Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	authority_n	scripture_n	word_n	1,782	5	4.5549	3	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

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

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

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veaz jirtzu et gnavonam Now Sir there is no mention expresly here of their punishment at all but only of their sin as any that know any thing of Hebrew at all in the very first look upon the words will presently perceive For there is only thus much expressed in them And then or and if they will or shall accept of their sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jirtzu being the third person plural fut kal they shall accept or be well pleased with c. from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratzah He was well pleased with or he accepted c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavonam is only in the verbal translation of it their iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 am being the affix their and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon signifying properly only iniquity or perversity for the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavah which doth properly signifie He did perversly or he did wickedly or he perverted his way So Sir the word punishment is not here at all how then is it applied to the sins of the godly here 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

first and then ●el such wise ones as do affirm it that they must suffer themselves to be informed about the original where they are so grosly mistaken into it As to that other Text out of this Chapter to wit ver 22. there can be no other thing said to it then to this and the former for it is the same mistake of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon iniquity which Mr. Baxter will have properly to signifie punishment or to signifie proper punishment although the Translators in that verse also and at that word in that verse do put a marginal note thus or iniquity and therefore Mr. Baxter can no more translate the word there by punishment then his adversaries will translate it by iniquity and with more reason will they translate it so because it is the proper and radical signification of the word and there is no forcible reason to alter the proper signification of the word in that verse On the contrary there seems more reason to keep it in the Text then either to take it away or to set it in the margen Which that it may appear we shall onely look upon the text and leave it The words then are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam gnavonech bat tzion Thy iniquity is accomplished or absolved O daughter of Zion that is thou hast now begunn to break off thy sins and so to finish your sinful wayes by repentance therefore the Lord will also accomplish or finish his corrections upon you and put an end to them seeing you have put a period to your sins he will not any more carry you captive c. as followeth in the rest of the verse Now since this may be the meaning of the words in their proper signification how will Mr. Baxter force us to take his improper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon iniquity to take it for punishment and all to prove his opinion that the afflictions of the godly are properly called punishments When that although we should gr●●● that in some such places those two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gnavon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chataah might be translated in a general sence punishment yet that would be but by a figurative and metonymical way of speech taking the words which properly and radically doe signifie iniquity or perversness and sin to import also iniquity and sin in the effects or the effects of sin and iniquity to wit all sorts of afflictions and sufferings for sin and then punishments or sufferings for sin in that general sense will comprehend as well fatherly chastisments out of love which your adversaries will affirm are alwaies meant when these words are taken to bespeak the sufferings of the godly for sin and that upon this good reason because words properly signifying chastisements or corrections from love are often attributed to the afflictions of the godly in Scripture but never is there a word properly signifying punishment attributed unto them as well as proper punishments proceeding from the wrath justice and revenge of God as a Judge which they will grant unto you to be meant when those words are taken to import the sufferings of the wicked for their sins But upon those grounds Sir they will tell you that the Eagles eyes doe see very much and very far indeed if they can see so far in those two words as to prove by them that the afflictions or sufferings of the godly are called proper punishments in Scripture proceeding from the justice of God as a Judge and not onely chastisements and corrections proceeding from him as a Father out of love when the two words you prove it by doe not signifie properly punishments of sin at all but onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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

from this root at all as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakk●h should signifie properly to punish but rather the quite contrary for the root in Kal is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakah which radically only signifieth he was pure clean or innocent and in piel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nikkah it importeth he made pure and clean or he made innocent and hence he declared innocent or he did absolve and acquit as not guilty Whence our translation most frequently renders it by holding guiltlesse as in the third Commandement Exod. 20. 7. c. For the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo jenakkah the future piel 3. person singular will not hold him guiltlesse c. absolving or clearing and acquitting from guilt as Exod. 34. 7. and Nah. 1. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakkeh the infinitive piel to absolve clear or acquit by making innocent as it were lo jenakk●h abselvenda non absolvet sive declarando innocentem non declarahit that is surely or certainly he will not clear acquit nor absolve or he will not at all or altogether clear acquit or absolve c. by making or declaring innocent as it were And so here in this Text Jer. 46. v. last and 30. v. 11. Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakkeh the infinitive piel as before lo anakkecha the future piel 1. sing with the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cha thee verbatim and word for word translated they are rendered thus absolvendo non absolvam te sive dectarando non declarabo te innocentem that is in or by acquitting clearing or absolving I will not clear absolve nor acquit thee altogether by declaring thee altogether innocent The meaning of which phrase is certainly I will not altogether acquit thee by declaring thee altogether pure and innocent when thou hast offended because I have determined to chastise and correct thee though out of love and in measure when thou dost offend as the words immediatly preceding these in the same verse do clearly import and expresse and the sence of it is the same which the same word importeth Exod. 20. 7. in the third Commandement for as there the Lord determineth not to hold guiltless by declaring altogether innocent him whosoever he be whether godly or wicked who shall dare to prophane his holy name by taking it in vain but one way or other he will make it manifest that he doth not acquit nor clear any as altogether innocent and without fault and gnilt in so doing So here J●r 46. and 30 he doth indeed threaten the remnant of the godly some way or another to make it manifest that he doth not approve of their 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hikkiti is so frequently used in the Hebrew Text and so frequently translated in its proper and radical signification of smiting that none who knows any thing in the Hebrew roots can be ignorant that this is the true genuine proper and radical signification and translation of these words And I will smite you yet seven times more c. for the mistaken word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hickiti is the first singular of the preterite tense in hiphil I have smitten but with Vau conversive before it I will smite from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nacah not used in kal but in hiphal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hickah he smote he did smite or strike c. And it is constantly thus translated as Esay 11. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word velickah eretz and he shall smite the earth c. and 2 King 13. 18. And he said smite upon the ground and he smote thrice c. where the same word is used in the imperative singular and the third pers sing future in hiphal as every