chief Favorites both of King and State These the King or State resolveth whatever come of the rest to spare and not to punish though they should continue in rebellion to the end or at the end some others get favor by some means or other so that the King or the State doth purpose not to punish them or suppose that some of them did cast lots for their life and the King did purpose not to punish them whom the lots favored I say those who were thus saved by any of those ways they were really pardoned and yet their obligation to punishment was not dissolved by the law nay by the law they were still liable unto and lying under the obligation to punishment for it is supposed that the law was not nor could not be repealed for many inconveniences They were obliged to punishment and that obligation was not dissolved by the law and yet they were pardoned Therefore pardon and dissolving the obligation to punishment by the law is not all one thing for they can be really separate and severed and therefore they
I profess I was amazed at the mistake for I did not onely see nothing such there but the quite contrary for the words in themselves are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnoreph velo panim Erem bejom Edam and verbatim or word or for word as they lie in the Text translated they are thus The neck and not the face will I cause or make them to see in the day of their destruction or I will cause them to see the neck and not the face in the day of their calamity Here I say I did finde nothing such as the face of God stiled the back of God but the quite contrary if any thing at all such For first the word back is not in that Text at all but the word neck for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnoreph doth onely signifie the neck the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnaraph in the Radical signification of it importing to cut off the neck as it were that is to behead but it never signifieth the back the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gev or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gab being onely used for that Secondly Neither the face of God nor the neck of God is expresly in the Text but the words may carry this sense In the day of my peoples calamity when I do scatter them as with an east-wind before their enemies which are the words immediately before in the same verse then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erem I will cause them to wit the enemies to see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnoreph the neck of my people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velo panim and not the face of my people when I shall make my people flee before their enemies The latter part of the verse being taken as another explication of the former part of the verse this being also a most usual expression to express the running away from pursuing enemies by turning their hinder parts and not their breast or face to their adversaries But 3. though both we should take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnoreph to be translated in sense at least the back and that we should take the words as spoken of the face of God and back of God as I think it is most probable they should be so taken yet I say here is no stiling the face of God to be the back or neck of God but as I said the quite contrary the face is opposite to the neck or back of God as is obvious to the consideration of any at the very first rational view of the words or but hearing them read thus I will make them to see what not my face stiled my back but my back or the back of my displeasure and sad afflicting dispensations and not my face or the face of my favor and favorable mercies The truth is Sir I did run every where in my thoughts and I looked round about me to seek a shift for you here and I could find none For first as to the Translation although I knew you before to be so excellent a Textuary-Divine as to the Original that you can accurately teach us that the same word in the Hebrew is sometimes rendred face and sometimes presence and that therefore you could notsatisfie your self with the translation if it did vary from the original And yet although you your self I did see in this place did differ so much from your self in that place about face and presence in the very next page as that I was perswaded the Translation could not favor you in such nonsense yet I did take it and I did see it as it could not rationally otherwise be but quite against you these being the words of the Translators I will shew them the back and not the face in the day of their calamity where the opposition is clearly kept as in the original so in the translation between the face or favor of God and his back or displeasure but not the face of God stiled the back of God Then secondly because I did suppose that so accurate a piece as your Exercitation could not be supposed to be sent abroad in the world without the Authors review to take notice of escapes after the Press therefore I did hafte to turn over to the Errata at the end of the Book but there I did see a number of literal faults corrected most of which any that can understand English would have easily past over without scarce taking notice of them but of this material error and gross mistake of the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem not so much as a syllable of that there Thirdly I did suppose that possibly it might be though truly I believe ye would not or at least I think you ought not to have been so careless if it possibly could have been helped yet I did feign to my self that it might be you had not seen your sheets after the Press and that therefore yet it had been a fault of Correctors at the work it self there where it was a doing and that they might have passed over some material fault in the work yet afterwards when I considered the words I could not possibly imagine how the mistake of the Printers could have been unless they had purposely done it and in stead of saying that the face of God is opposed to the back of God they had knowingly put in such nonsense that the face of God is stiled the back of God which I suppose no Printer dared to do or would have done Yet fourthly imagining again that a word might have been changed either knowingly or ignorantly willingly or unwillingly possibly or impossibly by some one or another without the Authors knowledg yet when I look back to the Original again I did see it evidently contradict that imagination of mine and manifestly to clear unto me that the fault could lie no where but upon the Author 's own score in the supine negligence of study and search into and the gross ignorance of the Original text of the Old Testament For Sir you do bring this place of Scripture to prove that the face of God is sometimes taken in Scripture for the wrath and displeasure of God Whereas any in the world that hath any spark of sensible reason in them at the first hearing of the words even in the translation of them will clearly perceive that by the face of God here is meant his favorable countenance or merciful dispensations and by his back is meant his displeasure and just judgments because the Prophet threatneth them thus I will shew them the back and not the face So that this is not blind ignorance of the Original only but intolerable mistaking of the meaning and words even of the Translation it self I do profess I know not what to call it only this I am sure of that you are intrapped and caught without any evasion or way to escape in one of the greatest grossest and most ignorant mistakings that ever a Minister or Ambassador of God
