CHAP. I. Of the Etymology, Names, Figures, Kinds and Ʋse of the Hebrew Points in their various Sounds.

WAS MƲTH the most Famous Au­thor of this Particular ART, fronts his Institutions, with two proper Say­ings out of Plinius to Vespas. viz. That most Men rather despise the best of things than undergo the Pains that is needful to attain them: His other Say­ing [Page 2] is, That it is a difficult thing to restore an Anci­cient Art that is lost; to create Authority to a thing that is new; to strike a Light to things in Darkness; to beget Faith in things that are doubtful, and favour to things that are loathed.

All this Difficulty do I now encounter, while I am Undertaking to prove, That the sensual Points are a Divine Comment (or next to't) on the Old Testament, and to Restore that long lost and Use­ful Art; And that it may be with the greater Success, I will, for once, offer up Prayers with a Jew (Rab Calon, the First who awakened the World to this Study) God of his Tender Mercies, and Great Bounty give us a large Heart for under­standing the Secrets of the Points and Accents: For he who rightly understands them, needs no other Expo­sition.

The Two Foundations of the Hebrew Language, are its Letters, Twenty Two in Number; and its Points Fifty Five; the latter are of Three Kinds; First they that serve for Reading, as the Vowel, Points, and such as affect the Sound of the Conso­nant, as Dages, Mappick, and the Diacritical be­twixt Schin and Sin, Eighteen in number.

Secondly, They that mark a difference in Read­ing, and are called Rabbinical or Masoretie, as a Circle above a Word in the Text, which signifie the Vowels of that Word to be read with the Consonants in the Margin; a Circle in the middle signifies imperfection; but a cluster of Points above a Word signifies an Emphasis, these are but Three in Number.

The Third sort are to be the subject of this Dis­course, which the Jews usually call [...] Judg­ment, Sense, Reason, Prov. 11.22. a fair Woman [Page 3] without Discretion, Psl. 199.66. Wisdom and Know­ledge are the excellency of it. Hence [...] is Translated Chancelor, that is the Lord and Judge, of the Sense of the Law; not the Judge ty'd close to the Letter of it. Equity is the end of the Law. So, as the former Points are helps to the Letter of the Bible, these are helps to know the Sense and Meaning of the Bible, Job 12.20. The understand­ing of the Ancient is called [...] the Learned Bux­torf says these Points bear this General Name, be­cause by right Pronunciation they give the Words a savour; and by true Distinction give the Sense of the Verse.

The Rabbins call them, Reasons Law, His Lips drop sweet smelling Myrrh that speak according to them; its a Rabbi's Exposition on Can. 5.13. stillant rationes [ [...]] ex omni latere. Thus much for the Name in General.

I shall next give their Names and Figures in particular, as a part [...].

• Soph Pasuk, the end of the Verse [...]
• Silluk a Period, these are joined thus [...]
• Athnach respiration, rest [...]

• Segolta a Bunch of Grapes [...]
• Sakeph katon is little Erector [...]
• Sakeph gadol a great one [...]
• Tipcha the Palm of the Hand [...]
• Merca Mahpahatus in Verse [...]

• [Page 4]Robhia, Lying like a Dog [...]
• Sarka, Scatterer [...]
• Pashta, a Bender [...]
• Ithibh, a sitter, viz. before [...]
• Tehbir, broken [...]
• Merka kephula, double Productor [...]
• Rebhia Geresheatus, in Verse [...]
• Shalsheleth, a Chain [...]

• Paser, a Divider [...]
• Karne Para, Bullocks Horns [...]
• Telisha Gedola, rooter up [...]
• Geresh, an Expeller [...]
• Pesik, a Stopper [...]

• Merca, a productor [...]
• Munah, Void [...]
• Mahpah, inverted [...]
• Darga, a Ladder [...]
• Kadma, a forerunner [...]
• Telisha Ketanna [...]
• Jerah, Moon, viz. Horned [...]
• Maccaph, [...]
• Metheg, may be too [...]

Observe first that Position only, distinguishes some of these, as [...] is Pashta a Lord, when hanging over the last Letter of a Word; but when more [Page 5] forward on the first Letter of the last Syllable, it is Kadma. If the last Letter be a Vowel, and have the Accent, Kadma may be there. Jer. 13.13. veamarta, but he serves few except Geresh, and therefore may be known by his Master.

2. [...] is Ithib when before the first Letter of the Word, but Mahpah is always at the latter end, except it be forced, as in [...] Gen. 1.11. but then in Prose Mahpah serves few but Pashta, and that when there is a Syllable or two between him and his Master. In Verse indeed it serves [...].

3. The Vowel Cholem and Rebhia, are alike, but they differ, 1. In Place, Rebhia is on the middle of the Letter, Cholem at the side. 2. Cholem is lesser. 3. Cholem is known by his need, if a Word or Let­ter wants him.

4. [...] is Silluk at the end of a Word, at the be­ginning Metheg, for it hath always the Tonic Ac­cent after it. In the middle between two Words it is Pesik.

A Second kind of Observation is about other Names the Reader may hear of, and think he has not all his Accents here; and the more, because the proposed Number of 55 Points are not com­pleated, there being but 30 Accents, and 21 others, which make but 51.

Rule 1. I have only set down distinct Figures, for there is Tiphcha initiale in Verse a Dom.

• [Page 6]2. There is Merca double [...]
• 3. There is Geresh double [...]
• 4. There is Munah superiour in Verse [...]
• And Mahpah Superiour [...]
• And Sarka Antecedent [...]
• And Sarca Mercatus [...]
• And Sarka Mahpahatus [...]
• And Munah Munahatus [...]

So here are enough for Number.

Rule 2d. The same Accent hath different Names; Tiphcah is called Tarcha, and before Athnach or Silluk called Meajila.

Geresh is called Teres or Asla, when Kadma is be­fore it.

Telisha Ketanna is called Talsha or Tarsa; and Jerah called Galgal, and Pesik Munachatus, Le­garme: Munach on the last Syllable before [...] is called Hillui, but in the beginning called Mechar­bel, Merca Mahpahatus is called Mercha ithibatus, but not rightly, for there is no Ithib in Verse, nor in Prose, except vicarious of Pashta.

A Third kind is about their Division; first, as to place, some above, some below. Some think the reason is for elevation or depression of Voice or Affection; I think rather to prevent Confusion.

Above [...] and [...] 18 in number, with [...] beneath: [...] 12 in number, with [...] anterior.

2dly, In Prosical: And Metrical; for Job, Psalms and Proverbs.

And 3dly, In those that are common, and those that are proper (and each in Lords and Ministers.)

The common Lords are these, [...] and [...], tho rare in Prose. Ministers [...].

The Proper Lords to Prose [...] Itibbi. [...] Ministri [...] Proper to Verse [...] initiale [...] Pisik Mahpach [...] Pisik kadmatus. Ministri [...] the final, that is, not foregoer.

4th Direction may be some premises, as our reading Hebrew begins at the Right Hand, but piercing by Accents at the left Hand. And therefore a Word may be called the second in one respect, that is the penult, or last but one, in another. 2. That Maccaph makes two or three Words, one in accentuation, and on the other hand, Scheva is reckon'd to make a Syllable, ex. gr. [...] its counted but a bis­syllable, but here a three-syllabl'd Word. On the other hand [...] is counted a bis-syllable, because from [...].

3dly. A Word is said to labour, when there is but one Syllable before the Accent.

But my Design in this Book, is only to shew their use; and prove they were design'd for that use, viz. The great Key for unlocking the Scripture-Sense; yet I shall communicate whatever Rules I find in any Author of this Art. I shall reserve my own Improvement for the next occasion.

I shall only set down in this Chapter, what is purely Grammatical; and that because of its use, not only in true Pronunciation, as may be seen af­terwards, but also their use, for instruction, in di­stinguishing Words otherwise equivocal. 2dly. For Proof that the Accents serve for another end than bare accenting the Sound.

The First Rule is, That every accent here is accute, the Voice rests on it, there is no grave's nor cir­cumflex's.

Rule the Second is, That the Tone is either on the last, and then the Word is called Milra, or on the last except one, and then it's called Milhil.

Rule Third is, When the same accent is doubled on a Word, the former gives Tone; but if two different be on one Word, the latter gives Tone.

Rule the Fourth is, If (:) follow the accent with a long Vowel, it is quiescent.

Rule the Fifth is, If the Word be Milra, and the accent a Rex with a long Vowel or quiescent Let­ter Dagesh in [...] is lene, soft, for else they would have (h) in the following Word.

But the most troublesome and yet useful, is to distinguish between what Words are properly Milra, and what properly Milhil.

Know first then as to Nouns or Participles; that Plurals are Milra; and secondly, all Duals are Milhil.

RƲLE II. All Verbs without augment are Mil­ra, and the genuine Method of the Language is to carry along the accent to the last, and to short­en the Vowels as the Word encreases. But here are to be excepted in the preter tense, the second per­son singular, and the first person, both singular and plural; the participle in [...] the futures in [...] and the conjug Hiphib both preter and future, where (ו) is expressed in the crescency, and also in quiescen­tia (ן): ה foem and radical is Milra, which di­stinguishes from ה paragogicum and local, which is Milhil, except first, if second Radical have (:) as Gen. 11.7. [...] or if in Names (∷) go before [...] of intensiveness is Milhil, as [...] a [Page 9] full salvation [...] the greatest terrour. 4. When Words end in Radical Letters, the longer has the accent; if not the Root it self; if they are equal, it is Milra, except [...]. 5. The af­fixes [...] are Milhil, the rest Milra.

There are some Exceptions, but these of greatest frequency, come from the Third Head; which the change of accents from Milra to Milhil, or the con­trary; occasions of which next.

2. Of milra becomes milhil, when the follow­ing Word is of one Syllable, or of two with the accent on the first, as [...] Gen. 15. This Rule wants not exceptions, first, if there be room for metheg, viz. a tris-syllable of long Vowels, there is no retraction, as Jer. 16.14. [...] it shall not be said any more. 2dly, If room for mac­caph, i. e. when the penult is short then thrown away [...] garments of Salvation.

3dly. Except the participle kal, to distinguish from Nouns of that form.

4thly. Roots of the Form [...] to distinguish from the form [...].

5thly. The preter plural quiesc. ה to distinguish from quiesc. medio [...] ac [...]: 6thly, Plural, Nouns absolute.

Rule II. a conjunctive accent is retracted to the penult; for the Negative [...] going before the Verb or ן conversive of a future into a preterit Tense.

Rule III. For good Sounds sake sometimes [...] &c. are retracted in Verbs ending [...] and scheva going before [...]. 2. In Words of the form [...] and the assix [...].

Rule IV. The accents descends to the last, for (ן) turning the preterit into a future.

There remains a Fourth Grammatical Head, and that is the change of Vowels on the account of Accents. 1. They make (:) a Vowel. 2. Pa­thach a Kametz: And 3. Segol the same. 4. Some­times Tzere is turned into Pathach. 5. Final (ן) in the future Kal, if a Vowel conversite be add­ed into Cholem. 2dly, when one accent is retracted ( [...]) is shortned into ( [...]) and ן into Kametz cha­taph.

The Fifth Head is the use of metheg, who is passed by, as not worth noticing, but in my Opini­on equal to all the rest, in this affair, for he has as much Influence, on his own Syllable, as they. 2. Every two Syllables needs one accent, for one we always depress, and we elevate another.

1. Its proper place is the Third Syllable inclu­sively, with the accent in the same Word, or co­pulated by maccaph; but if the Word be com­pounded with dagesch or scheva, it's place is the fourth Syllable.

2. On a long Vowel before scheva, which else would be a short

3. On a short Vowel before scheva, if in value long, by Vicegerency, or by dagesch excluded, as [...] pro [...].

4. If metheg be omitted in these places, as often before ( [...]) [...] It is to be supposed and understood.

5. In Vowels before scheva compounded. 2. Af­ter chirek in the futures of Verbs. 3. Before Dagesch forte in Polysyllables. But I believe that one Rule of having a Syllable between it, and the accent behind on the same Word, or before one another is suffici­ent. By this we may know where the Praepositive or post-positive accent affects. Maccaph a transverse line comes in here too; but by way of privation, for [Page 11] it removes the accent not only from the Syllable or whole Word, but sometimes shortening [...] into [...] and (.) ( [...]) ן & cholem ן scurek in kametz chataph, yet metheg is sometimes on the very Syllable with maccaph, as [...] but much more frequent on the former Syllables, when the Word consists of two or three Syllables, which shews us, that even this is governed by the matter also.

Observe what a Critical Grammar Capellus will afford us, that removes all the Points, and with them all difference in the Conjugations, Nouns, Affixes. But when necessity pinch him, its best to follow the Mazorites, until we find a better way. The Papists inform us of that better way, Hear the Church. Morinus to extol his Samaritan Grammar, informs us, until 1000 Years after Christ, the Jews had no Grammarians, nor the Language a Gram­mar. I wonder wherein the Criticisms of the Scribes, and Ezra's Excellency did then consist.

CHAP. II. Of Arguments for the Accents being Instruments of Interpretation, or Means of Sense; As also of their Antiquity and Authority.

THE First I shall make use of, is of least weight, viz. That they are called, [...] a Judgment, Reason, Sense, or means of it, because they give to us a good Taste and Know­ledge in the Book of GOD, Ephod. Gram. cap. 8. It's true, they are called Neginoth, the playing on a Musical Instrument. Yet not true, according to Cosri and others, who say, the Jews Musick is by Rhetorical Numbers, (rather than Poetical) where­in the Rise and Fall of Affection governs the Voice; the Intentions, Inclinations and Flections of the one, gives Laws to the other, that the Hearer may read and see the Speakers Heart, and Devotion in his Word.

Obj. On the other Hand, Capellus says, That the Names of the Letters have been 3000 Years without Change; but the Names of Vowels new, about 1040 barbarous Caldaic.

Resp. I. Then the Four Corner'd Letters (as they are called) have been so long, not the Samaritan [Page 13] Character, for the Significations and Figures agree to it, not the Samaritan. Vide Wasm. vind. p. 49.

Resp. II. The consequence is naught, the Names of the Months now used are Chaldaic: Ergo, the Months and their use are but of late among the Jews: It is a very bad consequence, and why one should be better than the other, is what a Logician can give no reason for. No doubt the Chaldee was mix'd in their common use of Speech; Chaldee and Hebrew are only different Dialects; they differ more in Termination than VVords.

Resp. III. VVhat if Capellus says falsly, That they are barbarous, and Chaldaic? Aben Ezra and R. Immanuel knew what was Hebrew, and they assert them to be so. [...] signifies to ascend; [...] an end; [...] to rest; [...] peculiar; sakephs, rhebia paser, karne para, geresh, munah, mahpah, jerah, are not these Hebrew?

The Second Argument is from the withdraw­ing other Uses from them: These Two have been pitched on, Pronunciation and Musick; that the for­mer is not their chief end, may be evident on a double account. That there is no need of Thirty different Figures, when One or Two would suffice.

2. The Tone is not known from the different Figure; but the different Site or Syllable, it is over or under.

3. There is no need or use for Kings and Mini­sters, the accentuation is the same.

2dly. These Points often are not where the Tone is, for there are Five Prepositive Points, viz. [...] Tipcha anterior or initial [...] Jethib, [...] Te­lisha the great, and [...] Sarka initiale, and [...] geresh in [...]. And here are four post-positive, always on [Page 14] the last Letter; as the former on the first, viz. [...] and [...]. Now if the use of these Nine are not for that end, its not likely the others are. I may add further, some Words have Two.

Theod. Ebert. Poet. Ebr. Cap. 2. thinks the form of Old Poesie did consist in the Number of Time, and occult dispositions of Accents.

Res. 1. Then the whole Old Testament is Poetical, or the same Words or Syllables in Psalm 18. makes Verse; but in 2 Sam. 22. they do not; for they have the Prosical Points; And

2. The Song of Solomon is not Verse, for it has not the Points of [...] but what is common to Prose.

3. Many Sentences, Verses, taken out of Prose, Psalm 136. v. 8, 9. with Gen. 1.16. and 12. Deut. 4.3, 4. v. 19. Numb. 21.35. So Psal. 72.8. with Zach. 9.10. Psal. 8.11. with Exod. 20.1. Psal. 86.15. with Exod. 34.6.

4. Number of Syllables are not observed, Ps. 9. nor Words, Psalm 10. and there is less reason to expect a proportion in the Measure of Sylla­bles.

5. It is not unworthy Observation, what Boh­lius says, That the Jews (falsly, and not with­out Satan's cunning) say, the use of the Accents is Musical, an Art only known to the Jews; Christians need not search into them, lest by the Spirit of Christ, they should find this Key of Scripture-Sense, which they have lost.

But how have they this Art? They say, one Melody becomes the Paraschoth, another the Haph­toroth, may be more Hoarse, because lost. One in [...]: i. e. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, another in [Page 15] Prose. The German, Spanish and Asiatic have all different Melodies, have each several Arts?

6. If the Accents give Laws to the Sacred Verse, then the Songs of Praise, and most bitter Lamenta­tions, are sung both with one Tune; an intolerable Absurdity. Compare Job 3.3. with Psal. 66. and Job 3.8. with Psalm 66.8. the Points are the same; David's Jubilee, and Triumphal Songs, sung to the Tune of Cursed be the Day. Surely the sweet Singer of Israel knew Musick better. His Michtam's and Penitentials were never sung with one Melody, tho Penned with the same sensual Points.

7. These Jews that Mutter, rather than Sing, all their Bible over, use a Bible without Points, both Vowel and Accentual (not that they think they are the more in value, but sitter for Cabbalistical Allegory; the more uncertain, the more room for Conjecture) and therefore make no use of the Ac­cents in their Musick. Add further, That its scarce­ly credible, They sung the Name of the Musical Instrument, the Musician in Chief, with the Oc­casion and Preface; but all these in Scriptures, bear the same Points with the Song.

Lastly, As to their Verse in General, That seems to have been the Ancient and Sacred Me­thod, such as the Song of Elizabeth, Luke 1.42. to 56 v. and the Ancient Jews acknowledge so much, see Argum. 1. Now indeed they have two kinds, Rhyme and Meeter, and both much like the Arabians.

But I think they have more Time than Wit to spare, that can bestow much of it in Learning or Teaching that Art. But of Old it did consist only in an Oratorical Proportion.

1. The Names signifie it, [...], a Song.

2. The Musical Instruments.

3. No Attempts have been able to reconcile them to any strict Measure, used in Europe, Ara­bia, Persia or Turkey; No Lyric Licence in Ho­ratian, or Pindarick Odes will comprehend the Psalms of David. No Comical Dimensions used in Terentius or Plautus, can confine any Hebrew Verse, except by accident, as sometimes in the New Testament. Deviation is rare in the one, common in the other.

Gomarus in his Lyra has this Rule (Reg. 5.) ‘The Hebrew Verse are first various. Secondly, Of various Feet. Thirdly, More, or Mixed. Fourthly, Short or long. Fifthly, Analogous, or anomalous. Sixthly, Excessive or defective. Seventhly, Of many kinds, without Order or Relation.’

It had been sooner said, Any Prose makes He­brew Verse.

I do think the Ancient Form of the M S S. Bibles in Parchment Rolls, gave occasion to think all the Old Testament an Iambic kind of short Verse. For Hermannus Vander Hardit says he has seen some in this Form:

• [...]
• [...]
• [...]
• [...] v. 3.
• [...]
• [...]
• &c.
• [...]
• [...]
• [...]
• [...]
• [...] v. 2.
• [...]
• [...]
• [...]
• [...]

Wherein every considerable Lord commands a Line, which renders the Sense obvious, and di­stinct: Deut. 32. stands in our Hebrew Bible, after this manner now; a Remnant of the Old Method. This looks like our European Poesie, and may de­ceive the Credulous, unacquainted with the True Design of it, which is, To show that these Points govern and rule the Coherence, and Divisions of Matter, and cadencies of Affection, and this Order renders this Obvious to the Eye of the Reader.

There is another Notion may be worth the in­serting, about the Ancient Rolls and Volumes in the Jewish Synagogues, viz. Their Bigness, that (as Goodw. says) was Ten Ells in breadth, and Twenty in length; Buxtorf says, in some of their Synagogues, you may see all the Pentateuch, in a Volume of Fifty Ells, most neatly compacted. Aristeus says, That that presented to Ptol. Phil. by the LXX, had its Parchments so neatly united, sowed, or glewed, that neither Eye nor Reason could see where the Juncture was. How falsly then doth P. Sim. say; much disorder in the Bible, [Page 18] is come from the misplacing the several Parch­ments, heapt up, one on top of another, and when roll'd off, displaced when again roll'd up. For Psal. 40.8. Its in the Volume of the Book; the whole Book was one Volume, nor doth the Epistle to the Hebrews oppose it, Cap. 10. v. 7. [...] we Translate it in the beginning, but [...] as H. Gro. and Sui. do observe is the same with [...] a Role; for not only in the beginning, but all the Prophets testified of this great Messias; if these Sacred Volumes had suffered aliquid humani, he had had a better foundation for guessing it from misplacing of the [...] Jer. 36.23. When he had read three or four leaves. The Word signi­fies Doors or Plots, like Beds in a Garden, for we may see that was their custom to write one Pro­phecy in one place, and another in another place; they did not carry the Line through the whole breadth of the Parchment. Now it was possible for him that Copied out this, not to write first in his Book or Roll, what was first wrote in the Ori­ginal. But I thought the Gentleman in great need of Arguments, that told me, his great Ob­jection against the Scriptures Divinity was the Hu­manity he saw in Jeremiah; some Stories in a latter Chapter, 7 or 20 Years acted before what is recor­ded in a former Chapter; they may bring the same Argument, because Jeremiah is put after Nehemiah, which in time was 200 Years before; and Solomon's Books 500 Years before him, and Jeremiah's La­mentations, in most Hebrew Books put next to Moses's. But I am informed by a French Minister, who heard it that Heideggerus so run down P. Si­mon that he confessed (what I could do before hand) that his Arabick, and Rabbenic, &c. was all at se­cond-hand.

The 3d. Argument is that which alone might give saticfaction, Because they are harmonious means in serving of this end; no body could ever yet find out Rules by which they guided us in the Metre or Musick of Scripture, though it has been studied by many this 1500 Years. But I can find no Man before Bohlius, about 40 Years ago, that has dreamt of this end since it was lost; and it had come to a considerable perfection; if too early Death had not snatch'd him off in his very Youth, we might have seen it in its [...] long be­fore now. Doth any Man desire better proof for the Truth of a Grammar than this; the custom of the Classick Authors is so, that by following these Rules we are able to expound, and make Latin something like to them. In Physicks we require no more of Axioms than this, that we can explain the most difficile appearance or effect of Nature by them. Now in this Bible thou hast at least 22 Classick Authors (Time will, it may be, discover some other Book that has them too, if not, its an exactness shining to the Glory of this Book above others) and the Rules I shall give thee about these Points, shall both instruct thee to expound them, and make Hebrew in Syntactical order like them; and thou shalt have Axioms holding as universally without exception, as the Axioms of Physicks. And that I may not disappoint, nor defer thy ex­pectation, I will first show thee how harmonious the Scripture is, to admit and accept of Rules of this kind; for where the like Syntax or Sentence there are the like Points.

As equal there is an harmonious tenour in this Affair ex gr. Lev. 4.1. And the Lord spake unto Moses.

Likewise chap. 8.1. and 12.1. and 14.1. and 17.1.18.1.19.1.20.1.22.1. compare Psal. 14. with 53. and Psal. 105. to v. 16. with 1 Chro. 17. from v. 8. to v. 13. and Psal. 18. with 2 Sam. 22. Tho there is a difference in Poetical Points; yet there is an Equivalency, Num. 7. is a remarkable Scripture, the Vowels are omitted in all our Bibles, because, as most think, no need, the same being again repeated, but the Accents are repeated, and are the same. But in this I do not assert that the same individual Accents are repeated, but they, or their equivalent. Ex. gr. Ezek. 11.7. & 21.19. & 36.5. Wherefore ‖ thus saith | the Lord God [...]

The Reason of this Variety is from the diffe­rent Lord that sits in the end of the Sentence, as may be seen in the Table, each having some Varie­ty in his Train or Consecution. He that desireth more instances of this kind, may read Wasm. p. 151. & 327.

The Second Thing I propose, as convincing in this business is the Axioms that are so many uni­versal Maxims in this Case.

Axiom 1. All the Kings, in Number 22, do al­ways distinguish the Word they are under, or over, more or less, from the following, Except where the sense is emphatical, and some Rhetorical Fi­gure be understood.

Axiome 2. Every Minister signifies, that the Word it marks is joined in sense, or construed with the following Word by some Syntactical Rules; as that of Apposition, Regimen Genitivi, or Adjective and Substantive, &c.

In these Two Things they differ from other Syntaxes.

1. In the whole use of the Reges; for Syntaxes are only concerned about the manner of conjun­ction of Words. We have no Western Art about Opposition, except what is comprehended in a right placing of Comma's, Colon's and Punctum's, which is little studied.

