Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	hebrew_n	old_a	testament_n	2,875	5	8.2228	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah is used in the Future tense of Piel as in Exod. 20. 7. in 3. Pers sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah lo Jenakkeh The Lord will not absolve or declare innocent or hold guiltless for such is the force of the word in the conjugation Piel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nikkah He absolved he acquitted he declared innocent or he did hold guiltless c. The Root in kal being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah He was pure or innocent and in Piel He declared to be pure or innocent he absolved c. And so in the other place of the Kings it is the same word in the 2. Pers sing piel m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 al tenakkehu Thou shalt not absolve him acquit him or hold him guiltless or do thou not absolve him or hold him guiltless c. Thus far you go right and according to your scope but I suppose little further for in the very next words you bring your third diverse phrase or your third different form of expression in Scripture about Gods not forgiving of sin and that is say ye Gods not clearing or acquitting the sinner and for this different phrase or form of speech from the former you do bring two places to wit first Exod. 34. 7. and secondly Nah. 1. 3. Well Sir I have followed your quotations and in both these places I do finde this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo jenakkeh He will not hold him guiltless c. But this phrase and form of expression I found before in two places to wit Exod. 20. 7. and 1 King 2. 9. How then is it another and diverse or different phrase from these Alas Sir thus it is to declare your Lord and Masters Commission and Instructions to you onely by a translating Interpreter not understanding the words of your own commission your self Your Interpreters may make you believe any thing they please they may cause you believe that to be the same which is not the same that to be diverse which is not diverse that to differ which doth not differ and that to agree which doth not agree and that to be an article of your commission by an instruction to you which is not an article of your commission nor an instruction to you at all And if they can make you believe contradictions they may make you believe that the Moon is made of Green Cheese for ought I know and that every Star in the Firmament is another World if they would but say so much for neither of those doth imply so much as a flat contradiction These escapes Sir in the beginning of your Book with the notice taken thus of them I was the more willing with all the hast I possibly could that they should come into your hands it being but a fort-night by-gone yesterday since I did first either see or hear of your Book And after I had once run over it the day I saw it I did not for nine days following look upon it more nor all that time had I leisure to begin to write a word of this missive directed to your great friend and your self Yet when I did begin I say for to write unto you I willingly would not leave off till I had put a period to the course of my thoughts at this time especially about advertising you as I have said about your escapes in the beginning of your Book because in the end of it I do see that you notifie unto us a design of a second part to this Treatise in which you do propose to your self to communicate unto us those several phrases both of the Old and New Testament which you take to be synonimous and equivalent to forgiveness of sin c. But Sir how is it possible that you can take upon you to do so much so daringly What Sir to finde out and set down those several phrases in the Old Testament which you take to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalent to forgiveness of sin as you do phrasifie your thoughts about your design Will you do this I say Sir out of the Old Testament when for ought that I can see in this book you know not your self and by your own eyes a B. by a Bull-foot in it as the word goes in it self unless that others put glasses of theirs before your own eyes to look into it by But Sir how can you satisfie your self with those glasses that others do make and fit for your eyes how do you know but that they are either multiplying or magnifying glasses making things and words representing things either greater or less more or fewer and many manner of ways otherways then they are in themselves unto your view May not you thereby think things and words to be diverse which are one and the same to differ which do agree and in a word any thing to be what it is not and therefore those things which you may take to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 synonimous and equivalent to forgiveness of sins may be really such to non-forgiveness of sins for ought that you know with your own eyes And how shall others take that from your knowledg Sir which you know not your self Have we not had experience of some of your mistakes and gross ones too already why may not you be mistaken in many moe likewise as I am confident you will if you meddle with many moe These advertisements I desire you timously and seriously to think upon before that second Tractate of yours that so you do not any more expose

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hagnaber may indeed be rendred all those words cause to pass over or make to pass by c. But that signification of passing by passing over or passing away is the onely proper signification of the word it being the Imperative Hiphil from the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnabar He passed over passed by or passed away and in Hiphil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hegnebir He caused to pass away or he caused to pass by or Pass over which is the onely proper signification of the word Somewhat I would mark here Sir but I will let it alone as yet till I hear you go on a little further for in the next words you say in which form of words the Church is taught to pray for pardon Hos 14. 2. Is it so Sir let us see the words then they are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 col rissgnavon Lift thou up or carry thou all iniquity Is this the same phrase Sir or the same form of words with the former phrase or form of words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hagnaber et gnavon no it is not The phrases and forms of speech in these two Texts are as far different from other as the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa is different in the body of the Hebrew Language or in an Hebrew Dictionary from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnabar that is all the three Radical Letters in both these roots being different which how material a difference it is in the Hebrew any that knoweth any thing of the Hebrew at all knoweth at least as to the phrase and form of words which you onely take notice of here saying They are one and the same when the words do differ in all their three Radicals as is said in their form as they are words and in their significations also so far as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnabar properly and onely signifieth he passed over c. as is said before and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa doth properly signifie he did lift up or he did carry and hence he pardoned sin by lifting it up or carrying it away as it were and so in the fut Kal. 2. pers sing m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tissa thou wilt take carry or lift up or do thou carry take or lift up c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 col gnavon all iniquity Now Sir your intention is in that second Chapter of your Book to take notice of the same or different expressions which the Spirit of God useth in Scripture about remission of sins And amongst those first out of one Text you give us one form of expression of the Spirit of God which you say is take away all iniquity when that is not the form of expression used in that place of Scripture to wit 2 Sam. 24. 10. but this cause thou iniquity to pass by or make thou iniquity to pass over And secondly with this Text and the form of phrase and expression used in it you give us another Text which you say hath the same form of phrase and expression with the other when it is not the same but different from it to wit Hos 14. 2. where the form of expression used is not cause thou iniquity to pass over which was the former but this lift thou up or carry sin away as was said before in the Explication of those two Roots Is this Sir to shew as great diligence and care in searching and studying the Hebrew original of the Old Testament and to comment and paraphrase upon it distinguishing 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

