I Have done now, Sir, (at this time at least) with the defence of great Dr. Twisse's Definition of Pardon and Remission of sin: And if you would know how I do after such a dispute; Truly, Sir, I'll tell you freely, I was once or twice weary at the length of my writing, since it was to be inclosed within the precinct of Epistolary lines; but I am not yet weary of (nor will be, I hope, when I am more put to) the defence of the controversie it self, and the disputes about it, or the controversal con­sequences and consequents depending upon it, and having connexion with it: As likewise, Sir, I'll tell you now, what I told you not before, That al­though now when I look over my papers, reckoning them and the time taken up in writing of them, I do perceive I have spent most of the hours in three days, in putting my extemporary conceptions upon four full sheets of paper anent this question; al­though, I say, I have spent so much time and pains about it, yet not only when I did first hear your discourse in your Dissertation, which was precisely this day fortnight agone, I had no such intention, but till Tuesday morning last past about six a clock, and now it is Friday in the morning a little after the same hour, I had not so much as a thought to touch the Doctors Definition, or the defence of it against you; but I had passed it over lightly in your book, as I had several times done before in Mr. Baxter's, (though not without a little indig­nation, I must confess, at the boldness of you both for it, in contradicting so regardlesly the Doctor in so clear a truth) without taking any resolution [Page 78] at all to make a question about it, and the points depending upon it, with either of you; but only to touch a little the point that is first put down in this Epistle, in the lines directed to your Patron himself, and immediately to go on to the work that is now to follow in some lines moe, to be directed to you indeed, but having reference to him also, both of you being to be equally concerned into them: (as I think in all or most other differences you must either stand or fall together.)

But, Sir, (as is said) upon Tuesday morning, as I was about presently to fall upon the task now to be in hand, it did come into my mind, that if it were but in a parenthesis, or in some few lines, I might only tell you, that you and your Patron wronged the Doctor that is dead very much, and that in disputing against him (in my apprehension) meerly sophistically, (and hence was the occasion of the fallacie I mentioned, and conceived your dis­course sophisticating in, all alongst when you touch the point in question, or the questions depending upon it;) because that in all your disproving of his Definition of Pardon, you do not (or would not, at least, let the world know that you did) take notice, that the only intent of the Doctor by that Definition was to describe unto us, (not those noti­ons of Gods pardon, and remission of sins, as it consisteth in dissolving the laws obligation to pu­nishment, by the law of grace, and in the effectual taking away of the punishment it self, those notions, so far as there is any truth in them, you cannot produce a word out of him, I am confident of it, that ever he did deny: But, I say, his intention by [Page 79] that Definition of his, was not to define or explain those Nations in your heads; but to give us his di­sciples, and you also his antagonists a description, and that as all descriptions of his were, an accurate one of) that pardon of God which is really in God, to wit, that mental and eternal pardon in his breast, by which, from and unto all eternity he doth free and absolve his elect ones in Christ, from the real danger of eternal punishment for their sins in time; this pardon being nothing else, (as the Doctor ac­curately describes it to our understandings;) but that immutable purpose of his will from all eterni­ty, and (continuing stedfast) unto all eternity, not to punish them with that eternal death, which they otherwise, were it not for that pardon, deservedly must, and would have suffered, for their sins in time.

This, Sir, was only the the Doctors mind by that Definition; and yet you will aver, (I tell you of it again, that you may be ashamed of such a ca­lumny, like unto the barking & jarring—at a dead Lion) that so great a man was ignorant of that which every Christian not only doth, but must know, to wit, That by the law of Grace, the obli­gation to punishment by the law of Works threat­ned, is dissolved; and that punishment is effectually taken away from believing and pardoned sinners, in the pardon and remission of their sins: And that that great Doctor, whose doctrine (drawn from the Word of truth in the Scriptures, and from those sparkles of pure rational light that in some measure is left in every reasonable breast) about the myste­rious, and ever to be adored immutable Decrees of [Page 80] God, and the distinction of them from the execu­tion of them in time, hath amazed the world where­ever it hath come to be seen in his Works, for the profoundness and depth of knowledg thereof; that yet, Sir, notwithstanding all his superexcellent labors and works this way, you should dare more nor once or twice in your little Libel, as your Patron dareth often in his Works, to reproach the Doctor as ig­norant to distinguish between the Decree of God, and the Execution thereof: I profess I can do no­thing but laugh at it, first, for a while; and then afterwards, Sir, tell you, that in my thoughts he knew more of those Mysteries, then a hundred of you both, though all of that hundred had a hundred such Eagle-eyes in their heads, as the other of you two is feigned and imagined by you to have. I do but say feigned and imagined here, but I shall prove it by and by in some things below, and that the more eagerly in great Doctor Twisse's behalf.

Thus much, Sir, or some such like business, I was only resolved thus to have hinted at in the begining of the last Dispute, and so to have gone forward: But when once I did begin to write, I could not put a stop to the current of my thoughts, till they had run all the length they did, before I could give over; and they had run further yet, for there was imme­diately moe to come forth, if I had not violently stopped them; at that last, in my apprehension, so pertinent an Argument to the purpose, and so ap­posite ad hominem, that I cannot tell yet well whe­ther I should call it yours or mine, without this di­stinction; That it is yours (Sir) for the matter and medium of it, and mine only for reducing it to a [Page 81] form to your hand; though I did think then, and I do think yet, an Eagles eye might have seen that it might have been so reduced as an objection to himself, if he had so minded the matter.

Thus Sir, I must be suffered to breathe a little, before I begin a new subject. Yet having some end in such a breathing also, to wit, That if ever you let me or the world hear your thoughts upon what is written unto you before, you would be pleased rationally to take notice of what is material in it, and not to stand too much upon all (conceived per­haps by you) extravagancies, and punctilio's of for­malities; as knowing that it may be replied unto you, That it was told you before, that you had no elaborate or premeditate Discourse presented to your view, but only the excursions of undigested thoughts, rudely and coursely as they did presently result in the mind, put upon paper, in haste, to kiss your hands, Sir.

But for all the haste, I have not done with you yet; for I have somwhat more of my mind to im­part unto you, about some other particulars of no little concernment, in which I do conceive both your Patron and you are not a little mistaken, or else I am very much mistaken. And to shew that one of us is much mistaken indeed, I for my part am so confident that the mistake in that which fol­loweth lieth upon your side, as that I must premise thus much; That although I do imagine that some may think that I do take a dangerous task in hand, thus ever and anon, in one point after another, to be carping and medling with no others then men of Eagles eyes; yet in the business that followeth to [Page 82] be called in question, I am so far from dreading any danger from such sharpness of sight, that I dare affirm, that both you and your Patron, Sir, are so far from either of you having the eyes of an Eagle in the points you are now to be called in question a­bout, that if I do not prove you both to have no eyes at all to see with of your own, and that there­fore you see nothing at all in those points with your own eyes, but that all the dim sight you have (or at least that you have manifested your selves to have in your writings) about those things, you have it but only by seeing with other mens eyes, and meerly relying upon other mens words, with­out any discerning faculty of your own, to take no­tice how much, or how far they speak right or wrong: If I do not, I say, make good what here is challenged, (for as harshly and tartly as it may here seem to be worded) against all the four eyes of you both; I do promise to shut and turn away both mine own eys from ever looking upon a Book again, (after your next to free your self, when it comes to my hand) whilst I breathe; which I am so far unwilling to do, that if I know my own heart, I would disdain no less then a Kingdom, if it were of­fered unto me meerly upon the condition that I should never look again upon one Book only; and that is such a one, which I believe (Sir) neither of you did ever look upon in your days understand­ingly, nor minded much to do, if by these prefents you be not somwhat put to it, (so far are we differ­ent, it seems, in our estimation and judgment about moe things then one, as not only in so many of our different Opinions, but in our pricing and prizing [Page 83] but one Book, that you would not care much though you never did see it, and I would not utter­ly quit the sight of it for all my life, no not for what possibly could be given me from man on this side of heaven, or in the world here below,) And the name of this Book, Sir, so little by you and your Patron, and so much prized by me, is in our lan­guage called, The Hebrew Bible.