quoad nomen was taken in or catched in interpreting a Text of any of his Scriptures And I hope Sir you are a wise one that will willingly suffer your self to be informed about the words in the Original when they are mistaken You know Sir how you use to inform others your self and you know your self well enough when you know you can inform them But yet now that that which you may call my passion is over for indeed I was offended with you in your mistake methinks there is yet an evasion left for you by which you may escape the challenge laid against you and that therefore there hath been too great rigor used unto you And the evasion may perhaps help you at a dead lift for it is such a one indeed that I know a man that hath no less then Eagles eyes in his head Sir as you think who does see it so fit for his purpose as that he frequently makes very much use of it if he be challenged with errors and mistakes in his Tenets and it may be that he may make use of it to shelter you from the storms that seem here to be blown against you as I am sure it is a shield to himself to keep off many blows that would fall heavily upon him if he lacked it And the way to escape is this Sir or at least it may be thought to be so to wit That it may be said and conceived you did not speak so much your own opinion concerning the words of the Text above rendred as that you had what you spake about the words from another hand and so they were as much the words of another as your own which you spake But first Sir as to that I say That that is the most sophistical and jugling way of speaking that ever any free rational or ingenious man did speak in nay which doth not become such a one to speak so at all if he doth not expresly manifest whether he do own or not and how far he owns or how far he disowns the words which he relateth For unless he do so no man can take hold upon what he saith for always he will have a back-door to get out at whensoever he fears to be nonplust and silenced then will he say he spoke that but as the mind of others whatever he meant of that or of any other thing besides that before But again Sir if either you your self or he for you will use this shift to free you in the particular between you and me at this time then I have two things to say to stop either or both your mouths with either of them and the first is this That if ever you produce an intelligent Author understanding the Hebrew Text that doth sense or non-sense the words in controversie in your way I shall be the first that shall challenge my self as having with a too virulent Pen carped at your mistaken Criticism and I shall humbly and heartily crave your pardon for it and that you may oblige me by my promise and acknowledged duty to do so Sir if you can I intreat you produce one unto me by your next In the mean time secondly I will tell you and your friend That if you do produce any such nonsensical babler that doth say that in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erem gnoreph velo panim I will cause them to see or I will shew them the neck or back and not the face the face of God is stiled the back of God then I will answer Sir if you think to evade and escape that way that your remedy is as bad and worse then the disease because the remedy then would be the cause of the disease For this is your sin and this is your shame That you have nothing of understanding and knowing your Masters own words but onely an implicite faith to take upon trust your translators words so that if any one whom you take to be your Interpreter speak non-sense before you then you your self do know nothing but to follow him and to dictate non-sense with him And so I will conclude this first place Sir by telling you lastly and minding you seriously of it that into danger of such inextricable difficulties and perplexities doth that man put himself to who runneth as a Messenger and Ambassador about his acknowledged Lord and Masters business and yet knoweth not understandingly to read his Masters Commission and his Instructions in the proper Language in which his Lord did deliver them to him I have done now Sir with the first Text of Scripture in your Exercitation much misapplied in prosecution of your Tenets and I have a little more fully descanted about it first because it was a grosly material mistake secondly because I would in one place put several of my thoughts that in several such cases afterwards they may be reflected and looked upon here as if they were just repeated over again in the same or such like words when the like need or occasion requires And thirdly this I did here so largely that hence I might be more brief in prosecuting the rest of those misapplications and misconstructions of other Texts of Scripture which I have marked in your Book yea I do resolve to be now as brief as I can in all the rest of the places that I shall take notice because I am not well contented that Epistolary lines are drawn by my hand to such a length as I see they are onely Sir remember that by an equitable rule you must suffer your self to be informed c. ABout the beginning of your Book when I first perused it there were several places which I did mark as impertinent and inconsiderate Applications of some Texts with such mistakings as did bewray indeed little knowledge or study in the original but yet not so gross and absurd ignorance as the first which is already past over Now as I am looking out those marks which I had laid in your Book the first day I did see it I cast my eye upon a passage of yours which I had marked indeed but had quite forgot when I did present to your view those two passages which I did so much commend and count praise-worthy in your Exercitation For if I had minded it it would have been as highly commended and approved by me as the other two or at least I am sure it had been joyned to them as a fellow for a third The passage is this Sir Page 11. wherein your Observations upon the Negative phrases used in Scripture about forgiveness of sins this you put down as one of the chief and most insisted on of any other I do take notice of there to wit onely let it be noted say you concerning the two last places viz. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and Acts 7. 60. That albeit the phrase in the translation be all one both being rendred a not laying sin to the charge of the sinner nevertheless the phrases in the original
