Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	affliction_n	punishment_n	sin_n	1,661	5	5.5146	4	false

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

of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velo jachati and would not miss the mark c. And hence by a metaphor he sinned by missing and going astray from the mark or scope which he should alwaies eye and aim at to wit the Glory of God and his Law And hence is this Nown in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chete sin or a going astray from the Law of God so that the word doth not signifie properly and in it self any thing at all of the punishment of sin It is true indeed that Lexicographers and Translators because of some places and texts of Scripture which must be supplyed either by the addition of some words that are not in the Text or by the explication of some words in the text some other way then their radical proper and used significations doth bespeak therefore they do generally say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chet or chete and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah sometimes to put some probable interpretation upon some texts of Scripture may be explained as not onely to import sin but also to import and denote the punishment of sin But then again Sir it is but where they are necessitated to it for to explain the Scripture when there can be no other probable interpretation of a text wh●ch whether it be so or not here we shall see ere we leave this Text and further when they ●oe thus explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chete or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon to import the punishment of sin they do take the word pena peccati or punishment of sin generally or in a general sence as importing all sufferings or afflictions about sin as the cause or occasion of them either loving and fatherly chastisements or proper vindicative and revenging punishments proceeding from a Judge of justice punishing offenders Now when the word is taken in this general sence by the Translators and Expositors and so put in to any Text of Scripture may not your adversaries expound and translate it and the Text where it is put in by chastisements and improper punishments proceeding from fatherly love especially if the Text speak of the godly as well as you may doe proper punishments proceeding from the justice of a Judge Doe you think Sir that your adversaries will take the dictates of your will to be the Rules and Laws by which to interpret the original Scriptures which your own understanding for ought can be seen by your writings is altogether without knowledge and ignorant of this were indeed a blind following of a blind guide to take a mans will for a rule in things that he knows not I hope Sir that Master Baxter will not take to himselfe nor will any of his greatest admirers ascribe 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mahjitonen Adam chai Why should a living man complain Now Sir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adam chai doth import only ● living man or a man in natural and earthly lif● and I think there be more such a hundred to one then there are Godly men and so in the end of the verse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber is a general name for man and if it have any particular limit●●on it is this a strong man not godly man for the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gabar he prevailed he was strong c. and hence man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber from strength which appellation for signification the Latines use calling man Vir a viribus Now Sir I could wish from my

heart that all strong men were godly men yea that all men living were godly men for then I would be sure that I were one my selfe but I suspect it in many others as I many times fear it in my selfe that it is not so as I would gladly wish to have it and if the Text speake 1. nothing of punishments here at all for there is not a word signifying punishment in the original of this Text. Nor 2. nothing of Godly men here at all then how can this Text call the afflictions of godly men proper punishments The onely thing you can say here is that the whole lamentations and so this place is in the name of the whole Church but be it so yet your Antagonists can tell you that in the whole Church there are bad as well good yea many more bad then good there are wicked as well as godly yea too too many more wicked then Godly especially when any Universal affliction is laid upon the whole Church as here it was when all of them were led captive their land laid desolate Now Sir they would tell you that therefore although the Text did mention proper punishments as it doth mention no punishment at all yet they would say they were infflicted upon the Church for an Universal Deluge of wickedness which did overspread the land and the outward face of the Church but that yet notwithstanding these punishing strokes of justice upon the whole land and the wicked in it were but chastizing corrections out of fatherly love upon the persons of the godly in it even amidst all their common sufferings with the wicked in common calamities and that therefore those sufferings of the Church and Land were but to be called punishments in reference to wicked because they were inflicted by God as a Judge out of justice upon them but in reference to the persons of the Godly in which relation the question was stated they were to be called but chastisements of love because they did proceed from God as a Father in mercy to them Doth not Master Baxter and you prove your points excellently well Sir when you bring a Text to prove that the afflictions of godly men are called properly punishments in Scripture in which 1. there is not a word in that Text signifying punishment 2. There is not a word in that Text signifying a godly man And 3. when that we have supposed all that you would have to wit that both these were in the Text yet you do not prove your point and if when we have gratified you with the supposition of all that you require and yet you do not prove your points I pray Sir tell me by your next when will you prove them in the mean time till then such wise ones must be contented to suffer themselves to be informed about the original when they are so grossly mistaken into it I have done Sir with speaking my thoughts to Mr. Baxter and you upon the second place brought to prove that the afflictions of the Godly are called proper punishments in Scripture and I think if I mistake not I have told you that you have not proved it by that text although we should take it after the meaning that it is usually translated in but in this Text also I have my thoughts about another construction and interpretation of the place without supplying the defective sence of it either with the word punishment or chastisement for the truth is if probably I can make construction and congruous interpretation of the very words of the original in any Text or the context thereof I doe not willingly bring a word from elswhere to supply the defective sense of that Text and this sence I shall propose to your consideration if you please and to the judgement of the learned in the language In the verses going before the dispensations and providences are all of them vindicated to be good and just and therefore the Prophet infers in this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mah jitonem Adam chai geber gnal chataav Now I say at the very looking of the words over again there is one sence I think may rationally be given of them which likes me very wel and which I shall presently subjoyn when I have touched the emphasis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jitonen which is the future hithpael third person singular of the Conjugation hithpael from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anan he mourned or lamented and in hithpael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hitonen properly he bemoaned himself he lamented over himself as it were and hence he murmured repined or fretted in and over himself because of his doleful condition some one way or another He was grieved In himself because of some one evil or another upon him The signification of this word being thus noted I think the words might not unfitly be understood thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mah jitonen adam chai why doth a living man repine murmur or fret in himself as it were against God in the evil of affliction which his providence hath justly brought upon him Rather as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geber gnal chataav let a man murmur repine and grieve at his sins Or why should living man bemoan himself and complain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jithonen grievously in himself at the evils which the good hand of God hath brought to fall on him rather let him bewail and bemoan his sins which are the cause of all Let a man complain and bemoan over his sins for these are worse then all other evils that he can endure besides them So that we need not name or mention punishment at all in the words but onely this Why should a living man fret or murmur and repine or bemoan and complain in himself to wit against God and his dispensations or at the evil spoken of and intimated in the verse and verses going before Let a man complain and bemoan himself or be grieved in himself over his sins and so repent of them as the exhortation is at large laid out in the verse following and then shal be an end of all our evil and misery Or in a word the words might be thus explained and taken as if they were in the first part of the verse a question and in the last part of it an answer to it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mah jithonen adam chai What should a living man most or chiefly as it were complain of or be most grived and vexed at as the word jithonen importeth and the answer to the question is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 geher gnal chataav a man should chiefly be grieved in himself over his sins more then over or for any thing else as it were There is another Text that much inclineth me thus to explain the words taking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jithonen to express a mans murmuring repining fretting greeving and complaining in himself against God and his