And now at length, Sir, is ushered in that which at the beginning of this Epistolary discourse I did chiefly, yea at this time only intend; (the first dis­course to Mr. Baxter being intended at first to have been but as an introduction to this in a very few lines; and this last dispute with you coming in meer­ly by the by, and not being intended when I did begin to write this Missive, at all: But now I say, Sir, at last I am come to that which I chiefly intend by those papers,) to wit, to inform you of the no­tice I had taken in perusing your book, of the little notice which you had taken of that Book of books above mentioned, viz. the Hebrew Bible. And here, Sir, I must first, ere I go any further, put both you and my self in mind of this, That there is a far greater business now in hand, then was in contro­versie between us before, and a great deal more weighty, and more deeply to be taken in conside­ration, as being of far more concernment in it self and its consequences.

Before, Sir, in our last dispute, the question was but about the words of a man, though a great one indeed) but here the question will be about the words of one that is infinitey greater and higher then the greatest and highest of men, even about [Page 84] the words of the most High God himself. Before, the Dispute was but about the sensing aright, or the right understanding of an Orthodox Doctors Definition; but here the dispute will be about the right or wrong interpretation of the holy Spirits definitions in Scriptures, which must be the canon and rule for orthodox Doctors to judg of ortho­dox Tenets, and for Christians to try the spirits of men in their opinions of religion by. It was not a little wrong done to the dead by you, when you did calumniate and falsly accuse a dead man, even the most knowing and orthodox School-Divine, (for the most profound and deepest controversies in School-Divinity,) of ignorance and error; and that in those very points about which he knew more, (because more was revealed to him from above, what in his naturals and supernaturals to­gether) then I verily believe most of the world did know besides himself; at least I am sure he hath left more behind him to testifie of his knowledg in those points, then any of the world hath done be­sides himself: And therefore, Sir, I say it was a great injury done to his remembrance by you, se­veral times in fifteen or sixteen sheets of paper of your Lucubratiunculoe, and often by your imperi­ous Patron, to accuse and calumniate such a one of ignorance and error, in points for which all his Antagonists will never be able to compare with him.

But, Sir, it will be found a greater injury done by you to the Living GOD, if you calumniate his words, adding unto them what is not found written in them at all, to make them countenance you and [Page 85] your Patron in your singular opinions. To put more into any mans words, then is indeed in them, to make them either for us or against us in our opi­nions, is not fair dealing between man and man, nay it is a clear breach of the command that inhi­bits and forbids bearing false witness against our neighbor: But to put more into the words of God then indeed is to be found in them, is to bear false witness against God; which is as much more a sin greater then the other, as God is above man in greatness, and as his words are above mans words in truth, which is no less then an infinite distance and disproportion in both. I wish, Sir, the matter of those words, or such like, and those or such like grounds, were more seriously laid to heart and more solidly considered, then is the fashion now a­days to do; and then the Scriptures in themselves and in their own words would be more diligently searched into and studied; and I hope they shall be much more hereafter studied, then now they are, or hitherto have been.

But, Sir, to come to the business in particular which hath occasioned this Preface, which I suspect you may perhaps look upon as tartly reflecting upon your own interest and your Patrons; the truth is, Sir, I'll never lessen your conjecture in this point, but by and by I'll add somewhat unto it rather, to the end that the more seriously you may lay to heart what hath been spoken. Only first, Sir, because when that we are to give a true account and estimate of a man or of his works, it is very unjust and unequal to speak any thing of him that tends to his prejudice and discommendation, and [Page 86] not withall to take notice of what is praise-worthy in him, and tends to his profit and commendation: Therefore, Sir, before [...] speak any thing further in the things that displeased me in your book, when I first read it, (and which I think should also displease you, when you are put to the consideration of them; I say, before I speak of those offensive places) I will first take notice of one or two passages for which I highly commend you; and that is, because in both of them (I scarce know in how many more you do the like) you have taken diligent pains (forsooth) in searching into the Original of the Word of God.

The first place, and the chief, which I take notice of as worthy of commendation in this way, is in pag. 322. & 323. of your Book; where you do descant prettily upon the Apostles word [...], in 2 Cor 4. 18. to draw the emphasis of it to your own ends; neither will I quarrel with you about the force of the word which you do observe there, nor will stand to dispute either with you or against you, in what you chiefly aim at there, (though I cannot but tell you that I think it a hard saying, to aver as you do in the page before, that there is no command in the Scripture to make Gods glory the end of our salvation. I had thought, that in that place Prov. 16. 4. which is the place now comes readiest in my mind, there had been a virtual com­mand to make the glory of God the end of our sal­vation; for if God made himself and his own glory the end of all his works, since he hath made all for for himself, then methinks that thereby he com­mands us to aim at the same end with him, in all [Page 87] that concerns us, and chiefly in our Salvation; yea it seems to me a command of the Law, and light of nature it self, that the main end of the Creature, in all things, even in its own happiness; for as all happiness, and good cometh from the Creator, so all happiness and good should tend to him chiefly as the end, and terminate in him, and his glory principally; but I will make me no more dispute about that,) onely I do take notice of, and commend there, (in that your application of that word of the Apostles, to the scope you aim at) your satyrical irony of those below you in knowledge, whom you do with much gravity and majesty instruct thus: But I would that such wise ones, say you, would seriously peruse that place of Scripture, 2 Cor. 4. 18, &c. And that withal they would peruse the original, or at least, suffer themselves to be informed, touching the word in the original, which is translated, &c.

I say, I do commend, or at least, I do not much disapprove in you, that you do thus keep up the authority of the original, and of your self, who knows so well the original, to inform those that are ignorant of it with such majestick gravity, and not without a satyrick irony, calling them, wise ones forsooth, who in your account there, are but meer dunces, dolt-heads, or block-heads, even Antimonian Asses. I say again, I do not altoge­ther disapprove that satyr-ironico-peremptory way of dictating your knowledge in the original, to the simpletons that are ignorant of it, upon this ground and reason, if it were for no other, that I know you are not ignorant of the rule, nor are [Page 88] not unaccustomed to the practise of it; to wit that you do to others, and deal with others, as you would have others do to you, and deal with you; and that you do contentedly receive your self, such a measure from others, as you do make out unto others your self; (I profess really I am so, freely, in such cases as those, well enough pleased to be told of my mistakes, as I do tell others pleased to be told of my mistakes, as I do tell others of theirs:) So that now, I do hope, you will not take it in evil part, if you be informed your self, by others; as you your self do inform others, of ignorance or mistakes in the original and that with a satyrick irony (sometimes) when it is dely deserving, (as you do here, because you think so much is deserved:) Although such a wise one as your self, be joyned with another such a wise one, as hath an Eagles-eye in his force-head, if both you, and he be in the same mistake about the ori­ginal: Methinks I hear you say, yes, you are con­tented, at least, I say, that you must say so, if you speak any thing equitably, according to the rules above mentioned, and to the Law called, Lex talionis; like for like, is equitable. And so much for a short observation, upon your grave and sharp information of others in their mistakes of the original; the Use, perhaps, will follow by and by.