dispensations because in that text I mean to wit Numb 11. 1. the same word is put expressing the peoples repining murmuring and complaining against God in his providences towards them thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vaihi ●agnam kemithonenim and the people was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kemitonenim as they who murmured repined and complained against God c. it being the participle hithpael of this same word with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the note of sim●ltude put before it And thus if we translate the Verse Why should a living man complain or murmur in himself to wit against God let him be bemoan himself repeating again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jitonen over his sins Or if we translate it as a question and answer thus What should a man complain of Answ A man should complain for his sins more then for any thing else as it were I think there will be no proof then in the words for you Sir that the afflictions of the people of God are called proper punishments But the truth is when I look on the text at last again I caunot leave it but express once again this much that when there is nothing importing punishment but these words in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g●al chataav for or over his sins to say there is proper punishment attributed to the Godly for their sins is so grosse in it self and bewrayes so grosse ignorance of the Hebrew that if it had not been to have made your mistakings the more clear to your selfe and others I am almost ashamed that I have insisted so long in refutation of it and therefore now I come to the other places laid down in Master Baxters argument where I susupect we shall have no better stuffe nor stronger evidence for proving the point then we have had in the first two I am sure in the next two we have not for we have nothing in them but the very same thing we have before refuted as we shall see when they are produced The third and fourth places therefore which Master Baxter bringeth for to prove that the sufferings of the Godly are called punishments in Scripture are out of the fourth Chapter of this same book of Lamentations to wit Lam. 4. 6. 22. Well let us see the words vers 6. is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vajigdal gnavon bat gnammi mechattat sedom That is the first the second place is vers 21. and is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam gnav●nech bat tzion I have perused them both over Sir and I do here also lay them both before you to be perused over again if either you or Mr Baxter can see in either of those two places any thing at all to prove your point that the afflictions or sufferings of the Godly are called in Scripture proper punishments then I shal acknowledg you to have the clearest Lynx eys and him to have the sharpest Eagle-eys that ever looked upon an Hebrew Book since there was ever any one in Britain The truth is there is nothing in either of them but the very same glasse of the Translaters put upon and before the Embassadours eyes and making him mistake again in the self-same two words of these two Verses in which he was so grossely mistaken in the two places before examined so that though when I did see I had insisted so long about the refutation of them I was not well pleased especially it being almost needlesse the very reading of the places being a refutation of them as to his illation from them yet now I am a little more satisfied because it will save me some labour in insisting upon those two for every passage of the refutation of the other two places may be read to refute the application of these two for there is not a word in these two places that signifieth punishment at all either proper or improper but onely the former explained words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah the first of which signifieth perversenesse or iniquity the second sin but none of them punishment as was before explained Yet because Mr. Baxter's mistake and escape is grosser here then before upon one consideration and seems to be a willing mistake in himself that he may make others mistake also with him and because also something would be said here as to the translation it self therefore we will speak a little to inform you of those two places also the words of the first are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vajigdal gnavon bat gnammi mechattat sedom rendered they are thus and the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater then the sin of Sodom this is the very verbal translation and signification of the words and if Mr. Baxter should not blush to draw from hence therefore the afflictions of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture I profess I know not what can make a man blush as to a mistake in words But for the explaining and clearing of the ignorance in the mistake I leave it to be taken notice of in the two former places for as it is said all that is spoken there may be reiterated or repeated here again for the whole mistake lies in two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon perversenesse or iniquity and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chattaah sin which were explained before not to signifie punishment and proved that they could not be with so much reason when the afflictions of the Godly are spoken of translated punishment as chastisement all which doth hold here also in those places Onely Mr. Baxter is 1. To be told that his mistake is a great deal more culpable here then in the other places before examined and that upon this account because his mistake seemeth either here to be more willing and wilfull or else more negligent and carelesse then before because here although Mr. Baxter had never looked upon an Hebrew Bible in his daies yet he might have scrupled a little about the putting down this place in his argument and that from the translation it self for although the Translators in the body of the Translation have indeed turned the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon punishment of iniquity yet in the margent they have put this note at that word or iniquity now what shal we say here for Mr. Baxter did not he so much as ever look upon the Hebrew Bible to search if his proofs of his Tenets were clearly agreeing therewith if he never did this is his great fault yea his great shame and his great sin that should have been so many years so eminent a Minister and Embassadour of God to his people and hath in those years taken so much pains upon other studies of all Sciences in all Authors and yet never did so much as apply himself with diligence to understand his Lord and Masters Commission and Articles committed to him in their own proper language but suppose he did not but onely use the Translators