2. In the use of the Ministers, about Seven in Number, they are not applicable to Seven Rules, or more, of our Latine Syntax, the Hebrew Grammar affords Rules of that kind, as also about the Idio­tisms; wherein it differs from other Languages, but their difference arises from their relation to the Lords they serve, as may be learned by the Table.

Axiome 3. The more remote an inferiour Lord stands from his superiour in the same Sentence, or proportion; the more his distinguishing Power is. It is so in Civil Affairs; a Sheriff is eclipsed in the Court, who shines in his County.

Axiome 4. The greater the Rex is, the more Words are under his Power, if more than Two Words, or Three at the most; a Major, like Lord Mayor, rides on the last Word of the Sentence; if the Members are lesser, there is only a Minor Dominus, or a Minister, according to their mutual respect. If one part of the Proposition consists of little Members, the other of greater; there is a great Lord to divide Ex. gra. Gen. 3.15. I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between her Seed and thy Seed. There is [...], the greatest re­spective Lord upon Woman, for tho the Members are alike (viz. answering to one Question, and their Relation the same) yet not equal, for the Enmity and Opposition: Between Christ and Sa­tan, with all his Seed, is infinitely more than what is between the single Believer, Eve and Satan.

This Axiome is pregnant of many particular Rules; but without Exemplification they are dry and useless.

Axiome 5. Where the Consecution, according to the Grammatical Table, takes no place, either by undue Absence, Presence or displacement, the Rhetorical Table is to be inspected.

Axiome 6. As these Points are Rhetorical, they are not applicable to the Figures of our Rhetorick (tho as Glassius has demonstrated, they are all to be found virtually in the Bible) but carry a con­gruity to the Affection, Intention of the Author, and Moment of the Matter, which a live Orator would express by Look, Gesture, Manner of Ex­pression, or some other Motion. For Instance, Passion, Haste, Anger, is signified by putting a Mi­nister [Page 23] in place of a Lord; and on the contrary, Love, Delight, Momentousness of Matter, is signifi­ed by putting a Dom. in room of a Minister, or a great Dominus for a lesser.

Axiome 7. The Poetick and Prophetick Books are so full of Alterations from the Grammar Table, that the Exceptions would exceed the Rules; yea, the former, viz. Job, Proverbs and Psalms, differ in the very Points themselves, so that they need a distinct Table: This would stand a most power­ful Argument against their Validity; but so har­monious with the Rhetorick Table, that there is scarce any exception from both Tables; and con­sequently an efficacious Argument that that dou­ble use was the design of the Author; for de con­tingentibus non datur certa scientia, there cannot be any orderly Analysis where there was no Metho­dical Synthesis; we may as well assert the Worlds Harmony out of Epicurean Atoms; or that the Bi­ble came to pass by a Shower of Letters; as these Points to be incerted, without the ends being de­signed that they are such adapted Means for.

The Third Branch of this Argument are the Rules particular about each Points Value and Use, absolutely considered. The most comprehensive of which I shall reduce to Seven also; tho Seventy will scarce comprehend them all, until again and again refin'd.

Rule 1. Silluk [...] concludes every Verse, and supposes every Verse concluded by it (in the Grammatical Table) to contain one entire Pro­position, if litterally the Verse do not, as Gen. 14.1. it is a Mystical Sense that makes up the Proposition [Page 24] which is not at first seen; for in that Gen. 14.1. there is a clear Type of the Four Monarchies: If there be but one Proposition in the Verse there is no place for [...] or [...] in that Verse without an Emphasis.

Rule 2. Admach [...] divides every Verse of Two Propositions (not more nor fewer) of distinct Sub­jects or Arguments, exactly in the middle, where the Matter gives most proper place, if he find not Two, he will make Two, and that will make his Emphasis appear.

Rule 3. When the Verse is of 3 Propositions in Prose, there is [...] but [...] when the Verse is of Three Propositions in Verse; and sometimes it sup­plies the place of [...] when but Two Propositions.

Rule 4th. [...] and sometimes [...] do divide the greater Members of a Proposition, as the for­mer Four did the greater or immediate Members of an Oration, viz. Proposition.

The Characters of great Members are

1. Three Words at least. 2. The Matter is the Circumstances, or Properties, or Actions of the Subject. 3. It contains a compleat Answer to some Questions about it. What? Where? When? How? Why?

In Verse [...] are Majores Domini, and have the same Office.

Rule 5. The following Domini in the Scheme, are Minores, but of different degree in separation.

1. Their place is second or third from great Dom. but the Majores are in the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th place.

2. They comprehend but Two Words.

3. The likeness, equality or dependance of these Members are indicated by the variety of these sub-distinguishers.

Rule 6. A Parenthesis is either of two Words, and then it begins with a Minor, and is conclud­ed with a Major, if it end 4 or 5 Words before a Dom. absolutum. Or 2dly, Of more Words than two, and then it begins with a Major, and is concluded as the former; for if either ends but in 2 or 3 Words before a Dom. absol. they are con­cluded by a Minor. But if a Minor, or an absolu­tum Dom. come in the room of a Major or Minor, there is an Emphasis, as the Matter will manifest. If more than a Verse, or if a whole one be a Pa­renthesis, the former Rules are sufficient.

Rule 7. There remains another Rule for Em­phasis, viz. Maccaph ( [...]) it accelerates the Word so as to make it one in Construction with the fol­lowing, and signifies Haste, for that Word has no Accent, whereas on the contrary many have Two Accents, which makes that one Word Two in con­secution, Gen. 35.22. is a most noble Instance of this kind, where there is a whole Sentence, each Word having two Constructions, and two Senses, and both pertinent and Emphatick.

This Argument is to me Demonstration, and tho treated with Variety, is omitted by none ly­ing so obvious, spun out of the very Bowels and Essentials of the Art. I thought it worth while to enquire, what had been, or could be said against it; and I found Capellus in his Vindiciis, Anno Dom. 1689, much despising and contemning of it, p. 906. cap. 17. but most weakly refuting it; tho I shall at this time shun Controversie. I cannot but give an account of this, because it strikes at the Root of my Tree.

First, Says he, Ledeburius in his Preface to [...] 1647. indirectly proves the An­tiquity of the Points, from their admirable Order that savours more of Divine Wisdom than Hu­mane Industry. It is wonderful that he should not once meddle with Wasmuth, who so fully answers all his Arguments, returns them as opposite Ar­guments on him, and falls foul upon Ledeb's Pre­face. Wasmuth was Printed 1664. 24 Years before this Vindiciae.

Secondly, He says it is a Work of Herculean La­bour, aptly to reduce these Accents, to their seve­ral Classes and Dominions, but of very little Use.

Resp. That shall be seen in the Chapter, Of the Ʋses of the Accents.

Thirdly, Four or Five of the great Points, he says, are useful, the rest are Trifles.

2. One may do better by comparing Contexts and Versions, or by prudential Conjecture, than by them Points. 3. Suppose Sense and Reason can be better made contrary to them Rules than by them; I will yield to Reason, and slight Masore­tical Authority.

Resp. It's certain all are of the same Authority and Antiquity, the fruit of the same Wisdom, and that the Momentousness of the Matter may be more Marked by a little Point, than what is mark­ed by a great one, Prov. 1.1. I would know of Ca­pellus whether Solomon or David be called there King of Israel, Gen. 11.20. If Shem or Japhet be the elder; if Habbak. 2. the just by Faith shall live, or just shall live by faith; And I would have the Reader try if by all his Critical Comments, he can suit the Point.

Resp. 2. That is the Question if the Authority be Masoretical 500 Years after Christ, or before.

Resp. 3. He cannot know nor understand the Proposition, Antecedent or Consequent without know­ledge of the Points; and can he understand the whole by unknown parts.

Resp. 4. The preferring Versions to the Ori­ginal; and Conjecture, to certain Rules, are both of a piece; I interpret French the one way, and Latine the other way, which renders me lia­ble to filthy Blunders in the one, when I am sure of the other.

Resp. 5. Suppose the Masorites the Authors; can we pretend, or he, to such Skill in the Hebrew as they had? And suppose he can make a cohe­rent Sense, Piercing contrary to the Points by his own value of the Tiberians, I ought to prefer that Sense; for Instance, Psal. 30.6. (Clop. translates it thus) Many Lives are but a Moment in Divine Wrath: In his favour weeping lodges but a Night; there is rejoicing in the Morning: Our English thus, His anger endureth but a Moment, Lives are in his favour; weeping may endure for a Night, but Joy cometh in the Morning. The Question is, which of these Senses are preferable. Clop. against the Points not allowing to an absolute Lord [...] the power of a Comma, against his constant Use, or our Translators that follow a common Rule.

I have given to this Vindiciae of Capellus but a cursory View for Three Hours time. The Gene­ral Cry of the Learned of that Opinion is, it ought to be answered, None has Answered it: My An­swer and Opinion is, It was Answered 24 Years before it was Printed, by Wasm. Vinditiae. And if he had not been conscious of Impotency, or self-condemned, [Page 28] he would never have suffered such a Famous Adversary, the greatest Master that ever wrote in this Art, to pass without one Blow, one Reflection, one Answer, once Naming. If I find one more serious Perusal, more worth in this Au­thor, it may be more easie to retract a mean Sen­timent than one honourable one, as Rivet and Spanheim, those great Names did, who once ad­mired, and after abhorred him, when they read Buxtorf's Answer; how much more would they seeing Wasmuth's?

The Fourth Argument I shall bring, is from Di­vine Testimony, to prove that in Ezra's time the Priests and Levites made use of them for Interpre­tation when they read the Law to the People, the Text is, Neh. 8.8. They read in the Book of the Law distinctly, that is, saith the Talmud in Megilla, cap. 4. with the Targum, others by Sections, and gave the sense, say they samu taghum, they put the Ac­cents to it and made them understand the Reading, viz. by them. Aben Ezra says the same in Moze­na haleskon, hakkodesh, about the time of building the Holy House the second time — The Spirit of the Lord rested upon the Men of the great Synagogue, — And they did restore the Accents, and taught their Posterity the sense of every Word, by the Means of the Accents, the Kings and Ministers; They taught their Posterity, i. e. the two kinds of Accents. Hence the usual Title given to Ezra by the Rabbies, is Ham­mappesick, Hamaphsick, that is, he who Pointed, or the Pointer. I wonder, says Aben Ezra, that any should charge the Author of the Stops and Distincti­ons with Error, since it was Ezra the Scribe.

Kimchi in Amos 1.1. expounds [...] observing the Stops and Distinctions; and Grotius on the Text [Page 29] agrees with him, rendering it distinctis vocabulis; for the Words are distinguished by them only. Most of the late Interpreters refer it to the 52 great Sections of the Law, which were like to the Gospels in the Book of Common Prayer, and gave Original to them. But I oppose it, First, Because these Sections were for Yearly Order, that all the Law might be once Read every Year on the Sab­bath, but here they read every Day, Three Hours in a Day, for at least the space of Twenty Four Days.

2. The intent was that the People might un­derstand; Now the Order of Sections did contri­bute nothing to that end, but the Order of Accents did very much. But a second Opinion refers it to the Translation in Chaldee or Syrian, the Peo­ple having forgotten the Old Hebrew in the Cap­tivity, which they confirm from Neh. 13.23, 24. Their Children spoke the Language of Ashdod, and could not speak the Jewish.

Resp. 1. Elias Levita grants it was not lost in 200 Years Captivity in Egypt, Why should we think they lost it in 70 Years? Twenty whereof was gradual. So that the Bulk were in Babylon about 50 only.

2. Daniel, with some others that were Noble, had Masters to Teach them; others had not.

3. Jeremiah and Ezekiel the Prophets in that Captivity, wrote, taught and conversed in the Jewish Language. Jer. 10.11.29.50, 51. Ezek. 14.33. & 20. And what Daniel wrote in Chaldee con­cerned the Empire; the rest is Hebrew, even his Prayer.

4. They lived by themselves, Ezek. 11. using their own Customs, keeping their own Genealo­gies, [Page 30] not mixing with the People of the Land, Ezra cap. 2.8. & 9. The Marriages complained of Neh. 13. were not Mixtures with Chaldeans, but Moabites and Ammonites, 100 Years after there were a few of both kinds, but both rejected, Ezra 9.10. Neh. 13.3.

5. The Books wrote after the Captivity, viz. Two Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Est­her, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and some Psalms, Psal. 137.126. & 83.89. & 44. were wrote in Hebrew.

6. Ezra, cap. 5, 7. mentions the Arabian Tongue as a thing Foreign to them, both Letters and Words. As to the Samaritan Character, it is not my business; for it is sufficient for my pur­pose that the Bible was put in the Quadrate Let­ter by the posteriour Prophets. But I desire him that believes the Change to read Wasmuth's Vin­ditiae, where he demonstrates Capellus's Chief Ar­guments to flow from his not understanding the Quotations he brings, which are directly opposite to him. I do not think that the Prophets taught the People the Art of the Points, or made use of Grammatical Arguments, as Jac. Alting in his Dissertations says the Talmuds and Rabbin, whom he quotes, do understand the meaning of it to tend. But that one read [...] Lev. 24.12. Num. 15.34. that the Mind of the Lord might be di­stinctly understood, not through prudential con­clusion, but distinct Revelation in opposition to Traditions beginning to come in Value, which in Christ's time overflowed the Nation. And put the sense this was the Interpreter's Work, there were several in the Pulpit, says Maimonides, in Ihlcoth, Tephilla. From the days of Ezra it was a [Page 31] Custom that there be an Interppreter by the Rea­der to give the Sense to the People. Now I as­sert so far with the Jews, That it was by help of these Points they did interpret; for what follows Junius very well expounds thus, And made them under­stand by the Scripture it self [...] Mikra is the usual Title for the Scripture, therefore they con­tained a Key within themselves. Their Tongue began not to be corrupted until about the end of the Grecian Monarchy.

Argument 5. Is from heaps of Humane Testi­monies, from all the Ancient Writings of the Jews, Zohar and Bohaz, the Talmud and Maso­ra; not that I pretend to be a Rabbi, but what I have collected in Quotations for other purpo­ses by other Authors. For Instance, Majus Gewss. in his Dissertation on Deut. 6.4. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord But nearer the Original in Words thus, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord one; or, Hear O Israel, Jehovah, our Adori, or [...] Jehova One; R. Simeon Bar Jochas, Author of the most Ancient Book Sohar, viz. in Adrian's Time, about 100 Years after Christ (says Majus) he observed the Stop made by the Accents between Jehovah and One, when he renders it thus, The Lord our God, the Lord; they are One; for Pesik with Merca or Munah, makes a Dominum. Nay he adds (Sohar I mean) sol. 72. These Three are one; that John Ep. 1. cap. 5. v. 7. seems to Quote this Text; These Three are One. And he adds, weigh this great Mystery of Faith, penetrate into this Secret, if thou study not this, it were better thou had never been. Hear O Is­rael, that they Jehova, our adorable One, Jehova, they are in one Ʋnity; and confirm it from Deut. 4. [Page 32] 35. [...] The Lord he is the God; Or, He is these Adori's; and v. 37. They are ex­pressed, He brought them out in his Sight by his mighty power. Power is an usual Epithet for the Spirit of God; and [...] that is translated Sight, is the usual Title of the Messiah in Deut. 8. its said My Presence shall go with you. In Isaiah its called The Angel of his Presence. And among all the Titles, given to Modes, Properties or Degrees, in the Divine Essence, among the Rabbies, viz. Havajeth, Dargin, Middeth, Parzuphin; this Phanim, this great [...] is the most Sacred.

Aben Ezra says on this Text the Principal or Antecedent to which [...] is referred, is our God. And on that Text Zech. 14.9. On that day the Lord shall be one, and his Name One, says he, One is to be referred to King, not Lord; for a Proper Name cannot admit of a Numeral without Aequivoca­tion; We say not, one Thomas or John. This Text is quoted, Marc. 12.29. [...], viz. [...] understood. I hope the Reader will distinguish between the in­tent of the Author, to prove a Trinity out of this Text, and the intent I bring it for, viz. to prove the Author of Zohar expounded the Scripture by these Points.

Again, On Dan. 12.3. They that be wise shall shine; the wise, says he, are the Letters of the Law, and the Luster are the Points; like the Soul in the Body; for the Accents of the Law are like a Crown over the Head of the Letters. Hence Ar­cuvolti says, Surely what is wrote in the Book of Zohar, about the Points, was hid from Elias Lev. for he says in Mas. Hammas. If any could convince me, that my Opinion was contrary to the Sentence of the Rabbi's, or [Page 33] the Truth of the Cabbala, that is in the Book Zohar, my Opinion should go for nothing. Let us to him add Bohar, Cotemporary with Jonathan the Para­phrast 40 Years before Christ, on Gen. 18.3. The Points are to the Letters what the Soul is to the Body.

But what Answers the Antagon to such Autho­rity, Alas, says Bishop Walton, If the Authority of those Books, were as great as is pretended, our Cause were utterly lost. Therefore, says Capellus on the An­tiquity of the Points, The Jews are not to be credited in this Affair; or if they were, who can tell but these Testimonies about the Points are foisted in? But when Buxtorf has taken him to Task about the Matter contained in the Book, which contributes much to the probability of such things; he makes a most Noble Defence, Its no wonder that I cannot expound such a Book rightly, who never had a Hebrew Master; says he, I wonder that he found not more faults, in my Translating him, than he has.

Resp. Are not 10 or 11 in a Page, or Two enough; Is a Man obliged to Print all the Faults he finds? But they have another Refuge, which makes to my purpose, viz. That the Rabbies meant the Accentual Points, not the Vowels; and that's all I contend for.

Let us next come to the Authors of the Ma­sora, and they tell us, That on Exod. 32.6. [...] is never again found with Segol and Silluk: On Josh. 6.14. [...] is never found more with Sakeph katon, and Kametz. Here it cannot, nor is not denied, That the Points were before the Maso­rites. And therefore a Dispute arises about seve­ral Kinds. The Tiberians, Anno 500, and Ben [Page 34] Asher, and Naphtali Anno 1000, they were made by the first, and observed by the next. Cap. Vind.

Resp. We may as well observe all various Lecti­ons as Masoretic Observations. For, the former was the business of B. Asher and Naphtali. Therefore according to the Jews, The Men of the Great Synagogue were the First, and the Tiberians the last of the Masorites. The Work of B. Asher, and B. Naphtali is called [...] the diffe­rent Readings, Viz. between the Eastern and We­stern Books.

The Masoretic Notes are Signs of Fact and Cu­stom, not Faults and Defects; but that is the late Fault or Fraud, says Amama, that all the Waves of the Sea cannot wash off, viz. That the Bib. Regia, and Corn. a Lap. should put Gen. 3.15. [...] and [...] among the Masora's Marks; as if the Margin were he, and Text she, to Found the Wor­ship of the Virgin upon.

Lastly, In Menasses Ben Israel's Bible, there is observed by Pfeiffer, 27 places, viz. Ruth 3.5.17. Lam. 1.18. & 2, 2. & 5.3. Jude 20.13. &c. Where the Vowels are put without the Consonants in the Text, and are the Object of the Masoretic Ob­servation.

The Third Rank of Authorities, should be Tal­mudical; Authors that lived before the Sixth Cen­tury, and therefore before the Tiberian Masorite; the Jerusalem is thought commonly to be compos'd Ann Christi 230. by R. Jochanan; the whole of both compleated before Anno Christi 500. And yet both often quote the Masorites. Hieros. Me­gill. C. 4. Bab. Gr. Nodarim c. 4. 37. f. Megilla, c. 1. f. 3. and Kidduschim, c. 1. fol. 30. Therefore the former Masorites were before the Talmudists.

The next thing is, What they say for this pur­pose?

Resp. They say, on Deut. 11.12. You must not read [...] with (′) for what? but with (′ ″) One Hundred, Now O Israel, What doth the Lord thy God require of thee? They answer Cabbalistically, One Hundred Prayers. Now it is a common Phrase with them, You must not read thus, but thus: Not that they thought the Original Text was corrupt­ed, or changed. For I both read, and hear from Learned Men, that not one Quotation in all the Talmud, differs from our Hebrew Bible; but they mean thus, That you may make some Spiritual Allegory. However it shews this, That the Points were in their Day. And Wasmuth. p. 170. adds to the Talmuds Comment on Neh. 8.8. the Glos­sers or Interpreters of the Talmud, R. Sol. R. Be­chai, and R. Assarius in Meor Enajim, asserting, That the Intention of their Text was, about the Figures of the Accents themselves, and not the Sound only: And for this quotes the Talmud Be­rach, fol. 62. wherefore they use not to wipe any Dust from off the Book of the Law, with the Right Hand, but the Left. Why? R. R. Nachm. because with the Right Hand the Accent of the Law is shewn, [...]; hence its plain, it was an ac­cent that both Finger and Eye was employed about; But there is no need of sounding an accent, he will have a great Gift of sounding who varys with the accents.

To make this Argument the more binding, I will follow, Cap. Vind. 842. who pretends to loose all its Joints with great Ease.

1. Says he, ‘I value not the Authority of Epho­deus, Azarius, Joseph, Medico or Cosri, they are [Page 36] too late to have Weight; and too partial, being zealous Defenders of the Points of Antiquity.’

Resp. The First was 1390, the Second 1570, the Author of Cozri is about the Eleventh Cen­tury that is turn'd into Hebrew, then Contempo­rary with Aben Ezra. If this Authority be of no value, far less then is single Elias Levita's, who lived since 1570, the Acquaintance of our late Reformers, Fagius and Munster.

2. He saith, ‘Doth not He know? That the Additions to the Talmud are later than it, Let him look his Fathers Libl. Rahb. on the Word [...].’

Resp. I wish the Reader may (for I hope it will make him) conclude, the action more become a Capellum, than Ovem; to stink more of the Goat, than savour of the Sheep; He dares not say these Quotations are out of the super-added and later Tosiphots.

3. His Refuge is, ‘That the Talmud mentioning [...] so frequently means the sound, that is the accent in Voice, not Figure or Writing.’

And thus he grants the accents to be meant in Neh. 8 8. which is to me great satisfaction; for I never dreamt what he denies, viz. That the Le­vites did not take a Pen in their Hands, and write them down; and this Distinction is his last Retreat, and Castle of Security; where he says, being the Defender, Denying only is his part, he is not obli­ged to shew probability of Reason for it. But be­cause the last Instance was so urgent, he further adds, That the Motion with the Hand was to teach them Musick by the Accents; an Art he denies they serve for elsewheee.

Resp. My business is to look for Credibility not Subtilty; for upon his two foundations, 1. Di­stinction between Sound and Figure. 2 By deny­ing to be judged by the Authority of any Gram­marian, since the 1000 Year of Christ, as to the signification of Words. I durst venture to de­fend, The Talmud never mentioned nor owned any Consonants to exist before them, there was only the sound of them; The vowels and accents were in Writing and Figure, and by Custom they knew what consonants were to be added; And I will add this shew of Reason, There are many Points yet standing as Monuments of the Ancient Custom, without the consonants; these are in the Margin only, as formerly all were. Therefore I will leave him and turn to my Collections. In Lib. Nedarim, R. Juchan is introduced saying, It is law­ful to take a reward for the pauses or the accents. i. e. for teaching them. And Mur Zutra is record­ed, deciding the Controversies of the Law by these accents. And R. Ihuda in the Mischna says, Its not lawful for us to make any distinctions in the Verses, which Moses has not made. And Zohar to the like purpose' If all the Prophets were equal to Moses, they had no power, neither to alter Letter nor Point of the Law. Observe further, Many Copies of the Misna are Poinetd both with vowels and accents.

I shall conclude this Branch from the Talmud, with a Story out of Raban, who says, In his time, (i. e. Anno Dom. 1000.) There was a great Book of punctation in their Library, which had been wrote by Raffe Asc or Ashe in Babylon, about Anno Christi 360. This was the First Author of the Babylo­nian Talmud, and therefore no late additament. [Page 38] The Book might have been of more Use to us than all their Talmud. And shall conclude the whole Argument with some Observations on Aben Ezra and Jerom, Two Authors that the two contend­ing Parties contend for.

As to the first, I find Capellus is content to di­vide him, and allow that he contradicts himself, and therefore of no value; as the Woman was that wanted Motherly Affection, she was willing that the live one should be divided, tho it died for the Quarrel. But to save him alive, I will pro­duce one clear and plain Proof of his Opinion in this Case, which is neither used by Buxtorf nor Wasmuth on Exod. 18.3. The Name of Messias, Jer. 33.23. comprehends all that, The Lord our Righte­ousness. That excellent Doctor says Aben Ezra says, ‘That the Name Jehova is the Name of him that Names the Messias, so that the Name of the Messias is only Our Righteousness. Thus the Name by which Jehova shall call Messias, is our Righteous­ness.’

But this Interpretation adds he, arises from an Er­ror about the accent Tirha or Tiphcha, which is un­der the Word (he shall call) and not upon the Word Jehova. It is worth observing, that [...] is none of the great Lords that Capellus grants to be of use, but a little Lord, on which he builds a weighty Argu­ment in a Momentous Matter, Whether Messias is truly Jehova or not?