But, Sir, I have one question to pose you with, before I leave it: I pray, Sir, why do you not in­form others, as well, and as sharply also, about the force and emphasis of the original words of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, as you do of the Greek in the new? is not the one as well [Page 89] the Word of God, as the other? nay, is it not more originally (as to the Language and words) the Word of God then the other? for the New Testament is taken out of the Old, for the whole [...]bstance of it; to wit, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, [...]orn of a Virgin, brused for our iniquities, de­stroying the works of the Devil, by bruising the head of the Serpent; ascending on high, and leading captivity captive, in whom all Believers of all Nations of the World are blessed and saved, &c. Are not those, and all other saving and fun­damental Truths of the Gospel, all taken out of the Old Testament? Why should not then, Mini­sters be able to inform first themselves, and then teach their people out the Hebrew original in the Old Testament, as well as out of the Greek in the New? especially seeing, that, for the inexpressi­ble emphasis, and ineffable force of the words, and their copiousness in significations, and for so much of Divine Majesty imprinted upon the whole body of the Language, as it lieth in the Books of the Old Testament, it doth go a thousand times beyond all the Languages of the World besides: (Although the Greek, so much of it as is in the New Testament, being the Word of God, is of equal authority to the Old.)

Should you, Sir, being a Minister of the Word of God; should you, I say, half that Word of your Master in your pains and study about it; should you not account and challenge your self, as but half a Minister, if you have negligently or carelesly done so? Is he any thing to be account­ed of, but as half a Messenger or Ambassador, [Page 90] that knows and understands but half of his Lord or Soveraigns Ambassage or Commission? Or is he a fit Ambassador, that can neither read with his own eyes, nor understand his Soveraigns Com­mission and Instructions intrusted unto him; or but the half of them? unless by the eyes, under­standing, and words of a Translator, or an Inter­terpreter? What knows he, but his Interpreter may either ignorantly, or wilfully erre in delivery of his Soveraigns will and pleasure?

I wish, Sir, from the bottom of my heart, that these considerations were more seriously (by far) laid to heart, then they are; for are not Ministers Ambassadors of God in Christ? And again, I say, should not an Ambassador know and under­stand his Soveraigns will and pleasure, in his Lords own words, and not by an Interpreter or Transla­tor onely? Yes, Sir, they should; and it is their great sin and fault, if they use not all the means that providence affords them for that end; as he would be a most unreasonable man, to be an Am­bassador for a King or State, who would not use the means the King or State would appoint him, of purpose to teach him the Language, which their Instructions must be given and delivered in: What if such an unreasonable man did take so unreasonable an Ambassage, and went therewith to trade with Foreigners, and Enemies perhaps to his Master and Kingdom. And suppose again, that one of the Adversaries (if it were but suspect­ing his ignorance) did step out, and alledg, it was not his Masters Commission he delivered, and that the Articles were otherwise stated and sensed [Page 91] in the original copy, then he did understand by the translation of them; and if he did put him indeed to the trial of the original, how would not such an Ambassador be ashamed and nonplust? It fears me Sir, that this shall be both your own case and your Eagle-ey'd Patrons, ere it be long; and if it hap­pen to be so, I hope you do remember ( Sir) that such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed about the Original, where they do either 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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 [Page 94] 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 [Page 95] 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, 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: [Page 96] 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.)

[Page 97]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.

[Page 98]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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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, [Page 101] 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, [Page 102] 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 are diverse, &c. Where you go on to paraphrase the two places in the original, and to collation them together; Probe factum, say I, accuratissime functus es officio, Reverendissime domine: Excellently well observed and com­mented, [Page 104] Sir, in tantum, and so far, at least. But hark you, I did once pose you with a question, which hath not well been answered as yet unto me, as I think, I know not if it will be. Why do you not as pathetically comment and para­phrase upon the Hebrew, the original in the Old Testament; distinguishing it, as it is in it self, and as it is phrasified in the translation? Is it because there is not so much matter to work upon that way, in the Hebrew, as there is in the Greek? No, Sir, you cannot say so, for there is a thousand times more in the Hebrew, as it is a Language, by the acknowledgement of all, that ever understood any thing solidly in it. Why then are you not as accurate in study and diligence about the He­brew, and more then about the Greek? Well, perhaps it may be so compleat a Divine is. Let us go to it, and try then.

The first specimen or proof that I do look up­on, to see whether it be so, or not, Sir, (that you do comment and paraphrase, explain and distin­guish, comparing together, &c. the original and the translation in the Hebrew, as accurately as you do in the Greek;) is in the sixt Page of your Book; where amongst other Affirmative phrases, as you do call them in Scripture, in which remissi­on of sins is holden forth unto us. This you put as one, His taking away our sins, and for it you quote, 2 Sam. 24. 10. I shall do you the service, as to put down the words for you, which are these, [...] Ve­gnattah Jehovah hagnaber na et quavon gnabdecha; word for word rendred, they are thus, And now, [Page 105] O Lord, cause to pass over, or cause to pass by, or cause to pass away, the iniquity of thy servant; for the word [...] hagnaber, may indeed be rendred, all those words, cause to pass over, or make to pass by. &c. But that signification of passing by, passing over, or passing away is the onely proper signifi­cation of the word, it being the Imperative Hiphil from the Root [...] gnabar, He passed over, passed by, or passed away; and in Hiphil, [...] hegnebir. He caused to pass away, or, he caused to pass by, or Pass over; which is the onely proper significati­on of the word.

