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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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, 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 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 to be taken notice of, where the Tranſlators do diverſly render the Original, or do differ in one place from their tranſlation of the ſame word in another place: And ſo ye do think. I ſuppoſe likewiſe, that it ſhould be obſerved, when they give divers words in the Hebrew one and the ſame tranſlation. And all thoſe (Sir) and many others, and ſuch like varieties in the tranſlation, (as when in one and the ſelf-ſame place they do give different or divers readings of the Hebrew words or phraſes, &c.) I think are neceſſarily to be diligently ſearched into, and compared with the Original, before a man can be rightly termed an Interpreter of the Word, for the ſatisfaction either of himſelf or his hearers.

And therefore, Sir, if you fail to be ſo accurate in your obſervations between the Tranſlation and the Original hereafter, eſpecially if there be more neceſſity of accuracie in obſervation then is here; for the truth is, I ſee little either of neceſſity or pertinencie of ſuch accuracie here, it being a buſineſs that a hundred have in their mouths and put in books, that never knew a word in the Original, that the ſame word in the Hebrew is tranſlated ſometimes face, and ſometimes preſence; or ſome ſuch common and triſting expreſſions, which they have ſomewhere catcht to make uſe of, thereby to bear the world, and their hearers or readers in hand, that they are expert (forſooth) in the Hebrew criticiſms. But, I ſay, all is well, if you be always as accurate in your explications of the Original, and comparing it with the Tranſlation, when places occur of ſome more material conſequence to be opened: But I fear me, Sir, it prove far otherwiſe with you, and that you have been more accurate (I know not upon what account) in this punctilio, when no need required it, (except to ſhew that you had ſomething really of that which you would be aſhamed the world ſhould know that you were altogether ignorant of; I ſay, I fear you have been more exact here, and that unneceſſarily) then ever I ſhall find you all your book over again, even there where you bring Texts of Scripture to prove your opinions in matters controverted, and in diſpute with your adverſaries. If this prove not true, Sir, then I have loſt my conjecturing faculty in ſuch like caſes; and if it do prove true, then I hope you will remember, that ſuch wiſe ones muſt ſuffer themſelves to be informed about the Original, &c.

Thus (Sir) I have done with the firſt part of that equitable eſtimate I put upon your writings, having declared what I think praiſe-worthy in ſome paſſages of them, and how far. The other part of my eſtimate followeth, which I hope you will not take in ill part, ſince I have put that which ſo highly commends you before, and have ſhewed quam ſtrenue, how manly you have behaved your ſelf in thoſe praiſe-worthy paſſages; and withall I have had obſervations upon them, ſo clearly ariſing from them, that they muſt ſeveral times be made uſe of particularly as we go on.

Now therefore I come to declare unto you ſome paſſages which did not a little offend, and diſlike me; ſome of which being altogether falſhoods, and thoſe in this matter are not ſmall ones, averring ſuch things to be in the Word of God, which are not in them; others are meer needleſs impertinences, or groſs miſtakings; all of them bewraying, and be-ſpeaking aloud, Sir, that ſuch a wiſe one muſt ſuffer himſelf to be informed about the words in the original, &c. Some of thoſe miſtakings are ſingly and onely your own; others are common to your ſelf, and your ſharp-ſighted Patron, under the ſame culpable miſtaking or ignorance with you, and therefore he alſo muſt himſelf be informed about thoſe his errors in the original.

The firſt place then, that be-ſpeaks to me here, a neceſſity in you of information about the original, I did finde by caſting my eye upon the Margent of the very Page going before your ſo exact Explication of the original, in reference to the tranſlation, which we touched laſt; to wit, Page 128. where the truth is, Sir, (I muſt tell you in the entrance again, and put you in minde of it, that I muſt ſpeak my thoughts freely to you, what ever they be, as I have a reaſonable occaſion; and therefore I ſay, that in the forecited place) you have one, not onely of the groſſeſt miſtakes, that I think was ever put in a Print Book, but alſo one of the moſt impertinent falſhoods; putting that upon, and in the words of God, by one of his Prophets, that there is not the leaſt ſhew, nor appearance of, nay, that there is the quite contrary evidently beſpoken in the words themſelves, and, which is worſt of all, in the tranſlation alſo; ſo that I profeſs, Sir, I wonder not a little how ſuch a miſtake ſhould have ariſen in a rational head; you are for your own ends, in the Page inſtanced before, explaining what is meant in Scripture by the face of God, which ſometimes is put, ſay you, for the favour of God, and ſometimes for the wrath, and diſpleaſure of God; and here we are directed with a reference to the Margent, where you do place, as a ſpecial obſervation, theſe words, In this ſenſe the face of God, ſay you, is ſometimes ſtiled the back of God, Jer. 18. 17.

When I did caſt my eye upon your words, I thought ſomewhat ſtrange of them, for I had never remembred, that ever I had obſerved any ſuch expreſſion, as that ſhould import the face of God to be ſtiled the back of God: And I thought I did ow you thanks for ſhewing me ſuch a phraſe, if there were indeed any ſuch; I did preſently, therefore, turn to the place, and there, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnoreph doth onely ſignifie the neck; the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnaraph in the Radical ſignification of it, importing to cut off the neck, as it were, that is, to behead: but it never ſignifieth the back; the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gev▪ or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erem, I will cauſe them (to wit the enemies) to ſee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnoreph the neck (of my people) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnoreph to be tranſlated (in ſenſe at leaſt) the back; and that we ſhould take the words as ſpoken of the face of God, and back of God, as I think it is moſt probable they ſhould be ſo taken; yet I ſay here is no ſtiling the face of God to be the back or neck of God; but as I ſaid, the quite contrary; the face is oppoſite to the neck or back of God; as is obvious to the conſideration of any at the very firſt rational view of the words, or but hearing them read, thus: I will make them to ſee (what? not my face ſtiled my back, but) my back, (or the back of my diſpleaſure and ſad afflicting diſpenſations) and not my face (or the face of my favor and favorable mercies.)

The truth is, Sir, I did run every where in my thoughts, and I looked round about me to ſeek a ſhift for you here, and I could find none. For firſt, as to the Tranſlation, although I knew you before to be ſo excellent a Textuary-Divine as to the Original, that you can accurately teach us, that the ſame word in the Hebrew is ſometimes rendred face, and ſometimes preſence; and that therefore you could notſatisfie your ſelf with the tranſlation, if it did vary from the original: And yet although you your ſelf, I did ſee, in this place, did differ ſo much from your ſelf, in that place about face and preſence, in the very next page, as that I was perſwaded the Tranſlation could not favor you in ſuch nonſenſe; yet I did take it, and I did ſee it (as it could not rationally otherwiſe be but) quite againſt you; theſe being the words of the Tranſlators, I will ſhew them the back, and not the face, in the day of their calamity: where the oppoſition is clearly kept, as in the original, ſo in the tranſlation, between the face or favor of God, and his back or diſpleaſure; but not the face of God ſtiled the back of God.