2. I shall observe upon what Quotations they Dispute, viz. if from Neh. 8.8. Aben Ezra be­lieves that Ezra was the Author of the Accents, whom he mentions alone, and asserts, he could not Err.

Capellus first grants, that Ezra taught the same Reading of the Sacred Book by the Accents, which we have now from the Tiberians; and that Educa­tion and Tradition, preserved it between them, for that 1000 Years. Walton thinking that incre­dible, yields they might be written in some other Book, and added to the Bible by the Tyberians.

(2.) He proposes the Question thus, Whether Ezra actually wrote those Points or little Notes? Or, Whether he was so morose, and scrupulous, in the least punctilio's that we now receive in our Bible? Now, saith he, We deny that that can be proved, tho Aben Ezra seems to assert it. But why, saith he, is Aben Ezra to be believ'd more than the rest of the Rab­binical Jews? So that if we can prove never so much out of Aben Ezra, we are like to gain little ground on Capellus. And yet in Aben Ezra's Di­stinction of the former and later Masorites, or Poin­ters, he still endeavours to defend his own ground. Aben Ezra says, That the Pointers put Scheva un­der Tau, in the Word Ghashit, lest it should be confounded with the Masculine Form. But why? says he, He answers, It's the Custom of the Wise Men of Tiberias, who did this lest any should think the Pointer had forgot to point the Letter Tau, or be doubtful how it should be read: This Capellus would make it an indetermined thing by these Words, whether this Pointer was before, or cotemporary with the Tiberians. Tho' this Pointer is some famous, single Person, to whom this Work is ascribed, and the Jews commonly ascribe it to Ezra. (2.) Tho he and his Work is an Object about which the Tiberian Masorites do converse, and therefore must be before.

The Second Author contended about, is Hiero­nimus, the Father who after Origen gave most [Page 40] pains in the Hebrew; and therefore if the Points and Accents were in his day, he would certainly have made some mention of them in his Works; But his silence (saith Walton) makes it clearer than the light, that there was neither Points nor Accepts in his Age.

Resp. This Argument would prove that the Points were not invented by the Masorites; for neither Jewish nor Christian Historian has recorded it, then, or since, for 1400 Years.

But 2dly, The thing seems really false, since Hierome so often blames the Lxx as corrupt, and prefers the Hebrew Truth as he calls it. In Gen. 19.33. he says [...] is irregularly pointed: Jer. 3.4. both the accents and syllables of the Hebrew Text are repugnant to the Lxx. In Psalm 90.8. it is to be read Gholaumenu, our negligence, according to the Hebrew, but the Lxx has render'd it (our Ages) as if it had been Gholamenu, Gen. 47. last Verse, it is not in the Hebrew Mittah a Scepter, but Mattah, a Bed. On Eccles 12. in the beginning of Jeremy, says he, if you change the Points, of [...] (″ ′) it signifies a Nut; but change [...] sig­nifies Watching. Lyranus who lived in the 1300 Century, and wrote a most large Gloss on the Bible, was perswaded that Jerom's Latine Transla­tion was after the punctuation of the Hebrew Bible, because he corrects both the Lxx and the Chaldee Paraphrases by the Points of the Hebrew. But let us try what Influence it has on Capellus. He hath indeed a very subtile Refuge, but brings no rea­son for its Credibility. He says, That Origen in his Octupla, put the Hebrew Bible in Greek Letters, and expressed the Hebrew Sound in Greek Vowels; and from that Hierom corrected the Lxx. and [Page 41] Chaldee. This, he says, was that Hebrew Verity he saw the vowels and accents in. It is not to be ex­pected of him, that he should give some Reasons for this; to deny is his part, it's ours to prove it. But with his favour, he puts us now to prove a Negative. However, It is my Opinion, Capellus is in the wrong, because he shifts his Refuge.

1. It was the Hebrew the Lxx used, he corrects 'em by. 2. He grants then that Origen no Jew, who lived in the Third Century, was able, and actu­ally did, point the Bible truly. His Invention of Greek Vowels, was as good as Points; Why should they rob Origen of his Glory?

3. Tom. 2. p. 198. Rufinus, Origen's Friend and Interpreter, thus cavils at Hierom Ps. 2. in the Vulgar, it is Embrace Discipline. In the Hebrew, [...] in my Comment, I turned it, Adore ye the Son, but in my Translation, Worship in purity.

Hierom Resp. I teach the Latines what I learned of the Hebrews; and how profitable is it to tread on the Threshold of our Masters; to learn from Artists, and know the plenty of ambiguity in their Words? Ergo, not from Origen.

4. Ibidem, p. 209, &c. My Interpretation is call­ed (says he) a reprehension of the Lxx.

Resp. What then, there are Three of them, says he, Hesychius's for Egypt; Lucian's for Constantinople and Antioch. Origen's for Palestine. 2. There are three more beside them, says he, Aquila's, Symmachus's, and Theodotion's. Now, says he, He that hath them all, and wants the Hebrew, is the more in the Wood, and at the more cost for it, for these were Judaizing Hereticks.

He adds, That the Apostles, Evangelists, Christ himself, when they quote the Old Testament, they use [Page 42] the Hebrew, ex. gr. John 7. He that believes in me, as the Scripture hath said, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living Water. And Mat. 27. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. These are not so in the Lxx. Now this cannot be Origen's, for 1. Would Rufinus have blamed him for following his Patron Origen? Or 2. In his endeavouring to reproach him for Ori­genisme, would he not have used that Argument? But 3dly, It is the same Hebrew Truth he follows that Christ and his Disciples followed, not Origen's.

5. Tomb. p. 208. I have found the place he builds on. ‘If we err in an accent, or the length of a vowel, or in the aspiration of Letters, The Jews mock our Ignorance; thence we have ta­ken care to mend all the Books of the Old Testa­ment, which that Learned Origen digested into Examples, wherein the Hebrew Words are de­scribed in their own proper Characters; and again expressed in Greek Letters, in the next Column. Also Aquila and Symmachus, the Lxx, and The­odosius possess their Ranks; these described out of the Cesarian Library we have mended from the Authentick Originals. These that Immortal Wit has given to us: Through his Labour it is that we need not fear the Jews superciliousness in their loose Lips, their distorted Tongue, their hissing Spittle, and their rough Throats, wherein they glory, because we cannot imitate them. They have 3 S's, we but one; They have 4 H's, we but one; therefore it is no wonder, that so different Languages do not entirely harmonize in Pronunciation.’

I do observe here a very considerable Proof, both from Origen and Jerome, that the Vowels and Accents were not only existent in the Hebrew [Page 43] Tongue before the Fifth, or Fourth Century ei­ther; but were imitated in other Tongues. (2.) That Hierom expresses more difficulty in conform­ing the Consonants to one another, than the Vowels. It's true, he says elsewhere, That the Hebrew hath no vowels, viz. Tom Quarto, but he gives the rea­son, because they express their Vowels and Points as the Ethiopians do Virgulis Literis affixis. I find yet nothing to prove, that Hierom made use of that in his Translations, or Comments. But on the contrary, That he made use of the Hebrew. For he expresses himself thus in Words, Why may not I make the Hebrew speak Latine, as well as the Lxx, and Origen made it speak Greek. He only uses Origen's in answering the Jews Mockery; he appeals to themselves, if he had not as truly ex­pressed their Words in another Tongue as they themselves could. But this fact of Origen's being so evident, is to me a most powerful Proof, that the Points were known in the Second Century; in that he could so exactly turn them into Greek, as to stand the Challenge of the Jews. And that this Fact is true, Capellus confesses, Hierom testi­fies so, Epiphan. p. 534. he composed the Hebrew Scripture in Hebrew Characters, in one Column, but in Greek Elements in the other, for the sake of them who know not the Hebrew Elements. So in these Octupla's there are Two Hebrew Columns, and 6 Greek which Wetstene in his Notes on Origen ad Africanum, orders thus, 1 Hebrea Hebreis. 2. Hebraea Graecis. 3. Aquilae. 4. Symmachi. 5. Lxxij. 6. Theodotion. 7. Quinta. 8. Sexta. Weems, Ʋsher, Huetius, Va­lesius have all wrote on this Subject.

The Sixth Argument, is from the Absurdity that would follow this Opinion, For if either the [Page 44] Hebrew Words wanted Vowels, or the Verse [...] accents, the Old Testament would be a Book full of Aequivocations and Uncertainties, like unto the Diabolical Predictions. Aio te Aeucidi Romanos vincere posse. Ibid. Ibis redibis, nunquam per bella peribis. It were to think of God, most unbe­coming his Goodness, to discover his Mind, or pretend to do it, in a concern of the whole Earth's Government, Souls Eternal Welfare, our Devoti­on to God, our Duty to Man, in Oracles of Uncer­tainty. And that this would be the consequence, I shall first shew in Words. These Three Con­sonants [...] are liable, at least, to Eight several Significations, according as you Point them. 1. A Word ″; a Saying ″; Say thou ″ ′; Saying [...]; He said ∴; To say [...]; Say thou [...]; saying [...]; So [...] signifies the Moon, a Brick or Pavement, Incence, the Poplar Tree; [...] Days or Years, Mules, Seas, &c.

2. In Sentences or Verses, Psal. 110. He shall drink of the Brook in the way. Most of the Tran­slations leave it undetermined, whether Brook be joined with way, or drinking, as the Vulgar Latin, Munst. Vatab. Castal Pagn. Trem. and Junius, French and English. Commentators are exercised in finding out what Brook this was in Christ's way; if Kidron, or if spiritually his sufferings, or his consolations. But the Points determine [...] out of the Brook in the way he shall drink. So that it connotes not the place of the Brook, but the time of his drinking, when in via ad Regnum, the time of his Humiliation, v. 3. Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy Power, in the beauties of Holiness, from the Womb of the Morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth. Margin. More than the Womb of the [Page 45] Morning thou shalt have the dew of thy Youth. I might reckon up Twelve Translations divided, as the Text and Margin are, some neglecting [...] upon power, others [...] upon Morning, and all distracted about what sense to make of the Verse; for there are Three Propositions thus, Thy People shall be willing in the day of thy power; Thy People shall be in the beauty of Holiness, from the Womb of the Morn­ing (i. e. early in the Temple) thou shalt have the Dew of thy Youth.

Psal. 49.15. Like Sheep are they laid in the Grave, Death shall feed on them; and the Ʋpright shall have Dominion over them in the Morning, viz. of the Re­surrection. Then shall their Rock come to destroy Death. He shall come from his Habitation, viz. the Hea­vens. The Reason Varenius in his Triumph. Dav. differs thus from all other Versions, is because they neglect the Accents, which makes three Pro­positions. [...] after they shall feed on them; and [...] on Death or Grave, which is a Substitute, for [...] which is too great a Lord for the Distinction our English makes, their beauty shall consume in their Grave from their dwelling, the least of Dominus may serve that Comma.

Psal. 10.15. Break thou the arm of the wicked man, and the evil: seek out his wickedness till thou find none. Here's an intolerable disorder, and by it a different sense from the Truth. For there is an [...] under wicked man, a colon between it and the evil; and then there is [...] too upon evil, to divide it from what follows, and so supposes something under­stood. Therefore is to be turned thus, Break thou the arm of the wicked; and then as to the evil man, if thou seek for his Iniquity thou shalt not find it. Or, as before David confesses, so long as they have [Page 46] means to pursue wickedness with, they will never leave it.

Psal. 106. There is a [...] neglected on Generation, thus; He hath said in his heart, I shall never be mov­ed: from Generation to Generation, I shall never be moved; for I shall never be in adversity.

Thus have I made choice of giving Instances of what is otherwise than it should be, by neglect of the accents, rather than what must be; for I could change every Verse into a quite contrary Sense^*.

Neither Capellus nor Bp. Walton deny this, The occasion of difference in Versions, was from the want of Points. Some read it thus, and some thus, and some thus, and therefore the Masorites Service (say they) is great. And why should we think other­wise of the Hebrew than of other Languages? Who could make a determinate Sense of one Chapter of the English Bible, and take the Vowels and Stops away? Who could say that or were care, or cure, or cur, or cry, or crow, or acre? But God hath said, Prov. 8.8. That all the words of his mouth are right; there is nothing in them liable to be di­storted or depraved [...] they are a Light and a Lamp.

This Topick produceth another Medium, and will bring the contrary Opinion under another Absurdity, viz. If the accents and vowels, on which the Soul and Sense of this Book depends, is from the Masorites, who were Men, Men void of the Spirit of God, the Sense of the Scrip­ture is but Humane. And it seems more absurd to go to Tiberias for the Sense of Scriptures than [Page 47] to go to Rome. The Answer I find to this in the Vind. of Capellus is, That tho the Points are a great help, yet its not impossible to read and understand without them. There are indeed some places we cannot fully understand now, and these had been more in number if we wanted the Points: But among the Jews, when it was their Native Lan­guage, Education supplied it. ‘As to the Maso­rites Sense given by the Points, its Divine, because gathered out of the context; they impose not their Authority on us, but perswade us by the Light of compared Scripture; and where that is not clear enough to us, we may leave them, and take another Sense: And indeed comparing of what goes before, and what follows, is the grand Medium of Solution insisted on, and the grand Mean of Interpretation proposed.’

In Answer to him, I do grant it a very great Mean, but its a Mean that supposes,

1. [...] the signification of the Words, and this requires the vowel points.

2. [...] Construction, what Words are constru­ed together, and what not; and by what Con­struction or Opposition; one can neither understand the Sentence before or after, without these. And this latter he cannot understand without the accen­tual.

3. [...] The peculiar Stile of the Tongue, its Idiotism and Emphasis; and the accentual subserves that too. Take a Chapter in the Bible, write no­thing but the Consonants in it, and shew it to a Scholar, and I believe you will make him work be­fore he can bring you the sence of it. The Fal­lacy of the Answer consists in this, viz. It is a truth that this Comparison [...] this [...] is [Page 48] the grand Mean of Interpretation; but you can make no use of this Mean without the accents. Every Context hath Three Texts, every Compari­son at least Two Judgments: And the Accents are necessary for each of these parts; he supposes a knowledge of the whole, without the knowledge of the parts. Can an English Reader understand a Greek or Latin Text by the Context? Ex. Gr. Gen. 1.6, 7. is my Text, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the Waters, and let it divide the Wa­ters from the Waters. The difficulty is what the Waters above the Firmament are? Whether the Waterish Mist in the Clouds, or some Body of Waters above the Starry Firmament? To solve this let us consult the Context; and I find, v. 8. That this Firmament is Heaven, the Clouds are not. 2. v. 14. The Stars are placed in the Fir­mamental Heaven. 3. Cap. 2, 6. The Cloudy Rain, belongs to the Waters under the Firmament, as their proper place. And further they receive such an alteration by that distillation, that they change their Name. The Context then determines that these Waters are above Sun, Moon and Stars. But then you must understand, v. 8.14. & 2.6. And they are not a whit easier than v. 6, 7. and contain as great Difficulties, viz. Whether Firma­mental Heaven, v. 14. be not liable to several ac­ceptations, for v. 2 [...]. the Firmamental Heaven is the Fowls Habitation, or proper place. So we must go to the Context with this.

But now I shall shew thee how the Accents solves all. In v. 1. God divides the whole System of Creation in Earth and Heavens. v. 2. the [...] on Earth, before was, and as to the Earth it was, shews that Moses's intent is only to discourse on the Earth, [Page 49] how it was brought to perfection through several steps and degrees; the Heavens were not Man's Possession nor Habitation. Therefore not his con­cern in his created State. It had been to stuff his Head with Curiosity, to give him the Knowledge of other Globes, that is capable of knowing so little of his own. And therefore we read no more of that Heaven in this Chapter. But the place of Air and Stars, bearing that Name in Israel, Moses must be subject to what vis & norma loquendi con­sists in, and therefore calls that place Heaven. But adds a distinctive Term [...] the Firmament, to prevent Equivocation. And Moses would not use an equivocal Word, when the intent was to prevent it. And therefore we may either say, that v. 20. is to be read thus, Above the Earth to­wards the open firmament of Heaven: Or, That Fir­mamental Heaven signifies all between the Earth, and the proper Heavens mentioned, v. 1. or at least to the Waters under them.

Thus we see, passing by the necessity of the ac­cents, that is requisite to explain each of these Ver­ses. I have but pointed at one that is like a Candle, giving light to the whole Context, the whole Chapter, and yet this is but a little one in his Office and Dignity, as well as Bulk; but his use is there, to limit the subject of the Discourse, to a particular part of what he had spoken of be­fore.

Argument 7. For the sacredness of the Num­ber I will conclude with this, but it shall be a sa­cred Argument on a better Account, i. e. for the Mediums sake, viz. The sense of that Promise of Christ, Mat. 5.18. Till Heaven or Earth pass; one [Page 50] Iota, or one Tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law And here I will freely acknowledge, that man consonants or vowels, or words might perish, with out the impeaching of Christ's Fidelity. The expression seems to be Proverbial, and the Sence, the preservation of Divine Oracles, as to their Matter or Sence, and therefore if these [...] which the Jews call [...] &c. be understood in the Letter, the accents seem to be Christ's intent, being preservers of the Sence of the Law. There are Horns for flourish or superstition, set upon the Consonants by the Jews, if so old as Christ's time is very doubtful, but that Christ should mean them is incredible.

Thus stand these Horns:

And therefore I think the care of preserving the Scripture entire, has been a special Favour of Di­vine Providence. But that care, 1. Has not been exerted without Hu­mane Means. 2. Not Su­perstitiously, as the Jews do, who are so zealous for a Letter, where Sense is not concerned.

As to the first, Men were the Penmen, and it was wrote in a Method customary to Men, Isa. 8.1. [...] written it with a Man's Pen, that

• [...] Gimel
• [...] Zajin
• [...] Teth
• [...] Caph
• [...] Nun
• [...] Hajin
• [...] Tzadi
• [...] Schin

[Page 51] is, say the Jews, according to the Custom and Manner of Writing among Men, as legible, as in­telligible, as what is suited to their common con­verse: But still the Spirit of God took the over­ruling Conduct of these Men, admitted to be Ama­nuenses; For Holy Men of God spake as they were mo­ved by the Holy Ghost. And all Scripture (the Che­tubim, as well as the Law and Prophets) was [...].

2. As to the preserving of the Scripture, it is enjoyned to Man, committed to the Priests and Levites, Deut. 31.2.4. When Moses had made an end of Writing the Words of this Law, in a Book, until they were finished. Where on the by, its to be observed, That the Pentateuch, or whole Book of the Law, from beginning to end (ex­cepting the last Chapter) was writ by Moses him­self. For it is twice in this Verse Emphatically Asserted. First in the same Phrase that God As­serts the Finishing of the Creation, viz. Chekaloth. And, Secondly, in a more Emphatick Ghalsepher Ghadtomim, until the compleat Perfection of the Book. Ver. 25. Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, saying; Take this Book of the Law, and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God, &c. As Moses was the Writer of the Law, and wrote all the Words of it, and consequently left none to Tradition. So the Custody of the Law is com­mitted to the Levites, as the Persons immediately concerned: And this Office continued with them while they were a Church. Rom. 3.2. Ʋnto them were committed the Oracles of God. Now indeed the Keepers are changed, the Christian Church, the House of the Living God, is the Pillar and Ground [Page 52] of the Truth; and especially the Levites, as in the Old. Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy Trust. Malachi 2.7. The Lips of the Priests are to be the keepers of Knowledge. The People must ask the Law at their Months, as Angels of the Lord of Hosts. The Ark in the Tabernacle and Temple, was the Re­pository, but the Bearers of the Ark were the Per­sons intrusted. Ver. 9. Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it to the Priests, the Sons of Levi, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord. And to show their Fidelity once in Seven Years, viz. On the Feast of Tabernacles, they were to read that individu­al Law, before all Israel. Some think no Levites but they that were Priests, were entrusted with this.

The Second Thing to be spoken to, is the place where it was kept. Moses expresseth it thus: B. Azad Aaron, in the side of the Ark; but (נ) sig­nifies rather from, or by, the difficulty is whether it was in the Ark, or in some Box besides the Ark. My Opinion is with the latter. For,

First, Sam. 6.8. The same Expression is used of the Philistines Presents.

Secondly, 1 Kings 8.9. 2. Chron. 5.10. There is nothing found to be in the Ark, but the Two Tables of Stone.

Thirdly, Both Jonathan the Paraphrast, and the Talmud, mention a little Chest at the side of the Ark, wherein Moses put the Book of the Law.

Fourthly, The Manna, and Aaron's Rod, was on­ly put by the Ark.

Fifthly, The Ark was now covered with the Propitiatory.

Sixthly, None but the High Priest, once a Year, durst go in where the Ark was; but the Holy of Holies was a place sure enough, and Sacred enough for this end. Books that were not put in here, were called Apocryphal, that is, not put into the hidden, or secret place, as Epiphan. in the Book De Ponderibus, saith of the Book of Wisdom, and Son of Syrach, they were profitable Books, but not Ca­nonical: [...], they were not put, that is saith Scaliger on Euseb. [...], in the Ark of the Testament. Afterwards, when Prophetical Books were Wrote, they were likewise laid up here. 1 Sam. 10.25. When Samuel had told the People, the manner of the Kingdom, he wrote it in a Book, and laid it up before the Lord. And the same is the Sense of Josh. 24.26. Jonathan, the Para­phrast, being Interpreter. There is a Noble Te­stimony to Divine Providence, preventing Hu­mane Miscarriages, or repairing them. A failure on the one side we find in 2 Chron. 34.14. Hil­kiah the Priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord, wrote by the Hand of Moses. And a special care on the other. Isa. 34.16. Seek you out of the Book of the Law of the Lord, and read one of these, viz. Pro­phesies shall not fail, neither one or other shall be want­ing, for my Mouth it self has commanded it (may be Christ) and his Spirit hath gathered them. Our Tran­slation refers it to the Fowls, which guides, or misguides into other Significations of the Words. But the Subject is Divine Threatnings and Prophe­cies, whereof not one Word should fail, much less a Word of Precepts and Promises, not one Iota, nor Tittle of Sense, the Spirit that endited them, in­spired and collected them, will preserve them.

The Second Proposition is, That there has been some Change, if not of Consonants, at least of vow­els in the Bible, viz. Sometime the quiescent Let­ters [...] have been used as vowels in the Bible, א for a and e; ן for o and u; ן for i. I did drink in this very early, for Letters were never invented to be quiescent; they once served for Expression and Sound, therefore there is a Change in the Tongue. It is so in the English and French, in the Word though (ugh) are now quiescent, but they were not so Fifty Years ago; nor are not yet in the Northern Countries, where they make a deep Guttural Expression.

2. There are many Relicts yet not removed, like the Standards in a Field or Cops. For Instance, that famous crux Criticorum, Psalm 22.16. Dogs have compassed me [...] a very Emphatick punctuation, for [...] instead of [...] the Jews, the Roman Soldiers, Herod's Courtiers, with cursings and scoffs, beatings and spittings, like bark­ings and bitings did surround me. The assembly of the wicked have enclosed me [...] The Sanedrim o [...] Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, it may be read, pierced, rather than enclosed, from [...] not [...] Isa. 3.24. in place of a Girdle, a Rent, & 29.1. the same with [...] Zach. 12.10. they shall look upon him whom they have pierced, viz. with the Spear. Here is v. 1. Christ Desertion. Verse 8, 9. the Jews Mockery. Matth 27, 3. & v. 16. his Crucifiction, with the prepara­tion to it. They pierced my hands and my feet [...] a proper Periphrasis of Crucifiction, and this is the only place where it is Prophesied: But here is a most sharp Combat between Jews and Christians the former making it Nonsence as a Lion, the latter divided, and their Disputes lengthened into Trea­tises. [Page 55] But Vitringa removes all their Doubts with this Hypothesis; first agreeing with Alt. & Pfeif, that this Word comes from an unusual Root, [...] which signifies to pierce, or make hollow, and that this is the present Participle for [...] and that for [...]. And the reason is, when they put Points in the place of these Vowels, some of the Vowels were left ex Hos. 10.14. [...] for [...] so [...] for [...] so Amos 2.7. & 8 4. [...] from [...] of old [...], so Hos. 4.6. [...] hence quiescentia ך should be called qui­escentia medio א.

The Third Proposition I shall advance on this Point, is, That this Change of vowels into points was before the Tiberian Masorites; and most pro­bably about, and in Ezra's time.

Argument 1. Capellus and Walton grant (and have reason so to do; for the Masor on Numb. 11.15. call it Tikkun Ezra) that Tikkun sopherim the Ordination of the Scribes was before the Maso­rites; i. e. cautions about 18 places, that they are not to be otherwise read than they stand; tho they might appear otherwise to the unskilful; now these are about the Points.

Argument 2. Many of their Notes seem to flow from fear of corrupting the Text, and want of Skill to correct, Ex Nu. 24.9. the spurious Ma­sora, that is late additions have [...] that caari is twice found: But the old and true says, that ca­ari occurs 4 times, twice with [...] and twice with [...] twice with [...] but in different significations, Isa. 38.13. Psal. 22.17. [...] now Isa. 38.13. sig­nifies as a Lion, Ergo, not Psal. 22.17. In the great [Page 56] Masora it is the 60 Example of two Words, twice found in different significations. Now where there is no alteration, nor corruption of Sense, cannot see any Reason why such Words might not be restored to their purity, and their general Rules, viz. that here it is [...] for [...] as [...] for [...] for [...] a Contraction, but the Mark of ם omitted as in [...] and [...] and so bring their Mysteries to irregulars, and the reason of irregularness discovered, as in the Greek it often may, [...] for [...] Masculine from another singular [...].

Argument 3. It seems certain, that by Ezra, and in his time there was a great deal of Scribe and Grammarian Work performed about the Law, Ezra 7.10. He prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and do it; and to teach in Israel Statutes and Judgments: and v. 6. he was ready, prompt and swift in this affair. This Word to do it, signifies not his personal practice, but his reforming, re­pairing, restoring or finishing and compleating it; an Emphasis frequently neglected in our English on this Word [...] When added to Creation it of­ten signifies God's restoring the World by a Work of Redemption, Gen. 2.4. Isa. 41.4. & 43.7 45.18. and it can signifie no other thing here, than restoring the Law to its primitive integrity, mending and correcting what was amiss. Talm. Bal. Sanch. c. 2. on Ezra 4, 7. altho the Law was not given by the hand of Ezra; yet it was [...] changed, repeated, or reformed by him. No doubt there was need of Scribes to seek out the Law, all the sacred Utensils, and among them the Ark, Chest and Law, being carried to Babylon, [Page 57] yet Providence might hide them there. Vespasian carried the Ark to Rome, tho others deny it to have been in the Second Temple. But so long as inspired Men and Prophets were Collectors or Correctors, the Dispersion or Correction need cre­ate no Jealousie in us.

Capellus and Buxtorf, Walton and Wasmuth grant some great Work or Change about the Scripture by Ezra. But in this they differ, the one says that the Jews changed their Native Language for the Assyrian, and put their Bible into that Lan­guage. The other says, That there were Two Copies of the Law, before Ezra's time; the one Sacred, which is the Murbhah, or Quadrate Letter; The other Vulgar, like the present Samaritan. But in Ezra's time, all their Copies were put in a Quadrate Letter; tho it is of no great Moment which of the Two Opinions is the truest as to my business; for it's a very ill consequence, the Samaritan was before the Captivity, and so cor­rupted; the Quadrate was since, and so corrected by Prophets: Ergo, The Samaritan is to be pre­ferred (being the primitive.) Yet I shall propose these Testimonies, for the latter, Rabbi Asarias in Meorenajim, says thus, In the time of the Second Temple there were two Copies of the Jewish Law, both writ: The one did consist in Assyrian Writing, and Sacred Tongue, as the Books which are true and right, which we now possess; the other here and there varying, which was common among the People wrote in Hebrew, that is the Characters used beyond the River, which are left to the Idiots, that is Cutheans or Samaritans. To the same purpose saith the Authors of Ben Is­rael. R. Gedaliah says, The Law was given in that kind of Writing which we now call Assyrian; this Fi­gure [Page 58] was always kept among the Princes of Israel; for the Vulgar used the Samaritan Hebrew; but when Ezra came, he let the People use the Figure wherein the Law was given. It's called Assyrian, because the Nobles of Israel brought it from thence with them; for they kept it there secret, because it was the Holy Scripture.

Abarbynell says, It is the Eighth Article of the Jewish Creed, to believe the Law that now is in our hands, is the same that was given in Mount Sinai, without any Change.

Ritbam says, The meaning of this Sentence in the Talm. viz. The Law was given in the days of Ezra, in the Assyrian Scripture, is, That an Edict went forth from Ezra, That all and every man should write the Book of the Law in the Assyrian Figure, and no other; That for the future, they might use that kind of Writing wherein the Tables of the Law, and Book of the Law which was in the Ark was writ. And when it is said in the Talmud, That in the beginning the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew Writing; that's only meant of Books wrote for private use. For, the God of Mercy save us from thinking the Law that was in the Ark to be of that Character.

Now it seems a very probable thing, That these quiescent Letters were the Vowels to the one, and the Points the Vowels to the other; which a fur­ther search may bring more light into. At pre­sent I shall conclude with this, That on a double account the Accentual Points have a priority to these Vowels.

1. There are some parts of the Bible yet with­out Vowel-Points, but no part without accentual.

2. That the Accentual make a Change on the vowels, but the vowels none on them.

3. The accentual goes along with both Charact­ers; but the Vowels only with the Quadrate Figure.

4. That the Anomala's and Irregularities are fewer in the Accents than either in Vowels or Consonants. And the Reason may be good, be­cause there was a change in the one, but none in the other.

CHAP. III. Of the Ʋsefulness and Necessity of this ART; abstracting from the Opinion controverted about their An­tiquity and Authority.

IT is confessed by Bishop Walton in his Prolog, tho he disputes for the Tiberians being the In­ventors of the Figures of these Points; Yet not of their Use and Value: that was before from Ezra's time, and before that too, and so Capellus and they think that either in Writing, or by faithful Tradition, it was preserved in that Inte­grity. That they deny any more to be humane, but the Figure of these Points in that Syllogisme against them (What the Masorites are Authors of is humane, but the Masorites are Authors of the sense of the Old Testament, Prob. Minor, The form of Words are their Sense; but they are Authors of the form, viz. the Points.) They distinguish and say, They are Authors of the Figure, not Sound, nor Use in Signification. The English Translators are as much Authors of the Bible Sense, by their In­vention of English Signs to Communicate the for­mer Divine Sense (before kept in Hebrew Signs) to English People. So the Tiberians Invented only these more fit Signs, for preventing Mistakes and [Page 61] Errors creeping into that Sense, which the Vocal and Traditional Signs were liable to let in: And when they are urged with the Improbability of keeping entire such a Multitude of various Sounds, Senses, and Uses for a thousand Years. They An­swer, may be though they were not Inserted in the Bible, yet they were in a Book by themselves, and then the Masorites work is only Application, the Authority of the Points is Prophetical. But to pass this by too, and not to urge Concessions at a strait, too much (though Elias Levita, the only Jew, and the first Author of Tiberian Masorits, al­ways Asserted their Divinity.) Let us suppose their most Genuine Sense, that the Masorits were ex­cellent Criticks and Grammarians; there were no Men such Masters of that Language, and by these Points they have conveyed to us the true Sense of the Old Testament in their Day, which before was kept by Tradition. And though they did not believe, nor understand the Evangelical Doctrines, or Mysteries, wrapt up in the Grammatical Sense of the Words; yet the Grammatical, or Oratorical Part of it they did well understand. As a Latinist can Construe or Pierce Euclid, and when he has done, cannot find the Sense, nor make out the Demonstration: But an English Mathematician sitting by him, and hearing the Latinist, can easi­ly, but without his help knew not a Syllable of it. The Tiberian Masorite, in this case, is the La­tinist, and the Christian the English Mathematician. But now supposing the Matters of the greatest Mo­ment and Concern, that this Christian has it kept and lock'd up in this Book; and that there is not a Book in the World beside that discovers and reveals this Matter; (there are indeed many Tran­slations, [Page 62] but through Time they are either altered, and corrupted, or the Translators were unskilful, and were more guided by these Old Translations, that very much contradicted one another, than by an exact Knowledge in the Original.) Now it this case we will suppose some Men not Infallible. But the greatest Masters of the Language in the World, when the Language began to be Cor­rupted, they put Marks of Sound, and Sense; Marks to guide in the Distinction of Equivocal Words, and Marks to guide in Syntax upon this Book. But the Natives being satisfied with this Book, as they used it before, made no great Mat­ter of it; and when they taught the Christians, they taught that part of it they used, and the other part they knew not, so much of it is lost. But a thousand Years after this the World turns Inquisitive; for during that time the whole Book, much more its Critical Art, was sunk in Oblivion; and Religion, by Church Authority comes in Fashion; until the Priests not only Imposed on their Consciences, and carved an Hell, or Heaven for them, as they thought fit; but on their Reason and Senses; they would have the Laicks live on Hay, and give to them the Meat and the Bread. This awakened the Indignation of some, the Pity of others, and Eyes of All: but by degrees they first dispute old Men's Authority with Young; the Dead with the Living; the Authority of Many and Few, Priests and Peo­ple. But this Book being providentially Alledged to favour each side, and being counted in that dark time so Sacred, it must not be touched. Ne­cessity, that made David and the Young Men, eat Shew-bread, makes People venture to open the Sacred Book; but still with Prayers to God to [Page 63] forgive, until they find therein a Command to Search. But the Priests have still the better; for on some they impose the Legends, viz. the more Ignorant (as I have seen, and have yet Living Wit­nesses to prove it, that were with me in Spain) on all, a Translation of their own making, or Cor­rection that is discovered, and the Dispute now Terminates on the Original, and on the Exercise of Criticism about the Sense. Now, I say, ab­stracting from Divine Authority and Antiquity, Is not in such a Juncture the Critical Art of so great Masters, worth the greatest Pains and Diligence of him that values this Book, either as the Food of his Soul, or Furniture of his Brain, in this Affair? So I do not impose Church Authority, but Art's Authority; we must believe every one in their own Art, until we be Masters and Judges of it, which I find Capell frequently renouncing, when Buxtorf Challenges him for wrong Translating Zohar and Maimonides. But as to this part of it which I pro­pose, neither he, nor Buxtorf, ever saw. It seems he has looked on Ledebh. but he that reads what he says, and what follows in this Book, will easily be Convinced he knew not Ledebh's Intent; for he looks on it as Madness, as a Plow-man would on Algebra.

The First Branch I think fit to Insist upon here, is the Use of the Old Testament in the Christian Religion; for if that be not very necessary, it is cer­tain its Points are not. Neither Antiquity, nor the Late Days of our Reformation, have wanted Men, who Contemned the Old Testament, though they delighted in the Name of Christian. Of this kind were the Followers of Simon Magus, the Sa­turnians, [Page 64] Marcionites, and Manichees. The most Famous of this Latter Age, were the Munster-Men, and Libertines, and Mennonites, called in Holland and Germany, by the Name of Anabaptists; though in this Point they both Hope and Believe most op­posite to them that go under that Name in En­gland. There is another pair of this kind still, and that is Men that are highly Enthusiastick; and Men that pretend to no Rule but Reason. Smal­cius the Socinian, will allow the Old Testament for Illustration and Commendation, but not for Proof; he will not admit it as a Principle of the Christian Religion, and rather give it a Practical Slight, than any Verbal Disgrace.

In Answer to all which, It is very certain they give little Credit to the New Testament, that do not think the Old its fellow, or rather Father or Foundation. For CHRIST, and his Apostles, borrowed all their Arguments for the Truth of that Doctrine which is now called Christian, out of the Old Testament, and that with such a Charge, that he rejects all from being his Disciples who did not embrace it. John 5.39. Search the Scri­ptures, for in them you think ye have Eternal Life; and they are they which testifie of me. If you believe not his Writings, How shall ye believe my Words. Luk. 24, 25. O fools, and slow of heart to believe, all the Prophets have spoken, and beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scri­ptures, the things concerning Himself. Vide Ver. 32. & 45, 46. The Old Testament was not only the Book out of which Christ Taught, and made all his Disciples; but the Book out of which the Apostles Taught Christianity: For the first Hun­dred Years after Christ it remained a Canon to all [Page 65] the Churches, the Mean of Conversion, the Com­mon Place of Arguments, and Text to all the Apostles. Acts 10.43. To him give all the Pro­phets witness, that through his Name, whosoever be­lieveth on Him, shall receive Remission of Sins. This was the Sum of Peter's Sermon, through the Mini­stery whereof the Holy Ghost fell on all the Hea­rers: So that the Ordinances that were the Mi­nistration of the Spirit, were all bottom'd on this Scripture, 2 Cor. 3. Acts 17.2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath Days Reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. So that all his Disputations were founded on the Scripture; that the Synagogue owned. And as Paul's Logick was Built on that Foundation: So was Apollo's Oratory, Acts 18.24. He was an Eloquent Man, and mighty in the Scriptures. He mightily Con­vinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures, That Jesus was the Christ. Paul Retracted nothing of this in his latter Days; for 24.14. So Worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law, and the Prophets: Therein do I exercise my self. Though he advised a Young Timothy to do so, he did not think it fit for an Old Paul to leave that Exercise, of Acts 26.22. I con­tinue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come. This he particula­rizes, 1 Cor. 15 3. Christ dyed for our Sins, accord­ing to the Scriptures; He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. There was no Article of Faith, but what was reduced to this Canon, Luke 22.29. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God. It was this Scri­pture, this Old Testament, the Apostle Peter, in his [Page 66] old Age, recommended to all Believers, as the most sure Word, 2 Pet. 1.19. As unto a Light that shineth in a dark place. Because at first, it came not by the Will of Man, but by the Holy Ghost. Neither do the dying Apostles recommend any other Scriptures to their Successors: For Paul, 2 Tim. 3.15. he advises his to continue in what things he had learned; For from a Child he had lear­ned the Holy Scriptures; which was able to make him wise unto Salvation. Neither do we find any other Book mentioned under the Name of Scripture, in all the New Testament. I do not say all this to di­minish the Apostolick Doctrine from being a Foun­dation; but that its a Foundation Built on the Prophetical, that the New Testament is a History of the Fulfilment of some of the old Prophecies, and a Prophetical Enlargement of what is not Fulfil­led. It is the Faith of the Old, suited to the Cir­cumstances of the New, after the Exhibition of the Messias. The Old Testament is the Book, and the New is the Comment: The Old Testament is the Text, the New is the Sermon; and it were a most unreasonable thing to prefer the Last to the For­mer. And though the Churches of the New Te­stament are the Pillars of the Truth, there is no History gives us account of that Accuracy, Dili­gence, and Pains or Assistance of the Holy Ghost, in Collecting, and Concluding the Canon of the New Testament, that we have of the Old.

A Second Motive that I shall use for Diligence in this Study is, That though a Man may be a good Christian (without knowledge of the Original) yet he cannot be an able Teacher, and that not only Primis labiis gustare: For he that hath only tasted [Page 67] of a thing, is far from a Sufficiency to fill his Belly, or a Plenty to Dispence to others. A Man can never be an Able Minister of the New Testa­ment, without being well skill'd in the Originals. By great Divines this is thought the Sense of Christ, Matth. 13.52. Every Scribe which is In­structed into the Kingdom of Heaven, is like to an Housholder which bringeth forth of his Treasure things new and old. The Old are ex ipso fonte, to drink the Waters of Life from the Original. The New, says Altingius, are all the Translations and Expli­cations, that as so many Rivulets have flowed from thence. The Treasure, says another, is the Ho­ly Scriptures; the Old and New are the Types and Anti-Types, the Prophecies and Fulfilments, the Promises and Experiences. But it is farther ob­servable here, That Scribe is a Title that Christ gives to New Testament Ministers, Mat. 23.34. Every Minister is to be [...], a Man of Let­ters, a Bookish Man. He is not one of Christ's Ministers, that pretends to it without Learning.

2. As he is to be a Disciple, he is supposed to have had a Master; Every Scribe who is taught, saith the Text. There was never yet a Teacher in the World, whom God sent to Preach, but he could give account who taught him. The Jews call Moses their Master: Our Lord Jesus professes, He received his Doctrine from his Father, He had given to him the Tongue of the Learned. Christ was a Man of Letters, a Learned Man: though the Authors differ, the Effects do not. How knoweth this Man Letters (say the Jews) having never Learned? The Apostle Paul enjoins Timothy, to commit what he had learned unto faithful men, who might be able to teach others.

3. There is a limitation upon this Learning, all kind of Learning will not serve turn. Learn­ing in Arts or Trade will not qualifie, Co­loss. 2.8. Philosophy nor Mathematicks: He must be taught in Things that concern the Kingdom of Heaven, John 3.31. That's the Object he must be a Skilled Man in. It is not what may fit him to be a Statesman in Athens or Rome, but an Acquain­tance with the Oeconomy and State of Heaven.

4. He must be a Faithful Steward, or Dispenser, of what Knowledge he receives: He is now sup­posed to have the Key of Knowledge at his Girdle, by which he can Unlock all the Treasuries of Du­ties, Cases, Promises, Threatnings, Laws and In­stitutions of the Wisdom of God: But how can he do this to whom the Book is a Sealed Book? who cannot so much as a School-Boy, Pearse a Sen­tence in it. But he who has received this Furni­ture and Trust, he must Act the part of a Faith­ful Steward. He does all indeed at his Master's Charges, but he is [...], to throw out Copi­ously, and Plentifully, in a suitableness to the Rich­ness of the Treasure. He is not to Husband and Dress up, and Adorn some Cramben Recoctum, but to throw forth New and Old. And yet one thing more, he is to be at pains in this, though the Food is the Masters, the fitting of it is the Stewards. To be a Plagiary among Ministers, is a Theft in its kind. The Stealing of the Word of the Lord one from another is a great Fault, when God pro­poses himself to be Teacher to all. I shall end this Motive with one more Text of this kind, and that's the Apostle Paul's Character of a Teacher, Rom. 2.17, 18. First, says he, thou art a Jew: The Word is [...], that is, Thou art a Jew [Page 69] by Name and Profession. It is not here distinctive of a Nation, but of a Religion. Rev. 2.9. I know the Blasphemy of them who call themselves Jews, and are not, but the Synagogue of Satan. A be-lied Coun­try is not Blasphemy, but a be-lied Profession is. Then every Teacher must be a Professor, though every Professor is not a Teacher; but (2.) And restest in the Law. This Law is the Constitu­tution of the Kingdom of Heaven before-men­tioned: He is not to be a Lawless Person, nor a Person under the Law; but the Law must be in him, and he must live in it. This Word Rest in the Law, is very Emphatick, and yet more so in the Greek, than in the English: For it imports this Law not only to be the Object of their Work, but the Satisfaction of their Heart: they saw all their desire in it.

3. And makest thy boast of God— Glorying to call Him thine, and to be called by him. But in an especial manner here, it imports a Glorying in his Testimony, and his Authority, and depending on no Testimony else. John 5.39. How can ye be­lieve, who receive honour one of another. That is, depend on one another's Testimony. Have any of the Pharisees or Princes believed in him, John 7.26.48. The receiving a Doctrine as an Oracle of Truth, or Orthodox, from Man, is to pay that Honour to Man that is due to God only. This seems to be their fault, who profess themselves to be Paul's, Apollo's, and Cephas's. He that can say, I Profess thus Truth, because I read it in the Word, and Words of God, he glories in God as his Teach­er. There follows in this Text, ver. 18. the de­grees of Knowledge attainable under this In­struction.

The First is being Instructed, or Catechised out of the Law; that is, by a Live Voice, by the Mouth of the Teacher, in Question and Answer, to receive in the Principles of Religion in our rude Minds.

The Second is, And knowest his Will. Catecheti­cal Knowledge depends on another's Faith, but Knowledge upon a more proper bottom, as the Samaritans first Believed, because the Woman told them, but afterwards they trusted their own Eyes and Ears: The former is Credulity, the latter is Firm Knowledge, which can never want Desire, and Delight to attend it, when fixed on the Law of God. The Knowledge of the Original, doth migh­tily contribute to this Solidity and Firmness; and especially this part of the Knowledge. For what can a Person that is Ignorant of the Tongue de­termine in a Text tortured to three or four seve­ral Senses, by so many various Criticks, who is Skilful in no Rule by which he may Judge who is right, and who is wrong.

Lastly, And approvest the things that are more ex­cellent; or can prove what's to be preferred where things differ. This Man (says the Apostle) is not only able to Guide a poor, blind, ignorant One, but is capable to be a Light to them that sit in Darkness; who, without Prudence, that is Pharisee-like, think they have Knowledge enough. Capellus is offended that Ledeburius should so much exalt the Know­ledge of these Hebrew Accents, and upon that ac­count extols them as such, who would Defend the Sacred Scriptures from the Injuries of distorted In­terpretations, and that would insinuate the native Sense of every Sentence into the Reader's Mind: And further Asserts, That certainly the Sin must [Page 71] be very great, and Divine Judgments on that ac­count very severe, that God should suffer so pre­cious and inestimable a Treasure to lye hid in his Church undiscovered. And again, admires the Free Grace and Mercy of God, who would restore it in so sinful an Age. He says he could very well bear his Parenesis, or Exhortation, if it were to persuade the Study of the Hebrew Tongue. Therefore to prevent offending any, I shall make the Motives of a more general Nature. But in the mean time, ad­vise the Reader to consider, either from Testimo­nies or Examples, what a bulky and useful part of the Hebrew Grammar, or Language this is.

The Third Motive I shall use, Is the Rarity or Scarceness of it. The Late Enquiring Age has found out many things, Printing, Powder, Bombs, Short-Hand-Writing, The Pointing at the North-Pole by the Magnetified Needle and Card, Telescopes, Mag­nifying-Glasses, &c. Its certain, Divinity has its Depths not yet Div'd into; Mysteries unknown to us, that are in this Revealed Book; and to bring forth New and Old, seems to be well Expounded, by not Repeating the same things always to the People. And what can they do else that searches no further? Some think one Day in a Week enough for Study. The Study of others is Populo ut placerent quas fecissent fabulas. It is not their bu­siness, if True or False. Methodists is a Title due to more than them that wear it as a Livery of an Opinion. The blind Horse in the Mill is a Me­thodist; he has his Round, and is most Faithful to it. A Man may be Excommunicated as an Heretick for a Sound and Comfortable Doctrine by such Me­thodists: And a Man may receive his Degrees of [Page 72] Phi. without a Penny-worth of Learning, and an Office of Divinity, by Reading others Works. But to pass by such Mockers of God, and Deceivers of the People, there are many Men, many Learned Men, Late Men, not only English, but Foreigners, who Trade more in the Art of He­brew, that know nothing of this part of the Art: Even Lutherism, where Rabbinism reigns: Even Jews, where the Language is native: Even Pro­fessors, where the Art is their Business. Sebast. Schmidt. in his Disputation on Naaman the Syri­an, his bowing in the House of Rimmon, minds them not, 1682. though one of the great Criticks and Interpreters of his Age. Vitringa, a Man full of Sharpness, Wit and Fancy, in his Observationes Sacrae, 1683. P—on Deut. 33.28. he Tran­slates it thus: Israel shall dwell securely alone; the Fountain [the Posterity] of Jacob in a Land of Corn and Wine. But a greater before him, Coccejus, has turned it better, and taken the Accents (as he Pro­fesses) for his Rule. Israel shall dwell securely alone by the Fountains of Jacob. There is a [...] on Jacob, which always ends a Proposition. Therefore Foun­tain of Jacob, cannot be joyned with Corn and Wine.

Secondly, There is a [...] Paschta on alone, which only Divides between the Circumstances and Es­sentials of a Proposition. The Context shews the Happiness of his Dwelling, which was bless'd both with upper and nether Springs. There is no place for distinguishing between him and his Poste­rity, two hundred Years after he was dead. Thilo, another late Critick, is often guilty of the same ne­glect, and who not (excepting three or four.) But in England its rara avis in terris. I may challenge [Page 73] the Man has spoke, or wrote on it. Its then a Jewel rare and useful. Rembeck, 1692. says, That our Laborious Translators were like the old Mariners, who Coasted it along by the help of for­mer Translations, but knew not the Magnetick Vertue in the Points of this Compass. But what Translation shall a Man Confide in? The Lxx. says Vossius, for that was before Christ's time. Resp. He cannot prove that Christ, or his Apostles used it, but the contrary may be proved.

Secondly, Vossius owns that there are four dif­ferent Editions of that: The Compluten, Venetian, Roman, and Alexandrian. there is no such variety in the Original, nor in its Points.

Thirdly, None of them are Uncorrupted, as he grants, nor is there Credibility that any of them are the True Copies of what was before Christ. The Alexandrian is preferred in England, and put in the Polyglot, because a Famous MSS. of it is in the King's Library. Another says, be­cause a Noble Lady, Madam Thecla, was the Tran­scriber, the only Authority it has, but enough, may be for that Day. Modo pulchra fuit. I find the half of that Famous Prophecy, Isaiah 9.4, 5. The wonderful Counsellor, the strong God, the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace; all that I find wanting in it, 1 Sam. 18. v. 18. a great part of that Verse is wanting, viz. And David said unto Saul, who am I, and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel. Bishop Ʋsher says, Whatever we have now under that Name of the Lxx. was certainly never seen by them. Drusius says, Its a Reproach to impute this Book called so to them. Calovius Glassius, Salma­sius, and Alting, in his Theol. Hist. do all Speak to the same purpose. And indeed, I wonder to what [Page 74] purpose Origen should have Collected his Hexapla & Octupla, if the Lxx. had been so pure a Piece in his Days. Jerom says of it, That in his Day there were Three contending for the Prehemency; the Alexandrians, the Antiochean, and that called the Middle: And if we will stand to Jerom's own Ver­dict, I think he values that least of all, that is in the Octupla of Origen. But let Capellus's own Ver­dict commend it, who says, Its corrupted in thou­sands of places.

Secondly, The Latin Hieron. say the Papists, in­deed it were to be valued if we had it, for tho my Quotation is lost, it seems his Tiberian Jew taught him Skill in this Affair. But where is it? The Vulgar, and his own Quotations agree not: Ergo, the Vulgar is not his. Secondly, they have Cor­rupted it, or Corrected it (by what Rule?) often, and as Weems says of Clement, he Transgress'd the Canon of the Church, that forbids Baptism before the Child is born, for he declared it Authentick, and then Corrected it. But among all their Ca­nons at Trent, none were obtained with such Di­ficulty, nor such Irregularness, as that of making the Latin Translation Authentick: Its thought not to have above Forty Votes. I fancy we might gather more for the English. It is true, its much better; but a Translation will never be an Origi­nal, nor what is Human become Divine.

R. Jehuda Levita, the Author of Cosri, who li­ved about Seven Hundred Years ago, was the last we find had Skill in this Affair. He says, The Scope of Speech is to put that in the Mind of the Hea­rer, which was in the Mind of the Speaker. This In­tention (says he) is best known from the Speakers own Breath and Gesture: But the Accents supply that want [Page 75] in the Bible for Coherence and Stops, Questions and Answers, Admiration, and other Affections, are Indicated by them, about which there are many Books wrote; I wish we had now one of them. He was Translated into He­brew, Anno Christi 1140. But the Authors of late Comments on him, as R. Jehu Muscatus says, The heaps of our Comments arise from Ignorance of the Accents; for we have lost the Knowledge of them. And so says Arcavolti in his Grammar, which he calls Aream Aromaticam, Venice, 1602. Their Use is forgotten, and hence we see their Shapes taken faithful Care of in the Edition of every Hebrew Bible, and their Names in every Grammar, without any thing further said about them, except some change of the Vowels by their Presence. R. Calo­nymus, 1594. in his App. to Balmes Grammar, De Accentibus, says, The use of them is lost through their frequent Exiles, Travels, Povetry, and Distresses, yet not without their Fault. Neither has any made it their Business to restore and recover it, though of so great Moment.

Buxtorf. The Accents are the best, and most neces­sary help for finding out the Sense of the Holy Scri­ptures; but neither we, nor the Jews, have any sure and constant Rule about them, in his Thesaurus Gram­maticus. Likewise his Son in Anturitica says, No doubt their Ʋse is great, but the Jews confess, and be­wail the loss of this Knowledge. And yet they doubt not but that they have their certain Rules and Methods. And Hottenger, in his Erotemata, says the same. Bohl. on Iss. 12. The certainty of the Explication of Scripture, cannot be attain'd, while the Methods of true Accentuation is neglected in our Academies.

The Jewish Rabbies (though that Title is but like our Master in Civility, for since An. 300. there ha [...] none arisen with that Title) in their Comments have been making Observations, though not com­pleated any Grammar about them. R. S. Abe [...] Tisben, in Eccl. says, The Figure of Irony is known by the affixed Points. I am sure our Commentators saw none on Gen. 3.22. Man is become as one of us: to imagine that our Great Messias, at his first entering on his Office of Publishing the Gospel from the Bosome of the Father, should compleat his first Sabbath with a Jest poor Man's Misery. We shall not read another broken on his poor Church in all his Ministry.

A.D. 1145. R. A. Ezra, in Bib. Buxtorf, Fol. 501. on Iss [...] 19. a small Remnant; it should be a Remnant for a little time; for [...] disting. [...] and [...], It is, says he, of a great Moment, to observe these Di­stinctions or Accents. Item ex 18. Saadias says, That in Jer. 23.6. It should be; The Lord shall call him our righteousness. But he condemns the Author of the Points, for [...] divides them, Jehova is not the Nom. to call.

R. Cal. 1 Sam. 3.3. thus the English: And e'er the lamp of God went out in the Temple of the Lord, where the Ark of God was. And Samuel was laid down to sleep. The Order is violated, not the Sense. For the Original is this: Before the Lamp of God went out (or was put out) and Samuel was laid down, in the Temple of the Lord, &c. Here is, says Calen, [...] a Parenthesis; they who say that Sa­muel slept in the Temple of the Lord, where the Ark was, assert a Falshood; and they do it by uniting what is distinguished by a [...]. I cannot but take no­tice, that about Seven or Eight Translations are [Page 77] guilty of this, viz. Lxx. Vulgar, Munster, Vata­ [...]lus, Castalio, Pagnine, Arias, Montanus, the French. But Luther, whom Junius and Tremellius follow, do well, in putting Samuel's Sleeping in the beginning of the Verse, viz. Samuel being asleep, when the Lamp of God was not extinguished in the Temple of the Lord. And so the Dutch. But the true Order is: When the Lamp of God was not yet put out [Sa­muel being asleep] in the Temple of the Lord, &c. In­deed, there is a great Emphasis on Samuel's being asleep, being only two Words, and beginning post [...] and ending in [...] the Reason may be, the rare­ness of Vision, the Extaticalness of Sleep, or the like. Calon quotes the like, in Gen. 39.17. The Hebrew Servant which thou brought unto us, came in un­to me to mock me. The Order is thus in the Hebrew. He came in unto me [the Hebrew Servant whom thou brought to us] to mock me. The Point on Me ma­nifests it; but Sense and Reason guided our Tran­slators (though they knew not the Hebrew Mark for a Parenthesis) for they could not imagine she would charge her Husband with such a thing. If the Matter had been difficult, they could have only by Providence happened right.

Abarbanel, in Isa. 53. (vixit 1508) ver. 9. If he shall make his Soul, &c. There is a Maccaph be­tween If and Put, therefore most strictly united in Sense.

R. Isaac Arama, Deut. 10.12. And now Israel, what doth the Lord require of thee, &c. How excel­lently doth the Author of the Accents here Illustrate the Fear of God, putting an [...] under [...] by which he Indicates the Intent, and Sense of God to be. What, O Israel! doth the Lord require of thee? Only Fear God, &c. and this too shall be for thy good, [Page 78] ver. 13. [...] under [...] All he asks of thee is for the good. [Thy Good] is not joyned with Command but Ask.

A Fourth Argument, or Motive is, From the Means and Helps thou now hast, which others had not and that is to be found among late Protestants, n [...] old Rabbies. Wasmuth, about 1666. is the most noted of this kind, through the Benefit of a short-liv'd, but most Ingenious Man, Bohlius, whose Ta­bles and Apodixis, 1636. was the first Rudiments of this kind. It is better to have Three Lessons of a Learned Man, than Three Years Labour un­der a Blockhead. It the Scholar esteems his Master, he doth not only suck in his Lesson, but his Like­ness and Image, Aliquid Animae recipit. Its so also in hearing Ministers; if the Minister grow not, (New and Old is our Rule) all others Profess them­selves Wasmuth's Disciples. Varenius his Practice, Ledeburius his Catena, that cost him eight Years Study, Henckenius his Eruditio, Clamerus Florinus, who hast most Perplexed it, Pseifers is only an Epi­tome of Wasmuth, Reinbeck is the last, from whom I have Learned much, until I stumbled on the Re­pugnancy between the Procedure of his Tables and Rules, and their Explications, his Sixth Chapter, and fore-going Chapter, the one respecting the Matter, the other the Respective Masters and Do­mini: This makes way for

A Fifth Argument: Thou needst not grieve, as Alexander did, for fear that no Work, nor Honour be left for thee. That which is deficient cannot be numbred. Wasmuth's Rules leave more Irregulars than Regu­lars, especially in Pathetick Books.

Secondly, There are no sufficient Rules extant for the Rhetorical Use of them, which is half their end.

Thirdly, He only minds the Consecution, and therefore says [...] is no more than a Comma some­times, and that he is, or may be in any Verse; whereas 1300 Verses want him, he is in no Verse of three Words, though they are 182 in number, and there are 306 Verses of four Words that has him not; and there are above 800 besides that have him not. He is only to be found in Verses of two distinct Propositions Grammatically, if otherways it belongs to the Rhetorical Rules, Ex. Gr. Dan. 9.24. there is a long Verse, containing six or seven Infinitive Verbs, yet there is only one Proposition made by the Indicative Verb [Determi­ned.] There are seventy Weeks determined on thy People, and upon thy Holy City, to finish Transgression, &c. Here is an [...] between bringing in of Everlasting Righteousness, and Sealing up the Vision. Two little Members, whose distinction the smallest of the Re­ges might serve. Well! What doth [...] teach us then? How comes the Second most Soveraign of all Kings to this small Service?

Resp. Where he finds not Two Propositions, his Presence will make them so. We must repeat the former Verb thus: Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People, and upon thy holy City, to Seal up the Vision and Prophecy, and to Anoint the Most Holy.

Resp. 2. His work is not done, he is here Figu­rative and Emphatick; and its left to the Studious Divine to enquire for a suitable Application, which I adventure to propose thus: The Emphasis is a Type, or sweet Allusion, thus; There are Seventy Weeks of Days, viz. one Year and eighteen Weeks [Page 80] to the end of the Seventy Years Captivity. From this first of Darius, near its latter end, to the first of Cyrus there is Darius his Second Year, and Nine Weeks more or less, in each of the other Years; first of Cyrus, and first of Darius; then shall that Prophecy of Jeremiah, about which thou enquires so Earnestly in Prayer be fulfilled, and the most holy things, Altar and Vessels shall again be Consecrated.

But, Secondly, I further Inform thee (as the Se­venty Years of Captivity, and these Seventy Weeks of their latter end, have been Days of Affliction to you, especially as a Church) before your Cove­nant, by which you are a Church, be disanulled, ver. 27. You shall have Seventy Weeks of Years, that is, 490 Years of Prosperity; within which Compass all the great things I have spoken of, Re­generation, Remission, Satisfaction, Everlasting Righ­teousness, shall have an actual Existence in the World. And since I have said so much, there is another [...] in Verse 25. that Interpreters make scarce a Comma of, when they join seven Weeks, and sixty two Weeks, which is in no Case to be done. There­fore to make Two Propositions, the Verb is to be repeated thus: Know therefore and understand, from the going forth of the Commandment, to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messia the Prince shall be Sixty two Weeks, i. e. 434 Years. But now for my Em­phasis or Figure; I Answer thus: These seventy Weeks, or 490 Years, are not all the Time you shall enjoy before the Abrogation of your Cove­nant, and my solemn Chusing, and Calling the Gen­tiles; but the time of Prosperity, in opposition to the time of Affliction, you have suffered while my People

Secondly, Nor shall this Time be continued with­out Breaches, Clouds, and Divisions in it, for there will be two from its beginning; One at the end of seven Weeks, or forty nine Years; and another before the last Week, or the beginning of Christ's Ministry. Now having followed the Ge­nuine Sense of the Text, let us try if it will help to remove the great Difficulty how this Prophecy is Fulfill'd. In order to this, I shall from that Incom­parable Canon of Ptolomy, found by Dr. Overald, Publish'd by Seth Calvisius, demonstrated to be Authentick by Youngmannus (half a Sheet of Pa­per, worth a Talent of Gold) set down the In­tervals of Time that were de facto.

First then, Cyrus his first Year of Empire over Babylon and Persia, was in Anno Nabon. 212.

Secondly, The Second of Darius, wherein Hag­gai and Zechariah began to Prophecy, was An. Nab. 326.

Thirdly, The Birth of Christ was An. Nab. 747. His Famous Disputation in the Temple, 759. The Penult of Augustus; His entering on his Ministery. In the 15 of Tiberius, 775. the Staff of Beauty bro­ken, the Jews forsaken as a Church, the Spirit of God left them, 787, or 788. the Last of Gaius, or First of Claudius.

Secondly, Apply it from 212, to 788. are 576 Years, that is, 490 of Prosperity, and 85 of Ad­versity, especially in a Spiritual Sense. The 490 from Cyrus Edict, to the Disanulling the Cove­nant between God and that People, are divided in Three Parcels. The First is seven Weeks, or forty nine Years, between Cyrus his Edict, and Da­rius his. The whole of the Time is 114 Years. But Zech. 7.5. & 8.19. we read of 70 Years of [Page 82] Carnal and Selfish Fasting, which ended in a Spi­ritual Joy and Gladness, on the second, or sixth at least of Darius, when the Temple was finished; which Zechariah Prophecy'd to be done by the Spi­rit of the Lord. Forty six of this (John 2.20.) was spent in Building the Temple, as the Spirit moved them; for the Essusion of the Spirit began with Cyrus's Edict, Ezr. 1, 2, 3. and through its Power they continued the Work against all Opposition, Ezra 4. ver. 5, 6, 7, 24. until it was with-drawn. For, Haggai 1. when God, on Darius's Edict, re­stored his Spirit to them, there was no Life, nor Heart in them for that work. Their cry was, The Time was not come: though they found it seasonable to Build Palaces for themselves. So here is evi­dently 49 Years of Spiritual and Temple Prospe­rity; and 70 of Carnal Security. There is indeed a little Fraction of three or four Years, between 114 Years and 118, but it makes neither 10 to the one Number, nor a Week to the other: The 49 Years in the first place, and the 70 in the Last.

The Second Portion is the greatest and easiest, viz. 434 Years, or 62 Weeks, wherein all should be restored, and repaired, that was destroyed by Ne­buchadnezzar, ver. 25. (it is well Translated, What was cut off, or broken, as in the Margin) there is warning, that this time should not want its Trou­bles; and indeed great they were in Antiochus's Time especially. But the Spirit of the Lord did not forsake them, as their Holiness, Zeal, Suffer­ing, Victories, did testifie; as may be read in the Macchabees Now add 434 Years to 326, the Se­cond of Darius, when the Spirit was restored to Israel, as Haggai and Zecharias Testifie. Now add [Page 83] to 326, which is the Second of Darius Nothus, 434. and the result is, 760, or 759. the Penult of Au­gustus, and Twelfth of Christ, when the Messias made his First Active and Admired Appearance in the Temple, Luke 2.41. which was Prophesied by Malach. 3.1, 2, 3. and Jer. 3.16, 17. And hereunto Messias the Prince. This Period agrees, not only with Ptolomy's Canon, but Eusebius's also, who says, Darius's Second fell in Ann. 1594. from Abraham's Birth, and Augustus's his Last, except one, in 2027. And Thirdly, with the Eclipses ob­served, the first by Thycid. the second by Dion. Cas­sius; and both Compared by Bunting, Fol. 217. But now there is a Segment at the end of this Period, plainly Indicated, ver. 26. After threescore and two weeks. Which proves that the Messias was to have an Illustrious Advent at the end of 434 Years. But his Death, which was to be within the 490, ver. 24. and within the last Week, for an Expiation was to be made, ver. 27. Sacrifice, and Oblation made to cease, was to be some considerable time after. This I thus apply from Christ's Twelfth, viz. 17 Years, to his 30th Year, wherein both John Baptist, and HE, began their Ministery, was a time of as great deadness, lifelesness, and with­drawing of the Spirit, as ever they were under until now, as the Gospel Glory informs us: The State full of Sadducees and Herodians; and the Tem­ple full of Pharisees; the Land full of Prophanity. Before this there was a Zecharias and a Simeon in the Temple; and after this a great Reformation, which brings me to the Third and Last Portion, viz. one Week, ver. 27. He shall Confirm the Cove­nant with many for one Week, or seven Years: In the midst whereof he was to offer a Sacrifice, [Page 84] that needed no other to succeed, that answered all their Ends, and in which they all ended. Three and an half of this time was fulfilled by Christ in his own Ministery, and John Baptist's, by which many were Converted, and brought within the Bond of the Covenant, and even their Ordinances restored to Purity, according to Mal. 3. The Messias, and John Baptst's Office was to Purifie the Sons of Levi, that they might Offer unto the Lord Offerings of Righ­teousness, as in former times. Its not a Season to forget the Purity of Ordinances, because Christ's Coming, and their End is nigh. Its best to be found, like Zachariah and Elizabeth, walking in the Ordinances, all of them without blame. And three and an half after his Death by the Apostles, un­til the Calling of the Apostle of the Gentiles to his Work. After which we hear of few or none Con­verted among the Jews. Their Ministers Work was to Preserve and Nourish what was Regenera­ted. There is yet much more Light afforded to this Text from these Points; for [...] on [...] Thy Holy City, signifies, That the City and People were the Object to whom, as the School speaks. They who were to enjoy this Blessing, but not de quo, not the Matter Prophecied of. Hence we may be sure, That the Prediction of breaking the Staff of Bands, as Zechariah Prophesies the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is only an Event Pro­phecied of, as Consequential to a People that sin­ned away Gospel-Mercies; and rejected the Cove­nant of Grace, when offered to them. It doth not come within the 70 Weeks. More Particulars might be shew'd of their use here; but its time to return to my Subject. Let this also be reckoned among the Examples.

Fourthly, Wasmuth mistakes in this, that in Verse [...] is a greater King than [...]

Fifthly, His Mr. Bohlius, who deserves a Monu­ment of Brass, says, [...] is of greater Power than [...]

Sixthly, Buxtorf says, That [...] are Servants, and distinguish not at all.

Seventhly, Lud. de Dieu. Sometimes they distin­guish, and sometimes not.

Lastly, All comes short in this, that there are no Tables, nor Rules, to be found in any of them for their Rhetorical use, which is half the Work at least. Reinbeck pretends 13, which he calls Conse­quences. But they all Terminate in this one. What­soever is not according to Grammar Rules, is Em­phatick; but affords no helps to know the nature of the Figure, or Affection, by the Extrusion, or Change. So that the greatest and most difficult Part is entirely unknown to the World.

Ledebhurius says, He can find no way to under­stand the meaning of Maccaph. But the End of this Chapter, will be more gained by the next.

CHAP. IV. Of the Particular Ʋses and Ends the Accents serve for.

THIS Number is Arbitrary. I shall reduce them to Seven.

• First, On the Original it self.
• The Second shall be on the Criticks upon it.
• The Third on Translations.
• The Fourth on Analytick, especially the Preacher.
• The Fifth on Quotations from the Old to the New Testament.
• The Sixth on Inferences, Disputes, &c.
• The Seventh, to know the Scope of a Verse, or what is Emphatick in the Text.

Ʋse First, Thou mayst know the Genius and Style of the Tongue by them: For Instance; In­form a good Hebrean of the English Translation, where it is exact, tell him the Hebrew Words in any order, and also the Points, but in their Or­der, and he shall put every Word just as it stands in the Bible. Thou mayst see the Reason and Foun­dation of this in the Second Argument: So that it [Page 87] is a Masora to the Bible. And it seems these poor Masorites, that lived about 500 Years after Christ, that were so mean, that no Historian thought them, nor their Work, worthy Record in History: un­til some of late thought fit to Magnifie them, and diminish the Holy Records, exposing them as a Nose of Wax, and bottom of Scepticism. These Men were under a Curse, wanted the Spirit of God, were Ignorant of the Scripture, and this help, that so much helps to Solve their proposed Difficulties.

Secondly, To know what Copies are preferable in any Variation that is in Hebrew Editions, which are few, and these differing in very minute things, Josh. 15, 47. Ʋnto the river of Egypt, and the great Sea, and the Border. Our Translation follows the Margin, which the Masorites call Keri: the Ketib, or Text is thus, Ʋnto the river of Egypt, and Sea its border, even border, which makes not good Sense, nor will consist with the Accents, which stand thus, [...] here [...] shews that the last Word, and that before it, agree not; but border, even its border, or bordering, agrees; but great agrees not with border, but with Sea: therefore we should chuse what is Consonant to the Points, that are not doubtful, at least here, and so doth the English, 1 Sam. 4.13. And when he came, lo, Eli sat upon a seat, by the way side, watching. Our Translation follows Keri, the Margin, not the Text, which would be thus: Eli sat upon a seat, and smote himself, and his heart smote him (as Kinchi Expounds it) by the way side, watch­ing. Now the Question is, which is to be follow­ed, says Wasmuth, Gram. Hebr. Reg. 31. I cannot hear of a fault in the Text, that is Ketib, others, e contra, Keri, is always to be followed. I An­swer, [Page 88] That the Points here helps us; for whether the Word be [...] or [...] the Accent is agreed to be [...] the use of [...] is to joyn the Word with the fol­lowing, that the Sense must be, he beat the way, which is not so like Sense, as he sate by the side of the way.

A Third Place is, Isa. 9.3. Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy. Our English follows Chetib. not without Company; for Vatab­lus, Pagnine, Osiander Vulg. Junius, and Trem. Lu­ther, Arias Montan. and also the Dutch. But since [...] has Tipcha under it, it evidences that Not is not here, for a Negative is joyned to the Verb in Hebrew, by a Minister, as may be seen in the Rules. But here is a Minor, usual to an acquisitive Dative, thus; Thou hast multiplied the Nation, and to it in­creased joy. And the Context confirms it abun­dantly; though the Syriack is the only Transla­tion that follows it. This difference between [...] and [...] is the Object of the Masorites, and office of Keri and Chetib, as much as any Word, 2 Kings 8.10. Say to him thou shalt surely live. Some think an Irony being under it, has caused the variety. The like is in the Words of Hushai, 2 Sam. 16.18. Whom the Lord chooses, and this People, and all Isra­el, his shall I be, and with him will I remain, or his shall I not be? keri [...] and [...]chetib [...] Hushai meant negatively, but spake affirmatively. However oc­casion is conjectural; it's a Divine Opinion, that it's Sense is affirmative in all, by reason of [...]. Some think the difference between Keri and Ketib, is oc­casioned from the difference between his Mind and Mouth, and therefore both are Sacred, and to be counted Divine, and that all the others are so al­so. But this has no solid Foundation; he was a good [Page 89] Man, but he was a Courtier, and could Lie for once, and for Loyalty too.

A Fourth of this kind is, Isa. 49.5. Though Is­rael be not gathered. So the Vulgar, Munster, Tre­mel. Arias Montan. and the Dutch. But the Truth is, To him Israel shall be gathered. And so the Lxx. Chaldee, Syr. Arab. Pag. Vatab. which is Confirmed from the Context and Parallels, Mat. 15.24. John 11.52. Rom. 15.18.

A Fifth is, Isa. 63.9. In all their afflictions he was afflicted. Now our Translation is right, fol­lowing Keri, as Munster, Pagnine, Osiander, and Luther do, but more are led by Chetib, He was not afflicted. Parallel Places confirm the Affirmative, Zach. 2.8 Jude 10.16. Acts 9.4.

A Sixth is, Job 13.15. Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. [...] as before, to which the Ma­sora adds Testimony, saying, This is the Fifteenth Place that is wrote [...] and read [...] But these may suffice to show the Influence of the Points in Determining such Doubts. See the Rule, or if there be Hebraical, accord with its Explication.

It might be here objected, That the various Readings of Ben. Ascher, and Ben. Napthali, and the Editions of Plantin, Bomberge, Buxtorf, Athias Clode, and Manas. Ben Israel, &c. are most frequently about the Accents themselves, or the Vowels. Is it probable they can be their own Correctors, or Rule?

Resp. They can by Vertue of their Relation, ex gr. Clodius, in his Last Edition, 1692. on Psal. 30.8. Lord, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong; thou didst hide thy face, &c. puts [...] on Mountain, and [...] on Strength, by which [...] Strength would belong to the latter Part of the Verse; for [Page 90] by Consecution it is the Minor of [...] in all Tables Poetical, and the Sense will be, Lord in thy favour thou hast established my mountain in strength: Or, O strength thou hast hid thy face: which makes not so good Sense. Therefore Hutter's Bible is to be pre­ferred, who Points them thus [...] which our English follows, Psal. 109.16. But persecuted the poor and afflicted man. Clode thus, [...] M. B. Israel, [...] Plantine has Tipha, the Fore-goer, and Atnah on the same Words. Buxtorf, Tipha without Atnah. Now the Question is, which is to be preferr'd. But Menass. Ben Israel is not only preferable in this place, for here all agree that [...] is upon Persecute: but then [...] as Clode, and others has it, must not be upon ish, ghani, the af­flicted, for [...] is [...] Servant onely, when Tipha an­terior is Minor, which here is not. Buxtorf is in the wrong to displace [...] where Sense requires him. And Plantine's seems to be a Fault in the Printer, as is evident in many Copies on the former Exam­ple; many Editions have [...] for [...] upon strength, by an easie escape, turning the Letter or Type the wrong way. But the Rules of Consecution and Tables are able to Correct Hundreds of such Er­rata's. Jer. 52.30. Nebuzaradan, Captain of the Guard. Plan. thus, [...] Bib. Regis Hisp. [...] with Men. B. Israel, Buxtorf, Clode. The first is to be preferred by Rule; for when the third has a Minor, the fourth should have a Major: and the third has a Minor, because the second and third agree not with the first, by the same Syntax.

Having mentioned the Masorites diminutively, I would Explain my self so far as relates to my Sub­ject, thus:

First, That Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, with others, bore that Name, who were the Authors or Restorers of these Points; whom all that own the Bible honour: for both Talmuds (Bab. Tr. Nedarim. Cap. 4. Fol. 37. Megilla, Cap. 1. Fol. 3. And Kidduschim, Cap. 1. Fol. 30. Heiros Megilla, C. 4.) And the Talmuds are computed to be Wrote about Ann. 230 of Christ. Call this [...], an Hedge to the Sense of the Law.

Secondly, From about 500 Years after Christ, unto Ben. Ascher, and B. Napthali, An. Dom. 1034. some have borne the Name of Masorite, according to Elias, and have been a Hedge to Letters, Sylla­bles, and Words, telling their Number, observ­ing what is the middle Word of each Book; the Defects or Excesses in Letters of a Word; the va­riety, or difference in Words called Keri, and Ketib.

Thirdly, This difference is rarely in Sense, but in Letters, as א 12 times is redundant at the end of a Word, and ן 43 times in the beginning; 56 Words wrote with ד at the beginning, but read with י

2. These Differences are not many, 848 says Elias Levita. Its true, there are more in Clode's late Bible.

3. It is the difference in Sense that these Points are most helpful in, and that concerns us most. Christ's Promise, (Mat. 5.) of no Points perishing from the Law, is faithfully kept, so long as we have the Sense intire. And thus we may defend the Integrity of the Hebrew Text.

A Second Ʋse is to prevent, or with-stand the Scepticism of this Age, a very ill, but flourishing [Page 92] Weed grown up in the Garden of Criticism. Some, says Thilo, by accident promote this, when they propose the different Sentiments of the Learned without Deci­sion. In which Number (says he) the Famous and most Laborious Work of Pool is to be reckoned. For what one builds, another destroys; and the Opposition distracts the Mind, and leaves the tender Conscience is Fluctuation, but fills the Cavillers Mouth with Argu­ment. How few (says he) were the Arguments of the Papists, to prove the Scriptures being a Sufficient, Per­spicuous, and Perfect Rule; until now they see every Particle of Sacred Writ, dissolved into various Senses, by the Patronage of Learned Criticks? Any Man (says he) may Palliate any Profession from the Synopsis of Pool. Now this is a great Medium to keep the Mind like a Rock, stable against such Winds and Tides of Temptation, that the Student may be stable and un­moveable in the Sense of Scripture.

The first Instance I shall bring for Illustration of this Use, is 2 Kings 5.17, 18, 19. It is pregnant of a Twin Difficulty; one ver. 17. whether Naa­man intreats for a Burden of Israelitish Mould, for an Altar to be built in Syria: or, if he asks leave to give to Gehazi, at least a part of the Present which he had so peremptorily refused. The other, ver. 18, 19. whether Naaman intreats for an In­dulgence in his Civil Office, that had the visible appearance of Idolatry attending it, when his Ma­ster went to Worship Saturn, or Remphan, the most high God, in the Syrian account: Or, if he asks Pardon for Adoring such an Idol formerly.

There is a Third Question, Whether Elisha's Fare­well be of a Civil or Religious Nature? But this will come in, in Subordination to the others. [Page 93] Among others, there have been two Famous Sea­sons of treating this Text, as a Foundation of some Casuistick Cases; the former in Luther's time, on the Prince of Saxony's carrying the Sword before the Emperor to Mass, but not without a preceding Protestation. The latter on the King of France's becoming Master of Strasburgh; then the Learned Schmidt could see from this Text, First, That it was Lawful to use indifferent Things for Monu­ments of great Benefits, or good Men, either in the Old or New-Testament-Church. Secondly, That a Per­son may lawfully be present at False, or Idolatrous Worship; if from a weighty Cause, Ecclesiastick, Civil, or Politick. For if then any were offended, it was Offence taken, not given. Thirdly, it was better for Naaman to Sacrifice at Syria, than to­tally omit it. For to Sacrifice is the Duty of all: To Sacrifice at Jerusalem only the Duty of Israel. Fourthly, The weak, or infirm, are to be borne with in their using things indifferent for Religious Service.

Pleisfer, in his Dubia, 1685. after setting a num­ber of great Names one against another, says; If the Method of his Book did not necessitate him to deter­mine something, Plane sedebat animo, [...], he should leave the Reader to Judge. At present I shall Judge against him, except in his Preliminaries, where he renounceth the Thoughts of Aben Ezra, viz. That Naaman asked leave to dissemble in the Wor­ship of God, or to Worship Rimmon with Iehovah, ver. 17. The Words are these, [...] Now the Author of Cosri's Rule is to be minded, viz. We are to suppose our selves over-hearing the Discourse, and expressing Affections and Passions [Page 94] suitable to the Matter, and their Concern, with the Intention, remission of the Voice, nod of the Head, wink of the Eyes. Now (says he) the Accents are in place of these lively Actions. The Accents by which the Bible is read, denotes (says he) Stops, Pauses, Slowness of Speech; and, e contra, Haste, or Continuation, Admiration, or any Passion. Now the Prophet, ver. 16. had refused his Gifts abso­lutely. Ver. 17. he Answers and Replies, full of wonder, and amazing Thoughts. And Naaman said; but [...] in place of [...] and [...] in place of [...] signifies he thought much more than he said. The Pro­phet had so positively rejected his Presents, urged with the greatest Sincerity and Importunity. At last he replies, having thought of two Expedients at once, and he unites them, to make them have the greater force. Observe this Emphasis of [...] be­tween respective Propositions. The Sign, and Thing signified, is frequent, Gen. 2.23. Num. 11.21. Esth. 5. ver. 12. Judg. 2.18. & 9.36. If he were going to speak of a new Subject, and pro­pound a new Question, the Passion would leave boiling, at least appear so, until he saw what suc­cess it should have.

Secondly, He proposes the Expedient in general thus [...] here [...] whose place and office is to end a Proposition, or as much as will make up a di­stinct Answer to a Question; and this we must make out of this one Word, But not, or And not; but except they have a Reference to some one ge­neral Subject, it cannot be done; but that being supposed, it runs currently thus: But though you your self have utterly rejected all Tokens of my Gratitude, and Love, may not I shew my Love and Gratitude thus? If that Method be not ac­ceptable, [Page 95] may not this? viz. Let it be given to thy Servant; here again ends a Proposition. So the Expedient is a change of Persons, the Servant may take it sure, if the Master do not. If he had not meant the same Blessing he spoke of before, his Sense had not been Intelligible to the Prophet. The Second Expedient is, The Denominating, Qualify­ing, of what he intended to give, A load of dust, Neh. 9.1. As much Dust as was only in one Wag­gon, only drawn by two Mules, much less than what he saw there in many Waggons. So much Earth would have borne little Bulk in an Altar, they must have been beholden to Tradition for the Monument, more than to the Monument for the Story. But it was probably the Fruits of the Land of Syria. And this he presses with a new Motive; he was resolved to Worship the Prophet's God, only; he needed not reject his Gift, as an Idolater. So there is little Ground left in this Earth, for Relick-Worship to grow upon.

The Second Difficulty is, ver. 18. whether it be a Pardon or Indulgence? He asks; If it be a Par­don for past Idolatry, or leave to continue in his Office, that had so offensive an Ingredient in it. I am for the first. For first, the Verb Bow or Wor­ship, is in the Pretertense. Its true, there is ן but not Conversive, for the Accent still remains in the Penult.

Secondly, The Preter [...] follows the Gerund [...] and therefore is to be turned into the Preter­tense.

Thirdly, Its a Religious Bowing he begs Pardon for: Would God Pardon, or the Prophet Indulge known Idolatry, wilful Idolatry. The Office is in [...] but his Worship in [...]

Fourthly, [...] signifies Pardon, and Forgiveness, which is not to be sought before-hand.

Fifthly, Go in Peace, signifies Approbation, Mark 5.3, 4. Luke 7.49. This Verse is an Exception to the Profession of Worship to the only True God which he now made. I will henceforth Offer to none but Iehovah. But (says he) ver. 18. In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant. When my Master came into the House of Rimmon, he lean'd on my hand, and then I worshipped in the House of Rimmon. In that I did Worship in the House of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy Servant in this thing. A little Worship served a Soldier; he was Generalissimo, not being much acquainted in Cases of Conscience. This prefer­ring Iehovah to Saturn; the Israelitish Iehovah, to the Syrian Rimmon, is all his Religion; and the contrary was all his Sin he yet is Convinced of. Observe that Gehazi's running after Naaman, does not import that Gehazi's had gotten nothing before. For when he Meditates on the Case, he laments that his Master did not take what he offered, viz. Ten Talents of Silver, and 6000 Pieces of Gold. Now Gehazi runs for one Talent of that: It seems they were of a grosser kind that he had gotten be­fore. The Points stand thus, are very Emphatick, and Establish this Translation.

[...]

I shall be shorter in the other Examples, Gen. 10.21. Ʋnto Shem also, the Father of all the Children of Heber, the Brother of Japhet the elder. The Question is whether Shem or Japhet be the Elder. If it [Page 97] should be Translated, Frater Japheti majoris; or, Frater Japheti major. The Doubt remained un­solvable, until the Knowledge of the Points. There are but Three Persons, Shem, Ham and Japhet, and there were Three Opinions: Franzius, Abra­vanell, with many others, were for Shem being El­dest. Lydiat is for Ham; Aben Ezra, Lyranús, &c. are for Japhet; and others will have them Trines, at one Birth. But Merca being put under Japhet in this Text, shews that Japhet and Elder are Con­strued together, as Substantive and Adjective; Ja­pheti majoris. And Ch. 9.24. Katon being joyned to Ham absolutely, without the comparative Particle Min, shews that Ham is younger than either of the two. And Gen. 11.10. we have a good guess at the distance between Japhet and Shem: For Noah began to beget, when he was 500 Years old; but Shem was born when Noah was 502. Isaiah 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not ac­cording to this Word, Believe or Know it. It is be­cause there is no Morning, or Light in them. Great Criticks, such as Piscator, and Glassius, Amama, Castalio, turns it thus: To the Law and to the Te­stimony, if they do not; let them speak according to the Word, wherein there is no light. The Reason of this Difference is not the Signification of Words, but Opinion of the Points; for this last mistakes [...] Mahpah for Itib; the Figure is the same, but the place makes the Distinction: Itib is before the first Vowel of the Word, Mahpah possesses the last, or Penult, viz. the place of Tone; and the Sakeph ka­ton on Word, is entirely neglected by them. Isa. 16.1. There is another Controverted Place by Criticks. Send ye the Lamb to the Ruler of the Land, from Sela [Page 98] to the Wilderness, unto the Mount of the Daughter of Zion. There are several Faults here.

First, A stop made between Lamb and Ruler, where none is.

Secondly, A [...] entirely past between Wilderness and Mount, where less than a Colon cannot be.

Thirdly, A stop between Sela and Wilderness, where there is [...] a Mark of most strict Union.

Fourthly, I doubt there is no Sense, where the most Divine Sense is to be expected: For the Lamb is to be sent to two most opposite places; Mount Zion and the Wilderness; or else they are supposed to be the same. There are six other ways that this Text is tortured and racked, it were to take and give needless pains to repeat them: the Words are to be thus: Send ye the Ruler of the Land's Lamb, from the Rock of the Desart, to the Mountain of the Daughter of Zion. As the Points lay the Words thus, the Context embrace it as Coherent. It is the Prophet's Politick, and just Advice to the proud Moabites, after a severe threatning of Ruin, viz. by paying the Just Tribute. I shall conclude this Ʋse, with a Place out of Pseiffer's Dubia Vex. 1685. He was my first Master, in his Compend. of Wasmuth. But I doubt, from this place, if ever he made his own, what he Communicated in that Af­fair, 2 Sam. 23.1. David the Son of Jesse said, the Man who was raised up on high, the Anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet Psalmist of Israel said. The Question is, If the Anointed of the God of Jacob be one of David's Titles or Christ's? and so that Clause to be read thus: The Man who was estab­lished, or raised up, concerning the Messiah of the God of Jacob. If Messiah be David's Title, or the Ob­ject he confides in, and speaks of, is the Question? [Page 99] The Vulgar, and Osiander, and Luther, are for this last, the Messiah's being the Object. But that Pseif­fer should follow them I admire, against Eight most Accurate Criticks, and Four Jews. But let us weigh Reasons:

First, On High has a [...] upon it, and therefore the Proposition is stopt from going further in Co­herence, and the Particle [...] is not a Preposition here: why should it not have the same Influence on [...] that it has on Jacob? There are four Epi­thets in so many Sentences equally related, and distinguished, and have suitable Notes or Marks.

Secondly, [...] is a Name in other places, Hos. 7.16. & 11.7. They return, but not to the Most High. Wasmuth's first Reason is, That the Anointed of the God of Jacob is too great a Title.

Resp. A greater than this, which is, Messiah Elo­him, is applied to Saul and David, viz. Messiah Jehovae, 1 Sam. 24, 6, 10. & 26.9.11. 2 Sam. 1. 14. & 19.21.

His Second Reason is, That [...] is a Preposition notwithstanding Sakef katon, or Sakeph gadol brings me beyond intention, to as hard a place as any mentioned, and without the Accents must be lost, as to Sense, though we should take all other helps. Eccles. 8.2. I counsel thee to keep the King's Com­mandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God. [I counsel thee] is the Translators, as all Words in small Characters (an usual Sign of their being at their last Refuge.) The Points turn it thus: As to me, keep the King's Command; and as to the Most High, keep the Words, the Oath of God. The same easie Sense with, Fear the Lord, and the King; fear God, and honour the King. The Lxx thus: Keep the King's Commandment, and be not hasty concerning [Page 100] the Word of God's Oath. Wherein the first Word [...] is left out, and two fetched from the third Verse, and put in: This is to turn Adversary, and cut at Pleasure (it is certain the Verses were from the beginning, they are expresly mentioned in the Mischna, and their use, and every Verse, or Silluk, is Relative; it is the Head of such a Chain of Points, without which it cannot be put. I met with a MSS. put this in my Head; but as that Expressed it, all Verses, in all Languages, must have Points.) Now the Syrian, Arab and Chaldee, follow the Lxx. in this Verse; therefore to follow them, is to be led by the Blind. The Vulgar, Roman, Luther, Osian­der, thus. I observe the King's Commandment, &c. Here, besides the running over Points, they trans­gress all Rules of Grammar, and make the Second Person Imperative, the First Person Indicative. Arias Montan. and some others, I, keep thou the King's Commandment, &c. Where is the Sense for [I]? Aben Ezra, Vatab. Pagn. Junius, and Tr. I counsel thee, &c. As the English. But then [...] is trampled on. 2. [...] III Translated. 3. Hard and Difficult Sense. 4. Word left out.

Cant. 7.5. The King is held in the Galleries. Our Translation is right, and the Sense is; That the Churches Beauty detains the King, when he is, as it were, passing from one Room to another through the Galleries: He cannot forsake his walking among the Golden Candlesticks; he cannot with­draw his Presence from his Church, not only on the account of his Father's Commission and Com­mand; but from a Principle of Love he bears to her. His walk has been from his Birth to his Se­cond Coming. But Criticks carry it thus: The Hair of thy Head, like to the King's Purple, ty'd up in [Page 101] Curls or Ringlets. But contrary to the Accents, for [...] is on Purple. Judges 6.24. And Gideon built an Altar there, and called it Jehova Shalom. Our Translation favours Photinians and Socinians, who invalidate the Argument, for Christ's Deity, from the proper Name of God Jehova being ascribed to him, since it is ascribed to other things, as here to the Altar, but falsly; for [...] Tipha is under Je­hova, and shows it is not to be united with Sha­lom, or Peace; and therefore is thus to be Tran­slated: And the Lord called it Peace.

Isa. 24.5. That great Critick, Lud. de Dieu, Translates it thus: As the heat in a dry place, so is the noise of strangers: Thou shalt bring down their heat with the shadow of a cloud that is thick: the breath of the cruel ones shall witness it. A Man might as well take a Text out of Aristotle's Ethicks, and propose it to the People for Divine Revelation, as this. Solomon bids us not remove the ancient land-mark which our fathers have set. The removing of Marks here, is to call the Imaginations of our Brain, the Dictates of Divine Wisdom. Here is a triple Transgression; first [...] on Tachniagh, thou shalt bring down, used as if it were a Minister. Secondly, [...] Tipcha on [...] Strangers, used as a Major Do­minus. Thirdly, Sakeph on Zaon, a dry place, made a Minor. So that the whole Tenor of the Sacred Language is violated by him, to make this Sense; and yet the last Clause is none of the best. It is to be turned according to the Points, thus: As the heat in a dry place, thou shalt bring the noise of strangers: As the heat by the shadow of a cloud; the song of the terrible shall be brought low. I shall end this with Psal. 110.3. Such variety of Opinions is here, says Bootius, that there is nothing so Fan­ciful, [Page 102] or far from the Author's Scope, that is not attempted to be accommodated to this place. A sharp Wit proves often a most Perverse Interpre­ter of Scripture. And hence your popular Preachers at a venture making Scripture for their purpose, deal not always fairly with their Credentials, if ever committed to their Trust. The Lxx. and Vulgar, read it thus. With thee was the Principle in the Day of thy Power, in the Beauty of Holiness, from the Womb, before the Morning-Star have I begotten thee. And this lays a Foundation for School-Di­vinity.

First, How is there place for a Principium? within the Trinity how can there be a Cause? for then there must be an Effect.

Secondly, Who is the Principium, Father or Son? Toto Coelo errant, misapplying this Scripture to the Eternal Generation of the Son, that is wholly im­ployed in the Regeneration of Saints, that is, the Adequate Object of it.

Vatablus, Munster, Luther, Castalio, French and Dutch turn it thus. Thy People shall be willing in the Day of thy Power, in the Beauty of Holiness, from the Womb of the Morning. By which [...] is neglected upon Power, and [...] Tipha on Holiness made Ma­jor. And,

Thirdly, Atnah on Morning, made a Minister. Our English is better, but puts not a just value on Merca Mahpah. Now we shall find an easie, or­nate, and genuine Sense, by observing the Points thus: Thy People shall be a willing People in the Day of thy Power: thy People shall be in the Beauty of Holi­ness, from the Womb of the Morning: thou shalt have the Dew of thy Youth. I never was forced, by ab­surdness, and unreasonableness in Sense, to for­sake [Page 103] these Points; but often could find no place for the Soal of my Foot; until I took them for my Guide.

Note further, That I have abstain'd from Para­phrase on these Texts, from the easiness, I suppose in them, being once rightly Translated, ex gr. In this last, the Three Lords make Three Proposi­tions. The first Asserting the readiness of Christ's Disciples to follow him, from the Influence of Di­vine Power. The second, the earliness of their be­ing at Publick Worship, as the Effect and Evidence of that Promptitude. The third, a Promise to Christ of Reward, viz. The Reward of Success, not one drop of Sweat should be in vain, He should Reap a Harvest of Glory from all.

A Third Ʋse is, To Compare, Examine, Cor­rect, or Confirm Translations, as the Case requires, ex gr. Eccl. 5.8. Engl. Moreover, the profit of the earth is for all. The King himself is served by the field. French. The profit of the earth is above all; the King himself is served in the Field, or Camp. Vatablus, Castalio, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, Junius and Treme­lius, and the Dutch, much to the same purpose; and are well and right in the first Proposition, but in the Second they separate the King and the Field, with served, contrary to the Accents [...] there­fore wrong, and to be mended thus: The King is for the Land, who is served or worshipped. All the rest, Lxx, Luther, Castalio, Vulgar, make but one Proposition of the Verse, and so neglect [...] which is a greater Fault, thus: The King of the plowed Land, is the chief of all in the Earth: Or, The King of the whole Land, commands him that labours it. I shall only give Examples in the English, it with [Page 104] the Dutch being among the Exactest, except Va­rennius, who understood this Art (there is but little he has done) Exod. 18.11. Now, I know, that the Lord is greater than all Gods: For he was above them in that thing; wherein they dealt proudly against him.

The latter part of the Verse contains the Diffi­culty and Variety, that wherein I differ from the English, in (which is thus) For in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them, is not whether [...] signifies above, or against. I value not which, it may be either; but against will be better. But it is about the place where the Relative Proposi­tions terminate, and where the Supplement is to be made, says the English, just before ghalehem, Above them: he was, is to be supplied, and there the Stop Relative. For on Zadu, dealing proudly, is a Minor, no stop to a Proposition. 2. Upon wherein, ascher, is a Minor, which signifies that United to it. 3. On thing is silluk's Major, [...] which shows all between them to be one Pro­position, and therefore on the contrary the Stop is to be there, as I have put it.

Now, Note further, [...] on thing will have a Proposition between him and [...] as well as between him and silluk, therefore, as is usual, the Supple­ment is to be made by Repetition of he was greater, or above them; so that there is more difference in the Reason of things here than in the Result.

This informs us of another use of these Points, viz. Where the Supplement is to be put in, Exod. 20.20. Ye shall by no means make with me. [here stop] Gods of silver, and Gods of gold ye shall not in any wise make unto you. The stop is on me. Lev. 27.2. The Person shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. [Page 105] Correct thus: The vow shall be to the Lord, by thy estimation of the Soul, or Person, because the Points are thus [...] Soul and Estimation are united, but Soul and Lord disjoyned. By which we see the Priests were Fathers of their Flesh, that could Mulct at pleasure. Deut. 20.19. — For the Tree of the Field is Man's Life, to employ them in the siege. Or, The Tree of the Field is for Man, though he be imployed in the siege. Correct it thus: Man, there are Trees of the Field, [viz. wild and fruitless] let them be brought before thee for the siege. Eccle. 1.5. Thus it should be: The Sun ariseth, and the Sun goeth down; he goeth down to his place, there panting. (for the same Sun then is rising) there is [...] between Panting and Place, therefore they agree not. Eccle. 3.18. Varenius excellently thus: I said in my heart, according to the state of the Sons of Men there is need they choose a God, and that they see that they are Beasts, I say that they are Beasts to themselves. This agrees with the Points [...] and agrees with the Context, viz. Tyrannical and Unjust Tri­bunals on Earth, ver. 17. But upright Judgment from Heaven. Ver. 18. Which if Men deny, or decline, they will be Beasts to one another, Eccle. 8.11. The Order and Consecution of the Points are disturbed in most; Because the Decree is not exe­cuted, the work of wickedness going on with speed; there­fore the heart of the Sons of Men is full in them to work wickedness. For [...] is between Sentence, and what follows.

Eccles. 9.1. — Or hatred by all that is before them. [...] is skipped over, and by ill supply'd, tho Sense is, Man knoweth neither Love nor Hatred, but all these things are before them, viz. God in the Plu­ral.

Eccles. 9.4. For who would associate with them [...]? viz. wicked, dead, among all the living there is hope: Else [...] would be under [...] not [...] the like ne­glect of [...] in Josh. 7.10. Wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? wherefore is this? why art thou thus fall'n on thy face? Two Questions, not one only.

Judg. 5.13. Then shall the remaining Rule; the re­maining People shall rule over the Nobles. Thus Seb Schmidt. I should not forsake the Common Tran­slation, he means Junius and Tremelius, Luther, Dutch and English, who turn it. The remnant shall rule over the Nobles among the People. They sup­pose כ in [...] to be understood among the People, without any Cause; they neglect [...] under Le adi­rim, Princes, therefore says he, I Translate it as before, because the Accents agree not, and it sup­poses ב understood, which is harsh. The Vulgar Latin deserves not the Name of a Translation here, that turns it thus: The residue of the People, the Lord hath fought among the mighty, &c. The French is right.

Judges 5.15. Schmidt makes the like Correction on a Text sufficiently tortured, thus: The Princes of Issachar were with Deborah, Issachar also was with Barak; in the valley was the enemy thrust under his feet: In the ranks of Reuben, there would have been the like, for they were great Men in the thoughts of their heart.

Judges 5.22. Idem. The hoofs of the horses were broken; from [...] tramplings were the tramplings of his mighty ones, i. e. They trode down one another, viz. Sisera's Horse through Confusion; one riding down another. There are Nine Translations make but one Proposition; the French and English sup­pose [...] to be under Medaharath, Prancings; but [Page 107] there is only [...] under Sus, Horse. The Rea­son I have omitted other Translations is to pre­vent Bulk, and needless Pains. If I can know what is Truth and Right, it is no loss to be ignorant of what is Erroneous; but this I assert of the most known Translations, Chaldee, Lxx. Vulgar, Mun­ster, Castalio, Pagnine, Arias Mont. Vatablus, Junius and Tremelius, Luther, French, &c. That in these quoted Places they are much more Corrupt than the English.

Secondly, That there are two hundred more, and more momentous Corruptions in them, and the En­glish too. See for once more Ezek. 20.26. And I polluted them in their own Gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the Womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord. It were horrid to say, That when they committed Idolatry God was the Author of the Pollution. And, secondly, yet more to say, He did it that He might destroy them.

Thirdly, How unbecoming Knowledge of God would this Exhibit? Yea, suppose to Pol­lute, did signifie to permit it, but for that no Rea­son can be brought, except Absurdity otherways Consequent.

Fourthly, By what Authority do they add Fire to the Text? there was enough in it before in their Sense.

Fifthly, It is contrary to Consecution of Points to change the Person, it is much more consistent to continue the same Person thus, In that I caused, &c. And this gives a Key to all, which is to be turned, thus; I pronounced them, with their gifts, to be un­clean. Lev. 13.2. When I passed over the first-born, [Page 108] and chose the Levites, or made the first-born pass over to me, and rejected the People, Ex. 13.12, 15. Numb. 18.16. & 8.16. And this for a double end, That I might render them amaz'd, or fill them with admiration, Job 21.5. Ezek. 35.15. & 3.15. And 2. That they might know that I am the Lord. The Constitution of the Priests did illustrate God's Holiness, and Typifie the Mediator.

A Fourth Ʋse is, That which I first learned, and will undertake to instruct another Man in an Hours time, viz. The Analysis of any Verse or Text, in­to its greatest greater, lesser and least Members; and that with such certainty, that let any Man tell me the Points, without telling me where the Verse is, or what the Words are in it; I shall tell him every Division, and Sub-division the Matter re­quires, where every Proposition ends; what Pro­positions are most related, and what most opposed, and what are the Circumstantial Words to the Proposition. This may save Students many Hours pains, who frequently labour under a Difficulty, about what are to be United, what Divided.

Secondly, It will enable to give Obedience to St. Paul's Pastoral Letter to Timothy, about rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. To give an Instruct­ing and Affecting Anatomy; not a Butcherly forc­ing, and cutting things asunder, that the Spirit of God has United. I remember that witty Book, call'd, The Contempt of the Clergy, Ridicules this Phrase; That the Text divides it self. But we may see it is a Sacred Truth; for these Points leave it not to our Arbitration, how many Members, or Branches, or what kind of ones the Text is to be divided in. For the Text divides it self, or the Authors of the Text, at least of these Points. To assist thee in this, these few Rules are sufficient.

First, Silluk with Soph pasuk, divides every Verse from another.

Secondly, [...] Atnach divides every Verse in two equal Parts.

Thirdly, [...] in Poetick Books supplies the place of Atnach, and is of the same use.

Fourthly, Where [...] and [...] are both in Prose, and [...] and [...] both in Verse, then the Verse is to be di­vided in three equal Propositions.

Fifthly, These great Branches are divided in les­ser Propositions, where [...] or [...] is to be seen, or [...] or [...] or [...] sometimes.

Sixthly, Subject and Predicate of the Propositions, Time, Place, and other Circumstances, are divi­ded by lesser Lords, [...] or others of the like kind.

Seventhly, Where any Minister is, make no Breach or Division.

To Assist thee yet a little further, Suppose every Verse or Text to be an Oration, or Speech, to be Analysed.

Secondly, That its immediate, or greatest Mem­bers, are usually Propositions, and these may be very Comprehensive too, being Copulative, Com­parative, Disjunctive, Conditional, or attended with Circumstances.

Thirdly, That the mediate Members are simple Propositions, that bear a Respect to the other, by Connexion, Disjunction, or Comparison.

Fourthly, That the ultimate Members of these are Subject, or Predicate.

Fifthly, That beside these Essentials of a Propo­sition, there are Adjuncts, as How? Where? When? Why? Who?

Sixthly, That the Analyser, if he can truly divide every Verse in a Chapter, may Divide, or Ana­lyse the whole Chapter aright; and he that knows the true determined Sense of every Verse, is able to understand the whole Chapter. As to the for­mer, here is a most helpful Art, and to improve it to the latter, needs only a good Judgment, with a little of Practical Logick.

To conclude this Logical Ʋse of the Points, I shall Illustrate it with some Examples, which may be found in the two Last Chapters of this Book; at present take this, Gen. 3.15. The Points are thus [...] from which, without Knowledge of the Words, I can see the Text is not only to be Divided into two Propo­sitions, but of different Subject. The Matter of the one Hemistich is distinct from the other; for the middle Point is Atnach. See the Rule.

Secondly, That each of these Hemistichs is to be Sub-divided into two Propositions; for there is a [...] in each, which by the Rule stands always on the end of a Sentence, and has another between him and the absolute Lord.

Thirdly, That the single Terms being more in the first Proposition, than in the following; it is likely it contains some common thing to be repea­ted; for it contains four Words, the other three only.

Fourthly, That though this Text contains but 15 Words, it must contain at least 12 or 11 distinct Subjects to be treated on, for there are 10 Lords. [Page 111] Now let us turn to the Words, and we may fill up these Blanks with the Work of God in the first He­mistich, and the Office of Christ in the Second. The first Proposition contains God's Work of Re­generation, changing the Temper of Man's Mind, putting Enmity where Love was, and Love where Enmity. The Second contains God's Work of Re­conciliation.

Where, as was noted, Enmity is to be repea­ted. Here is indeed the Promise of a Seed imply'd; for where the individual Life was forfeited, the Title to Increase was surely lost; besides, that Pro­mise was to both Conjugated, this [...] to the Woman apart.

But here is expressed an Enmity, and that by Divine Constitution, between this Seed and Satan; and there is moreover here expressed some Empha­tick Difference between the Enmity, as it stands in this Member, and the Member before; for little Members needs only little Lords: here is a great one indeed, since we know the Subject to be Christ, the only Seed of Woman alone: We know that as to Woman there was a necessity of Regenera­tion, in order to Enmity, but here's no need, for that would render the Emphasis on the first Mem­ber, for God doth more where he is Lord of Hosts, and manages the War, and also infuses Ability and Will for the Battle, than where he is only Ge­neralissimo.

But the Emphasis being on the Second, signifies the Heat of the Battle to lie on Him, and that God had more to do in and through Christ, in destroy­ing the Work of Satan, than in Man, though a new Creation be necessary in him. The whole Work of God then in Conquering Satan through Christ, [Page 112] is in the Second Proposition. The Third Proposition contains all the Activity of Christ, as King or Me­diator in that Affair. And the Fourth, all his Suf­ferings.

The Scope of the Verse is pointed at in the Word Enmity, for 1. [...] is by it. 2. It is a Threatning 3. All is exerted through it; Satan's Malice, the Regenerate Man's Grace, the Mediator's Office, and the God of Hosts, as Glorifying his Holiness in all.

Every little Lord has some considerable Subject, 1. Heel, Christ's Humanity. 2. Head, Satan's Pow­er and Dominion; its now over Death, Darkness, this World, but the World to come, shall not be Subject to him: he fell much at Christ's Ascension: before that we find him appearing in Heaven, among the Angels, but Rev. 12.6. He was then cast down to the Earth, when Christ ascended on High, and led them that use to take Captive Cap­tives; but he will meet with a more severe Day, &c.

A Fifth Ʋse is, To Reconcile the Citations in the New Testament, with the Original Text in the Old, which if they effectually do, I think it is no small Argument of their Authentickness. But it must not be here forgotten, that they are Ministers of Sense, not Sound or Letters; and therefore I cannot undertake more by them, than to recon­cile the Sense: the Words may differ without Re­pugnancy to this.

Another Caution I must add, That this is not the only Mean of Reconciling Difficulties of that kind, though its a great one. But Instances must best Illustrate the Case, and make these Points speak for themselves. Pulchrum est Digito de monstrari & dicier, hic est.

The first I shall mention is scarcely observed to be, or have a Reference, viz. Mat. 1.1. The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ. But I have often observed, That the New Testament is only a Com­ment on the Old Testament. They are the Texts from which Christ and the Apostles Discoursed, and on which they Wrote, being the whole Bible in their Day. I find Forty of them before I read to the 13th. Chapter of this first Book; of which St. Matthew, the Author, calls the Origen of Christia­nity; or, a Book of the Original or Beginnings of that Great Jesus Christ. And I find above Forty Psalms quoted in the New Testament; some of them twice, some three, some four, five, six, seven times quoted; that the New Testament is a very little Book without the Old. What Matthew does in acto signato, in Name or Title, Luke, Cap. 3. doth in Fact, Who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. Spanhemius, with others, refers this to Gen. 5.1. where the like Phrase is: This is the book of the generation of Adam. But Adam's Ori­ginal and Christ's, are very different, Mat. 1.18. Christ's Original was Supernatural, from the Holy Ghost, that from Adam was Natural. The goings forth of Christ, Mic. 5.2. have been from everlast­ing. Therefore I refer to Gen. 2.4. and shall Illustrate the Agreement from the Points: The Words should be Translated thus: These are the originals of the Heavens, and of the Earth; in the days when they were created: and these are the Originals in the day of the Lord God's restoring the Earth and the Heavens, viz. The Seventh Days Work, wherein God gave the Messias to the World, Gen. 3.8.15. as the Origen and Foundation of Settling and Estab­lishing all things. See more of this in the System. [Page 114] We see as Moses began the History of the Church in the Old Testament; so Matthew doth in the New.

The Second Quotation is from Mat. 1.23. from Isa. 7.14. There is no difference, nor difficulty, except with the Jews, who plead that called Imma­nuel, cannot signifie his Nature, or Natural Name; but his imposed, individual Name, against both Scripture, and Rabbinical Authority. But by the Points I shall give thee a Paraphrase on that dif­ficult Context.

In the Days of Ahaz, a most degenerate Son, and Grand-Son, God afflicted Judah, both by Sy­ria, and Ephraim, separately. These two now Confederate, and intend to overthrow Judah's Kingdom, and the Davidical Succession; and to set up a Vice-Roy, the Son of Tabeal, a Famous War­rior, who should pay Tribute to them two, ac­cording to Agreement. The News of this most grievously Afflicts Ahaz, and all Jerusalem; in which condition, God sends Isaiah, and Son of Hope, Shear Jashub, to Comfort him, and inform, That the Fire he feared to be consumed in, could not last long; for these two Kings were but, first, Firebrands: secondly, Tal's: thirdly, Smoaking only: and more plainly, that the Lease of their Lives and Kingdoms, was but short, viz. 65 Years from Amos's Prophecy, 1.3. & 4.23. & 5.27. whereof now there remained not 20 to both Kingdoms. He continues to press the Belief of this, and desires him to ask any Sign for Confirmation. But that Blasphemous Mouth breaks Silence, with a Pro­fession of utter and entire Rejection of Jehovah: I neither will ask, nor put it to any Tryal or Ex­periment, what Jehovah can do for me. 2 Kings 7. [Page 115] The Assyrian is my Pillar I depend on, and ma Gods I have chosen; Jehova I will not meddle with, He shall have no place among my Gods. In opposition to it Isaiah blames him for wearying his God. My God, ver. 13. and further Informs him how God would dispose of the Davidical Family.

First, That a Virgin of that Family should con­ceive, and bear the Promised Seed, Gen. 3.15.

Secondly, That that Seed should be Called on, Believed in, and Profess'd to be, God with us, Isa. 62.4. Jer. 3.17. Ezek. 48.35. Isa. 61.3. & 9.6. & 54.5. So far Matthew cites. For what follows belong'd not to his Birth, but Life, ver. 16. viz. all Riches, Honour and Glory, would perish from that Family; for that great King should not live like Solomon, but on Natural, Country, wild Food. Inter caseatos nutritus montes, sylvas (que) melleas, Heirom, Butter and Honey. But beside that, he should ex­perience Affliction very much, yet always his choice should be Holy. But says he, ver. 16, 18. Though on this account God will perfect this Royal Line, he will not suffer your Iniquity to pass unpunished. And though, as I have said, thy two Enemies shall quickly be ruined, and not thou by them whom thou fearest; but the King of Assyria, whom thou trusts in, shall destroy thee.

A Second, more to my purpose, is Mat. 2.5. from Mic. 5.2. Herod enquires about the place of Christ's Birth: The Priests and Scribes answer, from a Fa­mous Prophecy, that gives account of a triple Is­sue, or Procedure of the Messias.

The First is, [...] from Everlasting, or Eter­nity; so it always signifies, without Days, Months, or some such Fraction of Time be added, Deut. 33.27. Psal. 55.20. Hab. 1.12. Kimchi is so sensi­ble [Page 116] of this, that he basely foists in [...] and then proves that it signifies not always Eternity. This Generation is from God's Eternal Decree.

The Second is, [...] from the Days of Old, when he was sent into the World by his Father, and made manifest in the first Promise, Gen. 3.14. This Distinction is used, Prov. 8.22, 24. In the beginning of God's ways, and before the beginning of his works. So John 1.1. In the beginning was the Word, i. e. When that Week of Creation gave Being to Creatures, He then was John 1.1. From the beginning was the Word of Life. The last Phrase signifies only Contemporariness with that first Week, the former Pre-existence. Hence the Pro­mise of Christ, Tit. 1.2. And Grace given in Christ which was within this beginning. 2 Tim. 1.9. is said to be [...] before the World began, say our Translation; but better before the Ages of Time, which began after the first Week of Time, which in Scripture is usually called the Beginning, Gen. 1.1. John 1. Prov. 8. &c.

But the Third Egression is, St. Matthew's Sub­ject, and the Scribe's, which was much later in the Fulness of Time at Christ's Birth, as a Mortal Man, and this was from Bethlehem, in the Expression whereof he seems neither to agree with the Lxx. nor Hebrew, as we English it. As to the former I am not solicitous, but conclude against its Au­thentickness: the Evangelist minded not how the Lxx. did express this great Prophecy, either Words or Sense. As to the Hebrew, there are more diffe­rences than one, first about the Character of the Messias's Office; the Hebrew Words express more his Authority and Power, Matthew more his Good­ness. He shall guide and feed. Some think good [Page 117] Simeon did it to alleviate Herod's Anger and Fear, however there is no Inconsistency.

Secondly, As to the place, Micah calls it Ephra­ta, 1 Chron. 2.19. from Caleb's Wife, or the Fruit­fulness of the Country, Ruth 2.1. or the Name of the Country about. [...] Psal. 132.6. We heard of it at Ephrata. Matthew calls it Judah, from the Tribe. Jos. 10.15. There was another in Zebulon; but there is no Repugnancy, all is true.

The Third is a Difficulty that needs Points about the Dignity of Bethlehem [...] Thou art lit­tle, says Micah, [...], thou art by no means one of the least, i. e. Thou art one of the greatest, says Matthew. Hottinger reconciles them thus, [...] signifies also a Captain or Prince, Jer. 48.4. Zech. 13.7. And so they agree, Micah calling Bethlehem a Prince among Thousands. To him Pocok adds Isa. 60, last Verse.

Secondly, Kimchi explains it by Concession: Al­though Little in other Respects, yet Great on this account.

Thirdly, De Dieu thus Adverbially; It is a little thing that thou should be among the Thousands; that is a small Dignity, thou shalt have a greater, For out of thee, &c.

Fourthly, Grotius, Jacob Alt. Reconciles them by ה Ellipticam & Interrogativum. 2 Sam. 18, 29, 32. Psal. 14.2. Rom. 3.11. Psal. 121.1. with Jer. 3.23. Art thou little?

Fifthly, Capellus, by supposing the Text corrupt, and that [Lo not] should be added: this is the worst of all.

Sixthly, Observe a Rhetorical Consecution of Ac­cents on the Word [thou art little] therefore some are Convinc'd they are Emphatical and Figurative, not [Page 118] a plain Assertion. 2. [...] Repeated, signifies an Irony. So Mica's Sense is, as we used to say of London, when it wanted its Charter, Little Lon­don, the little Village, for Bethlehem was reckoned for a Chiliarch, and so taxed for Men and Money. But it had all the Riches of the Royal Family Fat­tening it, all the Blood Royal, and their Inheri­tance was here. Now a Meiosis, and an Irony, harmonizes, for to say Little, and mean Much, is very like saying one thing, and meaning the con­trary. So that the Text is not false but fine.

Secondly, A repeated [...] is a true mark of an Irony; for it signifies an Union of Words, with dividing of Sense: All Domini divide in Sense by their Office; Pashta is one, but the same Dominus repeated unites the Words, and makes them as one. My Opinion agrees with the Third, though De Dieu is no Friend to the Points, he is so good an Hebrean, they seldom fall out in practice. It is a little thing that thou should be. For, 1. [...] divides little and art: and, 2. the Substantive Verb is in the Infinitive. 3. There is [...] before haveth. So that indeed it had been, and is a fault in the Transla­tion, to turn it, Thou art little. 4. Figures are not to be used without necessity; and therefore, though the former Irony may be good, there is no place for him, when a must goes before it. And that place in Mica, must be Translated thus. But thou Beth­lehem Ephrata, it is a little thing for to be among the Thousands of Judah: For out of thee, &c.

There remains three more quoted Places by Mat­thew, in this Second Chapter; one ver. 15. — By the Prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son. Another, ver. 17, 18. by Jeremiah the Pro­phet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, la­mentation [Page 119] and weeping, &c. The last, ver. 23. In a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets; he shall be called a Naza­rene. There is also another, in the Opinion of most Divines, v. 2. & 9. about the Star that conducted the Magos, or wise Men.

I shall begin with the Second, being the most easie and agreeable, Jer. 31.15. The Prophet from the beginning of the Chapter, having fore-told Is­rael's happy Days under the Reign of the Messias, gives warning of intervening Clouds, that would turn that bright Morning of Christ's Birth into Blackness, and Eclipse that Morning-Star, with all his Oriental Beams: The cries of Bethlehem should be heard, even as far as Rama, on the other side of Jerusalem, at Rachel's Grave (that gave name to the Country) should the sorrow of Rachel's Death be re-acted, the Birth of her Son could not comfort her. Nor could the Birth of this Benjamin comfort the Mothers of Bethlehem, For he was not, says Jeremiah, gone to all intents in their Opinion, all Israel's Hope cut off by the Cruelty of Herod. As Augustus said, He had rather be his Sow than his Son; for his own Child at Nurse is slaughtered with the rest. For they are not, says Matthew. Eve­ry Cradle in Bethlehem was sprinkled with the Blood of Babes, every House had now a Benoni in it.

The difficulty of the First arises from our Inter­preters, not the Text, referring it to Hos. 11.1. which is a History of what God had done to Israel, but no Prophecy of the Messias. We may find a more proper Text in the very following 16 verse of this Jer. 31. Refrain thy voice from weeping, for they shall return out of the land of the enemy. Egypt [Page 120] was the Enemy to Israel, the first and the chief, Exod. 15.6, 9. Deut. 28.68. There is a change of Number, as before, and not without great Em­phasis; for through this great Redeemer, the Babes were to return from the Land of their Enemy Death Also 1 Cor. 15.26. Luke 24.14. which ver. 17. is expressed.

The Third is from the same Chap. ver. 6. The day shall come wherein the Nazarites shall cry in the Mount of Ephraim, Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to Jehovah our God. It's a Prophecy of the great Means and Instruments of Israel's Happiness, who are called Watchmen in the English, but Nazarites in the Original. And we find this was both a Name to Christ and his Disciples, Acts 24.5.14. & 28.22. And these are the great Means, and shall be, of Israel's Restauration. Abarb, a Jew, comes nigh to this Sense, when he says the Prophet, by the Holy Ghost, fore-saw that the Romans would Believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore would be called Nazarites from him. But Mat­thew says more than one Prophecied of this, Isa. 11.1. A Branch [...] shall grow out of his Roots. When the Family of David is as low as it was in the Days of Jesse, a meer Plebeian, none of the El­ders of his City, 1 Sam. 16. when like a Tree without Branches, yea a part of the Trunk cut off; when the Number was few, and the Strength small, then shall this tender Cyon spring from this dry Root.

Neither of these seem full enough to answer Matthew's intent, who says, He had this Name from his place of Education, that the Prophets might be fulfilled. Yet it seems obscurely, for the Jews expected no Prophet from Nazareth. Now I [Page 121] find a place in Ezek. 17.22, 23. to answer both these. I will crop off from the top of his young twig, a tender one, and will plant it upon a high Mountain, and eminent, &c. The very Property and Cha­racter of Nazareth, Luke 4.29. Here was Christ, the Branch, Planted, after he came from Egypt. It was not his Native Soil; the Properties and Epi­thets with the Jews consent too, demonstrate it to be a Prophecy of the Messias, and much like the former, for it signifies his Original to be at a time when that Royal Oak of the Davidical Line was brought very low.

We may observe many Quotations to be com­pounded, as this Phrase [by the Prophets] do sup­pose. And so also, where that is not expressed, v. gr. Mat. 2.15. Out of Egypt. Jeremiah calls it the Land of their Enemy. But Numb. 24.8. The King of Israel, that was higher than Agag, its said, That God brought him out of Egypt. Jerome, and Eusebius, both think that to be the Prophecy that Matthew intends, and indeed both are appli­cable; as also the appearance of that Comet, cal­led Christ's Star. The only Difficulty is, if Balaam meant the Person of the Messias, or a Sign of him, when he said, ver. 17. There shall come a Star out of Jacob. Christ himself is called The bright and mor­ning Star, Rev. 22.16. But that is no Argument for Balaam's Star, its being He. On the contrary, the Jews, who only draw Conclusions from the Words, think a Cometical Star is meant. Abrab thinks if the Person of the Messias were intended, it would not be מ from or out, but כ in Jacob, which receives much Strength from Mat. 2.3. The Magi, in Mesopotamia, or Persia, saw this Star arising in Israel.

Secondly, The Word [...] shall walk, or make its way, or course from Jacob. Judg. 5.20. Stars in their courses. Now this had a very low course, for it went before them, and stood over the place.

Thirdly, The Scepter, or Person, as the Lxx. has it, [...], is spoken of, as a thing whereof the former was a sign. Then shall a Scepter arise cut of Israel. For [...] that is upon Jacob, is too great a Lord to distinguish between the Star and Scepter, if both signified the same thing.

The Fourth Argument is only to prove, That this is the Messias; that the two Lords of this Star, ver. 19.17. are but one, and that from the Influence of this Scepter.

1. He would wound [...] and ruine all the Bor­ders of Moab, leave no part unaffected; but on the contrary the Sethits, the first distinguishing Title of the Sons of God, in opposition to Cainites, Judg. 9. Gen. 4.24. & 5.2. & 6. The People of that Disposition and Genius he would build up, or Cluck together, Mat. 23.37. [...] may sig­nifie to build or destroy, Isa. 22.5. Cant. 8.9. but [...] to Refresh, to Confirm, or Glocitare, to Cluck, or Coaxare. We render Isa. 22.5. Breaking down the Wall (others the City Kir) and crying to the Mountains. But the Talmud, Glocitando Glocitatio­nem clamore versus montem. The Sense is (for the Literal English is harsh) Mothers, Fathers, each to their dear Relations, O come, let us fly to the Moun­tains, as the Hen doth to her Chickens; for [...] a City is with (י) Iota longum; but here its [...].

The Second Effect, ver. 18, 19. is against Edom, and its chief City, which the Jews call Bozrah, Jer. 49.13. and think it is Typical Rome. But the Ro­man Monarchies Rise and Ruine, under the Ships [Page 123] of Chittim, are both Prophecied of, ver. 24, 25. as the last and greatest Dispensation of this great King.

I have kept close to this cluster of Quotations in one place, that the Reader may see how vain the attempt is of studying the New Testament, or hoping to attain a thorow Knowledge of it, without being expert in the Old: When the Apostles Preached, their Texts were out of the Old Testament, and their Sermons were the New Testament. When the Bereans, and others of the Primitive Christians, put their Sermons to Tryal; It was by the Old Testa­ment: For it was long before the New Testament was wrote, about twenty or thirty Years before any was wrote, one hundred before the Revela­tions and Epistles of John, and longer before the Churches received them as their compleat Canon. The New Testament has as much Relation to the Old now it is wrote, as before, when spoke, therefore there is no Refuge left in this common Asylum. We may learn from this also, the un­reasonableness of some Men's Arguments against the Scriptures Divinity, or the Divinity of some Substantial Doctrine in it, from the disagreement of the New Testament from the Old. Our Fathers have done great Service in searching out these Quotations, it is no great wonder if they have omitted some, or mistaken some; but it is a sad Conclusion that the Scripture contradicts it self, because that mistaken place, or the other, agrees not ex gr. It is brought as a strong Argument against the Doctrine of Christ's Suffering for our Sins, that Matthew, 8.17. applies that Phrase, Isa. 53.4. as quoted by Annotators, to the curing of Diseases. I Answer, May be Matthew intended [Page 124] not Isa. 53.4. or at least intended it not alone, but as accompanied with other Prophecies in that Prophet, which did fore-tell these healing Mira­cles of Christ. But to make his Proof more full, mentions a place that speaks of the Medicine, as well as the Cure, for by his stripes we are healed. Now Isa. 29.18. and 35.5. are most explicite Predictions of his Curing Diseases. The weak hands strengthened, the feeble knees confirmed, the blind eyes opened, and deaf ears unstop'd, &c. This, says the Prophet, ver. 4. will be a Salvation, that hath Merit and Reward in it to the Ransomed Ones; but ver. 10. Vengeance on Satan, your Enemy, ac­cording to the first Promise. But Matthew further improves Isaiah's Prophecy, for the Medicine as well as the Cure; what this Cure, of Body and Soul cost Christ, viz. no less than bearing our Sicknesses; and that not only as he was a Mortal Man, and so the Seed of all Diseases in him, like us in all things, except Sin; but suffered in a more violent manner, Gal. 3.10. The very Curse of the Law. There was no Threatning, so no Curse in the Law or Covenant Mediatorial, 1 Peter, 2.24. confirms this to be the Sense, He bore our Sins in his own Body. So did He bear our Griefs, and carry our Sorrows, when the Jews thought that God afflicted Him for his own Sin. The like Solution Heinsius gives to that perplexed place, Matth. 27.9. where Matthew is thought to mi­stake Jeremiah for Zechariah; but Matthew Quotes Jeremiah for the place purchased, Jer. 19.6. It should be called the valley of blood, or slaughter, as a Presage of Jerusalem's utter Ruine approaching, and Zechariah for the Price, Chap. 11.13. they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Secondly, It may be different Dialects or Lan­guages prevents Repugnancy, ex gr. Amos 5.26. says, Ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun. But Luke, Acts 7.42. calls him Remphan, and a Latinist would call him Saturn; for Castel Lex. shows the first to be the Arabick and Persian Name; and the Coptick Scholiast says Rephan, or Remphan, is the God of Time; Hysichus calls him Remban, no doubt the same with Rimmon, 2 Kings 5.18.

I shall conclude this Head with a most Emphatick Instance of the Points, Gal. 4.24, 25. —30. we have the Story of Hagar and Sarah, with their Sons, and the Story asserted to be Allegorical, or Typical, and the particular place of Scripture quoted by Paul, as a Foundation for it, is Gen. 21.10. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, cast out this bond-woman, and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac. The thing Typified is Jacob's Carnal Posterity, viz. not by Ishmael, but by Isaac: They that through the Grace of the Promise Believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him were Heirs of Heaven, born from above. But the Question is by what Spectacles Paul saw this in Sarah's seemingly do­mineering Spirit and Expressions; he had indeed, the Spirit of Prophecy, but he could not see that in a Text, which it did not contain by that Spirit. Now these Points informs us, That this Text con­tains a Mystery: They Rand thus: [...] [Page 126] There is here the greatest Emphasis the Points can make, viz. Silluk cum suo Soph pasuk, where the di­stinction in Sense is no greater than what a Sa­keph may serve by Rules of Consecution. This bond-woman, and her son: for the son, &c. They are respective Propositions, the one being the reason of the other, and therefore required a respective Lord, but by no means the most absolute Empe­ror [...] whose Office is to conclude a Verse, and to make the Verse conclude an entire Proposition; and to distinguish the Argument or Subject of it, from that in the following Verse. Our Transla­tors seeing no such distance, make but one Verse of both; which is a Deviation from the Original. But now the difficult Question still remains; How shall I know that this Emphasis is a Type? I an­swer, by the same Rule that [...] Emphasis is found out, his Office is to distinguish the Two Proposi­tions in a Verse, and therefore if there be but one Verb Indicative, you must repeat him to make two. So [...] use is to compleat a distinct Sense, and if the Words do it not, the Matter contain'd in these Words must. If Sarah had added, For Flesh and Blood cannot Inherit the Kingdom: Or, No birth by the strength of Nature entitles to Supernatural Promi­ses: or any thing of that kind, it makes a compleat Argument. Now we have the Apostle's Autho­rity for it, that this was intended by these Words. And Secondly, it is most agreeable to the general Use of this Point; and I may Challenge any In­stance in an Historical Book to the contrary. There are some Instances in the first Chapter of Proverbs, that seem difficult to be explained. But I am in­formed Bohlius has done it. Reinbeck thinks, Page 496. That the Emphasis consists in the Pregnancy [Page 127] of Sarah's Heart, with boiling Passion, seeing the proud aspiring Son of an haughty Mother, every Day mocking and scoffing at her Son, with Words and Gestures, and threatning after the Parent's Death the disposal of that Brat. Sarah sees this with both Eyes, and hears of it in both Ears: she endeavours his Amendment; she commits the Case to God, with many Groans and Tears: At last God Hears, Answers, Inspires her with his Holy Spirit, to enjoyn Abraham [loath to part with such a Mas­culine Boy, that was like to bear up his Name, and make his Enemies tremble] to throw out both out of the Family. I Answer, Disturbing Passion is sufficiently signified in the frequent Maccaphs, and in the disturbed Consecution of the Points. Secondly, Divine Inspiration is evidently noted in Verse 12. In all [that Sarah shall say unto thee] hearken to her voice. Where [...] Col. in all has [...] Telisha Ketanna, a Minister in place of [...] Rhebkia, the Major to [...] to signifie the Expedition needful, in obeying that then Devout, yea, Divine Voice of Sarah.

I do not Assert that Sarah or Abraham knew this compleat Typical Sense; the Prophets often had their own Prophecies for their Study. But I Be­lieve the Pointer, or Pen-man of this Verse, knew there was a Type in it; for Confirmation of which I Answer,

Secondly, to Reinbeck, That the Points are to be Guides in the Application of their Emphasis Rhe­torical, as well as of their Coherence, or Disjuncti­on Grammatical. And nothing so fully Answers the Use of a Silluk as a Type; for the Spiritual In­tent, makes the Argument and Sense compleat. And therefore I advise the Interpreter to look af­ter [Page 128] that Gen. 14.1, 2, 3. for any thing I know a Type of the Four Monarchies; we are sure Mel­chisedeck is a Type; and also Gen. 23.3, 4, 5, 6. for in both these places [...] is between respective Propositions. I shall conclude with this Caution, That we must not conclude there is no Type where [...] is not so placed. For then all the Book of Le­viticus must have been so Pointed; but only where it comes in unexpectedly, the general Intent being Historical, or Doctrinal. I shall yet add one more, We may give beyond Promise, but not punish be­yond Threatning.

The Question is, If this be the Eternal Genera­tion of the Son from the Fathers Essence, per modum cogitandi, says one. Seipsum modificandi, says ano­ther. Or the Temporal, of his Mother the Virgin; and with which of these Quotations the New will agree best.

Now I think there is a Third Son-ship to be pro­posed, viz. A peculiar supereminent Son-ship of the Humane Nature, by Virtue of its incomparable and ineffable Union with the Divine Nature. If a Beggar Marry a King's Daughter, he is the King's Son. Nearness to God is the Foundation of highest Dignity; this puts a value on his Blood, to be a Price sufficient. Now this Text says it is a Name and Generation by Statute and Decree, so an Eter­nal necessary Generation is not.

Secondly, The Psalmist refers to some peculiar Famous Day, wherein this was, or was exhibited; for begetting this Day seems to be an execution of [Page 129] what was before Decreed. Now Gen. 3.8. There is a most famous Day, wherein a Voice, or Word of the Lord, walking in the Garden, in the Morning of that Day, read, for [cool of the day.] Now that was the Seventh, the first Sabbath, wherein the Promise of that Seed which was so Eminent, by virtue of this Son-ship, was Promised, and by Praeludium ap­peared with the Message, i. e. The Divine Nature exerting his Office.

Thirdly, Prov. 8.22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way. The first Week is that which bears the Name of beginning.

Fourthly, Heb. 1.5.6. Where it is quoted, says the Time when he got this Name, was when he bring­eth the first begotten into the World. 2. A Son-ship by Promise, 2 Sam. 7. Wherein He excels the Angels.

D. G. Thinks the whole Intent of this Chapter is to prefer Christ to Angels, but not as God; what Jew would equal GOD and an An­gel? but as Man, by virture of his Personal Dig­nities, through that Union to God which was nearer than theirs.

Fifthly, Heb. 5 5, 8. A Son-ship by Calling. 2. A Son-ship by which God glorified Him. 3. A Son-ship, wherein He learn'd Obedience, and Suffered. 4. A Son-ship to found a Priest-hood.

Sixthly, Acts 13.13. This is said to be fulfilled in his Resurrection. Now 1. His Resurrection was necessary on the account of his Son-ship; it was in­consistent with his Dignity to be long dead, Psal. 16.10. Such an holy one (ver. 35.) could not feel corruption I may add, That though his Resur­rection, and first Introduction into the World, were not the same Day of the Week, the one be­ing first, the other the seventh; yet they agreed in [Page 130] his being Foundation of both, and in the Solemnity and Significancy of both; hence that we have a sweet Harmony in the Quotations.

2. A just ground for calling the Union betwixt the Humane Nature and Divine Personal, or next to Union of Nature; for I believe Angels com­prehend it not, so nigh it is.

There remains yet two more Uses of these Points.

First, Their Elentick Ʋse, they fit one to be a good Disputant. The Papists were not able to stand before the Protestants, at the first Reforma­tion, because of their Promptitude and Readiness in Scripture; neither is now a Learned Scholar other­wise able to deal with a Country Farmer, who is very Conversant in his Bible. I have seen a Ma­ster of Arts (and then my own Master) baffled by a Shepherd, and another by a Thresher: And how much less is one Ignorant of the Original, able to Dispute with them that are? for that is the Rule, that is the Canon, that is our Bible. It's rare to find a Verse where all Translations agree; and what Priviledge can we claim for ours above others, but that it agrees more with the Original, and that he who is Ignorant cannot Judge? I may add, That he who is skilled in the Original, and other Daughters of that Tongue, Rabbin, Syrian, Chal­dean, Arabian, &c. and wants this part of Gram­mar, or Key of Scripture-Sense, is not able to Ex­pound Scripture, nor Dispute from Scripture, on a Divine Subject, with him that is. I have occasion to experience this, by a Gentleman, whose Supe­riour in these Languages I doubt if Europe can af­ford, that is my kind and near Neighbour. How soon is a Boy baffled at School, when you tell him he does not Construe right, he does not Parse [Page 131] right? He is Silenced, for he is Conscious that then he cannot make True English. But on the other hand, thou must have other Parts of Gram­mar, as well as this. It were a foolish Method to begin a Child with the Syntactical Part of Grammar, before he can Conjugate a Verb, or Decline a Noun. To initiate a Boy with Flowers and Figures of Rhetorick, to Teach him the Logical Analysis of Speeches, be­fore he is acquainted with the Common Style of the Language, or before he knows the Ingredient Parts of Speech. I shall add here, That this doth not only prepare a Student to carry the empty Air of Victory in an Eristick Contention: As good Skill and Promptitude in Logick, will enable a mean Scholar to do from a great Master, and Learned Divine. I have known them come off from the Publick Palestria with Triumphal Hums, that under­stood neither their Thesis, nor their Arguments, nor the true Use of Logick. But to Stablish and Settle his own Faith, once believing this Book is God's, that his Creator and Governour, who has the Disposal of his Immortal Soul, and Temporal Affairs too, at his Pleasure, has communicated his Will towards Sinners in this Book, how they may be Happy, notwithstanding that otherwise insuperable Diffi­culty, that lies Latent in a Natural Conscience; will the God that needs me not? will the God whose Patience and Goodness I have abused; whose Talents I have misimproved; whom I have Offen­ded and Contemned every Day I have lived, make me Happy, hugg in his Favour, assoon as I have done Breathing? By this thou mayest be as much Convinced of the Author's Sense and Intention in this Book, as its Divine Characters (whereof, may be, this is no small part) will Convince thee who [Page 132] the Author is, what depth of Wisdom he had, and what Ocean of Love and Goodness, even exceed­ing the Bounty of communicating such a bulky pregnant Entity as Heaven and Earth is, to empty Nothing, exceeding the Wisdom of setting all their Hosts in order: For,

First, Mutability is the Creatures Essential Ne­cessary Property, attending all its Properties as a Creature.

Secondly, In Moral Creatures, Reasonable Crea­tures, a terrible Sanction was the most suitable Mean to prevent Moral Immutability, from an actual Mutation and Change, into Rebellion and Disobedience.

Thirdly, What became the Governing Wisdom of the Creator of the World to Establish as Law-Giver, it became Him as King to Execute.

Fourthly, We will grant a Sovereign Throne of Grace in the Essence of the Deity, Superiour to the Tribunal of Justice, settled among the Crea­tures, and founded on the Laws suiting their Mu­tability. But if this should be Exerted without most deep Repentance, and an universal Re-change of their Hearts, their Love, their Faith, and their Obedience to their Creator and Governour; What a contemptible Government and Constitu­tion must we think the first was? The Effect of Folly and Weakness, more than Wisdom and Cru­elty, more than Love and Goodness. Repentance is impossible to a Man Spiritually Dead; it suppo­ses the same Man to be dead and alive at once; for God to give this Spiritual Life, whose Frame of Mind is Repentance, is to act contrary to his settled Government in the Word. For when the Subject [Page 133] is a Rebel, the Sanction of the Law is Rule to the Dispensations of Government, and therefore Death, [I mean Spiritual] for Separation of Soul and Body I think was not the Sanction, else at the Resurrection, why should the Wicked be cloathed with their Bodies? must be in every Dispen­sation.

Fifthly, I therefore conclude, That the giving the Mediator to the World, and the contrivance of his Death as a Satisfaction, [not given to God, as God or Sovereign over the settled Tribunal of Justice, for as such, and as Creator and Father to his poor made Spirits, He gave Him but as Gover­nour and Judge by the Laws settled, for Gover­ning Creatures upright, but Mutable] is the dis­covery of the greatest Wisdom and Goodness that the Heart or Head of Man can take in. Without a Satisfaction to that Government, Sovereignty overthrows it, tramples on it, is contradictory to it. And such the Sovereign Pardoning Power in Governments is not, for its used to prevent the Rigour of the Established Government, its over­turning it self, and therefore is placed among its Fundamentals as a Preservative, here it was not, with a Satisfaction, given to the Justice in this Establishment, the lustre of the Government still shines, and it comes in Subordinate to that other Government, wherein more of God's Glory and Goodness appears; its Ruines were necessary to this Fabrick, but yet whatever was of God in that Footstool or Scaffold, is to be preserved as Sacred, and our Thoughts of it ought to suit its Nature, as the best Constitution for a Mutable Creature, and as most fitting to be a Foundation for his Future Structure intended.

Reader, Pardon my going out of my own Road, the Advantage I have found with the most Learn­ed, I believe, that Europe this Day affords of them that do not relish the Doctrine of Christ's Satis­faction, made me throw it in thy way. For to me, as it is the Life of Christianity, and the Beauty and Harmony of it, it is the most Commendatory Thing of Christianity, to my Reason, of all the Parts I know of it.

I shall now return to give Instances of the Sy­logystick, or Argumentative Ʋse of these Points, for Dispute, Confirmation, Refutation, Conviction, Direction or Comfort. And first we find the Jews Disputing with one another from them, on Jer. 23.6. Aben Ezra Argues against R. Saadias, who Translates the Words, The Lord shall call him our Righteousness. If (says he) he had observed that Tipcha, or Tircha, had been on Vajikra, and Mer­ca on Jehovah, he would not have so done, for the one divides, Call from the Lord, and the other unites the Lord and Righteousness. So that it should be The Lord our Righteousness. And on the like bottom we may Argue against all the Jews, on Isa. 9.5. The Question is, Whose are these Ti­tles; The Wonderful Counselour, The Strong God, The Everlasting Father; if the Caller, God; or the Called, Messias, be the Subject of them? The Cal­ler, say the Jews, and they Confirm it from the Targum of Jonathan, who has the Connection thus, [...] His Name shall be called from before him, that is the Wonderful Counsellor, God, a Man enduring for ever. Now if it be yielded, That any one of these Epithets belong to God, there can be no solid Ground for stopping; you [Page 135] must go on, and grant the whole Text. Observe, however, That the Jews are here divided, R. Sa­lomo leaving the last Title, Prince of Peace, to the Messias. But Aben Ezra, one better Skill'd in the Points, and the Talmud. Maseechet Semedrim, Cap. 11. Beth Israel, Fol. 121. Jackut, Part 2. p. 237. And all the Ancient Rabbies bear a Respect in their Practice to the Points. Here (say these Authors) by reason of the Points, all these must belong to one Subject. Observe,

First, That Vajikra is kal, future, but its used passively, His Name shall be called: So the Chaldee, itkera, and the Lxx. [...].

Secondly, So its used, Gen. 15.6. & 16.14. Neh. 2.7. & Mich. 1.4. Lev. 13.45. 2 Sam. 2.16. Isa. 62, 2.

Thirdly, The Sense, the same with any, or every one shall call Him.

Fourthly, Kadma on vajikra, shows [Name] to be the Nominative Case in Sense, for the Verb sticks not so close to the Object, on which it passes; as in the Subject from whence it flows.

Fifthly, Wherever [...] is put between Caller, and Called, it always belongs to the Person cal­led, Gen. 4.25. & 16.15. & 21.3. & 25.25. & 22.14. Ex. 2.22. Ruth 4.17. 1 Sam. 1.20. And this brings me to my Points, which show the fol­lowing Epithets to belong to this Name, not as Sir-Names, or Christian-Names, as we call them, (rather we should call them Family, or Individual Names) but that he should be owned as endued with such Properties, Jer. 23.6. Isa. 7.14.

In particular, First as to Rab. Salom's Opinion, [Page 136] viz. That Prince of Peace should only be the Mes­sias's Title, and all the rest Titles of God.

I Answer, There is only a Tipcha [...] on Ever­lasting Father, which distinguishes between little Members only, not between Propositions, as it must if the Sense were thus. He who is the Wonderful, the strong God, the everlasting Father, shall call him Prince of Peace.

Secondly, There had been some better shew and pretext of Reason, to have made the breach at the strong God; for [...] sakeph is there; but that would not answer their end: For if the Messias be the Everlasting Father, He is God.

Secondly, According to the Rule of Consecution, whatever is between [...] and silluk, belongs to one Subject.

Thirdly, [...] the Note of Accusative should have been put immediately before [...] to distin­guish it from Nominatives.

Fourthly, It is contrary to the Prophet's Scope, to describe and give Epithets of him that gives the Name, when he proposes a Child as the Subject of his Discourse, and the Reader or Hearers Atten­tion.

Fifthly, These Epithets are neither perpetual Ti­tles of God, nor well accommodated to the present Subject; for there is no great depth of Wisdom to give Name to a Young Prince, or to give to him this Name, Prince of Peace.

Sixthly, There is no Probability of applying this Prophecy to Hezekias, which is what the Jews do. For, First, It is a further Explication of Isa. 7.14. That young Immanuel, and applied to him, Luke 1.33. And not only by the Evangelist, but Targum [Page 137] of Jonathan also, who adds to what you may read before on this Text. The Man enduring for ever, the Messias, whose Peace shall be multiplied upon us in his days. And Defarim Rabba, Fol. 196. I am about to raise up the Messias (says the Blessed God) of whom it is wrote to us, a Child is born.

Secondly, Hezekias was not now to be Born, for he was a Man, 2 Chron. 16.2. & 18.2. nor was the Government on his Shoulders from his Birth; nor was he a Light to Jew and Gentile, as this Son was, ver. 3, 4, 5.

The Second Opinion of the Jews is, That all these Attributes belong to one Subject. But then they are divided as to the Subject, in Three Kinds. One ascribing all of them to Hezekias; another, viz. Abarvanel, attributing them all to God: The Third to the Messias. What has been said, toge­ther with the Nature of Epithets, discharges the First; as to the other Two, the Accents and Syntax decide the Question. As for Instance, 1. Before the Text, To us a Child is born; to us a Son is given, is in the Hebrew all one Proposition, under the Do­minion of [...] sakeph, whose major is [...] rehbia, and therefore to be Translated thus: There is a Child born to us, viz. the Son, who was given unto us. The Sense whereof is; That Son who was given to us is become a truly born Child for us, from which the Epithets of his Pre-existence before Birth, demon­strates Him to be a Subject capable of the follow­ing Epithets. 2. There would be no place for sa­keph [...] upon gibbor, the strong God, if these were Epithets of God; God Almighty being his usual De­nomination; but this being applied to a Born Child, has no small Emphasis in it; and sakeph here stands Emphatically, not Historically; for these being [Page 138] all small Numbers, belong to whomsoever the Au­thor pleas'd: The Consecution would stand thus, [...] but it is now full of Figures, thus, [...] Here is maccaph in place of merca, to signifie the more unitedness and close­ness of the Properties with the Subject. Eternity and Princedom, are most Inherent Dignities. 2. [...] in place of a lesser (may be tebhir) as may be seen in the Table, or as I plac'd it before, not to signifie a greater Disjunction from what follows; but to sig­nifie the Fulness and Reality of the Messias's being what is there express'd, viz. Almighty, to all Intents and Purposes. But R. Solomo's Translation would require this Consecution [...] I shall but name another place, Gen. 49.10. The Sce­pter shall not depart from Juda, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shilo shall come. R. Man. Ben. Israel turns it thus: — Nor a Law-giver from be­tween his feet for ever; for Shilo shall come. Former­ly the Dispute lay in the Signification of [...] in this place, if it signifies until, or for ever; for it signi­fies both in other places. But that which for ever may stop their Mouths, is that [...] is upon his feet, and Itib is upon [...] the minor of [...] which is on Shi­lo, so it belongs to another Sentence. From this one may easily see, what a Dishonour a Person pro­fessing himself a Minister of the Gospel, and Teacher of the Christian Religion would do to his Profession, being publickly engaged in Dispute with a Learned Jew. It is not from Ignorance of Talmuds, Tar­gums, Rabbins, or Jewish Antiquities, all are helps to Refute the Jews. But here I will suppose thee a Defendant, only upon necessity, and a Defen­dant of that Truth thou daily Teaches the People, and tells them they will be Damned without the [Page 139] Belief of it. A Defendant of that Book that thou receives Honour and Living, for Interpreting it to the People, to which no more is necessary than Moderate Grammar Knowledge. I confess, Converse with Jews is but rare, if not sought for; but the Case is the same in all Professions and Sects that own the Bible to be a Divine Volume, and Rule of our Faith, Hope and Manners, Papists, Socinian, Arminian, Antinomian, Quaker, for still the Controversie ends in the determining the Sense of such a Verse or Place of Scripture, if 2 Sam. 7.19. have this for its determined Sense. This is the custom or manner of that Man who is the Lord God. Or, Zech. 9.11. have this Sense: O Zion also, thou daughter of Zion, by vertue of the Blood of thy Covenant; I have sent thee Prisoners out of the Lake, where there is no Water—of Consolation and Blessed­ness. So that the Covenant-Blessing is Redemption from Hell, and the meritorious Condition, is the Blood of the Messias. Or, Hab. 2.4. The Righteous by Faith shall live, has this Sense; what Righteous­ness became a Man's by Faith, now Entitles him as much to Life, as formerly a sinless Life. He that doth these things shall live. Or, Psal. 50.1. The mighty God, even the Lord hath spoke. With the like places, Isa. 6.3. Josh. 22.22. be a sufficient Proof for the Trinity, for in the Original it is thus; God [...] | the Lord, ‖ Jehova, [...] hath spoken in Isaiah thus; Holy | Holy | Holy | Lord God [...]. If these be Stops, Rhetorical Pauses, in an Adoring Voice, or Grammatical distinguishing Matter.

The Last Ʋse of these Points that I proposed, is to know the Scope and End of the Author, in any [Page 140] Verse or Text, for where the Emphatick, or Rhe­torick Mark is, there it is.

First, If there be none, it is a Sign or Mark that the Verse has the same Intention with the former.

Secondly, If there be two or three, it is a sign of the Pregnancy of each Proposition of the Verse; that these have a singular Intention the Author would have us to mind.

Thirdly, If there be an Emphatick Mark on Per­sons or Genealogies, or in places in Chorography, though the reason in particular be now forgotten, we may know these Persons were Famous, or In­famous, for some remarkable thing. For instance, Gen. 1.1. one may know the Scope is to Assert a Creation, that every thing, the Universe, had its Being by that Powerful Act of Omnipotency, Pro­duction of Beings out of Nothing. For the Em­phatick [...] is upon Created. Verse Second has for its Scope a Proposal of the one Part of that Universe, only the Earth, to be the Subject of his Treatise, though he had mentioned the Original of the Hea­vens, yet the particular Production of the Earth was his particular design, which Emphatick [...] on Earth denotes. Gen. 3.15. There is a double Emphasis, one is on Enmity, another on Woman; the first to signifie the grand Scope of the Promise, or Commination; it was Hatred, rooted Hatred, irreconcilable Hatred. All the Steps or Method that God takes in destroying Satan, or Saving Man, are Paved with Enmity against Sin and Satan, the Devil and his Works. By Enmity in Man, Enmity in the Mediator, all the Sanctifying Work [Page 141] of the Spirit in Man, is the perfecting that En­mity.

The Second is to signifie the vast difference be­tween Enmity, as its in the Mediator, and as it is in meer Man. They are but little Members, and therefore needed not a major Lord. But though the Propositions are like, they are not equal; hence comes [...] sakeph on [...] to divide them.