Somewhat I would mark here, Sir, but I will let it alone as yet, till I hear you go on a little fur­ther; for in the next words, you say, in which form of words the Church is taught to pray for pardon, Hos. 14. 2. Is it so, Sir? let us see the words then, they are thus, [...] col riss­gnavon; Lift thou up, or, carry thou all iniquity: Is this the same phrase, Sir, or the same form of words with the former phrase or form of words, [...] hagnaber et gnavon; no, it is not: The phrases and forms of speech in these two Texts, are as far different from other, as the root ( [...] nasa) is different in the body of the Hebrew Language, or in an Hebrew Dictionary, from the root [...] gnabar; that is all the three Radical Letters in both these roots being different; which how material a difference it is in the Hebrew, any that knoweth any thing of the Hebrew at all, knoweth, at least, as to the phrase and form of words, which you onely take notice of here; saying, They are one and the same, when the [Page 106] words do differ in all their three Radicals, as is said in their form, as they are words; and in their significations also, so far as that [...] gnabar, pro­perly and onely, signifieth, he passed over, &c. as is said before; and [...] nasa, doth properly sig­nifie, he did lift up, or, he did carry; and hence he pardoned sin, by lifting it up, or carrying it away, as it were, and so in the fut. Kal. 2. pers. sing. m. [...] tissa, thou wilt take, carry, or lift up, or do thou carry, take, or lift up, &c. [...] col gnavon, all iniquity. Now, Sir, your intention is in that second Chapter of your Book, to take notice of the same, or different expressions which the Spirit of God useth in Scripture about remission of sins. And amongst those, first, out of one Text, you give us one form of expression of the Spirit of God, which you say is, take away all iniquity; when that is not the form of expression used in that place of Scripture, to wit, 2 Sam. 24. 10. but this, cause thou iniquity to pass by, or make thou iniquity to pass over. And secondly, with this Text, and the form of phrase and expression used in it, you give us another Text, which you say hath the same form of phrase and expression with the other, when it is not the same, but different from it, to wit, Hos. 14. 2. where the form of expression used. is not, cause thou iniquity to pass over, which was the former, but this, lift thou up, or carry sin away, as was said before in the Expli­cation of those two Roots. Is this, Sir, to shew as great diligence and care in searching and study­ing the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, and to comment and paraphrase upon it, distin­guishing [Page 107] it in its difference, and varietie, or agree­ment in its several phrases and forms of expression with the translation, &c. I say, Sir, do you thus shew your self as knowing and diligent to do in the Hebrew, as you use to do, and we have obser­ved you to do in the Greek original of the New Testament? if you do it onely thus, I shall not expect to hear any accurate Explication of the Hebrew from you at all, after this. If there be said in your behalf, any thing from the translation, then I will reply, that your observation about the Greek did run thus, I wish such wise-ones would peruse the original, or at least suffer them­selves to be informed, that the word is so and so in the original, though it be rendred so and so, &c. in the translation; and that it is to be noted, That although in several places the translation be diverse, yet the word or phrase in the original is one and the same; and so though the translation in divers places be the same, yet the words and phrases in the original are different, &c. Such and such like are your accurate & critical observations upon the original, and translation of the New Testament: But none such are here upon the ori­ginal and translation of the Old Testament, one­ly I remember once you were pleased to dictate to us, that in two places of the Psal. 51. the same word in the original was translated in the ninth Verse, presence, and in the eleventh Verse, face; a pretty (or petty) observation indeed: But I doubt, I shall not in haste finde the like from you again; but on the quite contrary, I doubt not, but I shall always (hereafter) finde from you but just [Page 108] such pitiful stuff as I finde here, that is nothing, when ever ye touch the Hebrew, but either igno­rant, wilful, negligent, or careless mistakings of the original. And I fear, nay, I know, the event will prove in our progress, the thing to be true, that here I conjecture; so that there will nothing remain, but that you must suffer your self to be informed, when you are in mistakes about the original; as about the end of that third Chapter of your Exeration, Pag. 14. you fall just into such another mistake as we had last in hand; be­wraying your far less knowledge, diligence, and study, in the Hebrew, then in the Greek. For in these two last pages of your third Chapter, your scope is to enumerate so many diverse Negative phrases in Scripture, about Gods not forgiving and pardoning sin; and amongst those diverse phrases, differing one from another in form of words, you make your second phrase to be Gods, not holding guiltless, in the Third Commandment, Exod. 20. 7. to which you adde, 1 Kings 2. 9. In both which places indeed, the Root [...] nakah, is used in the Future tense of Piel, as in Exod. 20. 7. in 3. Pers. sing. [...] Jehovah lo Jenakkeh: The Lord will not absolve, or declare innocent, or hold guiltless; for such is the force of the word in the conjugation Piel, [...] nikkah, He absolved, he acquitted, he declared innocent, or he did hold guiltless, &c. The Root in kal being [...] nakah, He was pure, or innocent; and in Piel, He declared to be pure, or innocent, he absolved, &c. And so in the other place of the Kings, it is the same word in the 2. Pers. sing. piel. m. [...] [Page 109] al tenakkehu; Thou shalt not absolve him, acquit him, or hold him guiltless, or do thou not absolve him, or hold him guiltless, &c. Thus far you go right, and according to your scope, but I suppose, little further; for in the very next words, you bring your third diverse phrase, or your third different form of expression in Scripture, about Gods not forgiving of sin; and that is, say ye, Gods not clearing or acquitting the sinner; and for this different phrase or form of speech from the former, you do bring two places, to wit, first, Exod. 34. 7. and secondly, Nah. 1. 3.

Well, Sir, I have followed your quotations, and in both these places, I do finde this word [...] lo jenakkeh, He will not hold him guiltless, &c. But this phrase, and form of expression I found before in two places, to wit, Exod. 20. 7. and 1 King. 2. 9. How then is it another, and diverse or different phrase from these.

Alas, Sir, thus it is to declare your Lord and Masters Commission and Instructions to you, one­ly by a translating Interpreter; not understanding the words of your own commission your self: Your Interpreters may make you believe any thing they please, they may cause you believe that to be the same, which is not the same, that to be diverse, which is not diverse, that to differ, which doth not differ, and that to agree, which doth not agree, and that to be an article of your commissi­on, by an instruction to you, which is not an article of your commission, nor an instruction to you at all. And if they can make you believe contradictions, they may make you believe that [Page 110] the Moon is made of Green Cheese, for ought I know; and that every Star in the Firmament is another World, if they would but say so much; for neither of those doth imply so much as a flat contradiction.

These escapes, Sir, in the beginning of your Book, with the notice taken thus of them, I was the more willing, with all the hast I possibly could, that they should come into your hands; it being but a fort-night by-gone, yesterday, since I did first, either see, or hear of your Book: And after I had once run over it; the day I saw it, I did not for nine days following, look upon it more; nor all that time had I leisure to begin to write a word of this missive, directed to your great friend and your self: Yet when I did begin, I say, for to write unto you, I willingly would not leave off, till I had put a period to the course of my thoughts at this time, especially about advertising you, as I have said, about your escapes in the beginning of your Book; because in the end of it, I do see, that you notifie unto us a design of a second part to this Treatise, in which you do propose to your self, to communicate unto us those several phrases both of the Old and New Testament, which you take to be synonimous, and equivalent to forgive­ness of sin, &c.

But, Sir, how is it possible that you can take upon you to do so much, so daringly? What, Sir, to finde out and set down those several phrases in the Old Testament, which you take to be [...]. or equivalent to forgiveness of sin, as you do phrasifie your thoughts about your design, [Page 111] Will you do this, (I say) Sir, out of the Old Testa­ment, when, for ought that I can see in this book, you know not your self, and by your own eyes, a B. by a Bull-foot in it (as the word goes) in it self, unless that others put glasses of theirs before your own eyes, to look into it by? But, Sir, how can you satisfie your self with those glasses that others do make and fit for your eyes? how do you know but that they are either multiplying, or magnifying glasses; making things, and words, representing things, either greater or less, more or fewer, and many manner of ways otherways then they are in themselves, unto your view? May not you thereby think things and words to be diverse, which are one and the same? to differ, which do agree? and in a word, any thing to be what it is not? and there­fore those things which you may take to be [...], synonimous and equivalent to forgiveness of sins, may be really such to non-forgiveness of sins, for ought that you know with your own eyes. And how shall others take that from your know­ledg, Sir, which you know not your self? Have we not had experience of some of your mistakes, and gross ones too already? why may not you be mis­taken in many moe likewise? as I am confident you will, if you meddle with many moe.

These advertisements I desire you timously and seriously to think upon, before that second Tractate of yours, that so you do not any more expose your self to obloquies and reproaches for your mis­takings, and others to pains in correcting of them.

[Page 112]And thus, Sir, I have almost done with those escapes about the Original in that little Book of yours, which are only your own, and in which none can claim an interest to but your self. I am now about to put hand to my last work in this E­pistle to you, wherein I must resolve to deal with more then your self, because another (and that a great one) will be equally concerned in it, so that he must also have a share with you in the following quarrel, be it good or bad.

In a word, Sir, I'll metaphorize no longer with jesting similitudes; but I'll tell you now in plain terms, that my business behind is to acquaint both you and Mr. Baxter, of some other very material and gross mistakes in the Original Text of the Old Testament, misapplying several Texts thereof to maintain your own opinions, and that in a business of most material consequence, as I shall illustrate it, not by any jesting Metaphor, but by a Comparison in good earnest, justly to a hair representing the case in question, yea being almost the very state of the question it self. The similitude, Sir, perhaps you guess at, for it was named I believe more then once, and more then you did desire before; yet I must touch it again, to shew the state of the que­stion, and how material a question it is, more clearly.