Then ſecondly, becauſe I did ſuppoſe that ſo accurate a piece as your Exercitation, could not be ſuppoſed to be ſent abroad in the world, without the Authors review to take notice of eſcapes after the Preſs, therefore I did hafte to turn over to the Errata at the end of the Book; but there I did ſee a number of literal faults corrected, moſt of which any that can underſtand Engliſh would have eaſily paſt over without ſcarce taking notice of them; but of this material error and groſs miſtake of the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quidem, not ſo much as a ſyllable of that there.

Thirdly, I did ſuppoſe, that poſſibly it might be, (though truly I believe ye would not, or at leaſt I think you ought not to have been ſo careleſs, if it poſſibly could have been helped, yet I did feign to my ſelf that it might be) you had not ſeen your ſheets after the Preſs, and that therefore yet it had been a fault of Correctors at the work it ſelf there where it was a doing, and that they might have paſſed over ſome material fault in the work; yet afterwards when I conſidered the words, I could not poſſibly imagine how the miſtake of the Printers could have been, unleſs they had purpoſely done it, and in ſtead of ſaying, that the face of God is oppoſed to the back of God, they had knowingly put in ſuch nonſenſe, that the face of God is ſtiled the back of God; which I ſuppoſe no Printer dared to do, or would have done.

Yet fourthly, imagining again that a word might have been changed either knowingly or ignorantly, willingly or unwillingly, poſſibly or impoſſibly, by ſome one or another, without the Authors knowledg; yet when I look back to the Original again, I did ſee it evidently contradict that imagination of mine, and manifeſtly to clear unto me that the fault could lie no where but upon the Author's own ſcore, in the ſupine negligence of ſtudy and ſearch into, and the groſs ignorance of the Original text of the Old Teſtament.

For, Sir, you do bring this place of Scripture to prove, that the face of God is ſometimes taken in Scripture for the wrath and diſpleaſure of God: Whereas any in the world that hath any ſpark of ſenſible reaſon in them, at the firſt hearing of the words, even in the tranſlation of them, will clearly perceive that by the face of God here is meant his favorable countenance, or merciful diſpenſations; and by his back is meant his diſpleaſure and juſt judgments; becauſe the Prophet threatneth them thus, I will ſhew them the back, and not the face. So that this is not blind ignorance of the Original only, but intolerable miſtaking of the meaning and words even of the Tranſlation it ſelf. I do profeſs I know not what to call it; only this I am ſure of, that you are intrapped and caught without any evaſion or way to eſcape, in one of the greateſt, groſſeſt, and moſt ignorant miſtakings, that ever a Miniſter or Ambaſſador of God (quoad nomen) was taken in or catched, in interpreting a Text of any of his Scriptures. And I hope, Sir, you are a wiſe one, that will willingly ſuffer your ſelf to be informed about the words in the Original, when they are miſtaken: You know, Sir, how you uſe to inform others your ſelf, and you know your ſelf well enough, when you know you can inform them.

But yet, now that (that which you may call) my paſſion is over, (for indeed I was offended with you in your miſtake) methinks there is yet an evaſion left for you, by which you may eſcape the challenge laid againſt you; and that therefore there hath been too great rigor uſed unto you. And the evaſion may perhaps help you at a dead lift; for it is ſuch a one indeed, that I know a man that hath no leſs then Eagles eyes in his head, Sir, as you think, who does ſee it ſo fit for his purpoſe, as that he frequently makes very much uſe of it, if he be challenged with errors and miſtakes in his Tenets; and it may be that he may make uſe of it to ſhelter you from the ſtorms that ſeem here to be blown againſt you, as I am ſure it is a ſhield to himſelf to keep off many blows that would fall heavily upon him if he lacked it.

And the way to eſcape is this, Sir, or at leaſt it may be thought to be ſo; to wit, That it may be ſaid and conceived you did not ſpeak ſo much your own opinion concerning the words of the Text above rendred, as that you had what you ſpake about the words from another hand, and ſo they were as much the words of another as your own which you ſpake.

But firſt, Sir, as to that I ſay, That that is the moſt ſophiſtical and jugling way of ſpeaking, that ever any free, rational, or ingenious man did ſpeak in, (nay which doth not become ſuch a one to ſpeak ſo at all) if he doth not expreſly manifeſt whether he do own or not, and how far he owns, or how far he diſowns the words which he relateth: For unleſs he do ſo, no man can take hold upon what he ſaith; for always he will have a back-door to get out at, whenſoever he fears to be nonpluſt and ſilenced; then will he ſay, he ſpoke that but as the mind of others, whatever he meant of that, or of any other thing beſides that before.

But again Sir, if either you your ſelf, or he for you, will uſe this ſhift, to free you in the particular, between you and me at this time, then I have two things to ſay, to ſtop either or both your mouths, with either of them; and the firſt is this, That if ever you produce an intelligent Author, underſtanding the Hebrew Text, that doth ſenſe or non-ſenſe the words in controverſie, in your way, I ſhall be the firſt that ſhall challenge my ſelf, as having with a too virulent Pen carped at your miſtaken Criticiſm; and I ſhall humbly and heartily crave your pardon for it; and that you may oblige me by my promiſe, and acknowledged duty, to do ſo, Sir, if you can, I intreat you produce one unto me, by your next: In the mean time ſecondly, I will tell you and your friend, That if you do produce any ſuch nonſenſical babler, that doth ſay that in thoſe words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Erem gnoreph velo panim, I will cauſe them to ſee, or I will ſhew them the (neck or) back, and not the face; the face of God is ſtiled the back of God, then I will anſwer, Sir, if you think to evade and eſcape that way, that your remedy is as bad, and worſe then the diſeaſe, becauſe the remedy then would be the cauſe of the diſeaſe. For this is your ſin, and this is your ſhame, That you have nothing of underſtanding, and knowing your Maſters own words, but onely an implicite faith, to take upon truſt your tranſlators words; ſo that if any one whom you take to be your Interpreter, ſpeak non-ſenſe before you, then you your ſelf do know nothing, but to follow him, and to dictate non-ſenſe with him.

And ſo I will conclude this firſt place, Sir, by telling you laſtly, and minding you ſeriouſly of it; that into danger of ſuch inextricable difficulties and perplexities, doth that man put himſelf to, who runneth as a Meſſenger and Ambaſſador about his acknowledged Lord and Maſters buſineſs, and yet knoweth not (underſtandingly) to read his Maſters Commiſſion, and his Inſtructions, in the proper Language in which his Lord did deliver them to him:

I have done now, Sir, with the firſt Text of Scripture in your Exercitation, much miſapplied in proſecution of your Tenets: and I have a little more fully deſcanted about it, firſt, becauſe it was a (groſly) material miſtake; ſecondly, becauſe I would in one place put ſeveral of my thoughts, that in ſeveral ſuch caſes afterwards, they may be reflected and looked upon here, as if they were juſt repeated over again in the ſame, or ſuch like words, when the like need or occaſion requires: And thirdly, this I did here ſo largely, that hence I might be more brief in proſecuting the reſt of thoſe miſapplications and miſconſtructions of other Texts of Scripture, which I have marked in your Book; yea, I do reſolve to be now as brief as I can, in all the reſt of the places that I ſhall take notice, (becauſe I am not well contented, that Epiſtolary lines are drawn by my hand to ſuch a length, as I ſee they are;) onely, Sir, remember that by an equitable rule you muſt ſuffer your ſelf to be informed, &c.