quoad nomen was taken in or catched in interpreting a Text of any of his Scriptures And I hope Sir you are a wise one that will willingly suffer your self to be informed about the words in the Original when they are mistaken You know Sir how you use to inform others your self and you know your self well enough when you know you can inform them But yet now that that which you may call my passion is over for indeed I was offended with you in your mistake methinks there is yet an evasion left for you by which you may escape the challenge laid against you and that therefore there hath been too great rigor used unto you And the evasion may perhaps help you at a dead lift for it is such a one indeed that I know a man that hath no less then Eagles eyes in his head Sir as you think who does see it so fit for his purpose as that he frequently makes very much use of it if he be challenged with errors and mistakes in his Tenets and it may be that he may make use of it to shelter you from the storms that seem here to be blown against you as I am sure it is a shield to himself to keep off many blows that would fall heavily upon him if he lacked it And the way to escape is this Sir or at least it may be thought to be so to wit That it may be said and conceived you did not speak so much your own opinion concerning the words of the Text above rendred as that you had what you spake about the words from another hand and so they were as much the words of another as your own which you spake But first Sir as to that I say That that is the most sophistical and jugling way of speaking that ever any free rational or ingenious man did speak in nay which doth not become such a one to speak so at all if he doth not expresly manifest whether he do own or not and how far he owns or how far he disowns the words which he relateth For unless he do so no man can take hold upon what he saith for always he will have a back-door to get out at whensoever he fears to be nonplust and silenced then will he say he spoke that but as the mind of others whatever he meant of that or of any other thing besides that before But again Sir if either you your self or he for you will use this shift to free you in the particular between you and me at this time then I have two things to say to stop either or both your mouths with either of them and the first is this That if ever you produce an intelligent Author understanding the Hebrew Text that doth sense or non-sense the words in controversie in your way I shall be the first that shall challenge my self as having with a too virulent Pen carped at your mistaken Criticism and I shall humbly and heartily crave your pardon for it and that you may oblige me by my promise and acknowledged duty to do so Sir if you can I intreat you produce one unto me by your next In the mean time secondly I will tell you and your friend That if you do produce any such nonsensical babler that doth say that in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erem gnoreph velo panim I will cause them to see or I will shew them the neck or back and not the face the face of God is stiled the back of God then I will answer Sir if you think to evade and escape that way that your remedy is as bad and worse then the disease because the remedy then would be the cause of the disease For this is your sin and this is your shame That you have nothing of understanding and knowing your Masters own words but onely an implicite faith to take upon trust your translators words so that if any one whom you take to be your Interpreter speak non-sense before you then you your self do know nothing but to follow him and to dictate non-sense with him And so I will conclude this first place Sir by telling you lastly and minding you seriously of it that into danger of such inextricable difficulties and perplexities doth that man put himself to who runneth as a Messenger and Ambassador about his acknowledged Lord and Masters business and yet knoweth not understandingly to read his Masters Commission and his Instructions in the proper Language in which his Lord did deliver them to him I have done now Sir with the first Text of Scripture in your Exercitation much misapplied in prosecution of your Tenets and I have a little more fully descanted about it first because it was a grosly material mistake secondly because I would in one place put several of my thoughts that in several such cases afterwards they may be reflected and looked upon here as if they were just repeated over again in the same or such like words when the like need or occasion requires And thirdly this I did here so largely that hence I might be more brief in prosecuting the rest of those misapplications and misconstructions of other Texts of Scripture which I have marked in your Book yea I do resolve to be now as brief as I can in all the rest of the places that I shall take notice because I am not well contented that Epistolary lines are drawn by my hand to such a length as I see they are onely Sir remember that by an equitable rule you must suffer your self to be informed c. ABout the beginning of your Book when I first perused it there were several places which I did mark as impertinent and inconsiderate Applications of some Texts with such mistakings as did bewray indeed little knowledge or study in the original but yet not so gross and absurd ignorance as the first which is already past over Now as I am looking out those marks which I had laid in your Book the first day I did see it I cast my eye upon a passage of yours which I had marked indeed but had quite forgot when I did present to your view those two passages which I did so much commend and count praise-worthy in your Exercitation For if I had minded it it would have been as highly commended and approved by me as the other two or at least I am sure it had been joyned to them as a fellow for a third The passage is this Sir Page 11. wherein your Observations upon the Negative phrases used in Scripture about forgiveness of sins this you put down as one of the chief and most insisted on of any other I do take notice of there to wit onely let it be noted say you concerning the two last places viz. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and Acts 7. 60. That albeit the phrase in the translation be all one both being rendred a not laying sin to the charge of the sinner nevertheless the phrases in the original

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