Suppose (Sir) a great King had an embassage to send into a forriegn State, or rather into some of his own Dominions, that he were in some different terms with: Suppose the Commission were drawn up, and the Articles were sealed, and there were nothing remaining but to search for a fit man to [Page 113] carry this embassage: And suppose that one were obtruded as most accomplisht for this employment, as having, 1. more sharpness of wit then is in an Eagles eye, to pierce and to pry into the principles and affections of people, to wed them to his Ma­sters interest; and 2. as having a deep understand­ing and a profound judgment, with most solid rea­son to discuss all principles of State-policie; and 3. as being excellently well acquainted with the lan­guage of the State and people the embassage is to be directed unto, so that he can discourse with ad­mirable eloquence and understanding therein. These three qualifications in so eminent a degree, would perhaps draw the eyes of all to look upon this man, as indeed the (only) man for such an employment; until that one thing come to be objected as an ob­stacle to this mans preferment, which makes per­haps a little demur about the business. And the obstacle (in my thoughts a main one) is this; That such a man, though never so well accomplisht every other way, yet he is altogether ignorant of the language in which the Embassage, and Instru­ctions of the Kings Commission is sealed up, and originally written in.

If I were apud Regem à consiliis ejus, and in this case sitting at or standing by besides the Kings Council-table, this one obstacle were enough to draw from me a publique and free dissenting voice, or a secret disswading suggestion from the choice of this so great a man, notwithstanding of all his other abilities, as the absolutely fittest for such a function. Yet notwithstanding of my judgment, though it would be backed perhaps by divers others [Page 114] that were there, suppose that the plurality of voices went upon his side, and he were actually chosen, in consideration of his great endowments, and upon this ground, That notwithstanding he was igno­rant himself of that language which his Masters em­bassage was writ in, yet there was a Translation of his Commission and Instructions sent abroad in the Country for the satisfaction of the body of the people, about the grounds he was sent to treat up­on; and that that Translation, for the main bulk and body of it in general, was competently satis­factory in rendring the original Copy of the Com­mission, for the substance of it, obvious to the un­derstanding of the common and unletter'd people; and that therefore it would be sufficient enough for a man so well qualified in all other abilities, to ex­plicate his Commission, and to dispute about his Articles by, against all that could oppose him, in the vulgar language of the people he was sent unto.

Well, upon this account he accepts of the Em­bassage and Commission, takes the Translation of it and the Articles thereof along with him, and gets him gone about the imployment. When he is arrived at the place he was sent to, he is accepted with all the applause that confluences of people could create unto him, he is so expert in his way to insinuate himself into peoples affections: He de­livers there to the State he was sent to, the sub­stance of his Commission, and that in their own language, in such exquisite terms of rational and oratory eloquence, that he is admired by some, high esteemed by many, and very well accounted [Page 115] of for his accomplisht qualifications by all. In the mean time, he comes afterwards to dispute about the State-controversies anent the Articles of his Embassage; and here also he supposes himself, and is cryed up by others, as going beyond by far the most part of all his Antagonists, outreaching them all in sharpness of sight, as much and as far as the Eagles eye doth outreach the Night-owls: Till at length there falls in a controversie to be disputed between him and his adversaries, which nothing could so well determine as the sight and knowledg of his original papers for the articles of his Com­mission; and the question it self was no less mate­rial then this, Who were they that were threatned by his Masters articles and laws in them contained, to be punished as Traitors and Rebels? He did confi­dently aver, and did undertake to prove it from his Masters Writs, that all the whole Kingdom, both State and People, great and small, good and bad, better and worse, were threatned to be punish­ed, as no less then Traitors, for all their of­fences.

This was thought strange by the better sort of that State and People, who not only really were, but did know themselves to be great in his and their Soveraigns favor; and that according to those very Patents of the King which he did bring with him, for instructions to treat about the articles of his embassie: Therefore they did advise him not to be too confident in his sharpness of his sight, about that point; for they would hardly believe it, though he would swear it, that their Lord and Master was either so changeable in himself, in the acts of his [Page 116] own Knowledg and Will, as he would aver, or that he did in his Laws so threaten them who were be­fore reconciled to him, and their ransom or price of redemption paid unto him, as far as was fully satisfactory to justice, to the utmost farthing. They did acknowledg indeed, that they knew their Soveraigns pleasure was such, even as to them his reconciled and ransomed ones, that if any of them did willingly transgress any statutes of his, he would as a Father out of love reprove and chastise them, to reclaim them to walk in his ways again; but that ever he intended or threatned in his laws, properly to punish them as a Judg out of justice, that they did deny, and desired him to consider his articles better, before he did any more assert it. But he d [...]d constantly continue peremptorily to aver, that all of the best of them were threatned in his Masters articles properly to be punished, even for their escapes and failings, out of infirmity of strength to walk so warily as they would, conform to their Lords laws; (for he dared not freely and openly to affirm, (though he was shrewdly suspected for holding the opinion of it) that any of such recon­ciled ones could ever become Traitors indeed, and obstinate Rebels to their Lord and his command­ments.)

Well, they did see they behoved to put him to it, and so they do. He saith, he will bring—I do not know how many Reasons and Arguments to prove what he affirms. Nay, but say they, Sir, subtile Wits may frame very many subtile Arguments to prove any thing; and all of us have not Eagles eyes in our foreheads to pry into such subtilties: [Page 117] You must shew unto us our Lord and Masters own Writs and Words for it, or else we will not give a straw for your Ratiocinations, if they differ and disagree from those. Whereupon he produceth a number of places out of his translated Commission and Articles. Yea but, say they, those will not sa­tisfie us either, Sir; for those are not our Lord and gracious Soveraigns own words nor writings; those are but your copied out translations, they are not his first and original words and writings.

Hereupon my Lord Ambassador is put to a stand with himself; and to wish, though too late, that another had now undertaken his business. To say that he knows not whether it be so in the Original or not, that he will not, because he cannot for shame; for the highest of his admirers must cry out upon him then: What? one accounted to be so accomplisht an Ambassador, and yet knows not himself, and by his own eyes (though never so sharp­sighted in other things, what then? since he can­not but with another mans eyes and knowledg) read understandingly his own Commission and his Masters own words in the articles of his ambassage? Did any ever hear or read of such an Ambassador? If he be befooled by, his Interpreters, he may be­fool us in all that concerns us.

These and such like thoughts will make my Lord Ambassador, nill he, or will he, to produce his Pa­tents; and when they are produced, if there be no­thing found in them to prove what's in question, and what he did so confidently assert to be; nay upon the contrary, if in those very words which he doth alleadge to prove, that his Lords laws do [Page 118] threaten the better sort of his Subjects and most obedient, for their offences, with punishment pro­perly so called, as of justice, and as a Judg, and not only with loving chastisements as a Father; if in those very words, I say, which he brings to prove this, it be expresly threatned only to chastise them, how would such an Ambassador look, and what thoughts would he himself and all others have of his rash undertaking?

I leave it to your self, Sir, and Mr. Baxter to think and consider seriously upon it; for you are the two Ambassadors by name, whom I do point at, in all this long storied supposition, of a case you may think perhaps in an Ʋtopian State, or in the world of the Moon: No, good Sir, you are both mistaken; for I have insisted a little the longer upon it, because I think the substance thereof is of great concernment, and may be of much more con­sequence then either you or I are aware of at pre­sent, if seriously laid to heart and considered; as likewise because, as to greatness of distance from your particular concernment, it reacheth and goeth no farther, Sir, then Kederminster in Worcester­shire, and Stanton in Wilts, and the Preachers at those places: Those are the two, Sir, who take up­on them as Ambassadors of Christ to prove, that he and his law doth threaten Believers to punish their failings with that which is properly punish­ment, proceeding from no less then the wrath and justice of God, as he is a wrathful Judge, and not only as a Father out of fatherly love to chaftise them with the rods of his mercy, to reclaim them; but even with vengeance, proceeding from [Page 119] his vindictive and revenging justice to punish them. Now (Sir) Mr. Baxter hath been more then once put to it to prove it, and both of you have done all that ye can to make good your opinion from your Masters holy Writs, and from his Articles of instruction delivered unto you, to give out to his people: I will only peruse them, and see if you have need to be informed about the Original of them: Yea, Sir, I have perused them already, and I do see that you needs must suffer your selves to be informed about the Original of them, insomuch that you have misapplied and grosly abused all and each of those Texts of the Old Testament which you have brought to prove, that punishment pro­perly so called is threatned to the offences of the Godly; when in not any one of them, punishment either proper or improper, is mentioned at all. This (Sir) I tell you I have tryed, and found to be true already; and now I have nothing to do but to inform your selves of it, and to give to any others that desire to take notice of the question, a true ac­count and information about it.