ABout the beginning of your Book, when I firſt peruſed it, there were ſeveral places which I did mark, as impertinent and inconſiderate Applications of ſome Texts, with ſuch miſtakings as did bewray indeed, little knowledge or ſtudy in the original; but yet not ſo groſs and abſurd ignorance as the firſt, which is already paſt over. Now as I am looking out thoſe marks which I had laid in your Book, the firſt day I did ſee it, I caſt my eye upon a paſſage of yours, which I had marked, indeed, but had quite forgot when I did preſent to your view thoſe two paſſages which I did ſo much commend, and count praiſe-worthy in your Exercitation: For if I had minded it, it would have been as highly commended and approved by me, as the other two, or at leaſt, I am ſure, it had been joyned to them as a fellow for a third. The paſſage is this, Sir, Page 11. wherein your Obſervations upon the Negative phraſes, uſed in Scripture about forgiveneſs of ſins, this you put down as one of the chief, and moſt inſiſted on of any other I do take notice of there, to wit, onely let it be noted, ſay you, concerning the two laſt places, viz. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and Acts 7. 60. That albeit the phraſe in the tranſlation be all one, (both being rendred a not laying ſin to the charge of the ſinner;) nevertheleſs the phraſes in the original 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vegnattah Jehovah hagnaber na et quavon gnabdecha; word for word rendred, they are thus, And now, O Lord, cauſe to paſs over, or cauſe to paſs by, or cauſe to paſs away, the iniquity of thy ſervant; for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnabar, He paſſed over, paſſed by, or paſſed away; and in Hiphil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 naſa) is different in the body of the Hebrew Language, or in an Hebrew Dictionary, from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnabar, properly and onely, ſignifieth, he paſſed over, &c. as is ſaid before; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tiſſa, thou wilt take, carry, or lift up, or do thou carry, take, or lift up, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakah, is uſed in the Future tenſe of Piel, as in Exod. 20. 7. in 3. Perſ. ſing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nikkah, He abſolved, he acquitted, he declared innocent, or he did hold guiltleſs, &c. The Root in kal being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . or equivalent to forgiveneſs of ſin, as you do phraſifie your thoughts about your deſign, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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.

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.

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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jirtzu being the third perſon plural fut. kal, they ſhall accept, or be well pleaſed with, &c. from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ratzah, He was well pleaſed with, or he accepted, &c. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavonam is only in the verbal tranſlation of it, their iniquity; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 am being the affix, their; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon ſignifying properly, only iniquity or perverſity; for the root is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavah, which doth properly ſignifie, He did perverſly, or he did wickedly, or he perverted his way. So (Sir) the word puniſhment is not here at all; how then is it applied to the ſins of the godly here?

But you will ſay, the ſenſe muſt be ſupplied ſome way: And I grant, there muſt be ſome good ſenſe made, as far as we can, of all words of Scripture. But how? Muſt only the Baxterian or Hotchkiſſian ſenſe be taken as good and orthodox, eſpecially of thoſe places of Scripture which they think may ſerve for their turns, when they have ſenſed them as they pleaſe? No Sir, we will not do ſo, except you could bring us to that ſtreight, that we could probably ſenſe them no other way then you do. But here the caſe is clear, that a ſenſe quite and clear contradicting yours, as to the preſent queſtion, may be put upon the words, as well and as probably, if not more probably then yours; to wit, by ſupplying the word correction or chaſtiſement: And then the words will run thus; And if they accept of the chaſtiſement of their iniquity. And then where is your proof from this Text, that the afflictions of the Godly are not only chaſtiſements, but proper puniſhments? Nay, from this Text, thus tranſlated, it is inferred againſt you, that they are chaſtiſements, and not puniſhments, becauſe the Scripture calls them not ſo. And yet you do ſay it does, Sir, and in this Text: but are you not aſhamed in ſaying ſo?

And that this ſupplement of the Text by the word chaſtiſement, is as probable as by puniſhment, and a great deal more probable, is to me paſt queſtion, if it were but upon this account; That no where elſe can you produce any place or Text of Scripture, where the expreſs word puniſhment is attributed to the afflictions of the godly; but in very many places the word chaſtiſement or correction is attributed to their afflictions.

Now which is moſt probable, the Baxterian ſenſe, by putting in a word to the Text that hath no parallel to it in all the Hebrew text, or by ſupplying the Text by a word that is often uſed elſwhere, when the Scripture ſpeaks expreſly to the point in queſtion. I profeſs, Sir, upon this one conſideration, I would count your ſenſe rather nonſenſe, then to put it before this ſenſe, which upon this ground, I ſay, is moſt probable; becauſe your ſenſe is ſupplied by a word no where in Scripture, and the other ſenſe is by a word frequently uſed in Scripture. If you do but ſo much as name the Tranſlation to me, Sir, or any thing from it, then

1. I'll name to you again what in the ſtory before is related in the caſe ſuppoſed, That all the people cry out upon my Lord Ambaſſador there, that his Lordſhip was but an Ambaſſador by name only, and no ways fit for the thing it ſelf, ſince he could only judg of his Soveraigns Inſtructions and Commiſſion unto him but by Tranſlations.

2. Sir, I'll freely tell you, that though I do as much eſteem of our lateſt Tranſlation as you or any can rationally do, accounting it better and much more accurate then I believe any vulgar Tranſlation that is in the Chriſtian world; yet I muſt not take the Tranſlation that now is, nor no Tranſlation that can be made in the world by humane induſtry, to be my Original; that is, I muſt not go with the Tranſlation, to go againſt Reaſon with the Original, or to go againſt a more reaſonable and probable tranſlation of the Original; as always I ſhall eſteem that to be, which is made up, where the ſenſe is doubtful, by adding to ſuch words as are conform to other parallel places of Scripture; rather then that which is framed of a word or words, which is no where extant in a parallel place to the Text in queſtion, although it ſhould have Mr. Baxter's approbation and Mr. Hotchkiſs's both annexed unto it: But ſuch is the Tranſlation before approven; and therefore it is more rational and probable then the other, notwithſtanding both your authorities in backing it.

Thus (Sir) though you have not been advertiſed of a long while now, yet I hope you remember, That ſuch wiſe ones muſt ſuffer themſelves to be informed about the Original, when they are ignorant of it, or in any great miſtakeing about it. And ſo much for the information of Mr. Baxter and you, about the miſapplication of this firſt Text of Scripture, as to you.