taking the words precisely as they are in the Text without addition of any word to them at all but onely by taking the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah in another signification which it hath in the Scripture then that of the translation here which is indeed the most ordinary and most usual signification that it is most frequently taken in yet so that the other I intend to mention is used in Scripture also and that is thus the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah though it most frequently doth signifie willingly to acquiesce in or to be well pleased with or to accept of any thing yet it hath also sometimes this signification to perfect or absolve and accomplish And thus it is taken in this signification Job 14. 6. The words are Turn or look away from him desist and let him alone look but a little aside from him as it were for so much the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shegnah megnalaiv doth import c. and then followeth in the Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnad jirtzeh ke sachir â—omo Until that he perfect absolve or accomplish as an hireling his day Here is the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jirtzeh importing he shall absolve accomplish or perfect In the 3 Fut. sing in kal which in the words before was in the 3. Plur. fut kal and translated there they shall accept willingly of or acquiesce in c. Now I say I would propose it to the Judiciously Learned in the Language if the word might not be taken so in that same signification Lev. 26. 41 43. in which it is taken in Job 14. 6. to wit in that other signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah to wit to absolve perfect accomplish and finish And the truth is the consideration of that excellent similitude in that place of Job did lead my thoughts to that sense in this place Lev. 26. For there as all mans life is compared to the weary toil turmoil and travel of a weary laboring-hireling all the day who is glad at his heart when the night comes to rest him in after he hath accomplished and finished his task So here sin or a sinful course and way of walking might be accounted as indeed it is the weary labor and toil of the Soul which when the sinner hath broken off by humble and cordial repentance then he may be said to have accomplished the wearying labor of the Soul and so as a hireling after sore work all day the Soul fits down at case and is at rest when it is eased of the burthen of sin and so the words Lev. 26. 41. may carry this sense If their uncircumcised hearts shall then be humbled and that so if once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jirtzu gnavonam they shall accomplish or finish and absolve their sin that is if they shall put an end to their obduration and hard-heartedness by repentance and cordial humiliation then shall their souls have rest and I will remember my covenant c. And so in the Verse 43. which is a threatning the meaning might be this But if they will not humble their hearts and finish or accomplish their sinful ways and so break off their sins by repentance yet by judgments they shall be made will they nill they to finish and accomplish their course of sinning This I say I do not absolutely aver to be the literal meaning of the place but I do onely propose it to the Judiciously Learned in the Language to consider upon it for as my thoughts are about the place now I think it very probable and moreover I do remember a place in Isaiah which hath the same Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah in niphal which I wish were thought upon also whether it may not bear the signification last insisted on to wit of finishing and accomplishing and so in niphal it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nirtzah he was accomplished perfected absolved or finished and hence that place of Isaiah which I point at to wit Isai 40. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nirtzah gnavonah might be translated her iniquity is finished or accomplished the time of her sining or sinful and perverse walking is now accomplished or finished and so the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maleah would be better rendred fulfilled her appointed time or her warfare is fulfilled These considerations of this Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah in those Texts I do but propose to be more seriously taken notice of afterwards And now Sir I am ready to attend you and your friend as he goeth on further and you do follow him The next place or text of Scripture which Mr. Baxter brings to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are properly punishments is Lam. 3. 39. The words are these Why or what should a living man complain or bemoan himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber gnal chataav But here Sir Mr. Baxter and you are no better in your proof then ye was before nay you are in the very same ignorance and errour or in the same ignorant errour and mistaking of the original that you was in before for neither in this Text is the word Punishment mentioned at all and how then will it prove that punishment is properly attributed to the afflictions of the Godly The truth is Sir you may this way goe thorough the Text and reckon above a hundred places to prove your opinion that is by taking and coâ—lecting all the Texts that doth but either name sin or iniquity and there in each of them to conclude that the Scripture calls the afflictions of the Godly punishments for their sins and that whether the Texts speak any thing at all of the godly more then of the wicked or of the afflictions of the godly more then of the wicked yea whether the Texts speak any thing at all of afflictions or punishments either of the godly or of the wicked Yea I wonder that you give us not some such general Baxterian or Hotchisfian rule for the interpretation of all such scriptures that they may or must be taken to prove that the afflictions of the godly are proper punishments and so called in Scripture I say this Mr. Baxter or you might doe as rationally as you do bring this Text for the proof of that particular For here 1. as is said the word signifying punishment is not at all in this Text for it is onely thus Why or what should a man bemoan himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geberâ—gnal chataav a man for his sins The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataaiv or withoutâ— the note of the plural number thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataav doth only properly and radically signifie his sins for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chate is the root which properly signifieth he missed the mark or went away or erred or went aside from the mark or scope he aymed at see Jud. 20. 16. From which place we have the first and proper signification
from this root at all as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakkâ—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 jenakkâ—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 Jâ—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