And (Sir) because Mr. Baxter doth bring those Scriptures which you also insist upon, most succinct­ly and most briefly, laying them all together in e [...] ­mulo in his first Book of Aphorisms, (a book of strifes I think it may be called, it hath made so great a doing and stir in the world since it was published, both to himself and and others, either in defending or opposing it;) as I do now take notice of them in Mr. Crandon's book, I shall take them from him in the method and order that they are placed in there.

[Page 120]This then, Sir, is one of Mr. Baxters Argu­ments, whereby he proves, that the afflictions or the sufferings of the godly, are properly punish­ments: They are called punishments in Scripture, saith he, and therefore we may call them so; and the same is your Argument also, Sir.

But here, I might first deny the consequence, both to you and him; for the strength of it lieth in this Proposition, Whatsoever is attributed to any thing in Scripture, we may properly attribute the same unto it; or we may properly call any thing as it is called, and said to be in Scripture: But this is not universally true: for hands and feet, &c. are attributed to God in Scripture; and yet we cannot properly attribute 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.

[Page 121]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?

[Page 122]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 [Page 123] 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; [Page 124] 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.

[Page 125]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 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 [...]omo, Until that he perfect, absolve, or accomplish, [Page 126] 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 [Page 127] 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 [Page 128] 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.

[Page 141]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 co [...]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: [Page 130] 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 [...] geber [...]gnal chataav: a man for his sins. The word [...] chataaiv, or without [...], 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 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 [Page 131] 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; wh [...]ch whether it be so or not here, we shall see ere we leave this Text; and further when they [...]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 [Page 111] unto him so much authority; nor to you both, being joyned together: as that staret pro ratione voluntas vestra, a [...]a [...] (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 [Page 113] would see an excellent probation of them then) or else you prove nothing. And again, I say, t [...]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 [...] ▪ [Page] mahjitonen Adam chai: Why should a living man complain?

Now Sir, [...] Adam chai, doth import on­ly [...] living man, or a man in natural and earthly lif [...]; 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 limi­t [...]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 [Page 135] 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 [Page 111] 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 [Page 111] 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 [Page 138] 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 dispensations, because in that text I mean to wit, Numb. 11. 1. the same word is put expressing the peoples repining, murmuring, and complaining against God in his providences towards them, thus, [...] vaihi [...]agnam kemithonenim, and the people was, [...] kemitonenim, as they who murmured, repined, and complained against God, &c. it be­ing the participle hithpael of this same word, with [...] the note of sim [...]ltude put before it. And thus if we translate the Verse, Why should a living man complain, or murmur in himself, (to wit, against God) let him be bemoan himself (repeating a­gain [...] jitonen) over his sins. Or if we tran­slate it as a question and answer, thus; What [Page 139] should a man complain of? Answ. A man (should complain) for his sins, more then for any thing else, as it were. I think there will be no proof then in the words for you, Sir, that the afflictions of the people of God are called proper punish­ments. But the truth is, when I look on the text at last again, I caunot leave it, but express once again this much, that when there is nothing importing punishment, but these words in it, [...] g [...]al chataav, for, or over his sins; to say there is pro­per punishment attributed to the Godly for their sins, is so grosse in it self, and bewrayes so grosse ignorance of the Hebrew, that (if it had not been to have made your mistakings the more clear to your selfe and others) I am almost ashamed that I have insisted so long in refutation of it, and therefore now I come to the other places laid down in Master Baxters argument; where I su­supect, we shall have no better stuffe, nor stronger evidence for proving the point, then we have had in the first two. I am sure in the next two, we have not, for we have nothing in them but the very same thing we have before refuted; as we shall see when they are produced. The third and fourth places therefore which Master Baxter brin­geth for to prove that the sufferings of the Godly, are called punishments in Scripture, are out of the fourth Chapter of this same book of Lamenta­tions; to wit, Lam. 4. 6. 22. Well let us see the words, vers. 6. is thus; [...] Vajigdal gnavon bat gnammi mechattat sedom. That is the first, the second place is vers. 21. and is thus, [...] tam gnav [...]nech bat tzion, I have [Page 114] perused them both over Sir, and I do here also lay them both before you to be perused over again; & if either you or Mr Baxter, can see in either of those two places, any thing at all to prove your point, that the afflictions or sufferings of the Godly, are called in Scripture proper punishments; then I shal acknowledg you to have the clearest Lynx eys, and him to have the sharpest Eagle-eys, that ever look­ed upon an Hebrew Book, since there was ever any one in Britain.

The truth is, there is nothing in either of them, but the very same glasse of the Translaters, put upon and before the Embassadours eyes; and making him mistake again in the self-same two words, of these two Verses, in which he was so grossely mistaken in the two places before exami­ned; so that though when I did see, I had insisted so long about the refutation of them, I was not well pleased, especially it being almost needlesse, the ve­ry reading of the places being a refutation of them, as to his illation from them, yet now I am a little more satisfied, because it will save me some labour in insisting upon those two; for every pas­sage of the refutation of the other two places, may be read to refute the application of these two; for there is not a word in these two places, that signi­fieth punishment at all, either proper or impro­per; but onely the former explained words, [...] gnavon, and [...] chataah; the first of which signifieth perversenesse or iniquity, the second sin, but none of them punishment, as was before ex­plained. Yet because Mr. Baxter's mistake and escape is grosser here then before upon one consi­deration, [Page 141] and seems to be a willing mistake in him­self, that he may make others mistake also with him; and because also something would be said here as to the translation it self; therefore we will speak a little to inform you of those two places al­so; the words of the first are, [...], Vajigdal gnavon bat gnammi me­chattat sedom, rendered they are thus; and the iniquity of the daughter of my people, is greater then the sin of Sodom, this is the very verbal tran­slation and signification of the words; and if Mr. Baxter should not blush to draw from hence, therefore the afflictions of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture; I profess I know not what can make a man blush, as to a mistake in words. But for the explaining and clearing of the ignorance in the mistake, I leave it to be taken no­tice of in the two former places; for as it is said, all that is spoken there may be reiterated or re­peated here again; for the whole mistake lies in two words [...] gnavon, perversenesse or iniquity, and [...] chattaah, sin, which were explained before not to signifie punishment; and proved that they could not be with so much reason (when the afflictions of the Godly are spoken of) tran­slated punishment, as chastisement; all which doth hold here also in those places. Onely Mr. Baxter is, 1. To be told, that his mistake is a great deal more culpable here, then in the other places before examined, and that upon this account; be­cause his mistake seemeth either here to be more willing and wilfull, or else more negligent and carelesse then before; because here, although Mr. [Page 142] Baxter had never looked upon an Hebrew Bible in his daies, yet he might have scrupled a little about the putting down this place in his argument, and that from the translation it self; for although the Translators in the body of the Translation, have indeed turned the word [...] gnavon, punishment of iniquity; yet in the margent, they have put this note at that word, or iniquity; now what shal we say here for Mr. Baxter? did not he so much as ever look upon the Hebrew Bible, to search if his proofs of his Tenets were clearly agreeing there­with? if he never did, this is his great fault; yea his great shame, and his great sin, that should have been so many years so eminent a Minister and Embassadour of God to his people, and hath in those years taken so much pains upon other studies of all Sciences, in all Authors; and yet never did so much as apply himself with diligence to under­stand his Lord and Masters Commission, and Ar­ticles committed to him, in their own proper lan­guage; but suppose he did not, but onely use the Translators 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 [Page 143] 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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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 [...]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, [Page 147] 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 [...] [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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. [Page 150] 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 [Page 151] of the godly are called in Scripture (not onely chastisements out of 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▪ [Page 152] [...] 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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 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 [Page 156] 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 [Page 157] 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: [Page 158] 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 [Page 159] 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 the Chastisements and Corrections of God, from his fatherly love to his Children, when it is spoken of their sufferings; as for the strokes of wrath, vengeance, and vindictive justice, or proper punishment; which your Adversaries will say is onely meant, when the word is spoken of the strokes of Gods wrath upon sinners that are not his people: And they'l tell you also, that they have more reason upon their side, for them to say so, then your bare (and in the present case, of interpretation of Masters original words, but blind) authority can possibly make against them; because it is more agreeable to the concent of other Scriptures; for as is often said no word sig­nifying proper punishment, is attributed to the Saints sufferings in any place at all of the Scrip­ture, but many times the word signifying chastise­ment and correction out of fatherly love, is attri­buted to them in Scripture; therefore where nei­ther of them is expressed Verbatim in the Text, the one of them they'l say, even chastisement or fa­therly correction out of love, is more rationally upon the fore-mentioned ground, to be under­stood [Page 160] then the other, when the sufferings of the Godly are spoken of; and when they have told you so much, then I have nothing more to tell you, but this, that thus such wise ones must suf­fer themselves to be informed of the original by others, when they do not peruse it themselves.

Unto the former Texts of Ezra 9 13. Lam. 3. 39. and Amos 3. 2. already examined; you do adde other two in which you doe seem to place much emphasis and force for your opinions; be­cause you bring them to answer a main objection which you conceive may be made against you, and to prove that even the remnant of the godly in the Church are said in Scripture to be punished, and that the sufferings of the Saints themselves are called by God, in his Word, punishments: But, I doe suspect, you are as much mistaken in the em­phasis and force of them as in any of the rest; and that it may be seen I doe not conjecture amiss, I shall produce those two Texts (which in effect are but one and the same, for the very same words which you mistake are in both places:) and lay them before any rational consideration to deter­mine upon my conjecture. The two Texts then are, Jerem. 46. v. last, and 30. v. 11. And the words (which Mr. Baxter also to prove the point in que­stion, citeth for their emphasis) in both are these, [...] venakk [...]h lo Anakkecha. Now for the consideration of them, we are first to re­peat and remember the state of the question, which is, whether God be said in Scripture (properly, or in proper words signifying punishment) to punish the Saints (as a Judge from wrathful and vindic­tive [Page 161] justice and vengeance) for their sins: And Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Hotchkiss doth c [...]te these words to prove the affirmative part of the question, viz. That God is said in Scripture to punish the sins of the Saints with proper punishments. But then, say I, the word [...] nakkeh here must signifie pro­perly to punish; and if that were granted, one would think that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Hotchkisse had gained their point, since they had at last brought one Text to prove that God is said in scri­pture properly to punish the Saints for their sins, in which Text the words having relation to the Saints sufferings, were acknowledged (or supposed at least) to signifie properly to punish. But though this were granted to them, yet nothing less could be inferred from the words of this Text: Nay if it were indeed so, that the words here did properly signifie to punish, the quite contrary must neces­sarily be inferred from them; to wit, that God wil not at all punish the remnant of the Godly for their sins; for the words then would, clearly im­port, and properly signifie thus much, [...] nakkeh lo anakkecha; puniendo non puniam te, in, or by punishing I will not punish thee; which would import (accordiug to that usual Hebraism, by doubling the Verb, to encrease and augment the force of the signification, as Gen. 2. 7. [...] mot tamut, in, or by dying thou shalt dye; that is, thou shalt surely or certainly dye; and so here these words upon the former snpposi­tion, that they did signifie properly to punish, would signifie thus) surely, or certainly I will not punish thee; or I will not at all punish thee; or [Page 162] whatever else I doe to thee (as for correction and chastisement, &c. which is indeed threatned, but by measure in the words immediately going be­fore:) yet be sure of this, that I will never pu­nish thee.

And if this be not an excellent proof for an Embassador to prove that his Lord and Soveraign doth denounce in his word proper punishments, or that his Lord doth threaten that he wil (proper­ly) punish the best, and most obedient of his sub­jects for their sins' let the world judge, when (ac­cording to the Embassadors own acception of the words which be so much breaths after to be ac­knowledged to him, and if it were granted) those very words which he citeth, would bring in his Lord and Soveraign speaking thus expresly, I will not punish you at all, who desire and endeavour to be my dutiful subjects: Although, indeed, I doe resolve to correct you in measure, as a loving and merciful father doth his children for their offences. And if those words, [...] nakkeh lo anak­kecha (with the words going before) would not clearly bespeak so much, if the infinitive [...] nakkeh did signifie to punish, I leave it to be determined at the very first view of the words, by any that knows but this mu [...]h of the Hebrew dialect, that the repeating of the verb doth adde a special force and emphasis to the signification of it; and that [...] lo, is the Hebrew negative particle, not. I do seriously profess, if there were no more said but this much for the clearing of your mistake in this text, I think I should shame and fright both Mr. Baxter and you from ever citing a text out of the [Page 163] Old Testament again, till you know more of the original of it, because I think you should alwaies fear and remember this, that you cite, and you know not what you cite, and that when you have done so, you know not whom providence may stir up to tel you so much.

And thus far, Sir, by way of concession (although, because I am sure it makes little to your purpose, I therefore know not whither, or how far pleasing or displeasing) to you, granting or supposing that some words in some of the Texts you bring, did properly signifie to punish, even as they relate to the remnant of the godly and their sufferings: (which you will never evince while you breath.) But you are further to be informed, that no such signification can be forced 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: [Page 164] 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 [Page 165] 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 [Page 166] 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 [Page 167] 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 where else it hath this proper signification, and is translated according­ly: Now who knoweth not, that a father smi­teth his Children, when he chastiseth and correct­eth them out of love, to make them sensible of, and to reclaim from their faults, as well as the Judge doth (or causeth the Executioner to do) when he strikes the Malefactor, out of vindictive and revenging justice? And who likewise will not easily conjecture, that since the word to smite is as well applicable to the strokes of chastisement and correction out of fatherly love, as to the strokes of punishing vengeance, or vindictive and [Page 168] revenging justice; that Mr. Baxter's Antagonists will make choice of the one, when the word is spo­ken of the sufferings of the Godly, as well as he doth the other, and that they will disdain to weigh the weight of his authority to the contrary, up­on this ground, that the word properly and radi­cally signifying to correct or chastise, is frequent­ly attributed in the Scripture to the dispensations of God to his people, when they offend him, as is often intimated before, and as we shall see, a lit­tle below the proof of it; but never is there a word properly and radically signifying to punish, attributed to them in the Scripture; and if he do joyn the authority of the translation to his own▪ they will value this reason equivalent to both; and then they'l further tell him; 1. That the Transla­tors do take the word punishment in a general sense, as it is applicable to strokes of mercy, as well as of justice; and not onely as it is taken for the strokes of wrathfull and vindictive vengeance, which are proper punishments out of justice from a revenging judge, and to the satisfaction of justice, as Mr. Baxter and Mr. Hotchkis do take the word. And 2. they'l mind him again of the case of the question as it was at first stated, viz. that he is to prove his tenets out of his Lord and Masters origi­nal words, as if there were not a translation of them at hand to look on, or else he must lie under and bear the imputation of an unfit Embassadour of his Master to his people, in this far at least, (which is very far in my apprehension) that he cannot so much as read understandingly his Ma­sters words, but by other mens eyes; and if so, [Page 169] how can he then possibly from his own knowledg, bespeak and declare his Masters mind to his people? And then they'l conclude, that therefore such wise ones must suffer themselves to be informed of the original, when they are so much mistaken about it.