But before I leave this Text, I would briefly propoſe to the Learned, whether there might not another more probable interpretation be put upon the words, then either of thoſe; and that is, by 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſhegnah megnalaiv, doth import, &c. and then followeth in the Verſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnad jirtzeh ke ſachir • omo, Until that he perfect, abſolve, or accompliſh, as an hireling his day. Here is the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ratzah, to wit, to abſolve; perfect, accompliſh, and finiſh. And the truth is, the conſideration of that excellent ſimilitude in that place of Job, did lead my thoughts to that ſenſe in this place, Lev. 26. For there, as all mans life is compared to the weary toil, turmoil, and travel of a weary laboring-hireling all the day, who is glad at his heart when the night comes to reſt him in, after he hath accompliſhed and finiſhed his task: So here, ſin, or a ſinful courſe, and way of walking, might be accounted (as indeed it is) the weary labor and toil of the Soul, which when the ſinner hath broken off, by humble and cordial repentance, then he may be ſaid to have accompliſhed the wearying labor of the Soul; and ſo, as a hireling, after ſore work all day, the Soul fits down at caſe, and is at reſt, when it is eaſed of the burthen of ſin; and ſo the words, Lev. 26. 41. may carry this ſenſe, If their uncircumciſed hearts ſhall then be humbled; and that ſo, if once 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ratzah, in niphal, which I wiſh were thought upon alſo, whether it may not bear the ſignification laſt inſiſted on, to wit, of finiſhing and accompliſhing; and ſo in niphal, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nirtzah, he was accompliſhed, perfected, abſolved, or finiſhed; and hence that place of Iſaiah, which I point at, to wit, Iſai. 40. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maleah, would be better rendred, fulfilled; her appointed time, or her warfare is fulfilled: Theſe conſiderations of this Root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ratzah, in thoſe Texts, I do but propoſe to be more ſeriouſly taken notice of afterwards.

And now, Sir, I am ready to attend you, and your friend, as he goeth on further, and you do follow him.

The next place or text of Scripture which Mr. Baxter brings to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are properly puniſhments, is Lam. 3. 39. The words are theſe, Why, or what ſhould a living man complain, or bemoan himſelfe? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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: 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 geber • gnal chataav: a man for his ſins. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataaiv, or without • , the note of the plural number thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataav, doth only properly and radically ſignifie, his ſins; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chet or chete, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataah, ſometimes (to put ſome probable interpretation upon ſome texts of Scripture) may be explained, as not onely to import ſin, but alſo to import and denote the puniſhment of ſin. But then again, Sir, it is but where they are neceſſitated to it, for to explain the Scripture, when there can be no other probable interpretation of a text; wh • ch whether it be ſo or not here, we ſhall ſee ere we leave this Text; and further when they • oe thus explain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chete, or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon to import the puniſhment of ſin, they do take the word pena peccati, or puniſhment of ſin, generally, or in a general ſence, as importing all ſufferings or afflictions about ſin, as the cauſe or occaſion of them, either loving and fatherly chaſtiſements, or proper vindicative and revenging puniſhments, proceeding from a Judge of juſtice puniſhing offenders.

Now when the word is taken in this general ſence by the Tranſlators and Expoſitors, and ſo put in to any Text of Scripture, may not your adverſaries expound and tranſlate it, and the Text where it is put in, by chaſtiſements and improper puniſhments, proceeding from fatherly love, eſpecially if the Text ſpeak of the godly, as well as you may doe proper puniſhments proceeding from the juſtice of a Judge: Doe you think, Sir, that your adverſaries will take the dictates of your will to be the Rules and Laws by which to interpret the original Scriptures, which your own underſtanding (for ought can be ſeen by your writings) is altogether without knowledge, and ignorant of; this were indeed a blind following of a blind guide, to take a mans will for a rule in things that he knows not.

I hope Sir, that Maſter Baxter will not take to himſelfe, nor will any of his greateſt admirers aſcribe unto him ſo much authority; nor to you both, being joyned together: as that ſtaret pro ratione voluntas veſtra, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ mahjitonen Adam chai: Why ſhould a living man complain?

Now Sir, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gabar, he prevailed, he was ſtrong, &c. and hence man is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 geber, from ſtrength; which appellation (for ſignification the Latines uſe; calling man, Vir, a viribus; Now Sir, I could wiſh from my heart that all ſtrong men were godly men, yea that all men living were godly men, (for then I would be ſure that I were one my ſelfe) but I ſuſpect it in many others, (as I many times fear it in my ſelfe) that it is not ſo, as I would gladly wiſh to have it; and if the Text ſpeake 1. nothing of puniſhments, here at all, for there is not a word ſignifying puniſhment in the original of this Text. Nor 2. nothing of Godly men here at all; then how can this Text call the afflictions of godly men proper puniſhments? The onely thing you can ſay here is, that the whole lamentations, and ſo this place, is in the name of the whole Church; but be it ſo, yet your Antagoniſts can tell you, that in the whole Church there are bad as well good, yea many more bad then good; there are wicked as well as godly, yea too too many more wicked then Godly; eſpecially when any Univerſal affliction is laid upon the whole Church, as here it was, when all of them were led captive, & their land laid deſolate. Now Sir, they would tell you, that therefore although the Text did mention proper puniſhments, as it doth mention no puniſhment at all; yet they would ſay, they were infflicted upon the Church for an Univerſal Deluge of wickedneſs which did overſpread the land and the outward face of the Church, but that yet notwithſtanding, theſe puniſhing ſtrokes of juſtice upon the whole land, and the wicked in it; were but chaſtizing corrections out of fatherly love, upon the perſons of the godly in it; even amidſt all their common ſufferings with the wicked, in common calamities: and that therefore thoſe ſufferings of the Church and Land, were but to be called puniſhments, in reference to wicked, becauſe they were inflicted by God as a Judge out of juſtice upon them; but in reference to the perſons of the Godly, (in which relation the queſtion was ſtated) they were to be called but chaſtiſements of love; becauſe they did proceed from God as a Father in mercy to them.

Doth not Maſter Baxter and you prove your points, excellently well Sir, when you bring a Text to prove that the afflictions of godly men are called properly puniſhments in Scripture, in which 1. there is not a word in that Text ſignifying puniſhment. 2. There is not a word in that Text ſignifying a godly man. And 3. when that we have ſuppoſed▪ all that you would have, to wit, that both theſe were in the Text, yet you do not prove your point; and if when we have gratified you with the ſuppoſition of all that you require, and yet you do not prove your points, I pray Sir tell me by your next, when will you prove them? in the mean time, till then, ſuch wiſe ones muſt be contented to ſuffer themſelves to be informed about the original when they are ſo grosſly miſtaken into it.

