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 The Ancient Form of the MSS. Bibles in Parchment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 It s 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 it s 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 chap. v.  Lev. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 It s 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 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 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 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
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 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 Vse 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 Vse 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 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