But now at length wee come to the last, and yet the grossest of all Mr. Baxter's mistakes in this point; for I think it is one of the most intollera­bly impertinent mis-applications, that ever a ra­tional disputant was guilty of, in citing a testi­mony to gain authority to any of his opinions; so that the truth is, I cannot but bee sorry, that I am necessitated to be so pungent to the re­putation of a learned man, as the meer relation of the mistake must needs be; when it is known and taken notice of; yea I should resolve in silence to passe it over; were it not thereby to procure here­after more serious thoughts about the application of Scriptural testimonies, to authorize mens opi­nions; and that more diligence may bee used for the understanding of the original testimonies of Scripture, then hitherto hath been; least other­wayes applications be found and proved to be no­thing but most impertinent mis-applications, and deceiving illusions both of others and of them­selves, who bring such Testimonies for confirma­tion of their Tenets: for this end I cannot but declare, that Mr. Baxter's mistake and mis-appli­cation of that one Text of Scripture, Lev. 26. 18. May be enough to frighten a hundred from citing any unknown testimony out of Scripture, lest they both deceive themselves and others; and give oc­casion to some one or other to tell them, that if [Page 170] they worship not an unknown God, in being de­ceived of the mind and meaning of God, and not knowing it themselves by his own words; yet cer­tainly by so doing, they read their Lectures from the unknown words of the true God; which how dangerous a thing it is, let the serious thoughts of serious Christians judge; for thereby they read to others what they know not (themselves) whether it be truth or errour, because they know not them­selves, and by their own knowledge, whether it be agreeable to the pure original words of truth in the Scripture which they cite, or whether it may not be quite contrary to them, for any thing that they know, or can see and discern with their own eyes.

But that it may clearly appear that this adver­tisement is not given without ground from this mistake of Mr. Baxters, and his misapplication of that forementioned Text, Lev. 26. 18. The state of the question is once more to be remembred and mentioned: And it is this, Whether the sufferings of the godly or their afflictions be proper punish­ments, being inflicted upon them, and proceeding from God as a Judge, out of vindictive vengeance and revenging wrath, for satisfaction of his Ju­stice, which Mr. Baxter affirmeth, or whether they be only chastisements and corrections proceeding from God our of fatherly love and mercy to re­claim his people from their sins, and to make them sensible of their offences, and that God will not altogether hold them guiltless, or count or declare them innocent, who do knowingly offend against him: This Mr. Baxters Antagonists do affirm, and [Page 171] upon this ground, that the Scripture doth never call the afflictions of the godly by the name of proper punishments, because such are inflicted for satisfaction to justice, but nothing but infinite or eternal sufferings can satisfie infinite justice; and therefore none but the sufferings of Christ, God as well as man can be equivalent to such a satisfacti­on, and he hath payed it fully for the godly, and and therefore it cannot be payd, nor justly required to be payed again by themselves.

Well, but Mr. Baxter will undertake to prove the contrary, that the Saints sufferings are proper punishments, &c. and by this argument, the Scri­in many places doth call them proper punish­ments, therefore they are so, and are to be called so by us: The antecedent is denyed to him, and his Antagonists do affirm, that the Scriptures doe not call them so.

Now he being put to prove his assertion, that the Scripture doth call the sufferings of the Godly proper punishments, and not onely Chastisements and Corrections; would it ever enter into any mans imagination, that so judiciously rational, and learned a man, and so sharp sighted in all his dis­putes, as Master Baxter is; would bring such a Text to prove his point, as Lev. 21. ver. 21. And I will chastise (or correct) you seven times for your sins; would this be a fit Text to prove that God doth not onely correct and chastise his people for their sins, but also that he doth properly punish them; in which there is not a word of punish­ment threatned, but onely of Chastisement and Correction for offences.

[Page 172]I do verily think that there are many hundreds in England, that would averre me a very lyar to my face, if I should onely by word of mouth affirm unto them, that eagle-eyed Baxter were so far over-seen, and so short sighted in proving his points: And therefore I must first of all tell it now to himself, that it is no lesse then truth, that he is so far overseen, and that his sight is just so short, and nothing sharper in this particu­lar; for out of that very chapter, Lev. 26. He brings a text, viz. v. 18. to prove that the suffer­ings of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture, & not only chastisements & corrections; in which verse there is nothing more mentioned of punishments, then in v. 28 but only of chastisement & correction; for in both those verses the very self root [...] jasar, is used, which onely doth signifie to correct and chastise, or to instruct by chastise­ment and correction; as all that ever knew any thing of the body of the Hebrew roots, can easily and evidently testifie; and if the self same root be not used in both these verses, let any man that knoweth but the Hebrew letter's look and see; for v. 28. the words are [...] vejissarti etchem; and I will correct or chastise you, [...] jissarti being the first person sing. pret piel. I have corrected or chastised, but with the conversive va [...] before it, I will correct and chastise, and in 18. the word is thus, [...] vejasaphri lejasserah etchem; and I will adde to chastise or correct you, that is, I will yet chastize or correct you more, &c. [...] lejasserah, to correct or instruct, being the infinitive piel, with the infinitive [Page 173] letter [...] lamed, put before the radical letters, and the paragogique [...] he put after them, from the root [...] jusar, he corrected or chastised; or he instructed by correction and chastisement. Now is not this an excellent proof of Mr. Baxters, to prove that the sufferings of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture, and not onely chastisements and corrections, by a text that men­tioneth not a word of punishment, but onely of correction and chastisement, thus, I will chastize or correct you yet seven times more, &c. Who would have imagined Mr. Baxter to have been so irrtional in his probations? By this means Mr. Bax­ter might reckon up near a hundred of places wherin God is spoken of as chastizing and correct­ing his people, and by all and each of which, he might go about to prove, that God doth properly punish them, and not onely chastize them, as when David saith Ps [...]l. 118. v. 18. [...] jassor jisserani Jah in chastising God hath chastised me (the same word [...] jasar, in the infinitive, and preter tense piel, to correct or chastize) Mr. Bax­ter might translate it, in punishing God hath pu­nished me; that is, surely he hath punished me, and from hence infer, that the afflictions of the Godly are not onely chastisements, but they are certainly properly punishments, because the Scrip­ture doth certainly call them so: But alass this were but to make it evident how dangerous a thing it is, not onely for the blind to be led by the blind, but even for those who know nothing themselves, with their own eyes, to follow blind-foldedly see­ing Guides; for if they please they may lead them [Page 174] whither they will, even to their own destruction: For, by appearance, if the Translators should call the word signifying Light, Darknesse, and the word signifying Darknesse if they should translate it Light; if they should call Truth Er­rour, and Errour Truth; or if they should trans­late one and the same word Light and in one place, and darkness and errour in another, all were one case to Mr. Baxter; for he would not be at the pains to undeceive himself & others from such illusions. The truth is, I must now at last for bear to speak any thing further of such mistakes, because if I should speak any more about them, it would be to this purpose, to shew that he did not deserve the name of an Ambassador of Christ, who being entrapped and caught in such deceivings of himself and others, thorough his own most faulty negli­gence, should not so cordialy evidence his resenting of it, as to lay aside all his other studies, whether, of the Fathers, School-men, or Philosophers and to set himself seriously, at last, which he should have done first, to the study of his Lord and Masters own original words, in which he hath delivered his Embassage, and the instructions and articles therof to his people. Having therefore thus informed such Wise ones about the Original, I rest theirs, as reason shall hereafter require: