Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	old_a	testament_n	time_n	2,959	5	3.5347	3	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

pag. 46. l. 5. for to know him r. to punish him and l. 6. for you shall be r. you know Sir p. 76. l. 15. selv●s two p. 86. l. 3. r. I speak c. p. 87. l. 4. read after creature those words should be the glory of the creater p. 89. l. 15. r. out of c. p. 96. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 105. l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 152. l. r. gnasah lanu p. 154. l. 10. r. l●●k UNTO The Learned and Reverend Mr. RICHARD BAXTER Teacher of the Church at Kederminster in Worcester-shire Reverend Sir ABout five or six years ago I did see a Book bearing for its title Aphorisms of Justification and for its Author the name of Richard Baxter Pastor of the Church at Kederminster c. I had it but then lent me for so short a time being but from one evening to the next that I could scarcely have the opportunity to run over the Heads of it yet as much as I could I did cursorily peruse it to inform my self of the Principles thereof because I was always desirous to take notice of all Tractates tending to the clearing up of that subject And although I never had the opportunity to see the Book it self again to this very hour although I have often desired and enquired for it yet it hath many times since occasioned the reflexion of my thoughts upon those notions which I did then though but confusedly apprehend by that cursory reading of it and it hath often caused those expressions from me to others which I do now here freely as I cannot but always with freedom open my very thoughts whensoever I resolve to put them in words bespeak to your self viz. That I did conceive that if the Author of that book were in any high estimation amongst the Ministery in England as I judged by the rational Learning in that book he could not but be and if he did live to prosecute the defence of the Principles therein propounded that that Book with the Author of it in the defence of those Principles would prove the leading guides to the greatest or most dangerous Sects of disciples and followers that the Church of England hath been troubled with in all these times of confusion For I do always apprehend that Jesuitical Arminian and Socinian principles rationally and scholastically disputed and defended by a reputed learned and pious Minister are in the concomitants and consequents at least much more dangerous to the Church then the worst of the blasphemous delusions of Familists Ranters Quakers c. Because the deluded and phantastical imaginations of those Wretches are but as flashes of smoak from the bottomless pit which though they may darken much and over-cloud the face of the Church for a season especially in the hour and power of darkness and confusion yet the least glimpse of the Sun of Righteousness his shining truth breaking through those clouds will presently dispel and scatter them so that all their authors and abettors shall be ashamed of them But those other Principles being seemingly backed with much of Reason and Learning are chiefly dangerous for the perverting from the truth the more knowing sort of Christians who seldom use to be led aside to blaspheme with mad and deluded dreamers These may seem hard thoughts and tart reflexions upon that Book and the Author thereof But Sir I have already told you that I cannot but freely bespeak my thoughts if I speak any thing at all And the great stir that that little Book hath made in the world since it was published it being generally disliked with a disrelishing prejudice by most of the learned Ministers in England and Scotland and yet in my thoughts too too many others highly admiring it or at least too highly esteeming you and your principles in its defence and the greater it is likely yet to make if you continue to prosecute the defence of it and the consequences from it which you have since owned and published doth make me now again freely and publikely which I dared not to do before because you had but in that Book darkly and ambiguously me thought expressed your self in some points which you do now professedly own to impart unto you that I do now conceive and apprehend that my former thoughts and apprehensions of that Book and its Author were not altogether as I could gladly wish they were misconceptions misapprehensions and misconstructions of your Tenets But Sir 〈◊〉 you should reckon it as scarcely fair dealing thus to bespeak in generall terms prejudices against you and your writings without so much as hinting at least at any of them in particular For your further satisfaction before I fall upon that which I do mainly intend by these to signifie unto you I shall declare unto you the very res gesta which was the cause and occasion of my chief dislike of your opinions and no less then detestation of some of your Principles And it was thus Sir I had long ago seen as I have already declared your Aphorisms of Justification and about a twelve-moneth ago I did see Mr. Crandon at least in his endeavour rationally refuting them But I never had leisure to read over all his book only at some spare hours to view some parcels of it and I could not therefore satisfactorily to others nor with satisfaction to my self either judge of your Work nor of his because I had never seen some Principles in that your book of Aphorisms a little more plainly explicated by your self and owned more professedly then you do there Only thus much I must freely say that I do verily think that there is much more in Mr. Crandon's Works then you have as yet let the World know that you have taken notice of and that setting aside that which may be termed bitter railing and revi●ing or reproachful speaking in him there is much thereof as yet unanswered and that though himself be passed from amongst us yet if another of his parts should espousse his 〈…〉 might let others know that you have made him 〈◊〉 bespoken him to be at least far more irrational then he was when he wrote that book But my resolution● minime jurare in alicujus me●… hominis ve●… his and therefore with the forme●●●●●●●ation I pass the defence of his Work Afterward● you coming here to the City your self about two or three moneths ago I did hear a great applause given by your Auditories to you in your Sermon● and indeed by what I did hear my self from you I could go along proportionably with many of your Admirers in estimation of your way of Preaching But I will not nay I dare not nay I cannot express my estimation of you to be such and so high as to some of your Principles but quite contrary as I am now to shew you For about that time of your so frequent preaching in many of the chief Auditories in the City I was one evening with two

willingly subscribe to the truth of the Minor Proposition for there is nothing in it but this That the will of the most supreme and most absolute Law-giver to pass from the strict rigor of the punishment that he might have justly inflicted by vertue of a formerly published Law and not to punish according to that Law as that will doth eo ipso and de facto immediately and fully pardon the Delinquents against that Law so it doth eo ipso and de facto immediately destroy and dissolve the obligation to punishment by that Law and doth effectually take away since his will is omnipotent and irresistible and therefore always effectual as well as immutable the punishment due to delinquents according to that formerly published Law And whether that such a will not to punish be signified either by another Law or by a simple Declaration of it or by the effects of it that is nothing material for still the will it self of the absolutely supreme Law-maker and in it self however it be published doth dissolve the obligation to punishment and effectually take away the punishment it self as to the thing it self and really although it may be not for some season to the knowledge of the pardoned by such a will yet I say really reipsa and in effect such a will of an absolutely supreme omnipotent and immutable Law-maker not to punish by the Law doth take away effectually both the obligation to punishment by that Law and the punishment it self according to that Law from those that are the objects of such a will not to punish and so who are really and effectually although they did not know so much themselves yet in the Law-givers Brest pardoned by it and so are for ever out of real danger of falling into that punishment threatned by the other Law because an immutable and omnipotent Law-giver hath purposed not to inflict it upon them although they may in their own apprehension and so far as they know or for ought that they have for assurance to the contrary be under an apprehensive danger as I may call it for it is not real but really and immutably taken away of that punishment due to them according to the former Law until the time that the Law-giver himself think fit to make known his will not to punish by that Law unto them either by publishing another Law or by a simple Declaration of his will or by the real effects of it or some way or other as he thinks fittest himself If these be not the dictates of Natural light I know not what are such and these are nothing but the Minor of the former Argument explained and I leave it to the rational consideration of others without prejudice to judge and determine about them Onely this much I adde Sir to you and Mr. Baxter that I think you will not deny That the Covenant or Law of Grace is nothing but the will of God not to punish by or according to the former Law of Death so and in such terms as it runs upon to wit of appointing Salvation by Faith in Christ published dissolving the obligation and effectually taking away the punishment of the Law of Death which is all I require for it is the Minor of the former Argument which I leave you to ruminate upon and to question quietly between your selves too Whether it be your Argument or mine until next time you be pleased to let me hear from you both how you have determine'd the question between you and I shall I hope God willing give my thoughts upon what shall be the result of your determination 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

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 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