I have done, Sir, with ſpeaking my thoughts to Mr. Baxter and you; upon the ſecond place brought to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called proper puniſhments in Scripture; and I think, if I miſtake not, I have told you, that you have not proved it by that text, although we ſhould take it after the meaning that it is uſually tranſlated in; but in this Text alſo I have my thoughts about another conſtruction, and interpretation of the place, without ſupplying the defective ſence of it, either with the word puniſhment or chaſtiſement; (for the truth is, if probably, I can make conſtruction, and congruous interpretation of the very words of the original in any Text, or the context thereof, I doe not willingly bring a word from elſwhere to ſupply the defective ſenſe of that Text) and this ſence I ſhall propoſe to your conſideration, if you pleaſe, and to the judgement of the learned in the language. In the verſes going before, the diſpenſations and providences, are all of them vindicated to be good and juſt; and therefore the Prophet infers in this verſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mah jitonem Adam chai geber gnal chataav: Now, I ſay, at the very looking of the words over again, there is one ſence, I think, may, rationally, be given of them, which likes me very wel, and which I ſhall preſently ſubjoyn, when I have touched the emphaſis of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jitonen, which is the future hithpael, third perſon ſingular of the Conjugation hithpael, from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anan, he mourned, or lamented; and in hithpael 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 geber gnal chataav, let a man murmur, repine, and grieve at his ſins. Or, why ſhould living man bemoan himſelf, and complain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jithonen grievouſly in himſelf at the evils which the good hand of God hath brought to fall on him: rather let him bewail and bemoan his ſins which are the cauſe of all: Let a man complain and bemoan over his ſins; for theſe are worſe then all other evils that he can endure beſides them. So that we need not name or mention puniſhment at all in the words, but onely this, Why ſhould a living man (fret, or murmur, and repine, or) bemoan and complain in himſelf (to wit againſt God and his diſpenſations, or at the evil ſpoken of, and intimated in the verſe, and verſes going before:) Let a man complain and bemoan himſelf, or be grieved in himſelf over his ſins, and ſo repent of them, as the exhortation is at large laid out in the verſe following; and then ſhal be an end of all our evil and miſery: Or in a word, the words might be thus explained and taken, as if they were in the firſt part of the verſe a queſtion, and in the laſt part of it an anſwer to it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vaihi • agnam kemithonenim, and the people was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kemitonenim, as they who murmured, repined, and complained againſt God, &c. it being the participle hithpael of this ſame word, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jitonen) over his ſins. Or if we tranſlate it as a queſtion and anſwer, thus; What 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vajigdal gnavon bat gnammi mechattat ſedom. That is the firſt, the ſecond place is verſ. 21. and is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tam gnav • nech bat tzion, I have 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, perverſeneſſe or iniquity, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 was greateſt of all in that, ſince he would not ſo much as look upon that little help which he had beſides him, underſtood, and might ſo eaſily have uſed it; if he did look upon the Text, and ſee this reading upon the Margin; could he but know that that note imported, that that word might as well have been tranſlated iniquity, as the puniſhment of iniquity; if he conceived this much, then he could not but know, that then it was not a ſure place for him to make uſe of againſt his adverſaries, becauſe he could not but know, that if the word could be tranſlated either wayes, they would chooſe that way which was not againſt them, as well as he did that way which was for him; if he did know all this much, and yet would put down this place amongſt others, then I ſay his miſtake was willing and wilful and ſo the moſt heinous of all; for hee both willingly did himſelf miſtake, and did willfully do what in him lay, to put his miſtake upon others; and that apparently with ſuch confidence, in his leading way; that he beleeved his approbations would bee taken for Oracles; and without any proof, (though there was as much reaſon againſt them as for them; as thoſe Marginal notes do import, that there is as much reaſon to tranſlate the one way as the other.) But I ſhall never after this account his words Oracles in the interpretation of his Maſters original Articles; and if they be not ſo there, they can not bee ſo in conſequences deduced from them.

Thus Sir, I entreat you to ſhew Maſter Baxter that he muſt ſuffer himſelf to be informed about the Original when he miſtakes it, either unknowingly or wilfully: now as to our tranſlation of this place; I would ſpeak a word but of it here, and that is this; that although they have indeed here the proper ſignification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, puniſhment of iniquity at all, either in text or margen; and my reaſon is, becauſe I cannot ſo clearly ſee how the puniſhment of the ſin of Judah and Jeruſalem, was greater then the puniſhment of Sodom; for though it was great indeed, yet fire and brimſtone was not rained down upon them, nor they utterly deſtroyed without a remembrance or remnant left of them, any more upon earth, as the Sodomites were, whoſe overturning and deſtruction was in a moment, as is ſaid in the verſe here: But upon the other hand, if we tranſlate the words as they do of themſelves properly and radically offer themſelves to our conſideration, in their own proper, and radical ſignification thus, for the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater then the ſin of Sodom: Then the meaning may be ſuch, as when Chriſt ſaith, if the great works had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah which have been done in thee, they had repented long ago, &c. That is, the ſins of the people of God, by reaſon of the great aggravations of them, againſt ſo great light and knowledge of God and his wayes revealed to them; againſt ſo many wondrous works done for them, amongſt them, and againſt their enemies, &c. may well be compared with the ſins of the worſt of men, and may far goe beyond them in the compariſon. There is, I doe ſee, indeed one conſideration in the context, that it ſeemeth the Prophet takes much notice of and that is, that the prolonging of a leſſe violent affliction, is more grievous then a violent ſtroak of preſent deſtruction. But I doe not ſee that that compariſon is aimed at in this verſe: I doe rather think that in it the Prophet gives an humble acknowledgement of the reaſon of all the miſeries which was upon them, and of all the ſad ſtroakes which he mentions both before this verſe and after it; as if the meaning were thus; Surely (in conſideration of all thoſe calamities upon us) the iniquity of the daughter of my people hath been greater (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vajigdal importeth the preter tenſe, although it be the future, becauſe of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vau converſive put before the future) then the ſin of Sodom, which God overthrew in a moment, as it were, &c. However, this is ſure, that though we ſhould grant that puniſhment, and proper puniſhment were here meant, yet you may remember, Sir, that it was told you, though all that which you require were granted to you, it will not prove your point, becauſe thoſe heavy judgments were upon the whole land, and upon the body of the people for the univerſal ſpreading of wickedneſs and wicked men over the land; unto which wicked men, indeed, they were proper puniſhments, inflicted out of juſtice upon them, yea, and upon the whole land for their ſo heinous ſins; yet ſtill wil your adverſaries anſwer you, that thoſe common calamities were not proper and perſonal puniſhments, but onely chaſtiſements of love as from a Father, upon the perſons of the Godly.

Thus, I ſay, you will not prove your point, though it were granted to you, that ſuch Texts ſpeak of proper puniſhments. But to ſay, that there are proper puniſhments mentioned in a text where there is nothing mentioned but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, iniquity, which Mr. Baxter will have properly to ſignifie puniſhment, or to ſignifie proper puniſhment; although the Tranſlators in that verſe alſo, and at that word in that verſe, do put a marginal note, thus, or iniquity, and therefore Mr. Baxter can no more tranſlate the word there by puniſhment, then his adverſaries will tranſlate it by iniquity, and with more reaſon will they tranſlate it ſo, becauſe it is the proper and radical ſignification of the word, and there is no forcible reaſon to alter the proper ſignification of the word in that verſe: On the contrary, there ſeems more reaſon to keep it in the Text then either to take it away or to ſet it in the margen: Which that it may appear, we ſhall onely look upon the text and leave it: The words then are theſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gnavon, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chataah, might be tranſlated in a general ſence, puniſhment, yet that would be but by a figurative and metonymical way of ſpeech, taking the words, which properly and radically doe ſignifie iniquity (or perverſneſs) and ſin, to import, alſo iniquity and ſin in the effects▪ or the effects of ſin and iniquity, to wit, all ſorts of afflictions and ſufferings for ſin; and then puniſhments (or ſufferings for ſin) in that general ſenſe, will comprehend as well fatherly chaſtiſments out of love (which your adverſaries will affirm are alwaies meant when theſe words are taken to beſpeak the ſufferings of the godly for ſin, and that upon this good reaſon, becauſe words properly ſignifying chaſtiſements or corrections from love, are often attributed to the afflictions of the godly in Scripture; but never is there a word properly ſignifying puniſhment attributed unto them:) as well as proper puniſhments proceeding from the wrath, juſtice, and revenge of God as a Judge; which they will grant unto you to be meant, when thoſe words are taken to import the ſufferings of the wicked for their ſins. But upon thoſe grounds, Sir, they will tell you, that the Eagles eyes doe ſee very much, and very far indeed, if they can ſee ſo far in thoſe two words as to prove by them that the afflictions or ſufferings of the godly are called proper puniſhments in Scripture, proceeding from the juſtice of God as a Judge, and not onely chaſtiſements and corrections proceeding from him as a Father, out of love, when the two words you prove it by, doe not ſignifie properly puniſhments of ſin at all, but onely ſin and iniquity it ſelf; or if by a metonymie, they may be taken for the effects of ſin and iniquity, yet then they import, and may be tranſlated chaſtiſements out of love (in reference to the ſins of the godly) as well as proper puniſhments out of wrath and juſtice, which are the portion of the wicked for their ſins.

And then they wil conclude, Sir, that ſuch Wiſeeagle-eyed-ones muſt ſuffer themſelves to be ſomwhat better informed about the original, then to conclude that from thoſe two words it is proven, that the afflictions of the godly are called proper puniſhments in Scripture; and that therefore, other texts are to be brought to prove the point, then any where theſe two words have all the force to prove it; the which indeed is done by you both, if to any better purpoſe then hitherto, it will be ſeen by that which followeth.

The fifth place, or Text of Scripture which Mr. B. and you do miſapply, to prove that the Sufferings of the Godly are called in the Scripture, proper puniſhments, is Ezra 9. 13. In which (as in each of all the Texts following cited by you both) when I have turned to the place, I doe ſee you both ſo palpably culpable, not onely of ſuch palpable ignorance of the original patents and articles of your commiſſion; but alſo of ſuch negligent, or wilful inconſideration of the very tranſlation it ſelf; that I doe profeſſe (whither you will be aſhamed of it or not, I know not; but I am ſure you ſhould, for) I am both aſhamed and ſorry in your behalf, to let the world know (although I cannot other waies doe, but am neceſſitated to it. 1. Becauſe ſuch deceivings of the world are already publiſhed, and therefore the publiſhers of them ought to be made publiquely, and pungently to reſent it: And 2. that ſuch ignorant, or inconſiderate miſtakings▪ and ſuch falſe deceivings of others, by thoſe miſtakes, or miſtaking miſapplications may be headed, taken notice of, prevented, and ſhunned hereafter, before they be publiſhed to the publique injury of the Chriſtian world, thorough ſuch miſguidings of their Guids:) That ſuch eminent Miniſters in the Church of England, in thoſe (bleſſed be God) ſo knowing daies, are ſo groſly delinquent and deficient, and ſo notoriouſly faulty in that which ought to be their chief employment; becauſe it is their firſt and chiefeſt part of the work and function they are called to, viz. The ſtudy of their Lord and Maſters words, in which he hath delivered his Embaſſage to his people. And for the ground of ſuch an accuſation, how weighty ſoever it may ſeem to be, I ſhall need no more to underprop it, then the bare propoſal of the former Text, and the reſt following cited by you both, adding only this explication, that ſuch wiſe ones muſt ſuffer themſelves to be informed about the Original, when they are ignorant of, or miſtaken in it themſelves, or when they would miſlead others into the ſame miſtakings with them.

Firſt then, for the words which you aym at in Ezra 9. 13. They are thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ki attah Elohenu chaſachta lemattah megnavonenu. Now, Sir, I ſay, that he who would prove from thoſe words, that the ſufferings of the godly are called in Scripture (not onely chaſtiſements out of 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chaſachta, being the 2d. perſ. ſing. of preter. kal. from the root in the third perſon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mattah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lemattah, from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l • cachataenu gn ſahlanu velo kegnavonotenu gamal gnalenu. He hath not done to us according to our ſins, neither hath he rewarded us according to our iniquities; & truly I would not a little wonder why this place, in the Pſal. 103. is not liſted and numbred by you amongſt the reſt (in the Catalogue of (miſ-applyed) Texts of Scripture, to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are proper puniſhments) were it not for this conſideration that you do ſee nothing (your ſelf with your own eyes) but (all, and onely) with your Spectacles; for if the Tranſlation-glaſſe had been put before your eyes here, thus, he hath not puniſhed us according as our ſins and iniquities have deſerved, (as the Tranſlators, in a general ſenſe, might as rationally have rendred thoſe words, Pſ. 103. ver. 10. as they have done thoſe, Ezr. 9. 13.) then be ſure it would have been ſet down by you with the firſt of them. But then, 3. Your Antagoniſts would have anſwered you, that in both thoſe places, the ſenſe may be taken (and that more rationally, becauſe more agreeably to other Scriptures, which do often apply the word Chaſtiſements to the Saints ſufferings, but never the word puniſhment) quite contrary to your opinion in this controverſie, thus; thou haſt with-held from us below our iniquities, and haſt not dealt with us according to our ſins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities; to wit, becauſe in that thou haſt not puniſhed us with ſtrokes of vengeance and vindictive juſtice, as thou haſt done to the wicked and ungodly; who were never acknowledged by thee as thy peculiar people; but thou haſt onely afflicted us with chaſtiſements of mercy and fatherly love, as thou doeſt to all thy own children, from thy fatherly care of their future wel-being: And then Sir, they will ask you, where is your proof from theſe and ſuch like places of Scripture, that the ſufferings of the Godly are proper puniſhments? nay, they will further ask you, if that from thoſe ſame places which you bring to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called proper puniſhments, it may not rationally be deduced, that they are not proper puniſhments, from the juſtice of a judge, but onely chaſtiſements out of fatherly love; and if you ſay, that Mr. Baxter and you do ſenſe the places other ways, they will inſtantly reply, that (for all that they can ſee in your writings) the ſight and ſenſe of you both as to the point in queſtion, is but no ſight, or non-ſence, it being nothing at all in it ſelf, but onely by other mens Glaſſes; and this much, Sir, I think, may be rationally ſaid, to back the former accuſation, of miſtaking the original in this place; and as to the other part of it, viz. your negligent or willfull inconſideration of the tranſlation it ſelf; or your ſo ſuperficial looking thorough that Glaſſe; I do conceive it moſt clearly thus to be by your ſelves bewrayed; becauſe that in all the Engliſh Bibles with the Marginal notes, at thoſe words in Ezra 9. 13. thou hast puniſhed us leſſe then our iniquities deſerve, there is this note put in the Margin; Heb. thou haſt with held below our iniquities, which importeth, that that is the formal, proper, and radical ſignification of the Hebrew words, and therefore the trueſt tranſlation of them; this being ſo, your Adverſaries will ask you, did never Mr. Baxter or you ſo much as look (not upon the original it ſelf, but) upon one of thoſe Bibles with the Marginal notes, which doth oftentimes moſt properly render the ſignification of the Hebrew words? if you have looked upon ſuch Bibles, did you it ſo careleſly as you would not ſo much as trouble your ſelf with the caſting of your eye aſide to view thoſe Marginal tranflations? if you did loog upon them, yet did you knowingly and willfully paſs them over, as regardleſſe of the authority of your Maſters Original Writs, and Words, when they make nothing for you, but are rather againſt your tenets? The truth is, if thoſe and ſuch like queſtions were propoſed to me, for to anſwer in your behalf, I would, and I do, leave them wholly to be anſwered by your ſelves, if you be able, and old enough for it, for I profeſſe I am not; becauſe I account what is aimed at in them, to bee by you, no leſſe, then inexcuſably unanſwerable; in that I do eſteem your negligence, in ſtudying to underſtand your Maſters own words, no leſſe then inexcuſable; and that therefore the onely anſwer I can give in your be half is, that ſuch wiſe ones muſt ſuffer themſelves to be informed of the original, when they are ignorant of it, or miſtaken in it. There are two other Texts of Scripture following, by Mr. Baxter; and one other joyned by you; (with the former of Ezra. 9. 13.) but all three miſapplied groſsly by you both, to prove the point, that the ſufferings of the godly are called proper puniſhments in Scripture; in examination of the which three places, I ſhall put them altogether, becauſe the miſtake of them all lieth in one Hebrew word, and that the moſt vulgarly known Hebrew root in the whole language; it being as much known to all that have ever heard any thing of the Hebrew Grammar, as Amo is to all who have ever heard any thing of the Latine Grammar; becauſe it is the 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pakad, ſo well known in it ſelfe, and in its ſignification: He viſited; that any School-boy, upon two or three days ſtudy of the Hebrew Grammar, may be made able to inform ſuch wiſe ones about their miſtaking of this original root, at leaſt; yea the truth is, (and the greater both your ſinne and ſhame, your ignorance and neglect of ſtudying to underſtand your Lords Original Embaſſage and Inſtructions to you, in his commiſſion by you to his people, receiving thereby the higher and greater aggravation) one moneths ſtudy of the Hebrew Grammar and Dictionary, might have made both or either of you to know ſo much of the Languag, as that it would have prevented all theſe miſtakes and miſapplications of Texts of Scripture, which you are now (ſo tartly; as poſſibly you may think) taxed for; yea it would have made you aſhamed of thoſe miſtakes in the behalfe of others, if you had trapped and traced them in ſuch miſtakes; which doth, I ſay, greatly aggravate the guiltineſſe of ſuch men (chiefly, if they be the Lords Embaſſadours) who have ſpent ſo much time, yea ſo many years in the ſtudy of Philoſophy and Philoſophical and Metaphyſical Authors; ſo much time yea ſo many years in the ſtudy of School-divinity, and all the controverſies in Scholaſtical Theology, and laſt of all who have taken themſelves to a ſtudy of ſo much time, and ſo many years more, as the vaſt ſtudy of Volving over the Voluminous works of the Greek and Latine Fathers is, (for thus Mr. Baxter gives an account of his ſtudies unto us) and yet in all this time, nor in all theſe ſo many years, for ſuch Bookiſh-men, not to ſet apart a few weeks, or one moneth at leaſt, (for that ſtudy which is almoſt unum neceſſarium; and I am ſure it is and ought to be eſteemed, the chief neceſſary work prerequired to their function, and abſolutely neceſſary to the rational diſcharging of their office, as Embaſſadours of God to his people, to wit) for ſtudy of ſo ſacred and excellent a language, wherin their Lords original Articles of his Embaſſage to his people are written and delivered; this I ſay, doth greatly aggravate ſuch ſtudents guiltineſſe in their other ſtudies; even eſpecially ſince the ſtudy of that language, for ſo little time, as is mentioned, but of a few weeks, might make Embaſſaduors at leaſt thus far qualified in the knowledge of their Maſters words, as that knowing the neceſſary grounds of the Hebrew Grammar, they may upon any occaſion turn over an Hebrew Lexicon or Dictionary, to ſearch out the radical and proper ſignifications of the Hebrew roots; and not to be ſo grosſly and paipably ignorant and miſtaken in them, as to need ſo rude an information about the Original and Radical ſignifications of them. This much of qualification for underſtanding the Original words of God, may be attained unto, and acquired in ſo ſhort a time, and with ſome occaſional practice and exerciſe in it this way, as need requires; and whoſoever doth willingly or careleſly neglect the ſtudy of this ſacred language this much at leaſt; in ſo far, he is not worthy to be ſtiled (no not nomine tenus) an Embaſſadour of God to his people. Thus I have been ſomewhat large in uſhering in the three next Texts of Scripture miſapplied by Mr. Baxter, and you to the preſent point in queſtion: but I have been ſo the more willingly, becauſe there are 3. of them to be together, & one word wil be but neceſſary to clear the miſtake in them al: but chiefly becauſe I do think that what is chiefly intended by ſuch like expreſſions can never be more then enough preſſed to a ſerious conſideration of it: to wit, that the Embaſſadors of God in Chriſt to his people, may be ſtired upto a more diligent ſtudy, to know and underſtand their Lord and Maſters commiſſion in his own words delivered to them. Now the three next Texts miſapplyed by Maſter Baxter and you, to prove that the ſufferings of the Godly are called in Scripture proper puniſhments, are theſe following, viz. two which Maſter Baxter doth cite out of the propheſie by Hoſea, Hoſ. 4. 9. and Hoſ. 12. 2. and one which you do cite out of the propheſie by Amos, Am. 3. 2. The words of al thoſe three Texts which you do aim a • , as making for your buſineſs, are theſe: Hoſ. 4. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upakadti gnalaiv derachaiv. & I will viſit upon (him or) them, (his or) their ways: And Hoſ. 12. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , uliphkod gnal Jag: akob kidrachaiv, and to viſit Jacob according to his wayes. And ſo Ames 3. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pakadti, I have viſited, but with Vau converſive before it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upakadti, and I ſhall or will viſite, as in thr firſt of theſe three texts, Hoſ. 4. 9. and in the infinite kal, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put before, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liphkod to viſite, as in the ſecond text, Hoſ. 12. 2. and in the firſt perſ. ſing. of future kal, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephkod, I ſhall or will viſite (in the third Text, Amos 3. 2.) as any one that hath learned ſo far in the Hebrew Grammar, as Amo is in the Latine Rudiments or Accidents, knoweth, and could have informed you about the reſolving and proper ſignification of thoſe three words, in thoſe three Texts of Scripture; and then any rational Conſideration could have informed you, that the word viſitation or to viſit, being ſpoken in reference to affliction or ſuffering for offences; is as well applicable to viſitations out of Mercy, as to viſitations out of Juſtice; and ſo may as well be taken for 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakkeh lo anakkecha (with the words going before) would not clearly beſpeak ſo much, if the infinitive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakk • h ſhould ſignifie properly to puniſh, but rather the quite contrary; for the root in Kal, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakah which radically only ſignifieth he was pure, clean, or innocent; and in piel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakkeh (the infinitive piel to abſolve, clear, or acquit, by making innocent as it were) lo jenakk • h, abſelvenda non abſolvet, ſive, declarando, innocentem, non declarahit: that is, ſurely, or certainly, he will not clear., acquit, nor abſolve; or he will not at all, or altogether clear, acquit, or abſolve, &c. by making or declaring innocent as it were. And ſo here in this Text, Jer. 46. v. laſt, and 30. v. 11. Thoſe words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nakkeh (the infinitive piel, as before) lo anakkecha (the future piel. 1. ſing. with the affix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cha, thee.) verbatim, and word for word tranſlated, they are rendered thus, abſolvendo non abſolvam te, ſive dectarando non declarabo te innocentem; that is, in, or by acquitting, clearing, or abſolving, I will not clear, abſolve, nor acquit thee altogether, by declaring thee altogether innocent. The meaning of which phraſe is, certainly I will not altogether acquit thee, by declaring thee altogether pure and innocent, when thou haſt offended; becauſe I have determined to chaſtiſe and correct thee (though out of love, and) in meaſure (when thou doſt offend) as the words immediatly preceding theſe, in the ſame verſe do clearly import and expreſſe; and the ſence of it is the ſame which the ſame word importeth, Exod. 20. 7. in the third Commandement; for as there the Lord determineth not to hold guiltleſs, by declaring altogether innocent, him, whoſoever he be, whether godly or wicked, who ſhall dare to prophane his holy name by taking it in vain, but one way or other he will make it manifeſt, that he doth not acquit nor clear any, as altogether innocent and without fault and gnilt in ſo doing. So here, J • r. 46. and 30 he doth indeed threaten the remnant of the godly, ſome way or another to make it manifeſt, that he doth not approve of their failings, and faults; and that he will not hold them altogether guiltleſſe, by declaring (them altogether innocent, when they have offended againſt him but that rather he will by ſome diſpenſations of his providence, evidence to themſelves their own guiltyneſs, and manifeſt to the world his taking notice of it, after they have offended him by their ſins.

And this is all which can be made out from the proper and known ſignification of thoſe words: But when the queſtion is more particularly propoſed, what are thoſe diſpenſations of divine providence by which he notifyeth this his taking notice of the offences of the godly viz. Whether they be proper puniſhments proceeding from God as a judge out of juſtice and vindictive wrath or vengeance; or whether they be onely fatherly corrections from God as a loving father, out of love and mercy, to reclaim his own from their ſinfull waies? I do think this a very ſcriptural reaſon, and Chriſtian-like anſwer, that if the Spirit of God in Scripture doth very frequently give out the ſufferings of the godly by the name of chaſtiſements and corrections, but never by the name of (proper) puniſhments, that then, the Saints ſufferings are (more ſcripturally at leaſt) to be called rather chaſtiſements and corrections, then (proper) puniſhments; but the antecedent or firſt propoſition is true, viz. That the Scripture doth often call the ſufferings of the Saints corrections (as in thoſe very words of Jer. 46. 28. & 30. 11. Yet I wil not make a full end of thee, but I will correct thee in meaſure: And (ſo ſhew that) I will not (altogether or) wholly hold thee guiltleſſe (&c. as is before explained) when thou doeſt ſin, and of fend me: but no where doth the Scripture call the Saints ſufferings (proper) puniſhments; (for if it doth, I deſire you would but inform me of it by your next, if you can, more fully and clearly then in this; and then I do promiſe you to challenge my ſelf for challenging you as not being able to do it;) therefore the conſequent or the laſt propoſition is alſo true, viz that Chriſtians ought rather to call the Saints ſufferings, chaſtiſements and corrections, then (proper) puniſhments.

The laſt two Texts which Mr. Baxter citeth, in that ſixth argument of his diſpute in his Aphoriſms, to prove that the ſufferings of the Godly are called (proper) puniſhments in Scripture; are out of Lev. 28. ver. 18. and 24. But as they are the laſt of his citations out of Scripture in that place, ſo they are (eſpecially one of them) the greateſt and the groſſeſt of his miſtakes, about the Scriptures original (if any can be greater then ſome of yours, and his that have been examined before:) for the evident proof of which it will be onely neceſſary in a word or two to ranſcribe the Texts, and render them in their proper and radical ſignification.

The words then miſtaken of one of them, viz. Lev. 26. ver. 24 are theſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vehikkiti etchem gam ani, &c. and Verbatim they are rendred thus (and onely thus properly, as any that ever hath read but two or three Pſalms in the Hebrew Text underſtandingly, cannot but know at the very firſt ſight of the Text, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nacah, not uſed in kal, but in hiphal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hickah he ſmote, he did ſmite or ſtrike, &c. And it is conſtantly thus tranſlated, as Eſay 11. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (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 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, 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 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 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vejiſſarti etchem; and I will correct or chaſtiſe you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vejaſaphri lejaſſerah etchem; and I will adde to chaſtiſe or correct you, that is, I will yet chaſtize or correct you more, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lejaſſerah, to correct or inſtruct, being the infinitive piel, with the infinitive letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lamed, put before the radical letters, and the paragogique 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he put after them, from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 jaſſor jiſſerani Jah in chaſtiſing God hath chaſtiſed me (the ſame word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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: