THE Taghmical Art: OR, THE ART of Expounding SCRIPTURE By the POINTS, Usually Called Accents, But are really Tactical: A Grammatical, Logical, and Rhetorical Instrument of Interpretation. In Two PARTS. I. Containing the Proof that they are so. II. The Method how they Perform that Office By WALTER CROSS, M. A.  
LONDON, Printed by S. Bridge, for the Author, and are to be Sold by A. and I. Churchill, at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster-Row, 1698.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
I Know many will expect a very great Name 
* The A. B. of Cant.  should Front this very little Piece: But is not Disproportion a very unbecoming thing; a Penny Book Dedicated to a Prince? His Right is Prior, either as to Pains or Expenses: If thou art a Gainer by it, the Praise is his due, though the Deed is a Mite among the Numerous and Eminent Acts of that Person. Let Protestants never forget his Prudence and Courage, in Confronting the Jesuits in King James' Reign. They who know him, know how insipid Flatteries and Compliments are to him, even when his Charity is convinced they come from the Heart. But for drawing his Picture to the World; my Pencil is very unfit, and my Colours at present too Lifeless.  
Two Things I would further Inculcate, though in the Book Insisted on; The Solidity and Gain of this Art.  
As to the First: I have no Reason to distrust the Faculties God has given me; and therefore will never reject my own Opinion for another's, without Conviction. On the other hand, I know I am not Infallible, and therefore rejoice that at last I have gotten this Piece, this Art, set upon the Stage of our English World; where as it will meet with Fond Embracers, and Foolish Rejecters, so will it with Sagacious, Unprejudiced, Impartial and Skilful Judges, as any in the World. For this End have I been at this unseasonable Pains; For this End have my Noble Benefactors been at the Charges; that if it be an Impostor, it may die as a Criminal, and the World be undeceived: But if it be a Light from Heaven, we may not be Fighters against God, and rejecters of our own Mercy.  
He that would either Attack it as an Enemy, or endeavour Satisfaction about it, as a Disciple, must first and principally inquire, If this be a real Art, or a Fiction; If the ends pretended by these Rules, be as really gained, as the making Verse by Prosodia, Latin by the Syntax, and Analysis by Rules of Logic. Now all that I require of thee is, That thou be a good Proficient, a Master of the Art, not a Scholar in it, before thou undertake to Judge. A Boy cannot pierce Corderius by his Grammar; but the defect is in the Boy, not in the Grammar. I had still some Difficulties about this Point, until I found out the Rhetorical Use (I mean that use of knowing the Author's Intentions, which bears an Emphasis, and so I call it the Rhetorical Use) I found so many Exceptions, but now I know not if there are any. Are ever Words separated in Sense, where a Minister joins? Are ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Logical Use, where Propositions are not distinguished? Is ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in a Verse of one Proposition? But when it's made two, by repeating the Verb, the very Harmony of Truth, with fullness and sweetness, Charms the Reader into an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: As far as my Eyes can yet see, the Reader must embrace this for an Art, a Grammar about thirty Points, as the Latin, Hebrew, Greek Grammar about Twenty Two, or Twenty Four several Letters, but with a Fullness and Exactness beyond them; so that it seems to comprehend Logic and Rhetoric also. But though Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, are of Affinity, yet distinct Arts, so this is distinct from all the Three, in its Matter, Points, its End, the Sense and Intention of the Author, its Means or Rules; it supposes thy Skill in Grammatical Syntax, and gins with that. Now I am glad it comes on the Stage with perfection of Parts, by which it is so easily able to dispel all Mists of Obscurity, and Answer all Objections against it. One may more reasonably deny all Arts, than own them, and deny this to be one.  
But some Ignoramus may say, Did not Capellus, Elias Levita, B. Walton, Vossius, Magna Nomina, deny them to be an Art for this end?  
R. I wish thou knew what these Men said, that thou may not be guilty of the Absurdity I have found in them, whom themselves, and this City, count great. I thank you Mr. C. says one, for your Pains against Capellus, he deserves more satire. But within a few Days, says the same, the Hebrew Bibles differs so much from one another, that no Rules can agree to them. Capellus would have spit in the Man's face, that durst affront our Sacred Originals, at any such rate.  
I am glad, says a Second, you bring down Vossius a little, he is a proud, saucy Author, on which I sent one to see if he would Encourage by Subscription. No, says he, the Seventy is my Original. I pray what would Vossius say to this Man? I never denied, says he, That the best of the Seventy's had 20000 Errors in him. Where is now the Perfection of our Rule of Faith? Where is now Scrupulous Nonconformity with these Men, if this be their Opinion of their Bibles, that they neither are Perfect, nor do agree in Faith, Worship, Life or Government? for the Hebrew does not with the one, and the Greek does not, as all consent, with the other.  
R. 2. These great Names never denied that these Points contained an Art.  
R. 3. They never denied that they contained this Art in them, for they dreamt not of it; it was not started to them, or by them. It's like this Prospect had allured these Magna Nomina to be Patrons. However, Enemies in this Point they never were. Thou must begin, or some body else, for none yet have, to Oppose it.  
But though this Edition of this Art appears with greater Maturity, and Adultness than others, it is far from a Perfection of Beauty: Never did Book more want Apology, never was more Apology to be made: It is so far from Embellishment, with the Trappings and Phaleras of Rhetoric and Eloquence, that it comes forth with a Style Difficile, Laconic, Courtesan, and Abrupt; it wears a Rent, instead of a Girdle, and Baldness for Beauty.  
Reader, Though the Art has cost me many Years Studies and Collections, the time of Composing it, as now Published, has been a time of severe Sickness; all the Time I have kept my Chamber, and most of it my Bed. Soul and Body bear a powerful Sympathy: so it is a sickly Style.  
Secondly, If it please God to restore Health, I shall endeavour to mend it: I daily expect Improvements from Rostoch, Wasmuth Junior of Lipsic, and Mr. Gordon, Professor (or to be) of this Art in Aberdeen. But he informed me, the Rhetorical Use is entirely unknown to those Parts. But it is fit to see first, what Acceptance these Rudiments find.  
But, Reader, having now made Apology for my Style, or defect of one, and set before thee, in clear Light, comparing it with the Book, that it is to deny Demonstration, nay, Matter of Fact, to deny that these Points were Contrived intentionally, in the Harmonious Constitution they stand in (every Word bearing its Point, whose Figure indicateth the relation it has to the next Word only, if a Minister, or little Lord, to it, and more, if a greater Lord, etc.) to assist the Reader to know the Sense of every Verse, by Indicating the relation of all the Words and Propositions. And to deny, that these Tables and Rules do Indicate these Relations, that the Reader may be secure of the Author's Intention, may as well deny the Grammatical Harmony of Classical Authors, or the Rules of Grammar to Indicate them. The next thing is to Inquire who is the Author of this Art, or these Points that contain it? This indeed has been contended among great Names, but never since, or where the Sense of the Bible was owned to be the end of the Art. It was no wonder a wise Man should deny that to be the Fruit of Divine Wisdom, that thirty several Figures should be invented to inform us, if the Accent was on the last Syllable, or that before it, when the Position of one was sufficient; but so high an end as the Author's Intention, through so harmonious a Chain of Means, might have charmed them into a Belief of it. For who can know the Mind of the Lord but his Spirit? And who can set Rules to know what he understands not?  
Secondly, The Dispute has been about the Vowels; these great Names when pressed with Arguments, have owned that the Accentual were before.  
Thirdly, Suppose that was their Opinion, That the Tyberian Masorites were Authors of all the Points, there is reason since thou embrace it on their Authority, thou should take all their Authority together, and then thou will believe them the best Artists of the World, nay, Divinely Inspired, says Levita, thou may expect a great Exposition, but yesterday Authority is too mean; and if thou go beyond them, thou wilt, I doubt, find as little of their Greatness, as of the wise Men of Gotam's.  
Fourthly, To come to earnest: Two things I think may demonstrate, the Tyberians not to be Authors: These Tyberian Schools continued until Ann. 1000 and yet we have no Footsteps of its Skill and Practice among them, an entire Silence still, as the Night, for that five hundred Years, and ever since, except what they bring by Quotation from more Ancient Authors; but the Authors before the Tyberians do.  
I shall conclude this with a Providential Story known to my Friends. I once Preaching on Gen. 2.4. Translated it thus. These are the Generations of the Heaven and the Earth, when God had created them. These are the Generations of the Heaven and the Earth, in the Day when God had perfected, remade, or established them. From which I inferred, a twofold Re-capitulation to be contained in the Verse, one performed within the time of first Creation, the Six Days, the other performed in one Day; the one was a pure Creative Work, the other a more Common, Adorning, Perfecting, or doing further. Moses had more signalised that one Day and Work in it, in the Context, and from Chap. 3.8. to the end, whereby it appeared evident, That the work of Redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ, was the Foundation of the Seventh-Day-Sabbath. An Ancient Understanding Christian hearing me, asked if I had read Dr. Walker, a Divine in Queen Mary's Days, who has Printed, That Adam fell on Friday, the same Day our Lord Jesus Christ suffered; That He endured the Curse of the Law, that Night, that Gen. 2.8. in the Morning of Saturday, God appeared in Humane Form, and gave that New Gospel Constitution. So that all the New Testament is but a Comment on the Seventh Day's Work, from Gen. 2.8. to the end of that Chapter.  
Having obtained this Old and Rare Book, and after that Jacob Alting, on the same Subject, I found an Entire Agreement, as to the Doctrine, but not as to the Original; my Points had forced me into it, but the Old Cabbalistical Jews had enticed them into it. The Inferencce I draw, is, That the Evangelical Doctrines contained in these Old Jewish Kabbala's, were Doctrines retained since the Points were lost, but known from and by them; and I think it is the most Rational Account of that Phaenomena. I am sure it is more becoming than to call all the Laborious Pains of our Christian Fathers, in these Rabbis, Forgeries, Lies and Cheats, before we try too, by our Pains, if so, or no.  
Secondly, This is not only true, but there is much Use made of these Points before the Masorites, of five or six Hundred, and no use made by them, but their Work shows them really Ignorant of their Use, as may be seen in the Book.  
But, Thirdly, the Tyberians were poor blinded Jews, and their Creed the same with our Jews, and their own Fathers directly Opposite to the Christian Faith: but the Authors of the Points, as may be seen by the Doctrinal and Prophetic Places of the Old Testament, Expounded by the Points, were truly and thoroughly Christian; so that to say they invented this, is to deny them to be Jew's, which no Man ever yet did. And I take this for Demonstration, That they would never deliver the Sense of their Bibles to be contradictory or destructive to themselves: Therefore at least, the Sense of the Scripture given by these Points, is of Prophetic Authority, a Comment by Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, with others of that day.  
Some may think this was over-ordered by Divine Providence, as their preserving the rest of the Parts of the Old Testament entire, without Corruption, though against them.  
R. That is what I yield, a Providence in their Preservation, that supposes their Pre-existence, but to suppose any Jews, since Christ, invented these Points, and affixed them, as giving the Sense of the Bible, is not only a Miracle, but a Contradiction; for it is their Reason, and not their Reason, that their Judgement was both pro and con, at the same time. For Instance, it was and is (Paul Attests it) their most Radicated Judgement, that they expected to be Saved by the Works their Law Commanded, but if they affixed these Points to that place in Hab. with a design to give its Sense in their Judgement; They tell you, that their Judgement is, That he who is Just, or Righteous by Faith, shall live, he shall never taste of the Curse of Death, but ever drink the Waters of Life. None of them ever pretended an Opinion opposite to what they believed was the Bible's Sense; yet whenever they give their Opinion in other Writings, it is opposite. So if Authors of this Art, in place of an overruling Providence, we plant a Repugnancy as Absurd as Transubstantiation in their minds.  
For we Assert them to be Orthodox in Pointing, though Erroneous in their Judgement, and yet this Pointing is a Declaring their Judgement.  
The Prophets wrote what they understood not, may be what was contrary to their present Sentiment, but than it is supposed they knew not what they wrote, but these Masorites were Directors of the Sense; for if it should be said, at that Juncture, they were blinded, or overruled by Divine Influence, it would follow God was Author, not they, and then the Question is gained. For to say they were the Pointers, is to say they believed that to be the Sense of the Text, which the Rules guides us in, and that which they then believed, and believed not. I have the more largely insisted on this, because it was Objected by a Person of worth.  
Let me tell him that is a little acquainted with, and exercised in the Hebrew Language, that the Bible needs such a Key to determine its Sense.  
As to the next, the Gain, I dare aver, He that counts the furnishing his Head and his Heart with Divine Truth Gain; that values Wisdom, as Solomon did, will soon gain more than the India's can afford. But Comparisons are most proper among things of a kind; therefore I assert, Thou shalt find as great a difference between this and other methods of Comments and Systems, as between Reaping and Gleaning. But this I speak to grown understanding Christians and Ministers. Comments, especially Critics, are necessary; it is a Contempt of God, who has been pleased to continue his Oracles in these Tongues, not to Study them, as far as our Callings and Necessities admit. God gave these Tongues to all the Gifted Brethren we read of in Scripture; certainly his Scholars are the best; it is extraordinary Excellency that marks his Disciples, and yet I do not think it an Essential, where God has made other useful Enduements shine, as Urim and Thummim. I should be far from Uncharitable Thoughts of his Calling; but he is unfit to expound Scripture: We have Eusebius, Josephus, etc. in Latin and English, but no Man knows when he reads Truth, or when Falsehood, when he reads them. There are many Translations, he knows not which to prefer, how shall he then Expound? And yet this Man may write a Treatise excellently; curious Chains of Thoughts, that never entered into the Critics Mind.  
I could mention a great Name for instance, but need not. But when thou hast exercised thyself in both these Gifts, thou here enters a Third Form, where thou may try the Solidity of these curious Thoughts, and where thou makest the Spring itself thy Drink, and not only so, but thou enter'st this Palace with the Key of Knowledge the Church was robbed of in the Pharisees time, by which thou wilt spy Pearls, where others see nothing but Pebbles. For this end I made choice of Gen. 1.1, 2. for a Specimen, a Path beaten like the Street, and yet made Discoveries. I challenge thee, and I dare challenge any to bring me the Text, out of which I shall not make new Discoveries by it, that he saw not before: Thou will be a Gainer in every Verse. If we value this Art by the Testimony and Judgement of Men, it is not fit; we make the Blind Judges, that understand it not, nor the World, that love Darkness more than Light. But if we value it by the Judgement either of Jews or Christians, who either knew this Art, or though they knew not the Art, believed it served for this end, they count it the only Measure and Standard for Interpretation, all other Means are very mean in their esteem. But this is the Key of Knowledge, whose Loss they bewail, though the Pharisees would not use it, nor suffer others, which its like Christ respected, when He said such Points should not be lost, though disused. This they call Queen of Criticism, this they call Compass of Translations, all before were Coasters.  
Reader, I proposed the common places as a Medium, to prevent the Bulk of this Book, and its Abstruseness, for nothing Teaches like Example. But here my Discouragement is doubled: Some are so Curious, some so Jealous, whether these Points will prop their System, or not. Are they Socinian, Arminian, Amyrald. Calvinistic, Antinomian? There are many more, origen's, Papists, and Dr. Goodwin's Curious Cultivation of some Schoolmen, in his Knowledge of God and Christ. There are different Rivulets of those, and many more may be invented. But I have been always Jealous of measuring Infinite Models by Humane Policies, and Divine Wisdom, by the short Thoughts of Man. I always had my Faith to myself, and no Foundation but, Thus saith the Lord. And since Maturity, a readiness to profess it. My Business is to go from place to place with this Key of Knowledge, and to try how much of that Mysterious Wisdom that Text contains, and how much the other, wherein we may find the Scriptures a sufficient Perfect Canon, without School Terms. A Second is Expenses: But I Conjecture when Experience has taught how needful this Art is, as well as useful, and how necessary Examples are to Instruct in this Art, without a Living Master (for nothing that is rare, precious, of great use, is usually easily obtained) many for the public Good, and their own, will wish they had born all the Charges, when it is not to be purchased. However, I advise thee to the best supply in its room, these Books who have practically and applicatory wrote on the Subject, that is Comments, who have taken measures from them, as Geierus, Coccejus, etc. but above all Varenius, in whom thou wilt see at large most of the Examples that are but just hinted at in my Book; thou wilt find considerable Parts of the Bible exemplified, and in Reinbeck some of them applied to his Rules; but be sure to use thy Bible in reading my Book, and if a Latin Reader only, use Arias Montanus, if an English only, use Hutterus, and bring the Points on the correspondent Words. If thou intends to taste only, and satisfy Curiosity, pass the first Chapter; but if a Disciple, get it by Heart, comparing it with the first Table.  
Vale.   

A Detection OF THE Taghmical Art.  

CHAP. I. Of the Etymology, Names, Figures, Kind's and Use of the Hebrew Points in their various Sounds.  
WASPE MUTH the most Famous Author of this Particular ART, fronts his Institutions, with two proper Say 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 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 Kind's; 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 signify 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgement, Sense, Reason, Prov. 11.22. a fair Woman without Discretion, Psl. 199.66. Wisdom and Knowledge are the excellency of it. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Translated Chancellor, that is the Lord and Judge, of the Sense of the Law; not the Judge tied 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; it's 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

Names of Emperors. 3.  
Soph Pasuk, the end of the Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Silluk a Period, these are joined thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Athnach respiration, rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

King's 5.  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Duke's 8.  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Lords 5.  
Paser, a Divider 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Karne Para, Bullocks Horns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Telisha Gedola, rooter up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Geresh, an Expeller 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Pesik, a Stopper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Ministers.  
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 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 completed, 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.  

Ministers.  
2. There is Merca double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
3. There is Geresh double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
4. There is Munah superior in Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And Mahpah Superior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though rare in Prose. Minister's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
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 gins 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 reckoned to make a Syllable, ex. gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it's counted but a bis-syllable, but here a three-syllabled 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 show their use; and prove they were designed 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 bore accenting the Sound.  
The First Rule is, That every accent here is acute, 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 lean, 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.  
RULE 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 increases. 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 future's 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 full salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest terror. 4. When Words end in Radical Letters, the longer has the accent; if not the Root itself; 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 trissyllable 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 preterite Tense.  
Rule III. For good Sounds sake sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. are retracted in Verbs ending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scheva going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. In Words of the form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the assix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Rule IU. The accents descends to the last, for (ן) turning the preterite 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 shortened 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. It's 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 future's of Verbs. 3. Before Dagesch fort 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 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 shows 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 Judgement, 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 Music 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 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 mixed in their common use of Speech; Chaldee and Hebrew are only different Dialects; they differ more in Termination than Words.  
Resp. III. What if Capellus says falsely, 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 Music; 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 the last Letter; as the former on the first, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now if the use of these Nine are not for that end, it's not likely the others are. I may add further, some Words have Two.  
Theod. Ebert. Poet. Ebr. Cap. 2. thinks the form of Old Poesy 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, Psalms 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 (falsely, 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 Prose. The Germane, Spanish and Asiatic have all different Melodies, have each several Arts?  
6. If the Accents give Laws to the Sacred Verse, than 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 Music better. His Michtams and Penitentials were never sung with one Melody, though 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 Music. Add further, That it's 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 signify 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 Pindaric 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 jambic kind of short Verse. For Hermannus Ʋander Hardit says he has seen some in this Form:  

The Ancient Form of the MSS. Bibles in Parchment.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Poesy, 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 els in breadth, and Twenty in length; Buxtorf says, in some of their Synagogues, you may see all the Pentateuch, in a Volume of Fifty els, most neatly compacted. Aristeus says, That that presented to Ptol. Phil. by the LXX, had its Parchments so neatly united, sowed, or glued, that neither Eye nor Reason could see where the Juncture was. How falsely then doth P. Sim. say; much disorder in the Bible, is come from the misplacing the several Parchments, heaped up, one on top of another, and when rolled off, displaced when again rolled 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 Messiah; 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'. 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 Arabic, and Rabbenic, etc. 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 Music 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 snatched 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 Classic Authors is so, that by following these Rules we are able to expound, and make Latin something like to them. In Physics 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 Classic 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 Physics. 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 tenor in this Affair ex gr. Leu. 4.1. And the Lord spoke unto Moses.  
chap. v.  Leu. 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Ezek. 5, 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ezek. 5.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ezek. 28.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ezek. 17.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jer. 23.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
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.  
Axiom 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, etc.  
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 Commas, 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 Latin 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.  
Axiom 3. The more remote an inferior Lord stands from his superior 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.  
Axiom 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 though 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 Axiom is pregnant of many particular Rules; but without Exemplification they are dry and useless.  
Axiom 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.  
Axiom 6. As these Points are Rhetorical, they are not applicable to the Figures of our Rhetoric (though 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 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.  
Axiom 7. The Poetic and Prophetic 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 Rhetoric 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 World's Harmony out of Epicurean Atoms; or that the Bible came to pass by a Shower of Letters; as these Points to be inserted, 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; though Seventy will scarce comprehend them all, until again and again refined.  
Rule 1. Silluk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes every Verse, and supposes every Verse concluded by it (in the Grammatical Table) to contain one entire Proposition, if literally the Verse do not, as Gen. 14.1. it is a Mystical Sense that makes up the Proposition 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 complete 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 dependence of these Members are indicated by the variety of these sub-distinguishers.  
Rule 6. A Parenthesis is either of two Words, and then it gins 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 gins 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 Emphatic.  
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 inquire, 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; though I shall at this time shun Controversy. 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 Uses 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 Latin 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, 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 easy 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 Wasmuths?  
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 Rabbis, 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 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, 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' 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leu. 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 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 itself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Unity; and confirm it from Deut. 4. 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 Rabbis, 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 Leu. for he says in Master. Hammas. If any could convince me, that my Opinion was contrary to the Sentence of the Rabbis, or 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, It's 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 Rabbis 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 Kind's. The Tiberians, Anno 500, and Ben 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 Readins, 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 Been Israel's Bible, there is observed by Pfeiffer, 27 places, viz. Ruth 3.5.17. Lam. 1.18. & 2, 2. & 5.3. Judas 20.13. etc. 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 composed Ann Christi 230. by R. Jochanan; the whole of both completed 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 shows 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 shown, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; hence it's 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 varies with the accents.  
To make this Argument the more binding, I will follow, Cap. Vind. 842. who pretends to lose all its Joints with great Ease.  
1. Says he, I value not the Authority of Ephodeus, Azarius, Joseph, Medico or Cosri, they are 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 turned into Hebrew, then Contemporary with Aben Ezra. If this Authority be of no value, far less than 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 Father's 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 superadded 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 show 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 Music by the Accents; an Art he denies they serve for elsewheee.  
Resp. My business is to look for Credibility not Subtlety; 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 show 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, 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, though 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 Messiah, 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 Messiah, so that the Name of the Messiah is only Our Righteousness. Thus the Name by which Jehova shall call Messiah, 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 Messiah 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 punctilios that we now receive in our Bible? Now, saith he, We deny that that can be proved, though Aben Ezra seems to assert it. But why, saith he, is Aben Ezra to be believed 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 pain 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 rendered it (our Ages) as if it had been Gholamenu, Gen. 47. last Verse, it is not in the Hebrew Mittah a Sceptre, 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 persuaded that Jerom's Latin 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 subtle 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 Latins 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, etc. My Interpretation is called (says he) a reprehension of the Lxx.  
Resp. What then, there are Three of them, says he, Hesychius' for Egypt; Lucian's for Constantinople and Antioch. Origen's for Palestine. 2. There are three more beside them, says he, Aquila's, Symmachus', 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 Heretics.  
He adds, That the Apostles, Evangelists, Christ himself, when they quote the Old Testament, they use 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 Authentic Originals. These that Immortal Wit has given to us: Through his Labour it is that we need not fear the Jews superciliousness in their lose Lips, their distorted Tongue, their hissing Spittle, and their rough Throats, wherein they glory, because we cannot imitate them. They have 3 S'ss, we but one; They have 4 Hs, we but one; therefore it is no wonder, that so different Languages do not entirely harmonise 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 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 not 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 Latin, 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, Usher, Huetius, Valesius have all wrote on this Subject.  
The Sixth Argument, is from the Absurdity that would follow this Opinion, For if either the Hebrew Words wanted Vowels, or the Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accents, the Old Testament would be a Book full of Equivocations 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 show 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, Incense, the Poplar Tree; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Days or Years, Mules, Seas, etc.  
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 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 Upright 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. Dau. 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 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 
* Read the Critics, and thou wilt find Five, sometimes Ten different Senses by not observing the Points. .  
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 to go to Rome. The Answer I find to this in the Vind. of Capellus is, That though the Points are a great help, yet it's 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 persuade 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 it's 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 Style of the Tongue, its Idiotism and Emphasis; and the accentual subserves that too. Take a Chapter in the Bible, writ nothing but the Consonants in it, and show it to a Scholar, and I believe you will make him work before he can bring you the sense of it. The Fallacy of the Answer consists in this, viz. It is a truth that this Comparison 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 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 Judgements: 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 than 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 show 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, shows that Moses's intent is only to discourse on the Earth, 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 jota, 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 Sense, the preservation of Divine Oracles, as to their Matter or Sense, and therefore if these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. be understood in the Letter, the accents seem to be Christ's intent, being preservers of the Sense 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   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 amanuensis; For Holy Men of God spoke 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 enjoined 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, it's 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 Emphatic Ghalsepher Ghadtomim, until the complete Perfection of the Book. Ver. 25. Moses commanded the Levites, which bore 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, etc. 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. Unto 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 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 entrusted. Ver. 9 Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it to the Priests, the Sons of Levi, which bore 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. Prophecies shall not fail, neither one or other shall be wanting, for my Mouth itself 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 Threaten and Prophecies, whereof not one Word should fail, much less a Word of Precepts and Promises, not one jota, nor Tittle of Sense, the Spirit that indicted 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 Relics yet not removed, like the Standards in a Field or Copse. For Instance, that famous crux Criticorum, Psalm 22.16. Dogs have compassed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very Emphatic punctuation, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews, the Roman Soldiers, Herod's Courtiers, with curse and scoffs, beat 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 Nonsense as a Lion, the latter divided, and their Disputes lengthened into Treatises. 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; though 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 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 Judgements: 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 completing 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 signify 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. although the Law was not given by the hand of Ezra; yet it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed, repeated, or reform 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, yet Providence might hid them there. Vespasian carried the Ark to Rome, though 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 Jealousy 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; though 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 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 usefulness and Necessity of this ART; abstracting from the Opinion controverted about their Antiquity and Authority.  
IT is confessed by Bishop Walton in his Prologue, though 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 Syllogism 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 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 straight, 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 Critics 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, wrapped 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 locked 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, 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 Laics 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 Alleged 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 Shewbread, makes People venture to open the Sacred Book; but still with Prayers to God to 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 Ploughman 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, 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 Enthusiastic; 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 testify 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 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 Prophet's witness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth on Him, shall receive Remission of Sins. This was the Sum of Peter's Sermon, through the Ministry whereof the Holy Ghost fell on all the Hearers: So that the Ordinances that were the Ministration of the Spirit, were all bottomed 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 Logic 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 myself. 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 died for our Sins, according to the Scriptures; He was buried, and risen 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 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 Apostolic 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 Messiah. 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 of a thing, is far from a Sufficiency to fill his Belly, or a Plenty to Dispense to others. A Man can never be an Able Minister of the New Testament, without being well skilled 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 Antitypes, 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 qualify, Coloss. 2.8. Philosophy nor Mathematics: 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, Threaten, 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 Schoolboy, 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 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 : 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 Emphatic, 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'. 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 Critics, 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 be very great, and Divine Judgements on that account very severe, that God should suffer so precious and inestimable a Treasure to lie 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, etc. It's certain, Divinity has its Depths not yet Dived 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 Heretic for a Sound and Comfortable Doctrine by such Methodists: And a Man may receive his Degrees of Phi. without a Pennyworth 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 Critics 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 joined with Corn and Wine.  
Secondly, There is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paschta on alone, which only Divides between the Circumstances and Essentials of a Proposition. The Context shows the Happiness of his Dwelling, which was blessed 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 Critic, 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 the Man has spoke, or wrote on it. It's 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 Magnetic Virtue 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 Usher says, Whatever we have now under that Name of the Lxx. was certainly never seen by them. Drusius says, It's 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 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 Preeminence; 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' own Verdict commend it, who says, It's corrupted in thousands of places.  
Secondly, The Latin Hieron. say the Papists, indeed it were to be valued if we had it, for though 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 Transgressed the Canon of the Church, that forbids Baptism before the Child is born, for he declared it Authentic, and then Corrected it. But among all their Canons at Trent, none were obtained with such Difficulty, nor such Irregularness, as that of making the Latin Translation Authentic: It's thought not to have above Forty Votes. I fancy we might gather more for the English. It is true, it's 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 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 Balms 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 Use 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 attained, while the Methods of true Accentuation is neglected in our Academies.  
The Jewish Rabbis (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 completed 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 Messiah, at his first entering on his Office of Publishing the Gospel from the Bosom of the Father, should complete 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, etc. Here is, says Calen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Parenthesis; they who say that Samuel slept in the Temple of the Lord, where the Ark was, assert a Falsehood; and they do it by uniting what is distinguished by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot but take notice, that about Seven or Eight Translations are 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, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. How excellently doth the Author of the Accents here Illustrate the Fear of God, putting an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which he indicateth the Intent, and Sense of God to be. What, O Israel! doth the Lord require of thee? Only Fear God, etc. and this too shall be for thy good, ver. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All he asks of thee is for the good. [Thy Good] is not joined 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 Rabbis. Wasmuth, about 1666. is the most noted of this kind, through the Benefit of a short-lived, 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. It's so also in hearing Ministers; if the Minister grow not, (New and Old is our Rule) all others Profess themselves Wasmuths 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 foregoing 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 numbered. Wasmuth's Rules leave more Irregulars than Regulars, especially in Pathetic 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, etc. 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 Sovereign 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 Emphatic; and it's left to the Studious Divine to inquire 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 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 inquires 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 disannulled, 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 Choosing, 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 Fulfilled. In order to this, I shall from that Incomparable Canon of Ptolemy, found by Dr. Overald, Published by Seth Calvisius, demonstrated to be Authentic by Youngmannus (half a Sheet of Paper, worth a Talon 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 Ministry. 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 Disannulling 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 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 Prophesied 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' 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' 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 Nabuchadnezzar, 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' Time especially. But the Spirit of the Lord did not forsake them, as their Holiness, Zeal, Suffering, Victories, did testify; 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 Testify. Now add 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 Messiah 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 Messiah the Prince. This Period agrees, not only with Ptolomy's Canon, but Eusebius' also, who says, Darius' Second fallen in Ann. 1594. from Abraham's Birth, and Augustus' 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 Messiah 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 Ministry, 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 Profanity. 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, 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 Ministry, 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 Messiah, and John Baptst's Office was to Purify the Sons of Levi, that they might Offer unto the Lord Offerings of Righteousness, as in former times. It's not a Season to forget the Purity of Ordinances, because Christ's Coming, and their End is nigh. It's 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 the quo, not the Matter Prophesied of. Hence we may be sure, That the Prediction of breaking the Staff of Bands, as Zechariah Prophecies the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is only an Event Prophesied 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 showed 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 Emphatic; 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. IU. Of the Particular Uses and Ends the Accents serve for.  
THIS Number is Arbitrary. I shall reduce them to Seven.  

First, On the Original itself.  
The Second shall be on the Critics 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, etc.  
The Seventh, to know the Scope of a Verse, or what is Emphatic in the Text.   
Use 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 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 Magnify 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. Unto 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, Unto 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows 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 choose 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, That the Points here helps us; for whether the Word be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accent is agreed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to join the Word with the following, that the Sense must be, he beat the way, which is not so like Sense, as he sat 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 joined 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 spoke affirmatively. However occasion is conjectural; it's a Divine Opinion, that its 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 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 Judas 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 Readins of Ben. Ascher, and Ben. Napthali, and the Editions of Plantin, Bomberge, Buxtorf, Athias Clode, and Manas. Ben Israel, etc. 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 Virtue 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 hid thy face, etc. puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Mountain, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Strength, by which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strength would belong to the latter Part of the Verse; for 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 preferred. But Menass. Ben Israel is not only preferable in this place, for here all agree that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is upon Persecute: but than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clode, and others has it, must not be upon is, ghani, the afflicted, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Servant only, when Tiphas 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 easy escape, turning the Letter or Type the wrong way. But the Rules of Consecution and Tables are able to Correct Hundreds of such Erratas. 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 myself 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. It's 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 entire. And thus we may defend the Integrity of the Hebrew Text.  
A Second Use is to prevent, or withstand the Scepticism of this Age, a very ill, but flourishing 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 Critics? 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 entreats 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 entreats 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. 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, Ecclesiastic, Civil, or Politic. 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 jehovah, ver. 17. The Words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the Author of Cosri's Rule is to be minded, viz. We are to suppose ourselves overhearing the Discourse, and expressing Affections and Passions 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 yourself have utterly rejected all Tokens of my Gratitude, and Love, may not I show my Love and Gratitude thus? If that Method be not acceptable, 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 Wagon, only drawn by two Mules, much less than what he saw there in many Wagons. 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. It's 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, It's 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 beforehand.  
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 jehovah. But (says he) ver. 18. In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant. When my Master came into the House of Rimmon, he leaned 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 jehovah to Saturn; the Israelitish jehovah, 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 Talon of that: It seems they were of a grosser kind that he had gotten before. The Points stand thus, are very Emphatic, and Establish this Translation.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
I shall be shorter in the other Examples, Gen. 10.21. Unto 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 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, etc. are for Japhet; and others will have them Trines, at one Birth. But Merca being put under Japhet in this Text, shows that Japhet and Elder are Construed together, as Substantive and Adjective; Japheti majoris. And Ch. 9.24. Katon being joined to Ham absolutely, without the comparative Particle Min, shows 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 Critics, 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 Critics. Send ye the Lamb to the Ruler of the Land, from Sela 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 passed 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 Desert, 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 Politic, and just Advice to the proud Moabites, after a severe threatening of Ruin, viz. by paying the Just Tribute. I shall conclude this Use, 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? 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 Critics, and Four Jews. But let us weigh Reasons:  
First, On High has a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon it, and therefore the Proposition is stopped 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. Wasmuths 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 easy 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 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 expressly 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, etc. 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, etc. Where is the Sense for [I]? Aben Ezra, Vatab. Pagn. Junius, and Tr. I counsel thee, etc. As the English. But than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Church's 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 Critics carry it thus: The Hair of thy Head, like to the King's Purple, tied up in 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 falsely; 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 Critic, 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 Ethics, and propose it to the People for Divine Revelation, as this. Solomon bids us not remove the ancient landmark 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, 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 Morningstar 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 errand, misapplying this Scripture to the Eternal Generation of the Son, that is wholly employed 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 easy, 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 these Points; but often could find no place for the Sole of my Foot; until I took them for my Guide.  
Note further, That I have abstained 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 Public 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 Use 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 ploughed 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 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. [hear stop] God of silver, and Gods of gold ye shall not in any wise make unto you. The stop is on me. Leu. 27.2. The Person shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. 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 disjoined. 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 employed 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 than 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 Judgement 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 supplied, though 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 fallen 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 Sebastian 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, etc. 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 trod 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, Prancing; but 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, etc. 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 signify 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, etc. And this gives a Key to all, which is to be turned, thus; I pronounced them, with their gifts, to be unclean. Leu. 13.2. When I passed over the firstborn, and chose the Levites, or made the firstborn 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 amazed, 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 Typify the Mediator.  
A Fourth Use 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, called, The Contempt of the Clergy, Ridicules this Phrase; That the Text divides itself. 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 itself, 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 Poetic Books supplies the place of Atnach, and is of the same use.  
Fourthly, Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both in Prose, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Verse, than 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 Judgement, with a little of Practical Logic.  
To conclude this Logical Use 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 Hemistiches is to be subdivided 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 employed; 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 Emphatic 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, 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 Threatening 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; it's 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, etc.  
A Fifth Use 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 Authenticness. 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 go 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 Messiah 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. 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 signify 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 Grandson, God afflicted Judah, both by Syria, and Ephraim, separately. These two now Confederate, and intent to overthrow Judah's Kingdom, and the Davidical Succession; and to set up a Viceroy, 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, Smoking only: and more plainly, that the Lease of their Lives and Kingdoms, was but short, viz. 65 Years from Amos' 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 Trial or Experiment, what Jehovah can do for me. 2 Kings 7. 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 Professed to be, God with us, Isa. 62.4. Jer. 3.17. Ezek. 48.35. Isa. 61.3. & 9.6. & 54.5. So far Matthew citys. For what follows belonged 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, sylvasque 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 inquires 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 Messiah.  
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 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. etc.  
But the Third Egression is, St. Matthew's Subject, and the Scribe's, which was much later in the Fullness 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 Authenticness: 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' Office; the Hebrew Words express more his Authority and Power, Matthew more his Goodness. He shall guide and feed. Some think good 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, etc.  
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 Convinced they are Emphatical and Figurative, not 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, etc.  
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 and weeping, etc. 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 easy and agreeable, Jer. 31.15. The Prophet from the beginning of the Chapter, having foretell Israel's happy Days under the Reign of the Messiah, gives warning of intervening Clouds, that would turn that bright Morning of Christ's Birth into Blackness, and Eclipse that Morningstar, 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 reacted, 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 Messiah. 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 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, foresaw that the Romans would Believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore would be called Nazarites from him. But Matthew says more than one Prophesied 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 mere 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 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, etc. 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 Messiah, 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, it's 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 Messiah, 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 Herald 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 Messiah were intended, it would not be מ from or out, but כ in Jacob, which receives much Strength from Mat. 2.3. The Magis, 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 Sceptre, or Person, as the Lxx. has it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is spoken of, as a thing whereof the former was a sign. Then shall a Sceptre arise cut of Israel. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is upon Jacob, is too great a Lord to distinguish between the Star and Sceptre, if both signified the same thing.  
The Fourth Argument is only to prove, That this is the Messiah; that the two Lords of this Star, ver. 19.17. are but one, and that from the Influence of this Sceptre.  
1. He would wound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ruin 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 signify 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) jota 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 Ruin, under the Ships of Chittim, are both Prophesied 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 thorough 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 Trial; 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 complete 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 itself, 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 not Isa. 53.4. or at least intended it not alone, but as accompanied with other Prophecies in that Prophet, which did foretell 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 explicit Predictions of his Curing Diseases. The weak hands strengthened, the feeble knees confirmed, the blind eyes opened, and deaf ears unstopped, etc. 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 Threatening, 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 Ruin 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 castle Lex. shows the first to be the Arabic 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 Emphatic 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 bondwoman, and her son, for the son of this bondwoman 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: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 bondwoman, and her son: for the son, etc. 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 complete a distinct Sense, and if the Words do it not, the Matter contained 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 complete 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 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 threatening 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 enjoin 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] harken to her voice. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. in all has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Telisha Ketanna, a Minister in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhebkia, the Major to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the Expedition needful, in obeying that then Devout, yea, Divine Voice of Sarah.  
I do not Assert that Sarah or Abraham knew this complete Typical Sense; the Prophets often had their own Prophecies for their Study. But I Believe the Pointer, or Penman 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 complete. And therefore I advise the Interpreter to look after 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 Threatening.  
I will declare the Decree the Lord hath said to me,  
Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee.  Ps. 2.7. 
The Question is, If this be the Eternal Generation of the Son from the Father's 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 Sonship to be proposed, viz. A peculiar supereminent Sonship 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 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 Sonship, 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 Sonship 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 Sonship by Calling. 2. A Sonship by which God glorified Him. 3. A Sonship, wherein He learned Obedience, and Suffered. 4. A Sonship to found a Priesthood.  
Sixthly, Acts 13.13. This is said to be fulfilled in his Resurrection. Now 1. His Resurrection was necessary on the account of his Sonship; 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 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 Use, 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 Privilege 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, etc. 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 Superior 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 Purse 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 Rhetoric, 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 Logic, will enable a mean Scholar to do from a great Master, and Learned Divine. I have known them come off from the Public Palestria with Triumphal Hums, that understood neither their Thesis, nor their Arguments, nor the true Use of Logic. But to Establish and Settle his own Faith, once believing this Book is God's, that his Creator and Governor, 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, hug 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 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 Lawgiver, it became Him as King to Execute.  
Fourthly, We will grant a Sovereign Throne of Grace in the Essence of the Deity, Superior 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 Governor; 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 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 clothed 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 Governor 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 it's used to prevent the Rigour of the Established Government, its overturning itself, 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 Ruins were necessary to this Fabric, 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 Use 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 counsellor, The Strong God, The Everlasting Father; if the Caller, God; or the Called, Messiah, 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 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 Messiah. But Aben Ezra, one better Skilled in the Points, and the Talmud. Maseechet Semedrim, Cap. 11. Beth Israel, Fol. 121. Jackut, Part 2. p. 237. And all the Ancient Rabbis 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 it's used passively, His Name shall be called: So the Chaldee, itkera, and the Lxx. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Secondly, So it's used, Gen. 15.6. & 16.14. Neh. 2.7. & Mich. 1.4. Leu. 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 Surnames, 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, viz. That Prince of Peace should only be the Messias' 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 show 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 Messiah 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 of Jonathan also, who adds to what you may read before on this Text. The Man enduring for ever, the Messiah, whose Peace shall be multiplied upon us in his days. And Defarim Rabath, Fol. 196. I am about to raise up the Messiah (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 Kind's. One ascribing all of them to Hezekias; another, viz. Abarvanel, attributing them all to God: The Third to the Messiah. 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 all small Numbers, belong to whomsoever the Author pleased: The Consecution would stand thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is now full of Figures, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is maccaph in place of merca, to signify 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 placed it before, not to signify a greater Disjunction from what follows; but to signify the Fullness and Reality of the Messias' being what is there expressed, 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 Sceptre shall not departed from Juda, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shilo shall come. R. Man. Ben. Israel turns it thus:— Nor a Lawgiver 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 publicly 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 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 Controversy 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 virtue 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 Messiah. 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 Use of these Points that I proposed, is to know the Scope and End of the Author, in any Verse or Text, for where the Emphatic, or Rhetoric 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 Emphatic 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 Being's out of Nothing. For the Emphatic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Emphatic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Earth denotes. Gen. 3.15. There is a double Emphasis, one is on Enmity, another on Woman; the first to signify 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 of the Spirit in Man, is the perfecting that Enmity.  
The Second is to signify the vast difference between Enmity, as it's in the Mediator, and as it is in mere 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.    

PART SECOND, Containing the Taghmical Art Itself. In Tables of Consecution, Rules of Application, with Explications upon them, and other Prerequisits. And first of the Prerequisits.  
FIRST, the Method of Proceeding is to be observed, for it's opposite to that of Reading. In Hebrew you read from the Right Hand to the Left; but in Parsing by these Points, you must begin at the Left Hand, for there sits the greatest Ruler or Emperor Silluk, on whom the rest depend, according as the Sense bears Relation; for all the Points are Relative. Hence a Word is said to be First, Second, or Third; either with Relation to where you begin, in Reading or Parsing, and so the same Word may be said to be before or behind.  
Secondly, The purport of the Word, Train, or Dominion, is to be observed, which is a Tract of Words making some sense; and subordinated to a distinctive Lord, which is more or less, mediate, or immediate. For Instance, Sakeph has a Train of his own, and yet makes up a part of Silluk, or Atnach's Train, a Line in the Table is usually a Train or Dominion.  
Thirdly, The Word Labour, to Labour, is used, and denotes a Word that has no Syllable, or one only before the Accent, which makes one to find the Use of the Hebrew Grammar: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of Three Syllables; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of Two only: And so Psal. 119.127. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth Labour.  
Fourthly, We may observe, That two or three Words united by Maccaph, make but one Word, and one Word is counted two, if another Accent be put in place of Metheg.  
Fifthly, I Premise this, That though the putting the Rules in some Compact Order, makes me repeat most of the Rules given in Chap. Second, yet I need not trouble the Reader, nor myself, to repeat the Axioms, thither I remit them.  
Sixthly, I wish my Reader well Skilled in Grammar Learning, it will mightily Facilitate him, for without it he may stumble in the very Threshold, viz. the distinction betwixt the Seat and Use of a Lord or Servant. For Instance, The Place of a Minister is, where there is a Connexion by some Rule of Syntax. Now this is where one Noun governs another in the Genitive Case, or agrees with it by Apposition, or Copulative Particle, or as Adjective and Substantive; or else where a Verb governs another in the Infinitive, or is joined to another by a Particle that may be so resolved; or when it governs a Noun behind it, or agrees with one before; and therefore, without Knowledge of these, he cannot be so distinct and accurate in the Knowledge of them, though he may receive much advantage. For he can still think thus; Here is a Minister, and therefore this Word is to be united to the following, and what Sense they make, so much Light and Truth I receive. For Instance, Josh. 24.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they served other Gods, i. e. Strangers. It is not, and others, or Strangers served God, viz. as well as they did. The Minister Merca, under Elohim shows that it, and others, are to be united, though I did not know by what Rule.  
A Seventh Preliminary is, Required Skill in the Genius of the Hebrew Tongue, especially its Idiotisms, or Properties. For Instance, in other Tongues, three, four, or five Words, may be Construed together; but here it may be set among the Axioms, that two Ministers never come together immediately in all the Bible; if any such thing appear, one of them is vicarious, in place of a Lord. And this is the Niceness and Distinction of that Language as Sacred, ex gr. Isa. 28.24. Doth he open and break his ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for in such Cases, as here the Minister is put upon the Third always, to note the like Connexion of all that follows; but a Minor on the Second, to show, that though he stand next, he comes but in sharer, or partner in that common Word, in which one already has claimed an Interest. The Truth of this is evident, Isa. 19.6.7.22.9.23, 28.19.22. & 40.1.46.2. Job 10.11. Zach. 2.14. etc.  
A Second Property is, That any separable Particle being next the Verb, usually takes a Minister, as if Construed with it. But more of this may bespared.  
An Eighth Prerequisite is Skill in Logic; for its hard to Purse by these Points, without knowledge of a Proposition, its Subject, Predicate, and Copula; its Amphation, and several kinds. Ex. 15.15. All the Inhabitants of the Land shall melt away. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet under a Living Teacher, all these may be supplied: For as there are Idiotisms in the Hebrew Grammar, so there are in their Logic. Not that Sense and Reason are repugnant to itself in any Language, but that the Points incline to Grammar, in determining what makes one Proposition or Two, Ex gr. Jer. 27.13. As the Lord hath said against the Nation that will not serve the King of Babylon, is but one Proposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord and Nation being distinguished as Subject and Predicate. But this Position 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes two Propositions; the one is, And the Lord said to the Nation: the other, The Nation which shall not serve the King of Babylon. So that the Author's Intention (whether you should consider this last Proposition as a distinct Subject, or an Enlargement only of the former) is to be learned from the Points, and not Knowledge to Govern them by. So when one Proposition has two Subjects, or two Predicates, we must learn whether to make one Proposition, or two of them by the Points. As they make a Sacred Grammar, so they make a Sacred Logic, that no Logic else can inform them. See Deut. 18.12. & 2.36. & 17.7. Hos. 5.10. Lam. 2.10.  
A Ninth is Knowledge of some other Terms, as, 1. Permutation, which is the simple change of a Point, as Ex gr. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Transposition, which is a change of two Points, and that into each others place; Ex gr. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Extrusion is a Transposition with a Permutation; Ex gr. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but than Tipcha is thrown away, or by Permutation changed again for Merca, so that by Extrusion it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
A Tenth Prerequisite is Marks of Abbreviation in applying the Rules, in Interpreting or Parsing; Ex gr. R. for Rule, R. R. for Rules Rhetorical, T. for Table, N. for Notes, S. for Section, C. for Canon, M. for Member.  

Schema Prosaicum.   Dom. Minist. Mi. Major. Sec. Ord. I. Silluk. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Atnah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. Segolta. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iv Sakeph katon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V Sakeph gadol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VI Tipcha. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VII. Rhebia. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VIII. Paschta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IX. Sarka. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 X. Itib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XI. Tebir. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XII. Paser. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XIII. Karne par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XIV. Telisha ged. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XV. Geresh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XVI. Pesik muna. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
There are also a Third Order, which are Minors, on the Fourth Word, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Fourth, which are Ministers in that place, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Notes on the first Scheme.  
1. OBserve, That as a Column, or Rank of Ministers, stand in the second place, between the Lords and Ministers, the like is to be supposed before all Ranks of Majors or Minors, as need requires. 2. That the last Rank, viz. the Fifth, are by Permutation sometimes put in place of the fourth Order. 3. That each Lord has usually his own Servants or Vassals; Ex gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Servant, the others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Minor, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Tebkir has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Major, but the rest have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. That some have variety of Vassals and Servants; for instance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Servant, if no Syllable intercedes between them, otherwise it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Minor thrice, Leu. 10.6.20.21. Ruth 1.2. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if but one Syllable between; if more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Tibker be excluded before Tiphas, than there is Merca cephula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the Word be of one Syllable, or has the Tone on first, without Scheva, else it hath Kadma. 5. That the same Accent is sometimes doubled, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in milhel, or a Word that ends with double scheva, or patah the Thief, Exod. 10.16. and geresh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in miltra frequently. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if in their Consecution, a major or minor aught to be placed; they put often a Minister, and repeat their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Isa. 63.20. Josh. 12.7. 1 Kings 14.21. 7. Some of those Lords are only Deputies, and therefore have no Train, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 times, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14 times, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16 times, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8. Sakeph katon, the major to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of metheg, especially if there be no sub-distinction before. 2. If metheg be not there, then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or, 3. Kadma on the first Syllable of the Word. 9 This may pass for a Rule, as well as a Note, to distinguish between the Grammatical and Rhetorical Scheme, we are not to seek for Figures, because it may be so: As we are never to leave the proper and native Signification of a word, when we can make Sense by it, to take up a Metaphorical, or borrowed one: so we are never to leave the proper and usual Consecution, so long as we can make Sense by it, which is this first Scheme. And hence we are not in Parsing by these Rules, to expect new Rays of Light, and flights of Fancy, but a Confirmation to what we enjoy of Light that is Truth, by this Touchstone also, and so when the Points and Verse agrees, they may be set down to confirm it, without further notice. 10. This is a Rule also, and one of the greatest, but is pertinently added to the Table for Explication, since the Table or Scheme is its Object. The different manner of Consecution is observable; for instance, Sometimes the little or greater Lord stands in their Subordination, exactly as they appear. Sometimes it is cross the Scheme in great variety.  

Schema Rhetoricum in Prosis.  1. This Column not Rhetor. but Basis to all the rest. 2. 3. 4. Gr. Rh.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   Extrusion.  
Permutation and Transposition.  
Notes on the Second Scheme.  
1. IT is to be observed here, That the first Rank of Lords stands as before, without notice of their Emphasis. It is only the Consecution here minded.  
2. That the Second Rank consists of Minors Emphatically placed, in room of the Ministers that should be there by the Grammar Table.  
3. The Third Rank are in place either of the Rank of Ministers, or Minors, in the Second or Third Row of the Grammatical Scheme.  
4. The next Two Rows belong to the Third in the Grammatical Scheme; in the former is set down what is Grammatical, in the latter what is Rhetorical.  
5. The Last Three stand thus: when the first Rank comes immediately after the Lords in the first Rank, the Second Rank Emphatically supplies the place, and the Third are Ministers. For Instance, Suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tipcha were immediately to follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is by a Figure, for Emphasis sake, extruded, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put in its place, to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows as Minister.  
I shall leave other Notes to the Illustrations of the Rules and Tables.  

Schema Metricum.   Dom. Min. Min. Maj. Sec. Ord. I. Silluk. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II. Merca mah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III. Atnah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iv Rebhia geres. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 V Pesik schels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VI Rebhia. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VII. Tipcha fore. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VIII. Sarka. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IX. Paser. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 X. Pesik kadma. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
The Third Order are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Notes on the Metrical Table.  
1. OBserve that the general Order of Proceedure is as before, from Silluk to Atnah, and from Atnah to Merca mahpahatus, and so to the beginning of the Verse.  
2. That here is more Choice and Variety of Servants, than in the Prosaical; but each Servant has his place. For Instance:  
1. Silluk has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Pesik goes before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if no Syllable goes before the Tone; else it has Merca.  
2. Merca mahpah. has always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerah, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Word before it.  
3. Atnah has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Tipcha, the forerunner, be on the Word before it, else it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
4. Rhebia gereschatus has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it's Atnah's Vicar.  
5. Rhebia, if it comes before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else it has either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there be no Sub-distinctive, or if it be compounded with Sarka, else it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Munah's Superior.  
6. Sarka has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the Tone be in the Penult, or on a Letter with Dagesh, else it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
7. Paser has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Pesik mahpah goes before, else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
8. Pesik kadmatus has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very seldom, and that in a Monosyllable. 2. It has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there is one Syllable, or none before the Accent, except when compounded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else 3dly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
9 Rhebia geresh. when it is Atnah's Vicar has Tipcha for minor, and Rhebia, or Paser, for Majors, else it has no Train.  
10. Silluk has for Major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if Pesik follow as minor, else it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for major.  
11. Observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are much of a value, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, when mahpah goes before; but it's more to be noted, that Pesik is often omitted in both.  
Thirdly, That the Pains in this variety receives relief from the fewness of majors or minors, for there are but three minors or four, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and four majors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Fourthly, The variety of Ministers serves for a Masora.  

SCHEME IU. Schema Rhetoricum in Metris.   In place of Is put Permutation. Transpose. Remote. Before 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Notes on the Fourth Table, or Rhetorica Metrical.  
First, Observe, That the first Rank are the Lords absolute, or respective, before which these Rhetorical or Figurative Steps are noted by the following Points, but they themselves are not Figurative.  
Secondly, The next Two Columns are by Permutation Transposed, the Second Row should be put Grammatically; but the Third Row is Figuratively put in their room, usually among little Members.  
Thirdly, The like Transposition is in the Six following Columns, be the Members great or little; the Fifth put in place of the Fourth, by simple Permutation; the Seventh in place of the Sixth, by Transposition; the Ninth in place of the Eighth, usually in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth distant Word from its Lord.  
Fourthly, The last Three Columns, viz. 10, 11, 12, are by Extrusion; for more distinction I have removed them, wherein Silluk acts like a Proteus, he is so given to change, the most general Rule to bind him, is the Presence or Absence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the variety is great in either Case, yet such as keeps within the general Rules of Consecution, that the Sense may be learned from them. And further, such as prove that these Deviations from the Grammatical Scheme, are not Irregulars and Anomola's, as Wasmuth calls them: but another kind of Consecution, viz. Emphatic or Rhetorical, the variety may be more clearly seen in the following Scheme.  

1. Atnah being absent before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extruded for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absent before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extruded for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absent before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extruded for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
4. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being present before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being present before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being present before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being present before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 min. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being present before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 min. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atnah Present.  
9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no minor, it's so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 min. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minist. preced. or min.  
11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minist. or min. going before.  
12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atnah Before, etc.  
13. Before an extruded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put, is extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put, is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extruded for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose subst. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
22. Before an extruded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extruded for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Minister is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose substit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extru. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose substi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extrud. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
All which shall be Exemplified in the Illustrations; but when once the general Road of Consecution is obtained, these will be easy, that thus seem insuperable.   

RULES OF Punctation Grammatical.  

I. Of the Absolute Lords and Kindred, in 5 Members.  
1. SIlluk the Sentence and the Verse doth end,  
2. Atnach in two divides, and so attends.  
3. Segolta Three will have, or not appear;  
4. Meremah in Verse doth to them both come near;  
5. Inferior Game Reb. gereschate doth play,  
Because as Vicar he comes in the way.   

RULE II. On the Second Word of Consecution, in two Members.  
1. Upon the Second doth a Servant stand,  
If there be either Concord or Command.  
2. If neither be expressed, nor yet employed,  
Or if the Third in the same Syntax tied  
Be to the First, then doth a minor Lord;  
Or if there be Hebraical Accord 
* Between Third and Second.    

RULE III. On the Third Word in Consecution, in Three Conditions.  
1. A Minor doth the Third in order use,  
If for their Mate the former Two refuse.  
2. Or if the first two kinds of Accents wear,  
3. Or differing Syntax to the Sequel bear.   

RULE iv On the fourth, fifth, or sixth Word in Consecution.  
Fourth, fifth, or sixth takes any of the three,  
Minister, Minor, or the Major he.  
1. If this same Fourth with following agree,  
2. But that as opposite from Sequel free.  
3. If all Cohere. 4. And this to all refer,  
Minister is the Point you must prefer.  
2. But if this ruling Word his next reject,  
You may a Minor under him expect.  
And in their Bosom principal do bear.  
When all the Sequents do cohere,  
3. But if the Sequel do some Question solve,  
Or Proposition in itself resolve,  
Than you are sure a Major for to meet,  
Though fuller Sense doth make the same repeat.   

RULE V On Seconds and Thirds before any Lord, without respect to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to Matter.  
Second or Third 'fore any little Lord,  
As Little, or like Member doth accord;  
1. Minor or Minister they will choose,  
Respect or Consecution makes refuse.  
2. But if this Word before a Flock doth stand,  
With next agrees, and does them all command.  
3. Minister is the Point, a Minor else is he,  
If Sequel small, or no dependence be.   

RULE VI On the Fourths, Fifths, Sixths and Sevenths of this kind.  
1. A Major always to some Sovereign King,  
Distinction between the greater Members bring.  
2. You may repeat the Sakeph's too,  
Reb. Paschta, Paser, and the Sarka too.   

RULE VII. On a Parenthesis.  
If a Parenthesis his close doth make,  
In two or three he doth a Minor take.  
1. But if in more before a King he stop,  
A Major Lord he has upon his top.  
If that two Words it only comprehend,  
2. A Minor else a Major gives the send 
* i e. It gins after a Major.   
3. Parenthesis is still of nearest kin,  
Not where he ends, but where he doth begin.    

Rhetorical Rules.  

RULE I. Of Absolute Lords.  
1. If Silluk Verse, but not the Sense complete;  
2. Or Mediator make Respectives meet.  
3. If t'other Four, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  in Sentence one thou find;  
4. Or if in two of a respective kind;  
Or if an Antecedent must repeat,  
Be sure the Emphasis in Verse thou meet:  
5. Or if in Verse two Propositions be,  
And them not there, or else misplaced thou see.   

RULE II. Of Absolute Lords.  
If that the Verse do three Propo's contain,  
1. Which distinct in their Subjects do remain,  
And not with Silluk three 
* That is two and Silluk.  such Lords there be,  
Which thou may know, as Verse and Prose agree 
† In Prose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
Or if misplaced; or if that three be there;  
2. Where is respect Rhetorical's the Air.   

RULE III. Of Consecution.  
To leave these Lords, and turn unto their train,  
1. Vagrant Maccaph most closely ties the Chain.  
If none cohering Second do Minister take,  
Or Meeter Major for extrusions sake 
* On Second or Third. .  
3. If a Cohering Third the same do act 
† i e. Takes a Minor. .  
4. If Third and Second, not the same Syntact.  
The Third a Servant, Second Minor is;  
In all these Cases there is Emphasis.   

RULE iv Of Consecution.  
1. Fourth, Fifth or Sixth the Rules before will teach 
* That is the Grammar.   
Learn the Conditions, they are contrair each.  
2. A Major for a Minister you'll read,  
And for a Minor prove't you may by deed.  
3. A Minister a Minor's place doth fill;  
4. A Major yields his place to both their will.  
5. If that a Major you repeated see,  
6. Or for a Major second Order be;  
If a Minister, Minor on the rear,  
Of greater Sentence Emphasis they bear.  
Consecution respecting Matter is comprehended in this Rule.   

RULE V Of Consecution respecting Matter.  
'Mong little, and like Members, you may know  
1. From their Respect, if Emphasis or no.  
2. If that a Word with following agree,  
To all refers; yet no Minister be.  
3. Or if no Minor, when no such respect;  
4. Or Words but few, a Figure then expect.   

RULE VI Of Consecution.  
1. If Third a Major or Minister points,  
2. When Minor Second from the First disjoints,  
And Third with Second, nor with First accord.  
3. Or, if a Fourth a Minor has aboard,  
All such are of Rhetorical Record.   

RULE VII. Of Parenthesis.  
1. Parenthesis ends not in Absolute,  
2. Nor doth a Major his beginning suit,  
3. Much less Minister can it execute 
* In these three Cases Emphatical. .    

Illustrations.  

SECTION I.  
1. SIlluk is the most Sovereign of all the Absolute Lords, and both in Tables and Rules it stands at the Head of the Consecution; and reason good, for it is the concluding Point in every Verse of the Bible, from whence all Consequence takes its Original; and it has been by all I know (except Wasmuth) reckoned to have the Value of a Punctum, or full Stop. But he, P. 67. says, It has not sometimes the Value of half a Comma, which he confirms from Gen. 23.17. and with Subordination to it, limits his first Axioms thus: Every Regale Accent always, and every where, doth distinguish; but the same Accent, not always with the same value; for the Place or Seat of Distinction makes great disparity, P. 23. It may be I shall tell thee News, in Informing thee, that our Translation, though long before him, proceeded from the like Minds, for every Verse ends not with a Stop or Punctum. Gen. 14.1. ends with a Colon: Numb. 31.22. ends with a Comma, Gen. 23.17. not so much as a Comma. And in the New Testament, Acts 1.21. ends with a Comma. In Answer to all this I must plead for Silluk's absoluteness: First, Because the number of such places are few; I think the Masora says five or seven: 2 Sam. 17.27, 28, 29. Esther 8.11, 12. Num. 31.22. Suppose these Seven were truly Seventeen, the Exceptions are not one in a Thousand, and it would be granted in any Language in the World, that the Exceptions were insufficient to prevent a general Rule. But the Divinity of the Author being urged, and the whole Sense being his, Silluk being a Commander of Sense, falls under his Providence and Care in a more especial manner than a Letter or Word. To all which I Answer;  
Secondly, The Spirit of God is Author of the Faithful Record of what was spoken by the Erring Spirit of Man, sometimes by the Devil himself; and what is Recorded as spoken by such, is not liable to this urged Inconveniency. For Instance, Gen. 23.10, 14, 17. the one is the Story of Ephron, the other the Story of Abraham; the one's Heart is filled with true Sorrow, for the loss of Sarah, the others with Sympathy, both acting, as well as expressing their Affection: And can Grief be expressed without making Pauses in the midst of Sentences? We must expect there was a Sob or a Sigh where the Silluk was placed. And this is what the Author of Cosri is so large upon. From which I propose a General Rule, viz. That great Care is to be taken in distinguishing the Rhetorical Position of a Point, if it be Respectu dicti, or Dicentis, if it flow from the Passion of the Speaker, or the momentousness of the Matter. Now when God is Author, these are not to be parted, except where it is as it were acted, or dissembled after the manner of Man. Now Gen. 21.10. Though it is spoke by Sarah in great Passion, yet the Words had an Inrention from the Spirit of God, which made the Sense complete. Cast out the bond woman and her son: All that think or hope to obtain Heaven by their own Works, their natural Enduements, as Hagar 's Fertility or Pains, as her place required, or by being born within the Church, and receiving its Initial Signs, as Ishmael did, will be disappointed; the Spirit of God commands their Ejectment. Here is enough to make up a Complete Sense for Silluk. For the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac. The Tenor of the Incorruptible Inheritance, is the Promise of God, from his Sovereign and Free Grace; a Birth not of Blood, nor of Flesh, nor of the Will of Man, but a Generation by the Power of God; when Nature's Power entirely fails, by this Title my Son Isaac is Heir.  
And the like is very probable, Gen. 14.1. It has been of old, and is of late, the Interpretation of Learned Men, That as Abraham, the Father of Believers, represented the Church, whereof Lot was a Back-sliding Part, fallen in Love with the fat Valleys of the Earth, brought leanness to his Soul, desolation to his Family, dishonour to his Name: Though he had his Soul for a Prey, may be he grew better when rid of his back-looking Bag of Salt; as Tart as Job's Meet-help, but much more meet for Satan's Service.  
Melchisedeck, or Shem, Represented our Blessed Jesus (if not He) welcoming and blessing the Church with his visible Presence, as their visible King; after by his invisible Power, he had assisted them to Triumph over all their Carnal Enemies. Now the Analogy of Scripture leads us to a firm Persuasion, That this is at the end, and over the last of the Four Monarchies, having then two Witnesses, Abraham and Melchisedeck, for the Story its being Typical, it's most reasonable to put in the Third, viz. The Enemy Triumphed over these Four Kings, one is King of Shinar, Babylon's Country, having the same relation to the Worldly Empire, that Abraham had to the Church. And Tidal, King of Nations, the last, a true Character of the Romans, so often called Gentiles, or Nations in Scripture, and may be a part of these Kingdoms under the Roman Empire, in the time of its Flourishing, for it seems to take beginning from Galilee. Galilee of the Gentiles, or Nations. Galilee signifies the Border, so that from thence, to West and North, were the Nations; some small part whereof was under Tidal. Elam was Shem's Eldest Son, and Ashur the next, Gen. 10.22. 1 Chron. 1.17. settled their Dominions nigh to one another: Neither was Lydia and Aramea far off. So that old Shem was in his own Country, among his own degenerate Posterity, who had forgotten both his Education and himself. But in particular, this Elam, until the Persian Monarchy, comprehended both Susian (whose principal Seat, Dan. 8.2. is said to be in Elam, on the Banks of Vlai, and these Elamites that assisted Israel, Isa. 22.6. were Susianites for Persia, was not under Assyria or Babylon then, 2 Kings 17.24. 2 Chron. 32.21.) and Persia, Isa. 21.2. Jer. 25.25. a Prophecy of the Two Kings, Cyaxar of Media, and Cambysis of Persia, both under their common Generalissimo Cyrus.  
Some go yet a little further in Typification, viz. That Abraham's Ten Years Pilgrimage (from Charan, thorough Canaan to Egypt, and back to Mamre, the place of Abode, and from thence this Victory) did by putting a Year for a Day, signify the Church's Pilgrimage in this World, until the Coming of Melchisedeck, Ten Times 365 Years, that is 3650 Years, and add, that both is confirmed from the Tenth paid to Melchisedeck, by which he acknowledged not only this Victory to be by the Blessing of the Lord of Hosts, but all his Riches, as he tells the King of Sodom; and all his Protections during the Ten Years Dangers and Difficulties he had gone thorough.  
It may be this High Priest Read a Lecture of this kind to him when he blessed him, that occasioned Abraham's Paying this Tithe to him, Heb. 7.1. We are surely informed, it was a Rite designed of GOD, for Future Signification; and I know of none that have found a better, if another for it. We may then draw a Line of Time and Expectation; but let not thy Faith exceed the Sureness of the Foundation. I dare not undertake for the Prophecy, but I will for the Line, thus; From Abraham to Moses 430 From Moses to Solomon's Temple 480 From Solomon 4, to his Death at 40 036 From Rhehoboam to the Captivity 372 From the 3d of Jehojakim to 212 of Nab. 070 From thence by Ptol. Canon to the Birth 535 From Christ's Birth to this Time, vera 1699 vulgo 1697 Sum 3622 Proph. 3650  
By this Calculation there remains 28 Years for the Emperor's Conquering the Turk, Dan. 11.40. to the end, for the Pope's Regaining his lost Dominion, Rev. 16.12, 13. for the slaying of the Witnesses, for their Revival and great Conversion in the East, for Rome's utter Ruin, etc.  
So far have some Divines gone with Knowledge of this Hypothesis, which I Advance, viz. That where Silluk ends a Verse, without making a full Point, a complete Distinction, there is a Figure. And, Secondly, When the Author of that Verse is God, and the Figure founded on the momentousness of the Matter; there is a Sacred Figure, a Type, and that is the Case in this Text: So that I add Strength to the Foundation, and diminish from the weight of the Roof; so that the Structure is more likely to stand. The weight which I diminish, is the determining of the Time, though I could add two Buttresses to it, viz. That God from this Time gins to hid nothing from him, but by piece-meal, and particular Periods, Prophetically Reveals the Church's various Fates and Lots. From this Victory does he begin; for you see, Gen. 15.13. The first Period of 400 Years is revealed to Abraham. And, Secondly, That it Harmonizes' with other Prophetical Periods. But this Opinion does not Harmonise; and yet most of these Typical Gentlemen are against Tithes. R. 1. Priestly Tithes are of a latter date. 2. The Constitution is ended. 3. CHRIST's First Coming gives full Assurance. For Types do stand in force, until the Substance come to displace them; therefore until Christ's Second Coming, Tithes stands, Jure Divino, a Right of Priests and Pastors, and the Duty of People; and they who neglect it in any Proportion, are still guilty of Sacrilege, and Robbers of God, Mal. 3.8.  
Having now given Two Witnesses for the Proof of this Rule, viz. That when the Author is God, and the Figure founded on the Matter spoken, the Figure is a Type. I shall advance another Solution, when the Figure is from the manner of Speaking, viz. We see by some Figure an heap of Subjects in one Verse: And Secondly, an heap of Predicates in another. Thirdly, May be an heap of Properties; Effects, or Ends, in a third Verse; wherein you have two Silluks, or may be three, and two, three, or more complete Senses, but Transposed for Eloquence. This Coacervation (I cannot tell what Name the Figure bears) being usual among Men, and the Divine Style condescending to imitate Men, it is no wonder to find such Figures in the Bible, and thus you find 2 Sam. 17.27, 28, 29. the Persons that came to David, three in number, with their Epithets, ver. 27. the many things they brought, ver. 28. from whom, ver. 29. This may also serve for Num. 31.22. an Enumeration of Metals, although it may be more easily answered, by supplying the Verb understood in the Word only, viz. Shall not be purified. It may be further noted, That this falls out in Matter that is easy, it creates no difficulty. Secondly, That the number of Words fall within the compass of an Hebrew Verse, which at least has three Words in Prose, and Four in Verse, and at most Forty Words. This affords a Fourth Solution, viz. Necessity, when a Parenthesis falls in the latter part of the Verse, (which is rare) and concludes in Silluk, there is a necessity for the former parts of the two Verses being united; and when the Parenthesis is long, that must be done to prevent the over-growness of the Verse, Jer. 33.10, 11. This may abundantly satisfy Wasmuth's Objection, and leave our first Rule without Exception, viz.  
R. 1. G. Silluk the Sentence and the Verse doth end.  
R. 1. R. If Silluk Verse, but not the Sense complete.  
Or Mediator makes Respectives meet.  
One may think, considering the number, less might have served; but that the Reader may see the Masora is not always to be trusted, and that we may try the Practice of our Rules a little, I shall set down some Examples from Prov. 1. where a respective Silluk abounds.  
N. B. Remember that R. G. is Rule Gram. and R. R. Rule Rhetorical; and T. Table, or Scheme; M. Member; N. Note.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verse 1. 
These are the Proverbs of Solomon the Son of David, the Proverbs of the King of Israel. Israel has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 1. King has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of a Minister, by R. R. 3. M. 2. or Meeter major, for Extrusions sake, T. 4. Col. 4, 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhebia gereschate in place of merca. A King is a Word requires a Pause, a Wise King, a Writing King, a Teaching King, a Repenting King, much more David has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under it by R. 1. M. 2. which shows our Translation is wrong, making but one Proposition of the Verse, and making David King, when Solomon wrote, or leaving it doubtful who. The Son of David coheres with Maccaph, a Relation to, and Interest in such a pray Father, on whose Seed so many Blessings were entailed, was worth boasting in. R. R. 3. M. 1. vagrant Malcaph most closely ties the Chain; Of Solomon has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 2. M. 1. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by N. 2. M. 3. T. 3. The Proverbs has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Fore-goer, R. 3. M. 1. a Minor doth the Third in order use, T. 3. This Verse contains the Title of the Book, wherein is set forth the Subject of the Treatise, Mishlae, Proverbs by Synecdoche, for Verse 6. Riddles, Sentences, Agothegms, Dictates of Wit, and Wisdom of all kind.  
Secondly, The Author, with various Epithets from his Relations and Office. But this Division answers not the intent of Solomon, else he would have put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between Proverbs and Solomon; therefore we may learn two things from the Points.  
First, That Proverbs is to be repeated in the Second Proposition, else the greatest Lord, and the greatest Distinction in Matter could not agree.  
Secondly, We may learn the Author's Scope in this Verse, viz. Not to Describe, or Characterise, the Book that follows; but the Author, Solomon, as if he should say, That Noted and Famous Person Solomon wrote this Book. I may add,  
Thirdly, That we may learn how to divide it according to the Author's Scope, viz. In a Contemplation of the Author of this Book in his Private and Public Capacities.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 2. 
To know wisdom, and also instruction; to understand the words of understanding. Understanding has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 1. Words has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 2. M. 1. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 N. 2. M. 1. T 3. To understand, or apprehend, has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. R. 3. M. 2. with T. 4. Col. 6.7. a Major for a Minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Third. Instruction or Discipline has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 1. M 2. To know wisdom has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. 3. Col. 3. For though the Third agree with First and Second, in the same manner, yet the Second and Third agrees not with the First in the same manner, R. 2. M. 2. There is therefore a double Figure, 1. By Permutation, or Transposition rather of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Third to the Second, by R. 3. M. 4.  
Secondly, By Extrusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is extruded, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put in its place, another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going before it, T. 4. Col. 10. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Minister is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 3. 
To receive the doctrine of prudence; to receive justice, judgement and equity. Equity has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 1. Justice and Judgement has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being little Members, and having the like Grammatical Respect to the first, it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 2. M. 2. but by Figure, a Major is put in Merca's place, R. R. 3. M. 2. Prudence has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 2. M. 2. Our Translators make quite another Sense, by not observing this, viz. To receive the Doctrine of Juctice, Wisdom and Equity. But Solomon advances the Dignity and Use of his Proverbs in this, That by them we shall not only receive the Doctrine of Prudence, which comprehends in its ample Sense all Virtues; but that in particular, we shall receive the Virtues themselves; and therefore such an Emphatic Mark is put on it. To receive the Doctrine has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to R. 1. and 2. M. 1. And the reason why it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 goes before it, T. 3. N. 2. M. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 4. 
To give subtlety to the simple; to give to the young man knowledge and discretion— Discretion has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 1. M. 1. Knowledge has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 2. M. 1. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Tone is on the first Syllable, T. 3. N. 2. M. 1. Young Man has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no Word more to receive the Major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give being understood. This informs us of it, viz. That there is a fourth Word belonging to the Sentence, the Rule is twice before mentioned. Subtilty has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. 1. M. 2. To give to the simple has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in T. 4. Col. 10. Word 6. in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is by Extrusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Besides Initiating the Reader a little in practice, the particular End I have produced these Examples for, is to show the Limitation that Silluk has on it, when used between respective Propositions, for this place is to be referred to the Third Solution, a little before. In these Six Verses there is a most Eloquent Description of the Book. Ver. 1. The Author; Ver. 6. the Book; Ver. 2, 3. the End or Advantage; Ver. 4, 5. the variety of Persons to whom this Emolument will redound. The variety of each is so great, that it would increase the multitude of Propositions; and if the Verses were filled with them, orderly completed, the Sententious Style of the Book would be lost, or some material Point of Doctrine omitted. Ex Gr. These Proverbs of Solomon afford the pleasant Fruits of Wisdom, and that to them that are even Simple and Childish. Secondly, These Dictates of David's wise Son, makes a Man know Instruction, and perceive the Words of Understanding. Not only Beginners, and young Persons, but the Wise and Prudent may increase their Wisdom and Learning by it.  
Before I end this, and begin with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Observation of the Masorits is worth inserting, viz. That in 25 or 28 places Atnah is of more power than Silluk; but in Examination we will find it false, or the place Figurative; ex gr. Gen. 35.22. is a Verse of double Accentuation, and Silluk is with Atnah under Israel, and there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Pasuk, or Soph pasuk. Gen. 4.8. And Cain had a Conference, or Dispute, with his Brother. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divides only between Cause and Effect, Silluk ends the whole Story. So greater, Job 19.27. My reins are consumed within me. The Supplement of though, as our English, or after, out of the foregoing Verse, makes this belong to what goes before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after My reins, etc. as in Ver. 26. after my Skin. Secondly, Suppose it an Interjection of Sorrow mixing with his glorious Confession, while he thinks of the glorious Resurrection, and Redeemer, his Pain minds him of foregoing Death.   

SECTION II.  
ATnah is the next Absolute Lord in Power; but generally the Doctrine about him in Wasmuth, Schnegas, Ledeburius, is repugnant to his Title Absolute, and make him as respective and dependent, as the least Lord in all the Scheme. It is thus, that 1. Every Verse requires an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly, That Atnah's Power may be but a Semi-Comma, for though next in power to Silluk, yet when Silluk's Power is but like a Commas, Atnah's must be like a Semi-Comma.  
A Second Argument I have against it is, That the Degrees of Distinction, at this rate, are too Subtle to be comprehended. Ex gr. 1 Chron. 28.1. There are 32 Words, and the greatest Sub-distinction is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  
Thirdly, Though all the Points depend on the Connexion and Distinction of the Doctrine or Matter, yet the Distinctions of Matter are of an Absolute and Independent distance, where the Lords are called Absolute. I have therefore proposed Rules of another Nature about them, R. 1. M. 2. R. R. 1. M. 3. 4. viz. the proper office of Atnah is to End, or Rule a complete Proposition; therefore there is no need of him where the Verse has but one Proposition, and consequently he is not to be found, Silluk being able with his own Domestic Train to Point the whole, it were Superfluous and unbecoming, to bring an Absolute Prince to supply the Function of another Prince's Servants, when the difference is but gradual between the Princes, and between their Servants also. Therefore when we find it otherwise, viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is present where there is but one Proposition, or absent where there are more than one of distinct Subjects, 1. We must either search into the Matter; or, 2. Examine the Affections of the Speaker; or, 3. The eloquent manner of Expression. For we shall find it is by a Figure, and one that bears his Mark about him (so that there is no danger of Equivocation) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either absent when such a Proposition calls him, or present when no place or work for him; or that he changes his place, viz. if he stand not there where the greatest distinction of Matter is within the Verse.  
I shall First Confirm this:  
Secondly, Answer some Objections against it.  
Arg. 1. The Exceptions against the former, viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be in every Proposition, are too numerous, being between 1500 and 2000 To which I may add, That the Solutions given to these Objections or Reasons, for them are not valid enough, which is either the number of Words, or Seat proper for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If, says Wasmuth, the Verse contains but three or four Words, and one Sub-distinction, there is no place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is indeed true, but the number of Words is not the Reason; but because it is rare, if ever, that three or four Words make two distinct Propositions. For suppose there be five Words, and one Proposition, there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 25, 15. & 9, 4.10, 15.12, 9.23, 5. 14, 42, 17. Exod. 1, 13.6, 17. & 17.13. & 21, 1.12, 15, 17.23, 6, 14. and about 140 Verses more.  
Secondly, Suppose the Verses contain six Words, if but one Proposition, there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 36.41. 1 Sam. 30.27. and about 140 Verses more.  
Thirdly, Suppose the Verse contain seven Words, if but one Proposition, there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 10.14.21.3. and about 80 more.  
Fourthly, Suppose the Verse contain eight Words, if but one Proposition, there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 5.4. Num. 7.15.21.27.33, 39.45.51.57.63.69.75.81. and about 40 or 50 more.  
Fifthly, Suppose the Verse contain nine Words, Jer. 23.25. Gen. 13.1. Deut. 7.11. and about 20 more. Suppose Ten Words, Gen. 35.15. Deut. 4.33. & 6.22. Jos. 10.7.13.9. 1 Kings, 1.26. Jer. 25.2. Ezek. 24.1. & 42.10. Neh. 5.17, etc. Suppose Eleven Words, Jos. 21.7. 1 Kings 9.20, 26. Jer. 52.18. Ezek. 41.17. Dan. 6.26. 1 Chron. 5.13. 2 Chron. 8.7. Suppose Twelve Words, Numh. 9.1. Deut. 5.24.13.12. Jos. 13.16.21.5. Jer. 30.2. 1 Chron. 6.46.48.29.6. 2 Chron. 1.2. Suppose Thirteen Words, Jos. 13.30. 1 Chron. 28.11. Suppose Fourteen Words, Ezra 7.13. 1 Chron. 12.37. 2 Chron. 34.20. Suppose Fifteen Words, Jos. 22.6. 2 Kings 22.12. 1 Chron. 6.47. Suppose Sixteen Words, 1 Chron. 26.26. Seventeen, Jer. 8.1. Eighteen, Eccles. 5.17. Nineteen, Jer. 13.13. Twenty Three, Ezra 6.9. 1 Chron. 28.1. Yet if but one Proposition, there is not one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Verse, though therefore he assert what is true, he brings not the true Reason, and therefore it is false, that because the Verse has but Four Words, there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if it had 24 Words, and but one Proposition, there would be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Wasmuth's Second Reason he divides in three, thus, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper Seat happen to be first in the Second Word from Silluk. Secondly, in the third or fourth Word from Silluk. Thirdly, sometimes in the fifth Word from Silluk, then there is no place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Resp. That seems not to be the Reason neither, for First, there is no necessity for asserting that to be a proper place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Examples he brings, Ex gr. Gen. 21.28. And Abraham set seven sheep of the flock by themselves. Seorsim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is too little a distinction between flock, and by themselves, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Resp. 2. There may be above sixty Examples brought to prove the contrary, Jer. 28.10. He took the yoke from off the neck of Jeremiah the Prophet, and broke it. Ruth 4.2.—: And they did sit down. Gen. 1.3.—: And it was light, ver. 7. Gen. 9.2. & 33.4. & 41.21. & 42.20. Ex. 14.4. & 23.23. & 36.7. Leu. 13.18.  
Resp. 3. He grants that, first, if the Argument be distinct. Secondly, Or if the Propositions be relatively opposed. Thirdly, If the Verb is to be repeated, than Atnah may be in the next Word to Silluk; which is as much as to say, Wherever there is place for Atnah, whether Silluk follow immediately after, or not, there it will be, and must.  
Resp. 4. Where these Limitations are not in his own Opinion, yet there Atnah is immediately before Atnah, Exod. 26.23. & 39.14. Leu. 18.20. Num. 31.20. Leu. 21.4. Num. 15.21. Isa. 8.17. Hos. 11.6.  
Arg. 3. Where Atnah is absent, there two Propositions are not, and the Matter is not so distinct and opposite as to require it; where Atnah is de facto, we find it so.  
Arg. 4. If Atnah be where one Proposition is, Repetition of the Verb makes two; two with Sense, and two with Emphasis; and that such as the Sense and Scope of the place doth require.  
Arg. 5. There appears no pretext of Reason, for designing Exceptions contrary to a Rule, if Atnah should be in every Verse, and his Office and Power as proper there, as any where; why all Verses of three Words, in number about 180, and all of Four Words, in number about 306. should want this Atnah. It is then universally true, all Verses of few Words want him; surely there must be some reason for this; they can give none, who say Atnah can become a Comma; but the Reason is Reason like, to say, because we cannot well make two Propositions of Four Words. I may add further here, That when a Word is absent by Privation, that is, where he should be, he leaves a Deputy in his place. Now in these Verses of three or four Words, the Points stand according to Table and Rule, and therefore are in their own proper place, and are Vicars to none. Yea, where there are nine or ten Words, the Case is the same. Ex gr. Deut. 7.11. Therefore thou shalt keep the precept, statute and judgement [which I command thee this day] that thou do them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The greatest distinction within this Verse is in Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Rhebia is not Figuratively or Rhetorically here, for he stands in his proper place Major to Tipcha, which Atnah can never be; nor is Tipcha in Atnah's place, for that shuts up the Parenthesis. See Gen. 7.22.35.15. Leu. 15.9. Num. 5.9.33.56. Deut. 6.6.13.12. 1 Kings 11.42. 2 Kings 10.36. Isa. 31.6.37.5. Jer. 10.1.32.34. 2 Chron. 2.14.  
Arg. 6. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Essential to every Verse I prove thus: Atnah is not necessary to Silluk's part of the Verse, nay, is necessarily absent from it: but Silluk's part of the Verse in one place of Scripture, makes sometimes a whole Verse in another, Words and Sense being entirely the same; therefore Atnah is not necessary to that Verse; yea, is necessarily absent from it. You have an Instance for this, Gen. 1.5, 8, 31. & 13.19, 23. And the evening and the morning was the first, second, etc. day. It makes a complete Verse in the latter Quotations, and the latter Clause only in the former Quotations.  
I should now come to the Second Part, viz. Answering Objections against it, that is, remove the Difficulties that seem to lie against it, from the Forms of several Scriptures; some having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Proposition, others wanting him in two; others not having him where greatest distance is, or appears to be.  
To all which I Answer in general, they belong to the R. R. and R. Sheme. For,  
First, The greatest number of them is to be found in the Affectionate Books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Song of Solomon.  
Secondly, Wasmuth, P. 82. acknowledges, If there be two Propositions, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absent, it is from Acceleration in short, and abrupt Speeches, from a Mind troubled, or wrestling with grief.  
Thirdly, In particular, I will reduce them to Classis, and make Experiment.  
Clas. 1. Of one Proposition that has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jer. 2.16. Also the children of Noph, or Tachpanes, have broken, or picked, the crown of thy head.  
First, There are two Propositions, Virtually being two Subjects.  
Secondly, There is Emphasis, in that Friends, Confederated Ones, trusted, should do worse than Enemies. Jer. 2.9. They that observe lying Vanities, forsake their own mercy: Or, They are keepers of lying Vanities: They are forsakers of their own Mercy, viz. who do as I have done, (ver. 10.) but for the future I will cleave to the Lord. So Two Propositions.  
Secondly, It's no wonder to hear Jonah Preach with Affection and Emphasis, in such a Pulpit. Gen. 24.34. Numb. 25.17. Ex 6, 21. & 8.4. & 25.7. Gen. 13.5.41.37. 1 Sam 30.31. Gen. 14.6. Ex 12.49. Jer. 25.22. Gen. 17.27.  
Clas. 2. Of Two Propositions where no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is. Gen. 40.23. Numb. 12.9. Cant. 7.11. Lam. 3.18. Gen. 26.30. Ex 15.24. Gen. 29 22. Cant. 2.4. Ru. 4.16. Cant. 1.13. 1 Chron. 17.31. Ezek. 34.15. 2 Chron. 39.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphatically.  
Clas. 3. Of them that seem to be but one Proposition, and yet have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but are really two, which will appear by adding the Supplement. Gen. 7.5. Supply, so he did, before Silluk, Deut. 18.7. Supply, he shall Minister after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that we may be sure this Supplement is according to the Author's Intention, compare Gen. 6.22. and Deut. 18.6. where we may find the Two Supplements expressed.  
Clas. 4. Of them where the Two Propositions are respective, there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be, Numb. 14.20. & 16.4. Jer. 38.24. but Emphatically and Figuratively, Gen. 24.34. from Joy, Hope, Confidence of Success, boasting in his Master. Jud. 14.11. It filled them with amazement, and they took counsel. Jer. 28.10. False Prophets his Indignation.  
The Fifth Classis is, Of them that have not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place where the greatest distinction in Matter appears. Observe, That the place of the greatest Distinction, needs thought to know it, for it's not in the middle of Words. Gen. 1.7. there is but One Word behind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Fourteen before him, which contains Two Propositions, but the difference between the Purpose and Product, Act and Effect, is the greatest. Gen. 1.22. the former Hemistich has but one Proposition, the latter Three. Deut. 16.19. Thou shalt not wrest judgement; thou shalt not respect persons; neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, etc. Our Translators make the greatest Stop at Take a Gift, and any Body else, on a superficial view of the Text, would think so with them; for the Verse consists of Five Propositions, three of them Prohibitions, and two of them Reasons for it, the greatest Stop appears between the Precepts and Reasons: but on a more narrow Perspection, the two Reasons belong only to the last Precept, and the former two Propositions are related as Text and Explication, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rightly placed on Persons. Gen. 15.13. And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. Here our Translators have put no Colon at all, but the Emphatic placing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original is a Comment on the Text, and a better one than many, or any Chronologer has given on it. Isaac Vossius, among his many other Additions, to Sacred Chronology, asserts 200 Years into this Epocha, saying, There were 430 Years from Jacob's going down to Egypt, until Moses coming up out of it, which he confirms from Exod. 12.40. though he himself takes Acts 7.6. where they are said to be evil treated 400 Years, by way of Synecdoche, for a part of that time, but Matter of Fact will not suffer it, for Gal. 3.16. this Prediction ended with the Law, and began with the Promise; and we find 215 Years after the Promise, before Jacob went to Egypt, viz. 25 from Abraham, 75 to Isaac's Birth, 100 Abraham, 60 from Isaac's birth to Jacob's, Gen. 21.5. 130 from Jacob's, to his appearing before Pharaoh, Gen. 47.9. This Summed makes 215.  
Secondly, We find but two Generations in Egypt, for Levi begot Cahad in Canaan, hence Amram Moses: Reuben begot Phallu in Canaan, hence Eliab Dathan and Abiram: Judah begot Ezrom, and he Pharez in Canaan, hence Jephunna Caleb. Now if we examine the Original of this Prediction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put after afflict them, whereas distance of Matter seems to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between their Pilgrimage and Affliction, with Service and Bondage; the latter being only in their Brick-Days in Egypt, the former all their Tent-Days in Canaan, from Abraham's first coming to it. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being placed after both, and between both, and 400 Years, informs us, that the 400 Years comprehends both, or all three, viz. Days of Pilgrimage, Service, and Affliction.  
Another Example you have of this Emphatical Displacement of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 29.21. And Jacob said to Laban, give me my wife, (for my days are fulfilled) that I may go in unto her. The greatest distinction is justly on Wife, but the Hebrew has it on fulfilled. Jacob made no stop in his Speech until he had enforced it with irrefragable Justice, lest Laban should have put in some excuse or delay; and than if they had come to balancing of Reasons, the covetous Heart; and crabbed Temper of a Laban, had clothed itself with the Mantle of Fatherhood. It was dishonour to a Father to yield, though some Justice appear on the Son's side; but a Son of Honour would not bear it, to see his grey Haired Father bending to him; and besides, the Son's Father, like enough, might have taken it ill, to see the Father dunned after a Denial; therefore the Style shows his great haste to prevent a Denial.   

SECT. III.  
I Shall now proceed to the rest of the Absolute Lords, with the use of Atnah in Verse. Wasmuth expresses his principal Rule thus: Merca mahphate (who is Lord of the first of the Verse in Meeter) if he fall on a Word, the fourth or fifth from Silluk, where also there is room for middle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a little King. If there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rebhia gereschate is in his place, as Vicar with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Servants.  
This I do not agree with, much less his Foundation, viz. As they stand in a difference from Silluk; but a Disputative, and Refutative Style, is that my Genius is averse to.  
Secondly, The Person is one I highly esteem, he has been my first and chief Master in this Doctrine.  
Thirdly, In my Opinion, many have done worthily in it, but he above all. I shall therefore take a more Didactic Method, and shall begin with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Meeter, for the Sum of what is to be said, consists either in comparing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose or Verse; if he be of the same Value, and the same Rules, Figures, or Accidents happen to him here, that is there, which I shall assert, or in comparing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the two are the greatest Lord, and if he be liable to as much Emphasis as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Segolta and Rhebia gereschate will be soon dispatched.  
Canon 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great distinguishing Power in Meeter, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and equal to what it had in Prose. The first Argument I produce, is that in Verses of Two Propositions, of distinct Subjects, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Psalms, Proverbs, Job (which are all that bear the Name Metrical, as to distinct Points) more may as to Rhetorical Position of them. There are above 1300 that have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish these two, and not above 14 or 15 Verses that have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are not above (if strictly examined) one Exception to an hundred Examples. It may be Objected on Merca mahp. part, that where there are three, or more Propositions of distinct Subjects, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both expressed, that then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has the place of greatest Opposition, Psal. 1.1.3.6.5.10.6.3.7.9. There are about 200 Examples of this kind, that if they were in Prose, Atnah would be put, where Merca mahp. is, and therefore it is to be yielded their Assertion (that Merca mahp. is the greatest Lord in Meeter) is not without Reason, since where both show themselves, he takes both the first place, and the chief, tho' his taking the first place here, is a sign of Inferiority, not Dignity; yet this wants not some Exceptions, viz. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both present in a Verse of Two Propositions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the chief place, Psal. 18.12. At the brightness that was before him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his thick clouds passed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hailstones and coals of fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 15. Then the channels of water were seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the foundations of the world were discovered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at thy Rebuke, O Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both of them, viz. At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 37.14. & 106.47.  
A Second Argument then to Balance it is, That there are above 400 Verses, of three, or more distinct Propositions, that have not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all, Psal. 3.8.4.23.5.4, 12.6, 57.7.23, 67. Psal. 10.11, etc. And above 100 more, where three, or more Propositions, but so respective, that there is place left only for one Absolute Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he always that is present, Psal. 2.8.7, 13.9.20.10, 3.6, 15.12, 5, etc. Here is now place for Enquiry, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not a pure Pathetic, or Rhetorical Point, viz. Whether he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place from him, in these places where he appears, or appears only in a Rhetorical manner. Number of Examples seem to approve it; but though in Prose that would carry the Victory, I dare not entirely comply with it, for the ordinary Consecution of Words is more frequently changed in some little thing or other, than holds, Ex gr.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But indeed, the Question is here, What is meant by Ordinary, or Exception? For if we mean most frequently, most usually, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily absent, usually absent, though two, or three, or four Propositions of distinct Subjects If we mean without Figure or Emphasis, which is the usual Style of the Book, than it is like the Rhetorical Figure is to be looked after, where he is absent, not present, which requires a second Scrutiny.  
Can. 2. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is liable to the same Rhetorical Exceptions in Meeter, that he is in Verse; for first, it is Emphatically present in a Verse of one Proposition. Ex gr. Psal. 3.1. A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absolom his son. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Consecution is exact, if compared with the Table, as to the rest. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very Emphatic, to stand between Author and Occasion of the Psalms; but both has Matter of Amazement. First, The unnatural Rebellion, and its success; a David fly before an Effeminate Fellow, before a Son, his own Brat! But more in this; A David, after all his Adultery and Bloodshed, Inspired with the Spirit of God, made a Penman of Holy Writ; a choice Cordial for a Flying David. No wonder he bid his Folks let Shemei Curse, for he had found a Greater Blessing Him. He passed Kidron, a Type of the greater David, and drank of the Brook in the way.  
They are weak Chronologers, if not Divines, who say David never Penned Scripture after his Murder and Adultery; and as bad that say, a Believer never Relapses into the same Sin once Repent of. Psal. 116.1. is another Emphatical place: I love the Lord because he hath heard my voice and my supplication. My supplication hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voice hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. R. M. 3. Lord hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphatical, because but one distinct Proposition: hath heard has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regularly, Table 3. and so I love has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regularly; the Emphasis than is to he expressed thus; This is my delight that the Lord would hear: I say, that he would hear my voice, the cry of so poor and sinful a wretch, that he would hear the supplication, or weeping voice, of such a miserable, despicable wretch. And who could in more lively Characters express a Penitents Frame, before God, on the receipt of some remarkable Token of Favour; how much of the Life of the Psalmist's Frame is lost, in not observing them? And yet this Emphasis is not a rare thing! Psal. 7.11.85, 10.9, 4.12, 9.17, 4.19, 4. & 22, 14. & 28, 2. and about 130 more places.  
Can. 3. is an Appendix of the former, viz. Rhebia gereschate, as Atnah's Vicar, supplies this Emphatic place, Psal. 22.1. To the chief Musician on Ajeleth Shahar, a Psalm of David. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is upon the Morning Hart, Ajeleth Shahar, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before doth demonstrate, the Proposition being one, it signifies the Subject of the Psalm, Jesus Christ, in the condition he was set, to be hunted by Men and Devils, Psal. 65, 8.69, 32.76, 5.106, 37.119.4, 5.14, 24.36, 44.54, 57.112. & 12, 84. Prov. 6.7.  
Can. 4. This Emphasis is yet augmented, when in one Proposition there is both Merca mahpah and Atnah, or Rhebia gereschate with him also, Ex gr. Psal. 14.2. there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Proposition, the first signifies the Emphatic Provision of God, His careful, compassionate Look, over the whole fallen, corrupt Race: The second denotes the Stupidity of their Judgements; and the third, the aversion of their Hearts. Psal. 31.19. there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Psal. 33, 7.118, 1.53, 3.78, 71.103, 20.115, 1. Prov. 8, 34.30, 14. Job 30, 1.  
Can. 5. Atnah, or Rhebia gereschate, appears Emphatically in respective Propositions, Psal. 42, 2. Prov. 24, 10. & 1, 10.3, 30. There are about 80 Instances, Psal. 18, 2. & 46, 9 & 49, 6. & 50, 5. & 61, 9 & 66.18. & 94, 17, etc. Psal. 42, 2. As the Hart pants after the brooks of water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so pants, etc. Here the desire, fear, thirst and anguish of the hunted Hart is set forth, to represent the anguish of David's Soul. Prov. 24.10. If thou faint in the day of adversity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy strength is small. So our English; but the Scope being to set forth the danger of Pusilanimity and Cowardice, the Supplied Verb should be expressed in the Future; there is also a Figure of Eloquence not expressed in the Translation. It is then better thus: If thou faint, or be remiss, in the day of straits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 straight shall be the measure of thy strength. Si animum a resistendo remittis in die angustiarum oppido tuae cogentur Copiae. The Propositions are respective Hypothetical, a Prohibition and Threatening, Command and Sanction; yet Rhebia gereschate, Atnah's Vicar, distinguishes them Emphatically, to express the Greatness and Certainty of Danger.  
Can. 6. Merca mahpah, and Atnah, are sometimes Emphatically absent, where there are Two Propositions of Subjects distinct enough, Psal. 34, 8.35, 24.37, 23.41, 14.45, 13.47, 8.49, 9.68, 4.71, 21.73, 4.76, 8.79, 3. There are about 70 Examples of this kind, Psal. 34.8. The Angel of the Lord surrounds them that fear him, and delivereth them. Here are Two Propositions, containing two distinct Mercies, and yet there is only Rhebia gereschate, not as a Vicar, but Rhetorically changed, to express the Joy, Readiness, of this Sweet Singer, hastening to the use, Ver. 9 Taste and see, that the Lord is good. Note, That in many places, by the Corrector's neglect, there is naked Rhebia, for Rhebia gereschate, which the Consecution will Correct, Psal. 30.8. Vid. C. 3. Use 1.  
Can. 7. As in Prose Atnah has his Vicar, sometimes Tipcha, Gen. 40, 23. & 29, 22. Ex 15.24. Num. 12.9. 2 Chron. 39.3. Sakeph katon, Can. 7, 11. Lam. 3, 18. Gen. 26, 30. Cant. 2, 4. Ruth 4.16. Cant. 1, 13. 1 Chron. 17, 31. Ezek. 34, 15. So in Verse, Rhebia gereschate is his Vicar, which is when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears before him, for he takes Atnah's Train; this never happens to Merca mahpah.  
Can. 8. Atnah, and his Deputy, leave their proper place sometimes, either for Emphasis, or as in Prose, for denoting the Respect, that what follows has to all before. Psal. 120, 7.83, 13.137, 9 Prov. 28, 3.29, 1. Job 39, 28. Of the latter kind, see Psal. 2, 2. & 11, 2. & 19, 15. & 48, 11, 12. & 59, 12. & 97, 8. & 119, 60. & 120, 3. & 121, 4. & 122. 4. Prov. 7, 7.19.26. Job 34, 22. Psal. 120.7. I am for peace: but when I speak they are for war. Our Translation has put Colon on Peace: I am a man of Peace; for the greatest opposition is there, the Verse containing David's Character in one Proposition, and his Enemies in another: But the Author puts only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on speak; the first to signify his readiness to Act according to his Principle; many pretend to Peace, but few act for it, and he is loath to part these in him. The last to give occasion to the Reader or Hearer, to Meditate and Consider how little occasion he gave them to be of that temper; to see what a Spirit of Contradiction was in them, speaking of Peace in him, was an Alarm to them. Psal. 2.2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed. Here are two distinct Propositions, if we put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon themselves, for Consulting, and Opposing in general, are distinct; but then the Lord, and Anointed would only be the Object of Evil Counsel, not of that setting themselves, that obstinate, rooted Resolution. So the case of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, may be compared with Silluk on Answer third.  
Can. 9 Atnah and Merca mahp. are Emphatically both present, where are only Two Propositions. Psal. 9, 11.49, 5, 13.10, 18. & 11.5. & 22, 26. There are about 40 Instances of this kind. Psal. 9.21. Put them in fear, O Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Nations may know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselves to be but men. Selah. I should turn the last Clause, they are but men. Selah. For here is very good Sense, with three Propositions; the second Proposition having this Sense, That they may know God, their own guilt and danger; and the Third this, They are men as well as we, as capable of Grace, and subjection to Thee as we, of the same Blood with us. Lord put fear in them, and they will be as good as we. If they knew Thee, they would fear Thee as we do.  
Can. 10. Atnah and Merca mahp. are both Emphatically absent, where two or three distinct Propositions are, Psal. 27.7. Hear, O Lord, with my voice will I cry: have mercy upon me, and answer me. Or, grant me the favour of an Answer. For two Verbs being united by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one of them is to be Construed as a Noun, or Adverb, or Verb, in the Infinitive Mood. Rhebia gereschate is upon Cry, as Atnah's Vicar, for Tiphas, the Forerunner, is upon Jehova, O Lord. So Psal. 52, 8.59, 7.15, 83.18.99, 5.104, 35.105, 54.106, 6.48.116, 19.117, 2.119, 144, 145.146, 10. 147, 20.148, 14.149, 9 Prov. 3, 28. & 8, 33. Job 3, 26.10, 22.17, 1.33, 24, 27.  
Can. 11. As in Can. 8. in Two Propositions, so in Three Propositions, or more, Atnah leaves his proper place (Merca mahpah being sometimes absent, sometimes present) either for Emphasis, or Indicating a Relation to what goes before. Psal. 11.1. To the chief Musician, that is, to David, where Merca mahpah is put for Silluk, to signify the haste and readiness of his Spirit, to pour forth the following Psalm. In the Lord do I put my trust, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how do you say to my Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fly you to your Mountain, O thou Bird. Atnah should be on Trust, for there is the greatest distinction. But the Author's intent is to stop the Reader, that he may meditate and consider the unreasonableness of his Enemies, in bidding one that Trusted in GOD, Fly. And he Emphatically changes the Number, to signify that their Foolish Advice reached all his Companions, all them that Trusted in GOD, as well as him. Psal. 15.5. He that putteth not forth his Money to a biting Usury 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and taketh not a reward against the Innocent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall never be moved. Where Atnah stands, our English puts a Punctum; the Reason of the stop is to signify, That this Promise belongs to all before, as well as what is in this Verse.  
Psal. 17.1. A Prayer of David, or rather inspired to David. For,  
First, As Seb. Schmidt says, It is not yet proved, that ל can be a Sign of the Genitive Case, to signify of.  
Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Major to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being next to it, signifies, That there is something between them understood for other Points. If it were of David, it would have a Minister. Hear the right, O Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attend unto my cry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give ear unto my prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from feigned lips. Here the English makes no stop at all where Atnah is, but the Reason for Atnah is evident, viz. To keep it from joining with Prayer; for than it would not join, nor belong to the rest: But now, as it stands apart, it is of equal readiness to import, that there is neither Hypocrisy in his right, nor in his cry, nor prayer. Read Psal. 14, 7.29, 9.31, 3, 12.32.7.40, 6.42, 6.12.43, 5.50, 1.52, 2.53, 7.54, 2. and about twenty more.  
Merca mahpah comes under the same displacement. Psal. 12.5. For the oppression of the poor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sighing of the needy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now will I arise, saith the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will set him in safety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him that puffeth at him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be on rise, for there is the great Distinction, but it is Emphatically placed on the moving Cause, viz. needy, which is Emphatically repeated, being the same with Poor. See Psal. 24, 4.42, 5. & 56, 14.137, 8. Prov. 24, 24.30, 17. Job 30, 3.  
The Second Part of this Section consists in Treatment of Segolta, for Rhebia gereschate, as Atnah's Vicar, has been spoken of before, and when otherwise considered, he comes in his place among the Majors. This has been usually compared with the Sakephs in power; but Wasmuth owns it to be the greater, and so the greatest Major. Reinbeck calls him the Rival, or Fellow of the Absolute Lords, and deservedly so; but I think him in particular, Merca mahpahs Fellow, or equal, the one in Meeter, the other in Prose: For the one never appears in Verse, the other never in Prose.  
Secondly, Both have the same site or place, in respect of Atnah and Silluk, viz. it stands first.  
Thirdly, Neither ever appears properly, without Figure or Emphasis, except in Verse of Three Propositions.  
Fourthly, It is more frequently absent, if these Three, or Two of them, be respective; but never without Emphasis absent, if the Subjects be distinct,  
Fifthly, That all this holds true most universally in the Historick Books; the Exceptions are most numerous in the Prophetic Books, and Books of an Affectionate and Figurative Style. Gen. 16.5. And Sarah said unto Abraham, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my wrong, or violence is upon thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or thou art the occasion of it. My Love to thee, lest I should hinder thee from the enjoyment of the Promise, brought forth this Injury I now bear. I gave my maid unto thy bosom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when she saw that she had conceived, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was despised in her eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord will judge between thee and me. Sarah is commonly looked on as a Scold, and on this Text they raise their base Calumny; but the Spirit of God is an univocal Witness, never contradicting to himself. 1 Pet. 3.16. there is a large Commendation of her Behaviour, both toward God and Man, and the Points carry the Sense of this Text agreeable to it. Gen. 21. Her Language was more Austere and Sharp, and yet it was Inspired.  
Here I find nothing but an Appeal to God, with Meekness and Reverence. The first Proposition contains an Appeal to Abraham, My wrong is upon thee, or I lay it before thee to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second contains the Narrative of the Injury she had received, with its Aggravations to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Third, An Appeal to GOD for his over-judging, and superintending in that Judgement. Exod. 17.1. First, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God's standing on the Rock, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the striking on the Rock, the Issue of the Waters, and the drinking of the People, commanded by God to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Obedience. Numb. 11.31. Job 2.11. Jer. 49.3. Gen. 17.28. & 6, 4. & 8.21. & 17, 20. & 21, 17. & 23, 16.24, 47. This is Confirmed by about seven hundred Examples, which is sufficient Testimony to Establish this.  
Can. 1. About Segolta, viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Absolute Lord, Ruling the first Sentence in a Verse of Three Propositions, in Prose; as to places of Emphasis, or Figure, they are divers.  
Can. 2. First, Very Emphatic where Atnah, and it too, in one Proposition, as Ezek. 16.57. An Emphatic Time before Discovery of her Abomination, and another after the first; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Second for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Numb. 3.36. Josh. 21.27, 34. Dan. 3.10. Ezra 6.8. 1 Chron. 6.56, 61, 63. 2 Chr. 31.6. There is one of this kind, Ezra 7, 13. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, and not Atnah.  
Can. 3. Where both in a Verse of Two Propositions, Gen. 19.4. But before they lay down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the haste of their Passion; it is matter of wonder they should not, Thief-like, wait until all were fast asleep. Leu. 12.6. & 13, 56. & 23, 43. Numb. 7.8. Isa. 7.17. Dan. 6.26. There is one place, Ezekiel 8.10. where Segolta takes place of Atnah.  
Can. 4. If a Verse before Atnah have two or three Propositions of distinct Argument, and want Segolta, it is Emphatical. Gen. 16.6. Thy maid is in thy hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 17.9. Choose us men again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb. 11.32. All the day following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Job 2.12. And did not know him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sorrow of the sight disturbed their thoughts and words, Jer. 49.4. Valleys Emphatic, inaccessible.  
Can. 5. If the first Proposition of the Verse be Relative, and has Segolta, it is Emphatic, Gen. 2.23. And Adam said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with great joy for knowledge, Mat. 19.5. Numb. 11.21. And Moses said with distrust. Esther 5.12. And Haman said thrasonically. Judg. 2.18. And the Lord raised up Judges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judg. 9.36. And Baal saw the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. suddenly, and beyond Expectation. 1 Sam. 12.12. Come against you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filled with fear and distrust. Ezek. 14.15. If these three men were in the midst of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indignation and Anger are exerted with the Expression. Gen. 3.17.19.19.22.9.26.28.28.16. and about 160 more.  
Can. 6. If it has not its proper place, that is the greatest place of distinction in the first Hemistich, it is Emphatical, or has Reference to some further Antecedents. 1 Sam. 2.15. Before they burned the fat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It should be on the back of the Priest, but the Aggravation of the Sin is in that the Priest would have his share, before that God had his. Jer. 36.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is upon Four, it should be upon Scribe, Ezek. 8, 12. Gen. 3, 14. & 20, 13. & 24, 15. And about 80 more.   

SECTION iv Of Consecution in General, with the proper Place and Proportion of the Points.  
COnsecution is a Tract or Train of Accents, from one Absolute Lord to another, or to the beginning of the Verse, in a suitable Correspondency, to the Subject-Matter. So there is a double Relation, or Dependency, one to the Absolute Lord, another to the Matter: First, as to the Absolute Lords, in Prose it stands thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
In Meeter thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
As to the Matter, secondly, every Verse is an Oration or Speech; and every Speech is made up of various compounding Parts; and all these Parts either Cohere, or not; if they Cohere not, and are not Construed together, the distance is liable to several degrees.  
First, Different Subjects.  
Secondly, Different Propositions that are full, and Compounded.  
Thirdly, Different Simple Propositions, that are compounding Parts.  
Fourthly, Different Subject and Predicate, or appending Circumstance.  
Fifthly, A variety of these, some of them equal, or unequal to one another; some like, or unlike to one another; the like and equal Members stand not at such a distance as the unlike, and unequal do.  
It is to be observed, That there is no notice taken, or to be taken of degrees of Union, or Conjunction, to prevent confusion; for the degrees of Union are as numerous, as the degrees of Distance, and would fall in upon the same Word with the other; for no Words in a Speech are at such a distance, as not to be in some measure united or related.  
But de facto, in the Bible the Matter stands related in a Correspondency to the Consecution of Points before; for what of the Art we know is by Observation and Analysis. Exod. 15.15. All the Inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 45.27. The spirit of Jacob their father revived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Job 21.28. Where are the dwelling places of the wicked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 9.7. And you, be ye fruitful and multiply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where first it is to be observed, That the Words next to the Absolute Lord, are first to be Adorned or Pointed; and the first three Words are to be taken notice of: For if the first agree with the second, it has a Minister, if not a Minor, and then the third a Minor usually. Psal. 6.6. In the Grave who shall praise Thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 42.6. O my God, my Soul is cast down within me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Secondly, If the second and third Word bear the same Syntactical Relation to the first, than the third has a Minister, the second a Minor. Isa. 28.24. Doth he open, or break the clods of his ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa. 19.6. & 9.23. Job 10, 11. Isa. 7.22. Zac. 2.14. Jer. 44.25. Numb. 35.16.  
Thirdly, The fourth Word commonly Completes the Sense, and makes a stop when the former three are Construed, as Before the heart that devised wicked imaginations, Prov. 6.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ezek. 2.2. Numb. 3.40. Ex. 31.6. & 35.17. Gen. 8.13. Ex. 14.7. And so there is a Major. But if the fourth stop not the Sense, the third has the Lord, and the fourth the Minister. Cant. 3.11. Go and see, O ye daughters of Zion. Exod. 3.7. I have surely seen the affliction of my people. Psal. 105.8. He hath commanded his word to a thousand generations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Chron. 16.15. In this Case the third has sometimes a Major, and the second a Minor. Jer. 3.7. Isa. 5.2. And this is most usual, when the fourth doth less stay, or stop the Sense than the third or second [then to be distinguished, the second with a Minor, the third with a Sub-minor] especially when there are many Verbs to express one Act of Predication, all pleading share in the last. Isa. 52.13. He shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 13.14. Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hag. 2.13. And the Priests answered, and said not. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if the third Word be united, or Syntactically Construed, the fourth not completing the Sense, receives a Minor, or Sub-minor. Is. 37.28. I know thy incoming, and out-going, and sitting down. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 30.1. Job 19.3. More of this to be read afterwards.  
Fourthly, The fifth Word, viz. after four Constructions, or Cements, if it stop the current of Thought, or complete the Sense, than it receives a greater Lord, or Major, or in a greater power, the same repeated. 1 Kings 2.12. And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Chron. 34.3. He began to seek the God of David his father. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Kings 11.27. But if it stop not the Sense, it has a Minister, and must. Thou shall surely redeem the firstborn of man. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 2.12. This surrounds all the land of Havilah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Fifthly, The sixth Word after five Constructions or Joints, if it complete the Sense, receives a greater Lord than the fifth or fourth, if not, as before, and the same hold true of the seventh Word, or eighth Word, etc.  
The common Methods of deviation from the Lines set down after these Absolute Lords in the Table, into the Roads of the other Lines from minor Lords, is that which shall make up the Second Part of this Section; it being always occasioned from the dependence on the Matter, and that Matter which occasions it, is usually a number of little Members, and little Members must have little Lords; so that a great Lord is kept at a further distance, until their Multiplication make a Sentence, or great Member. Let it be here minded, That the variety found on this bottom, flows not from Figure or Emphasis, but from that diversity that is in Vulgar and Common Speech. So many and multiform are the Methods that Matter may be chained in a Discourse, which is a Convincing Evidence that any Language not only may, but aught, in Discourses or Treatises, which are Regular, to be so Pointed; and that whether we observe them or not, the Relations stand there observable. And it were a suitable Exercise for some of our great Orators, whose Genius is so lucky in finding Words of a due Compass for Things and Thoughts, and so exact in balancing the weight of every Syllable that renders the Pronounciation Charming, to find out the just Laws of Distance and Conjunction, in the Chain of Syntax, and give to them some Noscible Characters; for our four Marks are far from sufficient, viz. Comma, Semi-colon, Colon, and Punctum. And this may serve for Proof of it, till more be invented. Steady Rules can never be given for what place they should be put in. Indeed, Silluk and Punctum, Atnah and Colon, may agree, and agree in this, that no Syntax is to pass over their head; I mean, a Verb must not be on one side of a Colon, and an Accusative on another, etc.  
But what is to supply all the other inferior degrees of Distance? Comma is often used where there is Conjunction; so that twenty places are left vacant for Semi-colon, and nothing to distinguish the variety, occasioned from such variety of Matter as I am now going to Discourse on, viz. when a Verse, or Proposition, is filled with many little Members, that as to Syntax are the same over and over again, though the Words signify different things. On this I shall set down the Canons belonging to the Grammatical and Historical Style, under Alphabet Figures, and the Rhetorical under Numerical.  
Can. 1. When the Members of a Proposition are little, but like and equal (they are like when one Question serves them all; little when two Words at most; equal when none above two, or all above two) each Member has a Minor, or a Minister, as Consecution requires. Ex gr. Gen. 8.22. Seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. The first three are according to Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And night shall not cease. From thence there be no place for a Major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes the Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Winter day and night. From thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tebhir takes the Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heat summer and winter. From thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Geresch takes the Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Major for it has no Minor, Harvest, cold and heat. This clearly demonstrates, That minor Lords are Marks of minor Members. Observe further, how they are coupled by Pairs, and each Pair has a Minister and a Minor. And, Thirdly, How Harmoniously it agrees with the Table. So Gen. 2.31. Exod. 8.21. Behold I will send swarms upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and upon thy house. Where again to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but there being no such respect as was in the former Pairs, and the foregoing Words to Tipha's having the same Syntactical Relation, to him it stands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before, and according to Rule follow the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Exod. 25.4. there are five Members of one Proposition: Blue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scarlet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and silk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Goat's hair 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all little, and Minors by Rule. And the like, Exod. 28.6. where the very same little Members, and their Minors, are again, as the Matter of the Ephod, but there is one before added, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gold with Gerish's Major upon him. Reinbeck thinks it is Emphatic, from the Preciousness of the Material; but he is mistaken, the Signification of Words is not their Province. Secondly, I think rather the Reason to be, because Geresh has no Minor, this is his Minor, and should be so in the Table, and the frequency of it persuades me. Gen. 8.22. Numb. 18.9. As also its being put in place of Geresh, Deut. 62.15. Numb. 29.33. It is again Geresh's Minor, 1 Sam. 9.24. Let that Observation be a second Member of this Canon; and this a Third, That if Three or Four, or more, of these Members, are so interwoven, That they bear a Relation, or Respect to one another, there is room for Majors, and so the more common road of Consecution is followed, as the first Hemistich of Gen. 3.15. will testify; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Woman, thy Seed, her Seed, are little Members, but [I will put] being repeated, makes them two Propositions, and so my Canon has no place in this Text, where one would think it should. So Gen. 24.35. & 13.8. For Illustration of this, and the other Canon, I shall Purse Hag. 1.11.  — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands. First, I observe a Coacervation of little Members, to the number of eight, which fill up four Lines; yet among Twelve several Translations, I find no Point bigger than a Comma in all the Verse, viz. Chaldee, Lxx. Vulg. Munster, Vatab. Castalio, Pagnin. and Arius Mont. Trem. & Junius, Vaz. French, English, Luther: but the Dutch has a Colon where the Hebrew has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shows that the Verb is to be repeated after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus: I will call for a wasting drought on man, or bring, etc. as Castelio.  
Secondly, The number of Maccaph's Ten signifies the suddenness of this Gradation, one upon the back of another, suddenly.  
R. R. R. 3. Vagrant Maccaph most closely ties the Chain.  
Thirdly, The last Member of this Verse is a great one, on all the labour of the hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hence Cattle has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon it.  
R. 6. The Major always of some, etc. as shall be next explained.  
Fourthly, Man in the next Proposition has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because a little Member.  
Fifthly, Oil has again a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Major on it, because there is a great Member between it and Atnah, which is made up thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Transposition being on the second and third Word.  
Sixthly, Next comes Liquids, united by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wine and oil. Secondly, Fruits of Ground, Arids and Liquids, little Members, divided by a little Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly, The Earth and its Fruits considered as great Members, and divided by Rhebia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Mountains, and all according to the Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Earth and Mountains stand again as little Members, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drought should have a Major, by the following Canon. But first observe, Lex talionis, you leave my House waste, I will lay your Earth waste, and the sweet Paronomasia, both are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Secondly, The great Emphasis. For I will call for a wasting drought, is to be supplied in every Major Proposition. So four or five times; I will call for a drought upon the corn, wine, and oil. I will call for a drought on all the earth produces. I will call for a drought on men and upon cattle. I will call for a drought on all the labour of the hands.  
Can. 2. The Word before these little Lords, in order of Consecution, receives Major, Minor, or Minister, as it bears respect to them. [Bianca before] here is meant, by order of Reading, not Pointing, or Parsing. Secondly, Observe, the general need of this Rule flows from these little Members breaking the Line of Consecution, for they lead a Man cross the Scheme by the Columns of Minors and Ministers. So that its a doubt what is to be excepted when the Line is broke. Thirdly, You may find the Fourth Rule Explained by it.  
First, then, That Word has a Major, if it belong not to the little Members, Gen. 23.1. Thus was the Life of Sarah one hundred Years, and twenty Years, and seven Years. Sarah has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because none of the Members, and is the seventh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 13.15. And the Lord killed all the firstborn of Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Egypt, Exod. 26.36. So Gen. 7.4. & Exod. 6.9. Though there is an Emphatic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Tipha before, Tipha being in the place of Munah before it. But though it belong not to them, so as to be one of them, they may have all a reference to it, or be contra-distinguished from it, and have a respect among themselves. Gen. 24.67. Into the tent of Sarah his mother. And he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. Mother has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on it, all the rest cohere as little Members, and have a respect among themselves. See Gen. 24.65. Gen. 30.31. Judges 7.31. Exod. 2.23. & 17.12. & 4.18. & 1 Chr. 13.2.  
Secondly, If this fifth, sixth, or seventh, etc. Word first cohere to its following Word. Secondly, Is Construed with all that follow. Thirdly, The immediate following be parted by a Minor, than the fourth, fifth, etc. has a Minister. Exod. 10.16. They shall fill thy houses, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mahu, shall fill, has Kadma on it; For it's Construed [with all] and [thy house] has Geresh on it. Judges 7.10. And this holds true, though one Member be great, and another little, if alike. 2 Sam. 6.12. Gen. 8.17. Here is place for an Emphatic Permutation too. Ex gr. Gen. 9.29. [Nine Hundred Years] is a little Member, but has an Emphatic Sakeph.  
Another Example of this Canon, 2 Sam. 17.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the common Word, and so has a Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Thirdly, If this Word be not a common Word, and there be no necessary respect between the Members, then as little Members has always Minors, this fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh Word must also. Ex gr. Gen. 18.5. I will fetch a morsel of bread, strengthen ye your hearts, after that go on. There is no dependence among them three, each may be without the others, therefore are distinguished by Minors, Paschta and Geresh. So Gen. 30.31. I will return, I will feed thy sheep, I will keep them. So Exod. 23.21. Leu. 5.22. Judg. 7.21 Isa. 27.10. When otherwise there is an Emphasis, Exod. 2.17. there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Ishak, He gave drink, in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be a Joshghan, Before it he saved them. So Judg. 7.13. Tent has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon it in place of a Minor, to signify it was the chief Tent; but I am not yet convinced of the necessity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being always a Major.   

SECT. V Of Consecution, and of the Ministers in Particular.  
THese are Nine in Number: First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Servant to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose only, in Verse he serves all in his turn, according to the Notes, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anterior and Paser, them he never serves. In Prose he serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in turns.  
Secondly, There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is Servant to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose alone, and in Verse to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone to all the rest in their turns, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either as Superior, or Inferior. In Prose it serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its turns.  
Thirdly, In Prose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only. In Verse their place in particular is a little more Abstruse, but the Notes on the Table sufficiently distinguishes them, and by this one may see a plain Method in discovering Erratas in Editions of the Hebrew Bible.  
Can. 1. This place is usually the Second before a Lord, and his Off ce, to show that his Words and his Lords are united by some Grammatical Concord or Regimen.  
Hence one may see, That the Second Rule, or First in Consecution, comes to be Explained here, though some Members of it must be left to the next Section. The Examples of this are obvious in every Verse, Gen. 1.22, etc. The first thing observable is, That when the Words seems not to Cohere, there is something understood, wherein the Union stands, Ex gr. Gen. 1.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Merca is under Bo. wherein which agrees not with Phri, Fruit without the Supplement of [is] So Gen. 15.13. In a land not theirs [which is] is to be supplied. So Psal. 36.6. O Lord, thy mercy in the heavens (is.)  
Can. 2. There are two Modes of Figure or Emphasis, in variation from the Rule. First, when a Minister is on the third Word, also in place of a Minor. Ex gr.  
Exod. 12.19. For it was not leavened, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Exod. 28.17. Two rings of gold, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 26.  
Gen. 28.20. In the way that I go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 3.24. And the flame of a Sword 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 27.30. When Isaac had made an end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 34.28. And what was in the city 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Job 35.7. Or what receives he of thine hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesek for Tipha.  
Psal. 102.4. My heart is smitten, and withered like grass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Prov. 3.4. Thou shalt find favour, and a good understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Tipha the fore-goer.  
Observe, The end of this is sometimes to prevent the major's coming in the place of a minor; hence this change is more usual before the lesser Lords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rare before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that according to their greatness or littleness; for before the least it is sometimes necessary. See Josh. 8.33.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
And all Israel, and their elders and judges stood on this side the ark, and on that side, before the priests the levites, who bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as well the stranger, as he who was born among them, etc. It is a Verse of Thirty Words, notwithstanding the several Maccaphs in it, which make two Words one, but the Notes belonging to this Canon affect the first Part. 1. Neged, before, has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon it, but it should the minor of Geresh, who stands on Priests, so it must either take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a major. 2. Vinezeh, on that side, should have pasers minor, who stands on Ark, but it has none. E. must take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a major. 3. The like on Ghomedin. 4. Observe, paser himself is often as here repeated for his own major.  
The Second way of Figure is, when the Second, though it Cohere with the First, has a minor, though more rarely a major. The end of it is either Emphasis, or to Indicate, that the first Word agrees with more than the next only. Isa. 1.25. I will take away all thy tinn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power, haste, certainty, indignation, that counterfeit of Silver. Isa. 8.20. To the law, and to the testimony. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leu. 5.11. He shall bring him to the priest. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 7.11. On the second month. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 23.20. And he went down. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He, that Martial Benaja, who durst descend into the Pit of the Lion. Here is a Major for a Minister. So Psal. 2.1. The people imagine a vain thing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.27. The people Israel, that wise people, holy people. Psal. 2.7. I will declare the decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhebia for Jerah, Christ's Prophetic Office. Psal. 119.36. Incline my heart to thy commandment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hutter's Bible thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is best, Rhebia gereschate being Atnah's Vicar, Tipha, the Fore-goer, is in place of Merca, the Emphasis is, The corruption of the Heart, even after Regeneration. The same is on Exod. 23.30. to signify how great a benefit it was for God to expel the Canaanites. Exod. 6.16. Seven and thirty, and an hundred years 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Years are Emphatic, but besides, they agree with Thirty and Seven. See Verse 18, 20. And hence Years used to be repeated, Gen. 5.3. Deut. 13, 14. Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diligently has equal respect to all.  
Can. 3. Is about Maccaph, who serves these two Lords. First Grammatical, when three or four Words are to be joined together, which the Consecution of Points admits not, than Maccaph, that joins faster than any Minister, ties one Knot. Secondly, Rhetorical, when the Affliction is violent, as Tamar acting a Whore, Gen. 38.16. What will you give, Jonah 4.6. Jonah in Passion, I do well to be angry even to death. Judges 9.12. The inordinate desire of making a King, after a Repulse. Go thou and reign over us.   

SECTION VI Of the MINORS.  
THEY are much the same Number, one or two being disputable and doubtful.  
First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose is under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Verse, where it is observable, they have the like majors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so almost the like Consecution; a probable Argument of their like power.  
Thirdly, Verse has nothing but Pesik macpah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all the rest but in Prose.  
Fourthly, Geresch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their turns.  
Fifthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves Sakeph.  
Sixthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Seventhly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their turns.  
Eighthly, That the last Five should have no minors, and yet have majors, is what I shall next Reading thorough of the Bible Correct; Credulousness to my Masters has led me in Error. I do think it is excusable to follow such, until Reason and Necessity cause a Diversion. But thou wilt often find these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 executing the office of minor, and that to themselves too: their Office is to distinguish little Members within a Proposition, or to signify a less Coherence than a Minister indicateth: their place is usually the Third or Second, before a greater Lord. Hence this Section contributes Light to Rule 3. and also Rule 2. and 5. Gen. 1.26. Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
There is an usual Custom in the Hebrew to express an Adjective by an added Substantive: For instance, it's now a doubt among the Critics, if this should be Translated, In our most like Image. Imagine Simillima, or Image, and Likeness. And I doubt it will be long before it be ended, without observing by this Rule, That when it's to be Construed as an Adjective, it has a Minister to Unite them, which is not here. And this will help Monsieur Le Can to a Foundation for his Notion, P. 170. The Name of God is often used Superlatively in Scripture, for most excellent, as goodly Cedars, high Mountains, Psal. 80.10. & 104.16. & Cant. 8.6. That hath a most vehement heat. The Question is, When it is so to be understood? Says he, When the likeness of Phrase directs us, but the difficulty remains: shall I Expound Ark of God, Word of God, Spirit of God so, or Son of God? This will banish the proper Name of God almost out of Scripture, if that Rule hold; for all these are alike in Phrase, but with some Limitations this will show the difference, Ex gr. Psal. 19.6, 7, 8, 9 Word of the Lord, Law, Statutes, Fear, etc. has a minor on them before Lord, or a Minister Emphaically vicarious; but this is not to be expected universal, especially when any thing of GOD is Predicated of Himself, Gen. 1.2. The Spirit of the Lord is not to be turned a vehement Wind: However, this affects not the Rule, for Regimen Genitivi, by another Substantive, requires a Minister, as well as Adjective and Substantive, but two distinct Substantives do not.  
Can. 1. When the Second agrees by some Syntactical Rule with the First, and the Third not, the Third has a minor, and the Second a minister.  
Can. 2. If the Second and the Third bear the same relation to the First, and are Construed with the same Syntactical Rule to it, than the Third has the Minister, and the Second the minor. I have before given a probable Reason of this, viz. The Minister takes first hold, and challenges a relation to the first Word; it Unites the whole, but the Minor implies a Distinction to be within that Cement.  
Can. 3. Suppose Second and Third do Cohere with the First, but if not, by the same Syntax the First Canon takes place, and with much more Reason, when the Third agrees with the Second, and the Second with the First, but not the Third with the First.  
Can. 4. The Particles usually follow the First, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Negatives which follow the Second Canon.  
Examp. Psal. 1.5. The wicked shall not stand in judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jeremiah 34.3. Mouth to mouth he shall speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 1.6. The Lord knows the way of the righteous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Can. 2. Gen. 13.8. For men brethren we are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 5.2. Male and female He created them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Isa. 48.11. For my own sake, my own sake, I will do it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Isaiah 40.1. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 37.8. Shall he in reigning reign over us? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Genesis 37.8. Shall he in ruling rule over us? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Can. 3. Jer. 5.19. Ye served Gods that were strange, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jer. 42.23. In the place where ye would, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Ezek. 27.24. In  blue and broidered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
— 28.25. So saith the Lord God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
M. 2. Gen. 4.10. The voice of the blood of thy brother, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 1.1. In the beginning God created, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Can. 4. Exod. 32.2. Which are in the ears of your wives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Exod. 11.3. Also the man Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Judge's 7.4. As yet the people are many, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 4.9. Where is Abel thy brother? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
— 10.12. But not the daughter of my mother, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Deutero. 14.3. Thou shalt eat no unclean thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jer. 14.16. There is none to bury them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 15.1. After these things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
2 Kin. 14.5. Behold that Shunamite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Deut. 13.10. From the Lord thy God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Exod. 33.10. For no man can see me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Gen. 32.24. Until the morning arose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Can. 5. Each Branch of these Four Canons by Figure are altered, but not without some Emphasis; and here I must be the longer on a double account, viz. To give Rules and Examples that may Illustrate the Rhetorical Tables and Rules, both in Prose and Verse, which are the much more Abstruse Part of this Doctrine, especially the last Table of Extrusion: And that I may at once Convince that they are extraordinary, or Rhetorical designedly, and show how to know if the Consecution be Grammatical or Rhetorical, Observe,  
First, That as we are never to part from the Native Signification of a Word without necessity, so we are never to leave the Grammatical Consecution, so long as we can apply them.  
Secondly, When the Connection of Words and Sense are the same, in two Verses or Propositions, and the Consecution of Points opposite, the one is ordinary, the other extraordinary, and the fewest are the extraordinary.  
Thirdly, The Grammatical is the most simple, easy, and plain; the other full of curvous turn and wind, more compounded, uncertain, and difficult; it has been always counted difficult and uncertain arguing from what is Allegorical or Parabolical.  
Fourthly, The Points that stand not changed, challenging their fellow in the Grammatical Table, implies his Emphatical Absence, and is a sure Rule of knowing it to be Rhetorical.  
Fifthly, A common Rule is, where things are like to pass the like Judgement, and where things are contrary, the Effects are so too.  
Sixthly, The Subject Matter and Circumstances are assistant in this, as well as in other ways of Interpretation: But to return, First, that as to Position we find a minor on the fourth Word, the major's place, Exod. 3.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see. Tipcha is under Jehovah, the fourth from Atnah, in Sakeph's place, as Munah by the former Section is in Tipha's place under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Eccles. 8.13. There is a vanity that is upon the earth. Observe again, That Sarka, a minor, is in place of Rhebia, as before it; again Munah in Sarka's place.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Jer. 7.2. All the Jews who enter within these gates. Paschta is both in his own place upon Habaim, and in his major's Rhebia upon Huda, Isa. 3.16. Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here Sakeph has minister and minor right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again, Paschta's minister mukaph, next should Sakeph's major Rhebia come in place; but in his stead appears Itib, Sakeph's minor. So Deut. 6.10. Tebhir for Rhebia. And Sam. 4.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Numb. 31.30. Pesek munachatus for Peser: And Is. 19.1. Gerish for Paser. Also Deut. 4.10. Jer. 44.18.  
A Second Figure is, when by Extrusion the second Word which should have a minor, by reason of non-coherence Grammatically, or having the same Coherence with the Third, in place of the Extruded minor, a minister succeeds.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 28.13. Fear not, but what thou saw, viz. tell. Chi and Mah have the same Relation to Raith, so it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then Tiri would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before, Gen. 26.28. We have in seeing seen, that the Lord is with thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesik is here Euphonick, here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being Extruded, puts Munah in his place; another Munah going before it. Deut. 1.23. And I took from among you twelve men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here Paschta being Extruded, substitutes Munah, since another goes before. Gen. 27.25. Then he brought wine to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same in value, Merca twofold, and Darga. 1 Kings 10.19. Six steps to the throne, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 17.1. And the Philistines had gathered their camps, or armies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Geresh extruded puts in Mahpah, Kadma going before it. Gen. 13.34. Lift up thy eyes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jer. 2.5. What did your fathers find in me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 16.18. And Sarah said to Abraham. Sarah agrees not with Abraham in Construction, therefore it should have Geresh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the minor to Sarka, but that being extruded, it substitutes Sarka's minister▪ Geresh's minister, Kadma, going before it, which is an Index, that this is the method of Solving the Phaenomena: For if Geresh should not have been there, his minister could not have come there.  
A Third Figure which is more usual in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (rare in Prose) is that not only the minor is thus Extruded, and the minister put in his place, but the major also; and, thirdly, this is peculiar to Merca mahpah, Rhebia and Sarka, that not only the second being distinct from the first, takes a major in the place of a minor, but if need be, that minor is in fourth or fifth place, that is place of that major.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 68.19. Who daily leadeth us, the God of our salvation. Selah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhebia being upon [us] Lanu shows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Munah superior on Jeshughathenu, is in place of Rhebia gereschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is Atnah's vicar, for Rhebia is his major, and Mahpah goes before, which is compounded with Sarka, because there is a long Vowel before the Tone of the Word.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 8.13. The froward mouth do I hate. Here is again Munah superior, for Rhebia gereschate with Kadma going before it.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 140.6. The proud have hid a snare for me. Paser is here upon Pah, in place of the minor Pesik; Pesik Kadmate going before it.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 27.10. Thy friend, and the friend of thy father, do not forsake, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here Pesik does substitute his major Paser, before Rhebia, whose minister is Mahpah, Pesik Kadmatus Empbatick going before it.  
Psal. 126.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then shall our mouth be filled with laughter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here again Pesik substitutes Paser, whose minister is Jerah, pesik Mahpahatus going before, but Pesik, as is usual, is omitted.  
Prov. 8.33. Hear wisdom, and be wise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Fore-goer, here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Tipha Fore-goer a minor, Tipha the minister going before.  
Psal. 18.48. He subdued the People under me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not Fore-goer, so a minister, Munah is in place of Pesik.  
Psal. 36.1. To the chief musician, the servant of the Lord, David, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Job 26.11. The pillars of Heaven were shaken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 19.8. Testimony of the Lord is faithful, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 31.24. Love the Lord all ye his Saints, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is the major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 40.6. O Lord my God, marvellous are thy thoughts towards us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sarka and Rhebia change places.  
Psal. 70.5. Let them be glad, and let them rejoice in Thee, all they who seek Thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here Rhebia and Pesik change places.  
Prov. 30.20. So is the way of an adulterous woman, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhebia and Pesik. So in one part of the Examples a minor on the second, changes with a minister; and in another, the minor on the second with a major, but so as that minor takes the major's place.  
Fourthly, This kind of Extrusion is also continued sometimes, and makes progress up the Verse, and that both in Meeter and Prose. Isa. 5.25. And he stretched forth his hand against him, and smote him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesik's minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 18. And an evil spirit of, or from the Lord invaded Saul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe, That Pesik is Euphonick, that Geresh, Paschta's minor, should be on Rayha, evil, for not united with Saul, but its minister mahpah is put in its place. Thirdly, Elohim should have Geresh's minor, but Geresh having none, its Minister Kadma takes place, as minor, and the other Minister to Geresh telisha ketanna keeps its own place. Fourthly, Munah, Geresh's third Minister, is again as its minor, being supposed upon Elohim.  
1 Sam. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord give to thee a seed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Geresh's minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Fifthly, This continued Extrusion is also in Meeter, Psal. 74.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shall the enemy contemn thy name for ever. Because no place for a major here, the second Word should receive a Rhebia gereschate, but that substitutes Munah, the third Word should have Extruded. R. Geresh minor, but that substitutes Tipcha not foregoer, Mahpah going before him. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Prov. 3.27. When it is in the power of thy hand to do it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The next Example.  
Psal. 54.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They set not the Lord before them. There being no place for a major, R. Ger. is to be on the Second, but he substitutes Munah; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. Ger. minor should be on the Third, but he substitutes Tiphas posteriour, the Fourth should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minor Pesik, but that substitutes Kadma mahpah going before it. Psal. 45.5. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exter. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poster. So Job 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tipha anter. before Atnah substitutes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Pesik, Tipha's minor, substitutes another Munah, going before, viz. super. See Psal. 9.10. Psal. 32.2. Prov. 6.27. Psal. 72.3. & 119.52. & 68.15. & Psal. 3.3.  
Can. 6. or, Rhetor. 2. is, That the Third, which by no coherence should take a minor, figuratively possesses a major, and in that case the Second, in place of the Minister, possesses a minor.  
Exod. 2.4. To know what would be done to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Cant. 2.4. Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Exod. 36.2. And Moses called on Bezaleel and Aholiab, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Isa. 45.1. Thus saith the Lord of his anointed Cyrus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the singular.  
1 Sam. 20.5. And David said to Jonathan, behold the new moon is to morrow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Deut. 33.6. Exod. 35.29. & verse 1. Num. 18.9. Deut. 6.15. & ver. 2. Num. 29.33. Exod. 39 ver. 25.8. 2 Sam. 9.24.  
This Canon holds true in Meeter, as well as in Prose; but whatever be the Poesy, there is commonly a more Poetical Licence, for sometimes there is a major on Second, and a major on Third too.  
Psal. 58.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Weigh the violence of their hands.  
Psal. 106.47. Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us out of the nations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 22.14. All my bones are out of joint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 35.10. All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 133.2. As the best oil on the head, descending down the beard, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Job 34.25. Psal. 12.9. & 109.16. & 113.9. Prov. 1.10. Psal. 45.3. & 5.12.  
A Seventh Canon, or Third Rhetorical is, That Emphatically a non-cohering Second receives a Minister sometimes.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24.46. And she said, Drink. Which imports the readiness and promptitude of her mind, her haste.  
Gen. 27.13. Go and bring to me; where Maccaph adds to the Emphasis, and confirms the Notion.  
Gen. 32.11. Lest he come and destroy me, the mother with the children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here observe, First, Tipha is vicarious for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Sakeph is on the Third; and Secondly, Munah on the Fourth, though distinguished from the Third, to signify Esau's haste, Exod. 3.13. & 13.14. I may add to this, a non-cohering Second, receiving a major, is also Emphatic.  
Gen. 4.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and further, when the Second has a minor, and the Third a Minister, though the Second agrees with the First, and not the Third. Jer. 4.20. Destruction calleth upon destruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Hos. 4.2. Blood touches blood. But may be the Resolution will be the easier in saying, the Third is the Nominative.  
An Eighth Canon, That the same Emphatic Deviations appears in the Particle: For Jer. 5.7. Whether? in this shall I forgive thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Third coheres not, yet has a Minister. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neh. 2.17. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judge's 13.21. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 19.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 8.5. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 45.3. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hos. 4.4. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa. 53.6. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 15.7. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 22.19.  
A Ninth Canon is a Rhetorical Opposition to Can. 2. viz. when Second and Third bear the same relation to the First, yet the Second has the Minister, and the Third the minor.  
Jer. 42.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To come and sojourn there. Sojourning and that place, is what you would Unite, as well as going thither, but my Judgements shall prevent it.  
So Gen. 6.10. Shem, Ham and Japhet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 15.11. compared with Verse 8. Thou shalt certainly open thy land, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Verse 11. but Verse 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
A Tenth Canon is, where Second and Third agree not to the First, by like Construction; the Second Emphatically takes a minor, and the Third a Minister.  
Numb. 22.1. When Balak the son of Zippor saw, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one is Apposition, the other Nominative and Verb. Verse 16. So saith Balak the son of Zippor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This last is ordinary Consecution, the King giving Instruction to his Ambassadors; the former is extraordinary, and proceeds from Solicitude. This frequently occurs, where the Second is united to the First by (ן) Copulative, as,  
Gen. 1.2. But as to the earth, it was without form, and void, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a kind of Gradation in it. But as to the Earth, it was not only without Inhabitant, but without Form, or due Fitness for an Inhabitant.  
Psal. 8.5. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both Phi. mouth, and gholelim, Babes agree with Sucklings, the first as one Substantive governing another, the second by Copulative Vajomkim; yet the Second has a minor, the Third a Minister, the Emphasis is the Extenuation of Preachers, by the Office being laid on Babes, Gen. 24.63. the Particle imitates this.  
An Eleventh, or last Canon, If the Third agree with the Second, and the Second with the First, but not the Third with the First, and the Second have a minor, and the Third a Minister, it is Emphatic. See the last M. of Can. 3.  
Gen. 8.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our English has it, He went too and fro until the Waters were dried. Twenty one Days are too long for a Raven to live without Victuals, and your old Carrion is not Food. The Points make it, He went out quickly, but returned as quickly; when he saw the Immense Depth, he returned before the Window was shut. Particles often imitate this Canon, Numb. 32.23. Isa. 36.5. Psal. 22.17. Gen. 28.15. Jer. 9.15. & 2.10. Gen. 38.24. Ruth 1.11. Zach. 1.6. Isa. 30.18. Gen. 14.12. Psal. 96.12. Jer. 14.10. 1 Sam. 2.16. Hos. 11.1. Exod. 34.3. & 7.25.  
In Gen. 49.31. Three Examples are in one place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice Emphatically, once Rhetorically, Am. 7.2. Isa. 48.18. Gen. 25.39. & 27.12. 1 Sam. 14.9, etc.   

SECTION VII. Of the MAJORS.  
THEY are much the like Number also; for in Prose the two Sakephs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serves all the rest in Prose. In Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only used in that place. Fourthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only serve Silluk. Fifthly, By Permutation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Vicar to the Sakephs, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Vicars to all the majors, in Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is used. Sixthly, The minors that come in the fourth place, etc. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ministers that comes in that place are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seventhly, The Third vicarious Order in Verse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so we find Nine the Number for majors, minors, and ministers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are called majors, because they govern a great Tract of Words, at least three, sometimes four, five, six, seven, sometimes ten or twelve, where there are many little Members, their place is then ordinarily the fourth, fifth or sixth from the Absolute Lord; their Office is to indicate, that the following Words, either by themselves, or by something understood, Constitute a Proposition, or such a Member of Speech, as may be comprehended in one Question, or a complete Answer to some supposed Question.  
Deut. 1.19. We came even to Kadesh barnea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it stands in the fourth place exactly, according to the Table, Verse 41. In the fifth place with a Minister after Tipcha. We will go up and fight, according to what the Lord God commanded us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first contains an answer to How far? The second to By what rule? Deut. 6.17. Keep the commandments of the Lord thy God. Qu. What? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 15.2. Moreover, Absolom risen in the morning, and stood in the way by the gate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the end of a Proposition, the other in the beginning, on whose end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is: The one comprehends an Answer to a Question, the other a whole Proposition; the one perfects the Proposition, the other more completely; and in such a case, if it cannot complete Sense, or make an Answer, suppose something is understood, as often the Verb [is] Gen. 1.2. And darkness (was) upon. And so when a major ends a Proposition. Psal. 1.1. Blessed (is) the man, or rather Blessednesses are that Man's, or belongs to him, it ends with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Job 15.24. Prevail, the fourth before Battle, because as a King ready answers to How? Psal. 63.2. My flesh desireth thee. Soul before that has Rhebia, Hence,  
Can. 1. That ordinarily the fourth or fifth from an Absolute Lord, has a major, especially when what follows contains a distinct Answer to a Question, or Proposition.  
Can. 2. If the following cohere, or contain a Word expressed, or understood, from which all the rest depend, and yet this Word agrees not with the following, than that Word contains the minor of the next respective major.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Gen. 11. ver. 9 Therefore every one shall call its name Babel, because there the Lord confounded the lip of the whole earth: and from thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of the whole earth.  
Observe, First, That Sakeph is upon jehovah, according to the First Canon: what follows, containing an Answer to How far? Upon the face of the whole earth. But here is another kind of Coherence after the Fifth Vmisham, and from thence (which has Sakeph's minor, Pashta upon it) For first, There is an Answer to many Questions which arise out of the Principal Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He scattered, viz. Who? whom? whence? whether? And secondly, Shame has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tipha's minor on the same account, and Balel is the principal Verb. And, thirdly, So Chalquen has Pashta's minor, and Sarka is the principal Verb. So Isa. 37.28. Veskibtecha has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fourth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jadaghti I know is the common Word, Psal. 1.5. Ghalchen has Pesik, Jakumu is the principal Word.  
A Second Member of this Canon is, If that four, five or six agree with the following, than it hath a minister not a minor; and secondly, That following by a minor be distinguished from what follows it.  
Exod. 15.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord reigns for ever and ever.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa. 30.12. The fourth has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the third the common Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 25. & 21, 1. & Psal. 28.4. & 34.22. & 37.25.  
A Third Canon is an Emphatic Alteration from the first, viz. minor in the major's place. Gen. 18.6. Make ready three measures of flower wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gereschaim for Rhebia. And Verse 29. And He said I will not do it for the sake of forty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 1.41. We will go up and fight, according to what the Lord our God commanded us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before the First Canon, 2 Sam. 15.2. and on Consecution in general. But,  
First, There is Emphatic Haste.  
Secondly, It refers also to what follows, as, The Lord commanded us. And on this account a major of the second Order is put in place of the first. Ex gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gen. 48.17. Ex. 10.23. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a major of the third Order, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judg. 7.13.  
A Fourth Canon is, when a Minister is put in the fourth or fifth, viz. the major's place, Gen. 8.10. He took the son of a cow, tender and good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kadma for Telisha gedola, Exod. 10. Verse 8. compared with Verse 24. Go and serve the Lord your God, Ver. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Merca for Sakeph, Joh. 1.21.  
A Fifth Canon affects Figuratively Canon 2. when a major is in the place of the minor.  
Exod. 12.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24.7. The Paschta respective says Geresh, should be on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syntax says a Minister, but Rhebia being there, says, it's not the Nominative, but some understood Sentence is supposed here. He who is Lord of Heaven, who took me out of my father's house, etc. He sent his angel. See Gen. 14.13. Deut. 1.36. Therefore because he fulfilled after the Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sakeph gadol in place of Tebhir. And Gen. 22.16. it should be on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore because thou hast done this thing. Deut. 21.23. Which the Lord thy God gave thee to inherit. It is here Emphatical, by way of Motive, to prevent polluting the Land. But Ver. 1. the same is Historical. Hence, in Ver. 23. there is Sakeph for the minor, Tebhir upon thy God, in ver. 1. there is the minor Geresh.  
Psal. 13.3. How long shall my enemy raise up himself against me.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schalschelatus for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 68.3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Kircher. Lypsia, 1657.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So commonly Clode, etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Hutter.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Menas. Ben. Israel.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plantin's Quarto, a manifest mistake.  
Observe, This Rhebia, which they all have on Tzadikim, is Emphatical, distinguishing the Lot of the Godly from the Wicked, They shall not fly, nor melt. In this Case the Figure is increased, when the major thus is put in the minor's place, the major of the second Order is put in place of the first Order.  
Gen. 40.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is substituted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minor to Tibhir. And the fowls did eat them out of the basket that was on my head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And Gen. 42.44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Without thee no man shall lift up his hand or foot in all the land of egypt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jarim is the Verb on which all depends; hence Bilghadeca should have Pashta's minor Geresh, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is substitute, and that changed for Rhebia.  
A Sixth Canon on the fourth or fifth Word before an Absolute Lord, where the Word requires a minor, a Minister is Emphatic.  
Exod. 34.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Merca is for Tibhir. So Deut. 2.34. Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has Merca in place of Tibhir, as it is, ver. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is very common in the use of Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Kings 20.40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 38.5.  
A Seventh Canon arises out of M. 2. of Can. 2. when Emphatically a major is put in that Minister's place.  
1 Kings 2.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Solomon sat on the throne of his father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here are all the Three Conditions.  
First, Solomon agrees with Jashab.  
Secondly, Jashab is separated from the following.  
Thirdly, It is the common Word that agrees with all, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in place of Merca, Ezek. 21.19. Therefore you bring into memory your iniquity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
2 Chron. 34.3. He began to seek the God of his father David, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [He began] should have a Minister, it being joined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the common Word; but it being wonderful that a Boy of Eight Years old should begin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphatically to mark it.   

SECTION VIII. Of Things belonging to this Subject, of a mixed and various Nature, not properly reducible to the former Heads, or therein omitted.  
Can. 1. THERE are two Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are sometimes united to what follows, sometimes to what goes before, by the Points, where no coherence in Sense or Syntax gives ground for it. In such a Case there is Emphasis, as also in Maccapb.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 13.14. Saying, What is that? or, saying, what means that?  
Gen. 28.20. Jacob vowed a vow, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Psal. 9.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The wicked is ensnared in the work of his own hands. This is for Meditation. Selha.  
Gen. 5.29. Psal. 44.9. Job 21.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is no coherence in Sense between jm and maduagh if so; why should not?  
A Second Canon may be put in the foregoing Chapter, viz. Major Members are distinguished by Major Lords; so that in the end of the foregoing Member, the major of the respective or Absolute Lord which follows doth appear. Gen. 3.8. the latter Hemestick has two Majors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Silluk's, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sakeph's both of this use. Gen. 3.6. There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Lehashkil, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its major on Leghenaim and Geresh its major, of the third order, on Lencaakal, and Paser its major, on Haisha, and four Questions in their Answers.  

1. What did the woman? She saw.  
2. What? That it was good to eat.  
3. To the Eye desirable. And,  
4. To the Heart make it wise. On the end of which stands a major, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Sam. 12.9. And he sold them into the hands of Sisera, (Prince of the Host of Hazor) and into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hand of the King of Moab.  
1. Here is a doubt if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not a major of the fourth order, and the two following Words in a Parenthesis; or if Geresh on Hazor be in place of a Major, because the Rhebiate Members is only of one Word. There are four Members either way; First ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moab, the second on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philistine; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third on Hazor, or Sisera; the fourth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otham, them.  
Exod. 32.19. Anger grew hot in Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be threw out of his hands the tables, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he broke them under the Mount.  
Isa. 6.11. And he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until the Cities be desolate without Inhabitant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Houses without Man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Earth be destroyed by desolation. 1 Sam. 19.4. Exod. 27.1. Eccles. 6.3. Gen. 26.22. 2 Sam. 17, 18. 1 Sam. 10.3. When thou shalt go from this, and further, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shalt come to the Plain of Tabor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there shall find thee three men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going up to God to Bethel. The same Major is twice repeated, at first making a Member of a Proposition, next making a Member of an Oration. 2 Sam. 19.43. And the man of Israel answered to the men of Judah, and said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have ten parts in the King, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also in David, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am before thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why hast thou contemned me? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why should not my word have been first in bringing back the king, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are three Parts, Preface, Assertion, and bitter Expostulation, each divided into two Parts. Ezek. 40.7. Gen. 29. verse 35. Esther 3.7. 1 Kin. 3.15. 1 Sam. 14.45. 2 Kings 1.16. Est. 6.6. Jer. 52.30.  
A Third Subject is, a Parenthesis, and is an Illustration of the last Rule.  
Gen. 1.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the tree yielding fruit (whose Seed was in itself) after its kind. Tebhir is on the fourth Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if the following did cohere, and make one Sentence, Sakeph would be on it, and the Sense would be, Seed after its kind, not Fruit after its kind. The Parenthesis is concluded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minor to Atnah, on the second before Silluk, and it containing but two Words, gins after a minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Ex. 7.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the rod (which was turned into a serpent) take in thy hand. Rod and take, are very closely united in Sense, and therefore what comes between them is to be enclosed, which is before.  
But Leu. 6.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he shall take of the ashes (when the Fire had consumed the burnt Offering) from the altar. Aeth hadeschen, by Veherim, agrees with Hamizbeagh; therefore what is between them is in Parenthesis; but the Parenthesis containing four Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it gins from a Major.  
See Numb. 25.14. The name of the Israelitish man (who was smitten by the Midianitish) was Zimri the son of Salu.  
Observe, That Sakeph, by Permutation for Tipcha, is upon Midianitish.  
Deut. 11.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The land (into which you pass over, that you may possess it) is a land of mountains and valleys. The first and last cohering so close, the middle is to be enclosed, the end falling on the fourth, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concluded with Sakeph, and gins from Sakeph's major Rhebia, on Haareth.  
Judges 7.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All (who lap with their tongue, as a dog lappeth) thou shalt make stand by himself apart. Rhebia, sakeph's major, stops the Sense, for the Sequel coheres not with it, or what precedes it. Min hammajim, out of the water, has Geresh, Rhebia's major upon it, because there is a great Member, as a dog lappeth, between them. Now this Geresh, (a troublesome Point to be reduced to Rule) should have his major, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the fourth Word before him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gives beginning to the Parenthesis, but Minister Munah comes in his place. I should call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before it a minor, though by the Scheme it's made a Minister too. Hence,  
Can. 3. If a Parenthesis end in a Word or two, before a Lord Absolute, or respective; the concluding Word has a minor; but if three, four, or five before a Lord, than it has a major.  
Can. 4. If it ends on a Lord himself its Emphatic extraordinary; for it suffers Lords that distinguisheth Propositions, yea Subjects, to divide between Subject and Predicate, or Parts of one Proposition.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Exod. 30.14. Whosoever passeth over of the numbered, (from twenty years old, and upward) shall offer the oblation unto the Lord. In this Verse the Subject proceeds to Atnah, and the Predicate follows, a part of the Subject is in a Parenthesis, which Atnah concludes.  
So Deut. 20.13. In keeping the commands of the Lord and his Statutes (which I command thee this day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that it may be well with thee. And much more Emphatic is Gen. 23.17, 18. where both Atnah and Silluk comes within the Parenthesis. And the field of Ephron was confirmed (which was Machpelah, which was before Mamri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the field and the cave which was in it, and every tree which was in the field, which was in all its bounds round about) Ver. 18. to Abraham for a possession, Gen. 3.3. It ends in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 1 Kings 9.9. Jer. 44.12.  
Can. 5. Since a Parenthesis usually gins after the major of that Lord it ends in, or in his power, it is extraordinary if he begin after a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a major vicarious. Ex gr. Gen. 14.17. It gins from Segolta, and ends in Atnah. Judges 8.7. It gins from Rhebia there in Sakeph's place, and ends in Atnah.  
Can. 6. A Parenthesis usually coheres more strictly to the former part of the Proposition where it is inserted, than to the latter. Jer. 31.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At that time (saith the Lord) I will be their God. Paschta before, a Sakeph behind. Prov. 3.4. The soul of the sluggard (hath not) greatly coveted, Isa. 45.24. ver. 3. 2 Chron. 34.3. Psal. 40.17. Hence this not a Parenthesis: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
There is no peace (saith God) to the wicked. For it would begin with Sakeph the greater, and end with Tipcha the lesser. If it were a Parenthesis, it would be turned thus: To the wicked (God says) there is no peace.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
The difference in Sense between its being Parenthetical, or not, seems to be thus; that the Non-parenthetical is the more Applicatory. God asserts it to the wicked (wicked is the Dative to the Verb) that they shall have no Peace. He awakens and rouses their Consciences with the apprehension of it.  
A Fourth Subject contains Indices of Rhetorical Emphasis, in deviation from former Rules, not hitherto noted, as,  
Can. 1. A Major among minor Members on one, as Gen. 8.16. Thou, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thy wife, and thy sons. Noah was the great Person, and Nineveh the great City, Gen. 10.11.  
Can. 2. When a Major of second Rank stands before or number of these little Members, instead of a Major of the first order. 2 Sam. 11.7. And David asked, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 2.20. Adam called the names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 19.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Kings 16.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Can. 3. When the foregoing Word takes a Major or Minor for a Minister. Exod. 5.3. Lest he pursue us with plague or sword, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Josh. 6.21. And they brought forth Rahab. Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Rahab Emphatically, the most famous Person, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Vajotzin. 1 Sam. 14.42. And Saul said, cast lots between me and my son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Emphatical, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haphilu is Construed not with all, and the following Word is separated from his follower. No doubt he was in Confusion, and met with Entreaties from his Nobles to desist, Ezek. 3.19. 2 Sam. 2.2.  
Can. 4. When a Major, or Minister, comes in place of a Minor, as,  
Gen. 21.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elave hae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the following had a mutual respect, but they have not, for Abraham is not related to what follows it. So 2 Sam. 12.16. the Members have no dependency or respect there, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tipcha's minor, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vba has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Minor, for they cohere not. So Gen. 12.19. And now behold thy wife, take her and be gone, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they cohere not. So Exod. 1.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Minors.  
Can. 5. When minors depend, their permitting the minor of the respective Lord, for the major speak Affection, Gen. 27.4. Make me savoury Meat such as I Love, and bring it to me that I may eat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bring it to me that I may eat, Coheres, and depends as mean and end, therefore Ahhabti, I love, should have a major upon it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emphatically from the Affection he had to bless him. So in Gen. 42.22. on the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he spoke with Affection for the Child's Life. The like Exod. 15.9. on Amar, The Enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, etc. So Psalm 12.4. there is Pesik Kadmatus for Rhebia upon Ascher Amera, Who say with our Tongues we will prevail, our Lips are our own. Sometimes a minister is put in a majors Place, Gen. 37.33. And he knew it, and said, this is the Coat of my Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on vajachra he knew it. Sometimes a major is removed, to let what follows have its Influence on all that goes before, ex. gr. Gen. 17.20. Behold, I will bless him, and fructify him, and multiply him exceedingly. That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may carry its respect back there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like we see in forecited Place, Exod. 1.7. There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vajishretzu for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Can. 6. Is about emphatical Repetition of majors, ex. gr. Gen. 9.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is regularly on Haazetz but Rhebia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 major should be Jihjeh in Place, whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is repeated, for indeed the Fear of Man planted on the Creature is an infinite Mercy, without it Man would soon be destroyed from of the Face of the Earth. So Gen. 24.3. The same and again, ver. 35. So Exod. 3.17. To the Land of the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a minister, because it agrees with all, but there is through all ministers for minors, and majors for minors to denote the powerfulness of the Enemy. See again, ver. 20. Exod. 9.4. Jos. 1.4. 1 Kings 21.4. Gen. 34.7. Exod. 8.11. and 10.14. Jos. 6.25. 1 Kings 1.13. 2 Sam. 6.20. and 20.6.  
A fifth Subject is double Accentuation and there is a Triple kind of it. First, In single words. Secondly, In Propositions. Thirdly, In Verses, especially the Law.  
Can. 1. Where one Word has two Accents, that Word, 1. In Consecution of Accents must be reckoned two in Number. 2. In Pronounciation, it supplies Methegs' Place, if that be proper for him. 3. It Augments the Signification of the Word, and its Emphasis must be exactly opposite to Maccaph, for as that makes two Words sometimes Three or Four, one Word in Consecution it hastens, this suspends. Hence we may learn, that the general Key to the Explication of the Import or Emphasis of the Figures in the Old Testament, is to be taken from the Affections, whose two great Roots to the Soul, are like Arteries and Veins to the Heart the one bringing, the other expelling the Blood, but both equally necessary to Life. So Aversion is the Root of Hatred, Fear, Anger, and all Compounded of them. Attraction is of Love, Desire, Joy, Hope, and all Compounded of them. Among which the greatest difficulty is in explaining the Passions that are Compounded of Aversion and Attraction. So among these Points Pausing, and Festination, are easily discernible, and Degrees of that Kind too. But 1. Compounded Figures, as Transposition, and Extrusion are more difficile. And 2. Distinction between the Original of the Figures. 1. Grammar. 2. Affection. 3. Subject-matter. And 3. The Kind of the Affection, of Jealousy, of Hope and Desire mixed; of Hope or Desire separated, of Anger or Hatred. In all which, tho' I see general Characters to distinguish them, I dare not attempt Rules about them until [if it please God] I have finished my next Design on the Dicta Classica & Dubia of the Bible, according to my Specimen. The Examples of this Kind are many, Jonah 4.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Verse 10. it has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but three times before it has Metheg, Ver. 7, 8, 9 But in this Verse it is proposed Comparatively with the City Nineveh, its Greatness, its Riches, its Antiquity, its Usefulness. But over and above that, its spiritual Case there were Souls there, none in the Gourd, and many Souls, 120000 Souls of mere Babes, and alive more than these ten Times are the least we can bring in proportion may be 20 is nearer to other rationals to one Infant. And the Spirits, whereof God was Father, the Souls that He himself had made, must be above one or two Millions. The Emphasis lies then in diminishing the Gourd, it had no Immortal Soul in it; no, it had no Animal Life, like Cattle, in it: Jonah was no Father to it; no, he had not so much as laboured for it, nor had he any more gain by it than a Woman has of a Fan in an hot day; and yet Jonah exceeds in Joy in the Possession, is blind with Anger at its loss. This double Accentuation is to stop his Thoughts in a more just deliberation and consideration of it; so that it is exactly opposite to Maccaph.  
Exod. 3.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has Munah with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has Metheg; there is no diversity in the Form of Words to be found, they are much of a likeness, but therefore it must be sought in the Matter, or Signification, many of which are lost; yet there wants not Matter of wonder, that the Hittites Land should be theirs, not only on the account of their greatness, but their kindness to Abraham, and their Covenant with him, which continued inviolated until Jacob's Death.  
Thirdly, It is probable there was some Aggravation in their Iniquity, Ezek. 16.3. & 45. Thy Mother was an Hittite, and therefore their Ruin.  
Fourthly, More Universal. Whereas there was little probability of Peace with the Hivites, Gen. 34. whom Jacob's Sons destroyed, the old Hatred was like to be soon kindled: but Eventually they were not destroyed, though they were dispossessed, they were made most happy Slaves, Josh. 9.7. I wonder some Book is not wrote to prove that the Ministers under the Gospel are the Successors to them Hivites, or Gibeonites, that aught to enjoy nothing but Life and hard Service. Yet I hope it is the Comfort of many, that necessity put them to seek the better, that would have been too soon satisfied with worse of this kind. See Gen. 28.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two Ministers, Padenah. Psal. 50.3. Jabo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 116.16. Ana 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 14.31. Ghoshek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Secondly, A Minor and Minister, 1 Chron. 13.2. Vajikka betzu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 106.28. Vajatzamedu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Thirdly, A Major and a Minister, Sebibothaim, Gen. 35.5. Laobothehem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Fourthly, A Minor and a Major, Ezek. 48.20. Vleleh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Fifthly, An Absolute and a Minister, Lehodaghtani, Dan. 5.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Sixthly, An Absolute and a Minor, Beshabughthechem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lehehhallu, Leu. 21.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ledorthechem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 15.21.  
There are many of these Examples that admit not of Metheg, as may be seen P. 1. C. 1. and therefore the end must be higher than a bare change for change sake.  
Thirdly, The Accents would lose their general use of being Ministers of Sense, if they never subserved that end when doubled on a Word.  
The Second Branch is about Propositions, whereof Gen. 35.22. is a famous Instance.  
G. 35.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And it came to pass, that while Israel dwelled in that land, that Reuben went in, and lay with Bilha the concubine of his father: and Israel heard it. And it came to pass that the sons of Jacob were twelve. Observe First, That the double Punctation only asserts this abominable Crime, and every Word of that, except Pilegesh, the Concubine; from which I would infer, the Emphatickness of every step of that Lewdness. For first, It was less relation than a Wife. Secondly, Less wonderful, for a Miss, a Concubine, to be a Whore, than for a Wife, she might be turned off, and the Seed disinherited, as Hagar and Ishmael, the Father's Will, or Divine Sovereignty, was their constant Title. But that young Reuben should lie with old Bilha, is stupendious, that there should be Friendship was much, between the Heir and such Suckers of the Estate, between Rachel and Leah's side of the House was strange, but to Befriend her, Love her, Lie with her, that was Enemy by Education, Interest, and Older than his Mother, in all Probability, and of so nigh Relation to his Father; such an heinous Crime from so slender a Temptation, wants not an Emphasis. As is the Man, so is his Strength, and as his, so his Appetite.  
Observe, Secondly, That the Two Accentuations stand apart thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
The other thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
In the former Punctation there are two Verses in this Text, in the latter one. I am of the Opinion that there are really two Verses. For, First, What Consistency or Connexion is there between the Number of Jacob's Sons, and this Crime of Reuben's, that they should be put in one Verse. Secondly, The Context is full of distinct Verses, of distinct Subjects. Thirdly, This פ is a sufficient Mark for Pasuk the Verse, or Soph pasuk the end of the Verse. And, Fourthly, Clode, and others, ends the Verse there. Fifthly, This Circle, or Masoritick Mark (whereof there are about 25 in Number, signifying some Imperfection or Defect in the Sense) though it signifies some Defect, yet it never signifies that the following Verse should be put in to make it up. Nor indeed does it any Compliment to it, that which seems deficient is Israel's Behaviour, What did he? Or, what said he? when he heard this horrible Story. In all probability the Text's deficiency, or silence, rather informs us he said nothing, but sat down amazed; the Groans of his grieved Heart, and the trickling of his brinish Tears, were the most that Sorrow had left motion in.  
Observe then, Thirdly, from hence, That the former Accentuation is the more Regular, and that if there be not a Divine Emphasis, but the Text has suffered, aliquid humani, some Erring Hand pretending to Correct the latter is the Addition, especially in the Word Israel, and that the other has been added by some Scribe, who thought both Verses to be in one, פ being put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Abbreviation for the Character, for the Second Punctation harmonizes best, and only can, with Two Verses being put in one.  
To conclude then, Fourthly, That all is Divine, I must say with Varenius, That in this Punctation there is a double Relation, one to the Sense with the first Punctation, the other to all the rest of the Verse with the second Punctation, without which double Consecution or Dependence, it were impossible for one Proposition to have two Punctations regular. So if there be no failure here, as indeed there is no necessity of yielding, and to yield without necessity, were a greater failure in us. We have the nature of this double Accentuation in the first Observation, viz. Reuben's Sin, and Jacob's Sorrow; there is no Emphasis in Hearing. Jishmagh has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, for such Abominations cannot be buried in Silence. But that Israel should (all the Town commonly hears such Crimes before Parents do) but when the Father and Husband heard of the Son and vicarious Wife, it struck him dead.  
The Third Branch is of the double Accentuation of the Decalogue. There are two considerable Questions both depending upon the Points. The First is between the Lutherans and Reformed, about the Division and Order of the Commandments.  
Observe First, That the Number of the Commands by Divine Authority are Ten. Exod. 34.28. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Deut. 4.13. He declared unto you His Covenant, which He commanded you to perform, Ten Commandments.  
Observe, Secondly, That the Lutherans make the Two First Commands one, and divide the last one into Two. So that the First Precept contains Five Verses, says Varenius, it is fundamentally in the Second; Formerly in the Third; Exegetically in the Fourth, and first part of the Fifth; and Syllogistically in Verse Five and Six.  
Observe Thirdly, That as all grant the Number Ten, so the Tables to be Two; for though all the Ten are Divine, as to their Original, yet the Second is Humane, as to the immediate Object.  
Fourthly, That the Question is not so material as to itself, as to its Consequences, for under this Cover the Papists hid their Idolatry, and the Lutherans their Images, because, say they, both own only one True God, the Substance of the First.  
Arg. First. The First Command ends with the Third Verse, for there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Verse 17 is only divided by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore contains only one Precept in one Verse.  
Arg. Second. The Matter agrees with the Points, for the thing forbidden in Verse 17, is on Covet. If to be divided by Objects, we may make it Ten alone, Horse, Sheep, Fields, etc. And Deut. 5. the Order is altered, the Original of every Sin is forbid in every Commandment. But there are two Objects specifically distinct in the First and Second Command, viz. the Object of Worship in Precept first, and manner in Precept Second.  
The Lutherans bring Paul Confirming their Opinion. Rom. 7.7. I had not known lust, etc.  
R. Though Paul puts Lust without an Object, Moses doth not.  
Secondly, The Law taught him, by inferring a General out of a Particular. If a Man an Animal.  
But my Weakness confines me to few Words, though the last Text was defendible, without allowing aliquod humani; here there is probability for it, and I the more readily embrace it, because that Phoenix for Knowledgs' of that kind, as all his Adversaries allow, has paved my way by his Authority. Buxtorf. One Reason is, there appears no Emphasis to Parties on either side.  
Secondly, The Jews preserve the Use and Value of both, but their Use is different; the one for the Number of the Commands (in this the Jews and we agree) the other for the division of the Parascha's, and number of their Verses. Vide Wasmuth, P. 197. Now the former Use required the Punctation from the Beginning; the latter Use came in about the beginning of the Grecian Monarchy, or after. Therefore what subserves must come after.  
Thirdly, I would step further on this Supposition, and Plead, if a second superadded Punctation was before the Masorites, and so Old and Sacred, by them esteemed, surely the first Punctation, was long before; indeed where no Mystery is intended, a double Punctation at one time is inconceivable.  
Fourthly, We have hence no Corruption in our Bibles, for these are no more than the Letters פ and ם etc. and other Masoretic Marks.  
Observe in the double Accentuation, some Words have only one, the Reason is, that one serves either Consecution of Points.   

SECTION IX. Of Examples at large, both in Synthetick and Analytick Practice, by which the Former Rules may be rendered more Instructing and Convincing.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 22.31.  
As for God, his way is perfect, the word of the Lord is tried, He is a buckler to all those who put their trust in Him.  
ACcording to my Axioms then, the first Question in a Synthetick Method, or a Priori is, Where should Ministers be placed? or where Lords? Either in Hebrew or English, let Matter Rule; In Answer I find Way, and perfect Adjective and Substantive Word of the Lord, one Substantive governing another, etc. He and Shield by an understood Verb Substantive trusting him, or crediting him, Fidem es habentibus. I find all these agree Syntactically, than these must have Ministers, the other Lords, at which rate here is place for Four Ministers, and Seven Lords, for here are Eleven Words.  
My Second Enquiry is, according to the following Axioms, about the Proportion of the Lords, where Absolute, and where Majors? and where Minors are to be placed? Now there are Four most sensible degrees of Difference.  

1. Between Verse and Verse.  
2. Between Subject and Subject within the Verse.  
3. Between Propositions.  
4. Between simple Terms that are distinct within each Proposition.   
As to the first, Silluk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keeps his place. As to the Second, it is a Question whether it should be on Tzerupha, or on Darcho, for in both there is change of the Verses Subject; the first Subject is God, As to God his way is perfect. The Second is his Word; The Word of the Lord is tried. After which the former Subject returns, He is a buckler. Or there are Three Subject, His Way, his Word, and Himself. Hence this very Verse, Psal. 18.31. is thus Pointed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Where Merca maphat is on the end of the first Subject, Atnah on the Second, and Silluk on the Third But in Prose Atnah is on the First, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Second; on this Consideration, That He is a shield, has reference to jehovah in the foregoing Proposition. Hence, as to the Third, than there is one respective Proposition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on his end, and what follows him makes up one for Silluk. This jehovah is a Shield, and by his word He obliges and declares Himself to be so. As to the Fourth, in the First Two Propositions, there is an Enlargement, or Explication of the Subject. As to God, his way. The Lord's word, which requires Minors. As to the Third there is a gradual Perfection (after the Fourth word) of the same Proposition, and therefore there is place not only for a Minor on the Acquisitive Dative to all, but for a Major on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be repeated.  
A Third Enquiry might be about what are to be put in these places; and first from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Table the Consecution stands thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since it agrees, this being completely Perfected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gins again, which proceeds thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since the immediate agrees not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Table it is thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
As to the Psalms the value continues, though there be a different Face of Accents; for as to the first Proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Prose and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Verse are of the same Value by the Tables and Rules.  
As to the Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a Minor left omitted through Maccaph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is known that such a Case as this Verse is in, Atnah is not much above Sakeph, and Maccaph is less than a Minister, much less than a Minor. So the Equivolent continues.  
As to the Third the Comparison is easy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both.  
A Second Example, Gen. 1.14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Gen. 1.14. And the Lord said, Let every Light be in the Firmament of Heaven, to divide between Day and Night; and let them be also for Signs, Seasons, Day and Years.  
An Answer to these three Questions will discover the Synthesin of this Verse as to the Points, viz. Where Ministers or Lords should be? 2. The Proportion of Lords? How big? Or Little? 3. The Kind of Lords. As in the first Lord and said agrees. 2. Be and Lights. 3. In Firmament of Heaven. 4. Between and Day, and between and Night. 5. Be Signs, the following being little Members are more doubtful. So there is Place for Nine or Ten Members.  
As to the Second, next to the concluding Silluk, the greatest seems to be after Night, Halajlah, jjjj. Next to that between Heaven, and divide the Place and Use. jjj. The Fourth in Order is between Signum and Signatum, The Lord said, Let there be Light. The Fifth is on Third, Fourth or Fifth from the absolute Lord. jj. The Last on Terms within a Proposition (j)  
The Third is about the Kind. As to the first two 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is no difficulty nor needs the next two much a Sakeph, and his major without Emphasis may be a Segol. The Last two are majors or minors known by respect to them.  
But two Things are to be noted here. First, That a Figure spoils my skill in Synthesis, for I must know the Figure by the Point, and therefore I cannot know a Priori what Point should be there, that depends on the Speaker, it is sufficient, that when I express my own Mind, I know a Priori, where the Rhetorical Point should be. The Author only knows his intent until he informs another.  
Secondly, The Bible is Pointed already, and therefore (though a little Exercise in Composing may be useful for Correcting Press Errors or Differences in Copies) Analytick Practice is sufficient, which in this Verse stands thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 end Verse and Sentence. R. 1. M. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the next Vlejamim seems Emphatical, for by R. 5. where a respect is, little Members have minors and ministers in turn, but by R. R. 5. there is a minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hence, the Third Word Vlemoyhadim has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. R. 6. M. 1. But over and above, to augment the Emphasis, there is munah for metheg, by §. 9 C. 7. hence this Word is to be reckoned two, and so the foregoing Leothoth takes as Third Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his minor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 3. M. 1. and he his Servant mahpah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before him, Tab. 1. N. 4. because there is a Syllable, viz. Leoth between them, else it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Reason it is a minister you may see R. 4. M. 1. for Vehab. agrees with the following or may, and is necessarily Construed with all that follows.  
The Emphasis of Seasons, all set Times, for Sacred or Civil Affairs since both Church and State depends on it, needs not a narrow Scrutiny, and Days the most profitable of natural Uses.  
The Second Hemistich gins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Haljlah, but Hashamaim seems a sitter Place, for the distance is greater between the Place of the Luminaries and their Use, than between one Use and another. Therefore in my Opinion, and Answer to this the first Proposition. Let there be Luminaries in the Firmament of Heaven, is to be repeated after Atnah, and then by R. R. M. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands properly, and it is like, that is, the Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not on Hashamaim, the next Words between the Day, and between the Night, the middle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by R. 3. and two extremes by R. 2. Tipcha is also conform to R. 5. The Fifth Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since, 1. The Four following are little Members, and like. 2. This is none of them, nor, 3. Agrees with the following; hence by R. 4. M. 3. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because no train it is true, it is according to general Consecution, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Reason is, the fewness of the Members, if there had been one more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had appeared under it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon it by virtue of two Rules, R. 4. M. 3. and R. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 2. and the Third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 3. see the Table which becomes a new Lord, for what follows completes the Answer to where? viz. In the Firmament of Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a Minister by R. 2. M. 1. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because a Syllable between them by T. 1. N. 4. has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sakeph's major by R. 4. M. 3. or on the end of a Sentence by R. 6. or as major of second Rank, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphaticé, the last has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 2.  
Hence first we learn, the Scope of the Verse not to set forth the Existence of these Luminaries in general, for that was the Work of the first Day. Or in particular, for that belongs to verse 16. But the Use, and that is the Reason Sakeph stands for Segolta upon Heavens; and also the Reason of repeating that Proposition in both Hemisticks, it subserving only as an Introduction to the use of them which is also repeated in the following Verse 15.  
Hence Secondly, The Verse is divided by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two equal Parts.  
First, The general use of the one great Luminous Body, ver. 2. applied to these Particular divided Parts in the first Hemistich.  
Secondly, The Four Particulars in the following Hemistich.  
Hence Thirdly, The Subdivisions are distinguished by Inferior majors. As 1. God's saying. 2. Doing. 3. Placing. 4. Dividing. In the first Hemistich, and the second into a  Particularlar Use, the most excellent whereof are extraordinarily Pointed.  
Hence Fourthly, That good Mathematician is a bad Textuary, who expounds, ver. 16. Not of the creating of Sun, Moon and Stars, but in making them appear to the Earth, and so be useful to it.  
When 1. Their use is so distinctly and positively insisted on before.  
2. The making is the Emphatic Word insisted on ver. 16. And though once expressed, the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows, it is three Times to be repeated.  
Thirdly, The Points shows that it is not making them Rule that is meant, for then a Minister would be upon the Word before Rule, but that bearing a Paschta, shows, that though Ruling was the end of Making, yet that by Making is meant a distinct Action, by which nothing but their Existence in such a Form can be understood.  
Fourthly, Ver. 17. Their situation is a distinct Act, and this Mathematic Divine seems to understand nothing else but relative Site by the whole of this Day work.  
A Third Example, Gen. 12.6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Gen. 12.6. And Abraham passed thorough the land, unto the place of Sechem, unto the Plain of Moreah, for that Canaanite was then in that land. But our Translation has it, And the Cannanite was then in the land.  
The last Hemistich stands thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Table, and first 3 R. The last three Words of the first stands thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shows that Moreh is a Man, not a place, the proper Owner, not the proper Name of the place, for then by R. 2. the Points would stand thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when Second and Third agrees with the First, by like Syntax: If it were Apposition to the place, Moreh then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have the like relation to both. The Fourth has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Major to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 4. M. 3. and also R. 6. The next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 2. but the Sixth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has Itib, Pascha's Vicar, because no train, and a Monosyllable. The next should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 4. and Sixth also; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it repeats itself Emphatically by R. R. 4. M. 5. Next comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 3. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 2. N. 3. T. 1. Hence we learn, That Spinoza, and after him the Author of the Five Letters, do most wrongfully conclude from an ill Translation, That Moses was not Author of this Book; or as Father Simon says, of some part of it only. For the Canaanite was not in the Land (say they) when this Author wrote. And the Canaanite was then in the land: therefore they were driven out before the Author wrote. But the Original has two things omitted in the Translation ח Emphatic, before Canaanite, to signify it was not Canaanite in general, but that Canaanite; and the Points tell you Moreh was a Man, therefore the Verse says only, That that Canaanite, viz. Moreh, was in that Land in Abraham's time: But in Jacob's time, Gen. 33.34. Sechem the Hivite possessed it. So Moses describes the place by its different Names, and Lords, in different times. We may learn from it the Corruptness of such Authors, rather than the Corruptness of the Text. And, Secondly, the Usefulness of the Original Tongues, to stop such black Mouths, and prevent the Infection of such Contagious Errors.  
I am Informed by a great Traveller, Mr. C. That Albert. Natalis de Verse (the supposed Author of these Letters; and by Jo. Iben. M. in his Refutation of their Asserted Authors) is for Immoralities, a Monster of Mankind, and Excommunicated both by the Popish and Protestant Churches, for Scandals not to be named. It is no wonder that such a Man wrote against the Bible, for if it be an Inspired Word, he is an undone Man. Did not the Devil's rage against jesus Christ? He came to destroy their Kingdom: the meanest Worm would do its uttermost to Revenge. But who would be such a Man's Proselyte? I do seriously Advise his Disciples to beware of it: No doubt such a cunning Man had Reasons to Conceal his Name.   

An Example of the Metrical Kind.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Psal. 10. Verse 14. Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite; thou shalt view it to requite it, with, or by thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee: thou art the helper to the fatherless.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 1. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minister, by R. 2. which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by N. 2. M. 2. because Pesik goes before, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minor, by R. 3. which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by N. 2. M. 11. because Macpah goes not before the next. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have had a Minor, by R. 4. M. 2. but Emphatically it hath a Major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The next Hemistich ends with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where greatest distance in Sense is by R. 1. and the Servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the next, because Tipcha anterior precedes Tab. 2. N. so the Third has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foregoer, by R. 3. and the Fourth the Major, R. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from thence the next 3 by Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and R. second, third, fourth, M. 3. and Pesik in Chaghas is Euphonical, and from thence the next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which observe,  
First, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annexed Tab. 2. N.  
Secondly, That Pesik in some Impressions is omitted in Pesik mahpah.  
Thirdly, That Maccaph is Emphatic to signify the hastiness, preventing any Doubt or Unbelief: Thou hast seen, surely thou hast seen.  
Fourthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Major, all that follows coheres; so something to be supplied. Thou hast seen surely, thou hast seen the mischief. Here are three Propositions of distinct Subjects.  
First, What God does in Providence.  
Secondly, What the Poor doth on that account.  
Thirdly, What God hath done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 terminates the First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Third. The First is divided in two respective Propositions; the former contains what God doth; and the Second the end of that daily and constant Inspection.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Prov. 1.20. The most excellent of wisdoms cryeth without, in the streets she uttereth her voice.  
The last Proposition stands thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Third there is a Major 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of the Minor, R. R. 4. M. 3.  
The First Proposition is according to Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tipcha being Atnah's Minor, Chochmoth is in the Plural Number, and supposes something to Govern it, the Verb being in the Singular.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Verse 21. On the head of Concourse she cries, in the doors of the gates in the city, she proclaims her Oracles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last Two by Rule; Merca, because neither Pesik nor a Tone preceded, T. 2. N. 2. M. 1. on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Major in place of a Minor, R. R. 4. M. 3. which should be Pesik. Next comes two Ministers, viz. Merca and Tipcha, not the fore-goer, therefore one of them must be a Substitute; Merca appears to be it. Hence I conclude, That Tipcha, Rhebia Gereschate's Minor, being extruded, substitutes Merca, Tipcha not anterior, going before it, by Tab. 2. of Extrusion, Num. 3. the extruded Minor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then by Tab. 2. of Extrusion, Numb. 9 it would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that goes before.  
Observe, Gates and City, agree not, for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be in Government, and ב would not be prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
The first Hemistich ends with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. first, its next, Homoth, not agreeing, should have the Minor, but the Major Rhehia is in its place Emphatically. The first Word Berosh has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it agrees with the next. In this Paragragh gins a new Subject; Divine Wisdom, the best of Wisdom: So it must either be Him who may be denominated in the Abstract Wisdom, and that Plurally, two Wisdoms; The Son of God, and Wisdom of the Father; or, the Eternal Wisdom of GOD, the Contrivance of the way of Saving Sinners revealed in the Gospel, it's either the Object or the Act, etc.   
FINIS.   

A SPECIMEN OF A COMMENT ON THE OLD TESTAMENT BY THE Taghmical Art. In III. PARTS. I. On the Textual, Classical or Doctrinal Scriptures. II. On the Doubtful, Difficult, and Wrong Translated Places. III. An Analysis, with intermixed Observations, as Matter requires, thoro the rest, to make the whole Complete. The Art itself, with the Doctrine about it, is now in the Press, thoro the Patronage of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury; And the Encouragement of some other Gentlemen, who desire that their Country should be a Land of Light; and are willing to be at Charges in order to it. The First of these Parts (whereof this is a Pattern only) is also ready, when it can meet with the like benign, obstetricating Hands, that the Parent may not be overcharged with its Pressure into the World.   

A Specimen OF THE Taghmical Art.  Genesis 1. v. 1. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.  
THE Earth has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by R. 1. M. 1. Silluk the Sentence and the Verse doth end; From which we may discover the Error of Grotius in his Comment on this Verse, who renders it thus, When first God created the Heaven and the Earth, the Earth was without form, etc. P. Simeon adds thus, Or before God created the Heaven and the Earth: These, says he, are two Literal, proper and Grammatical Senses, preferable to the Vulgar.  
The end of this is to find a Pretence for the Pagan Doctrine of Eternal Matter in Divine Revelation; all the later Philosophers among the Gentiles, Rom. 1. growing vain in their imaginations, Dem. Epicurus Ar. etc. did maintain and defend Preaexistent Matter. Many Mongrel and Nominal Christians, Manichees, Marcionites, etc. and some later, and of better Note, as Prae-Adamites and others, viz. Smalcius, Vorstius, etc. Besides many Rabbins held this Doctrine. But one Argument stops their Mouth, We are not to be wise above what is written How shall we believe without Testimony? Heb. 11.2, 3. The Doctrine of Creation belongs to our Faith, not our Science.  
Late Critics have made Artificial Foundations for many such Notions; and these Two, That they might give ease to Omnipotence, and find work for their high Towering Fancies, have digged in this Text for one to this Doctrine, which they strongly prop up from Heb. 11.3. Things that are, were made out of things which did not appear. But both Fathers and Sons in Divinity answer, The Chaos appeared not for want of Light and Nothing, much less for want of Entity, therefore this will not support it. The Orthodox further oppose to this Doctrine, besides the Arguments from Reason,  
1. That the Hebrew Language has no other Word to signify a making of nothing.  
2. That Paul defines Creation by a Word that imports no less, Rom. 4.17. A calling things that are not as though they were.  
3. ב the Literal Particle is affixed to Beginning, In the beginning; not to create, when or before God created.  
4. Parallel Places propose the Creation of Heaven and Earth in positive Assertions, Gen. 2.1. John 1.3. Psal. 102.25. not in relative Propositions.  
5. Prov. 8.24. Before ever the Earth was, when there was no deep. 1st. I infer, The Deep or Chaos had Wisdom Personal, set up, brought forth before it, therefore not from Eternity. 2dly. The Earth and Chaos are contemporary Twins.  
But now further, in the Sixth Place, by the Rules of Interpretation, used both by Jews and Samaritans, especially the Scribes, Ezra 4.7, 8. whose Chancellor or Precedent is called Baghal Taghim, or Master of the Taghmical Art, Silluk suffers not the Proposition in the v. 1. to bear any such relative respect, he is an absolute Lord, and makes an absolute stop from the Sense, Vide Ar. Tagh. lib. 2. §. 1. Where this is at large proved and explained, and therefore their Interpretation and Opinion too are repugnant to the Literal Sense of the Text.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to run, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prance, but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to humble, much in use in the Arabic; and has its Tendons fixed still in Sacred Writ, Jer. 49.19. & 50.44. I will depress or humble him from her. So. Psal. 68.31. Aethiopia shall humble or submit her hands, and by an usual Change, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dan. 2.39. & 6.24. Observe that there are many false non inventus's asserted of the Bible. And 2dly, That no Concordance nor Lexicon are yet complete; for none of them have this Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make low, though so plain in Jeremiah. 
From Aeretz comes 1. The Germane erred, Erth. 2. The English Earth. 3. The Latin Terra, arret, and Tacitus his Fathom or Hertam. 4. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
In the Second Place comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under Veath, the Mark of an Accusative after an Active Verb, by R. 2. M. 1. and Tab. 1. it is Silluk's Minister, and signifies a close Union, and indeed it is so close here, that it signifies nothing out of Union, and therefore has usually 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most conjunctive of all Points, and is of great use to distinguish between aeth the Mark of accusative, and aeth signifying from or by, which refutes them who would translate v. 16. with the Stars. And Maimonides who translates it thus, The Heaven with the Earth.  
It signifies, says Nachm, the transition of the Person by the Verb Active on the Noun. D. Rim, with others, add, That it denotes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the substance of the thing, and all that belongs to its Integrity or Perfection. So that here is signified the Creation of the Heaven and the Earth in their Substance: Hence the Syriac has esse Coeli, & esse Terrae, the very Matter and Essence of the Heaven and Earth, and a Creation of them with their Hosts, Inhabitants and Furniture; and it is the more likely, if Michlol Jophi's Rule be true, That its use is to denote the Patient; hence seldom used when the accusative or patiented is sufficiently known, which being manifest in this Text, its use is of another import, to wit, to denote the Penetration and Extension of the action on the subject. Which is opposite enough to Gaffarillus and Corn. Agrippa, who put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sign, for then Creation would extend only to the Furniture or Ornament of the Heavens.  
2dly. It supposes the Original corrupted, in Consonants, Vowels and Accents. 
It is more like Truth, That our the comes from eth, than that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come.   
Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Under Haschamaim appears by R. 3. and T. 1. c. 3. which signifies Earth and Heaven, not to be joined together, but separated, as little Members within a Proposition being a little Lord though ן, and unite them Verbally, yet as to sense the Verb is implicitly repeated in Earth, he created the Heaven, and he created the Earth. So in sense its the Verb that is united or repeated; for the Nouns are as opposite extremes as Heaven and Earth, by which I intent not to play or delude with an Aequivocation; for distance in place, infers not distance in sense or construction: But my intent is to show, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here refutes or opposes the Scholastic Chaos.  
The Pagan Philosophers, some at least, are for an Eternal Chaos, or Mass of Matter, out of which God created all things. But some Divines are for a Temporary Chaos, created some time before that initial Week of the reducing this Earth into its present Form and Order.  
Now by Heaven and Earth cannot be understood some one undigested and confused Mass; for Tipcha proposes them as two of the most opposite, distinct and separated Being's of the whole Creation. 
Schamajim has many both false and foolish Derivations: 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are Waters from the Celestial Waters, v. 6. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sa Majim, it sustains Waters. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Praefix, because of Waters. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fire and Water. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be amazed because of Water. But Compositions among Appellatives is contrary to the Genius of this Tongue. All the Learned agree, That its Root is in Arabac, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be high: Hence height is the common Epithet of Heaven, as lownes is of the Earth, Exod. 20.5. That is in the Heaven above, or in the Earth below, Job 11.8. Prov. 25.3. Gen. 11.4.  Heaven and Earth is the first Division of Creatures, and therefore most opposite.  
Hence we may learn the Scope of this last Haemistich, which is not to assert first the Creation of the Matter of the World, as a rude heap, so Gerard Hackspan, and Prucknerus think, with others: But to make a Summary Proposal of the General Object particularly insisted on thorough the Chapter; So Aestius and Seb. Schmid. with others, which is confirmed from what follows.  
Hence we may learn, That Heaven and Earth is a Sacred Phrase for Universe, all things, the whole World, and may be confirmed from Psal. 124.8. Acts 14.15. and 17.24.  
By Heaven than is understood all that is not Earth: But where to place the limits between them is the Question; though from what follows we may solve it, viz. That Heaven is receptive of various acceptations; but in the Text it is All that that is beyond or above the uttermost border of the Firmament, where the fixed Stars stand placed; in other places following, the surface of the Earth, or Atmosphaere, i. e. what is above either.  
There is another Question here de casu Nominis, viz. What Number it is, dual, or plural, the accent on the penult makes it dual, but the Aethiopic having the singular Schamai, and the Root Schamah affording regularly Nouns of that derivation. And 3dly, There being Heaven of Heavens, and Third Heavens, I believe with Hottinger, and Lud de Dieu, that it is plural.  
There remains yet one Question more about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emphatic, or ה Notificative, these Heavens, and this Earth. P. Simon blames Tremeliius for translating it thus, but he should first blame Aben Ezra, who so long before him turned it thus, and H. G. and Paraeus, and all the Hebrew Grammars; and then he should prove that that is not the use of this ה.  
That which we learn from it is the erroneousness of them who talk of Pre-Adamites and prae-aerizits many Worlds before this; For Moses informs us, That the Heaven and Earth which God created in the beginning, was this very Earth, and these very Heavens of which Moses gave Account.  
Fourthly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atnach under Elohim, is here Rhetorical or Emphatic by R. R. 2. M. 2. for where the Verse contains but one Proposition, there is no proper place for atnah, whose use is to divide the Verse into the most opposite Propositions; And hence we may know wherein the Emphasis consists, viz. repeating the Verb that is on one side of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other also, and showing it to be taken in the most full and ample Signification So that to fill up Silluks' Proposition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bara with sakeph gadol is to be supplied next to Elohim; In English thus, In the beginning God created: He, I say, really created these Heavens and this Earth. Hence we have a most strong Confirmation, that the use and signification of the Word Bara, in this place, is to assert a production out of nothing.  
Some may think that the Emphasis should be enquired for in Elohim, not in Bara, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is under it: I Answer, If it were a little Lord or Minister that affects single Terms, so it would. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stands under Elohim because he is the last Word of the Sentence; for its the whole Sentence he affects, and the Essence of the Sentence lies in the Indicative Verb.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aelohim is not truly derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strong, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he mappikatum in Eloah shows ה to be Radical; nor from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strength. Nor 3dly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their strength. Nor 4thly, Primarily from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to swear; but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in use among the Arabians, to adore or worship, a part whereof swearing is, in which sense the Bible retains the Word. This seems preferable to Aben Ezra's Opinion, who thinks it a primitive. In the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the worshippable, the Adori is used by Paul in the Epistle to the Thessalonians. 2. In the Old Testament it is the Name God declares himself by as the Object of Love, Service and Swearing; And the first Command of the Law is 3dly, to have no other Elohim, i. e. to worship none else. 4thly, It is very suitable, for his creating us is the most suitable foundation, and found'st a most just Title to all our Worship and Service.  
A Second Question is de casu Nominis, How it comes to be in the plural Number? Grotius thinks the singular is to be supplied before it, Eloah Elohim. But then Bara would bear a third word, tipcha, not munah, as next to it. Many Papists, Protestants, Lutherans and Calvinists that are well skilled in Criticism, think a Plurality in the Deity is understood, and such as is consistent with a singular individual Essence, and therefore that the Trinity is denoted. And to evade the Objections of Socinians, they form the Argument thus. 1. Every Word in the Plural Number. 2. Having a Singular Number. 3. Without analogy of Number. 4. The same signification being retained. 5. Carrying Verb Participle or Adjective to the Plural with it. 6. In the Third Person, as well as First or Second, is of a plural signification. But Elohim is, Ergo  
Fifthly, Of Bara already, It bears Munah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minister to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by T. 1. R. 2. M. 2. Which shows that Elohim is the Nominative to it; and it being in the singular, does denote that whatever plurality be in the Deity, there is but one Creator, one God; whatever Multiplicity or Variety there is in formal, objective Considerations to draw forth our Adoration toward him, there is but one undivided Substance, who was before all Creatures, and by his powerful act gave being to them.  
Sixthly, Braesehit bears 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which well agrees with the order of T. 1. and R. 3. as also the sense, for being a little Lord, it denotes the distance between single Terms: What makes up the Essence of the Sentence, is united by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minister, and if it belonged to another Sentence it would bear a Major that divides Propositions; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewsthat it is an adjunct or circumstance of this Proposition, and indeed, though the variety of significations attributed to this Word, is great, yet all agree in this.  
ב in Braeschit is by Cabalists counted mysterious, and that two ways; first Numerically, to Ages, Laws or kinds of Divinity. Maghasche Bereschith signifying Natural Religion, and Maghasche Mecchaba, mysterious Divinity. Others think God gins his Book with ב, because that gins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing; for א gins arurah, cursing; but these are Monsters rather than Mysteries.  
John in his Gospel, c. 1. v. 1. interprets both ב and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us turning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning. So the Lxx. so Onkelos, and Jonath. Ben. Vziel Bekadmin, and so the Vulgar, and so the most usual Translations. Hence the others fall Hierus. Targum in Wisdom, Tertull. in Power; Procop. in his Empire. 2. In the Foundation. 3. In the Head or Sum. 4. In the Foundation. Philo in Order before all. So R. Bechai and Castalio. Maimonides with Matter. And among all the most authorized, in the Son, which shall be examined afterwards. The Root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Head, or the Arabic Raasa, to excel, from which we may learn the use of Skill in these Eastern Tongues (though there is not much in their Translations) for in one Verse (and that the very first) that contains but Five Words, has Four of them derived from the Arabic.  
Here yet remains Two Questions, The first is, if Breschith be in Government or not? that is, if the sense be in the beginning of Creation or Time, or in the beginning of all things, or in the beginning of God's Ways, Prov. 8.22. or Works. I answer, though any of these speak the truth of the Case, the Word is not Grammatically in Government, for than it would have a Minister to signify something understood, with which it did agree, which it has not. But being put absolutely, signifies the first and chief beginning, before which nothing was that was capable of a beginning.  
The Second Question is, if Breschith be taken here Metaphysically, for the first inconceivable Minute that was measured by Nothings passing into being, that attended the first Jog of Creative Motion; or if more largely, for all the Time that Creative Power continued Exertions of that kind, viz. 6 Days, according to common Opinion. But Seven, a Week, is the Creative Cycle, and as we shall see from the next instance, wanted not its Work. I am for the latter Opinion; for the first is a Word without an Idea. 2dly, Is contrary to Scriptures vulgar Style, especially in the Works of Nature. 3dly. Beginning is used in this latitude through Scripture when applied to the Creation, and opposed to after successive Periods, Pro. 8.22. Christ was possessed in the beginning of God's Ways, therefore the Seventh Day comes within the beginning, See Matth. 19.4, 8. & 24.21. & 25.34. Mark 10 6. & 13.19. 2 Tim. 1.6. Given us in Christ before successive Ages or Periods, Rom. 16.25. 1 Pet. 1.20. Eph. 1.4. 4thly, The Verse being a Sum of the whole, this beginning must stand commensurate with its Subject.  
A Third Question is, Which Week of the Year this is, which of the Fifty Two is the Creative Initial Week. R. That Week which was the beginning Week of the Year, until as God changed the Sabbath, God appointed another beginning to the Year, when the Israelites came out of Egypt. Nisan our March was then the first Month, but before that September, their Tizri, from that the Sabbatical and Jubile-Year still gins. If it were not the first Week of the first Month, of the first Year, it would not be absolutely the beginning, and this was the first Week of September or Tizri, [there is no place for intercalation or comparison hear] To this the Jews Paraphrast. Cabbal. Historical agree; to this Nature agrees, every thing having its Seed in its self, and its Fruit ripe; to this the Gospel agrees, Christ being Born in this Month. Thus the Year and Day agree, beginning both from their Evening Season. So the Sun was created in Libra—. The sense of the Verse is thus:  
In the beginning of all Created Being, Motion, Time or Season, within the compass of the first, Week, probably the first of September. God, the only adorable one, and that on this very bottom, Created, made out of mere Nothing, I say, by infinite Power and Skill brought forth, without the assistance of any antecedent Matter, these Heavens, and this very Earth. The vast quantity of most extended Spheres. The Diameter of this Earthly Sphere from one Pole Star to the opposite Point, contains Millions of Leagues. But that is a Point in comparison of the Circumference of the Heavens of Heavens.  
Division:] Atnach being here Rhetorically only, the Verse Logically makes but one Proposition, which consists in these Four Things, Two Essential, Act and Agent; Two Circumstantial, Object and Time.  
Scope:] The Scope is to assert a Creation, that all the Universe, all this Weeks Work was the effect of immediate Omnipotence, Some without any matter, the rest out of matter, uncapable by natural Power, this the Emphatic Atnach shows.  Genesis 1. v. 2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Verse 2. And the Earth was without form and void, and Darkness was upon the face of the Deep: And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.  
I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Hammajim, as before by R. 2. M. 1. shows that Moses here stops his Account of the Earth's Properties and Qualifications, when first made; and that though Light and Day was a Work of the same First Day, yet it was a distinct, separate act from the former, and superadded in order to its Perfection. Hence you have the necessary Original of beginning, the natural Day from the Evening, because the Earth was created in Darkness. And 2dly, The time of the Earth's duration in that dark, confused Chaosical State; it was the ordinary space of a Night, and not as some fancy, from all Eternity, or for many Ages; for this time of Darkness, with a proportioned measure of Light after its Creation, made up but one of the six or seven Natural Days; if this Evening was a Thousand Years long, it was a very unproportioned 7th part of a Week.  
II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Phnae, Silluk's Minister, R. 2. M. 2. signifies its conjunction and construction with Majim Waters and— Maccaph. 3dly, signifies yet a more close conjunction between ghal and phnae, R. R. 3. and imports this Brooding Motion never to reach the Centre of the Earth; (but the Surface) that has stood solid, unmoved from the first creative Act, no Earthquake nor Deluge has had force to over-weigh the Ballast of this Vessel we swim through the vast Aereal Ocean in, (and indeed the very Name of calling the whole deep Chaos, Water, imports the dry or solid part to be but as a Vessel or Ship in comparison of the liquid) which shows that to be no proper place for Hell. If Sun, Moon and Stars be habitable, it's most like the Devils, Fallen Angels, that left a better Heaven, dwell in these Heavenly Places, they are Princes and Powers of the Air, they are called Stars, may be as Man Adam, or Earth; and if a Third Part, as some think, of the Created Angels fell, there are enough for Peopling all the Stars. Christ in his Triumphal Ascent might descend into these Orbs, and bind Captive Devils, Rev. 12. For since we never read of their appearing with Holy Angels, as Job 1. in the blessed Regions.  
III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under merahepheth, by R. 3. M. signifies the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be neutral, and that though it convey quickening effects, and an hatching heat to the Waters, by which they were fitted and prepared to put on the following Forms of Light, Air, Firmament, etc. Yet it remained a distinct thing from that Matter, and more belongs to the Agent than Object; it did not by an active transition pass over, and become its, as the Creative act did. But to prevent our conceiung this Motion to be in God from this neutral Verb, (whose Nature is that the agent be patiented also; for instance, I run, in this I am both doer and sufferer) merahhepheth moved, is distinguished from Elohim by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as from the face of the earth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong Argument for the Cartesian Notion of con-creating a quantity of Motion with this Chaos, as Time was. The whole of that Motion now by the signification of this Word rahhap puts on a seminal, prolific, nourishing form or kind, Deut. 22.11. & Jer. 23.2. not that of a tempestuous Storm or Hurrican, for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be used. But a nutritive, preserving Motion is understood. Creation was by a violent force, and the whole Mass had revolved into its Original Nothing, without a constant, preserving power, which is expressed in this prolisick, breeding Expression, confirmed by the Syrian and Arabian Tongue, and the Fable of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First Laid Egg, whose Nest was the Universe, its White the Water, and its Yolk the Earth, its Dame the Spirit.  
iv 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is upon Elohim, by R. 4. M. 3. and shows silluk's Proposition to be completed. God the Creator of the Earth is Author and Director of that Motion by which it was put in a posture and readiness for reception of future Form and Order. 1. It teacheth us that this Motion is not fortuitous, left to produce things by Chance, but is under the Conduct of Divine Wisdom. And 2. It makes a considerable distinction between the First Creation that was in a Moment, and the Second that was in Time, each Day having a distinct Work; for Motion and Time are inseparable, succession, gradual progression is absolutely necessary to both; though it was by the Counsel of the Divine Will how many Days should be spent in it, it was absolutely necessary some should, since it was done by Motion. 3. The after Laws of Motion in natural Production, were not the Rules of the Motion of this Week; these Motions have the Creature for Author, this the Creator actus imperii; the one of Nature, the other of GOD. The Office of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twofold, to stand at the beginning of silluk's sentence, and at the end of his own: The former I have now done with; the second is very short and follows.  
V 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is under ruahh by R. 2. M. 1. the Spirit of God, or the Spirit GOD, as John 4. God is a Spirit. There are more things bears the Name ruahh, but Elohim is added for distinction, it is hard to disprove either, and hard to make choice, the one denotes more the Divine Essence, the other some distinct Principle in that Essence. But the most material, and most agitated Question in this verse is, whether Elohim be taken Metaphorically for exceeding great, and ruahh for Wind; so that the sense should be an exceeding great Wind moved upon the face of the Earth; the Authors are great and numerous, and the pretence is fair, ruahh signifies Wind often, and Elohim is so taken often; Monsieur le Cenn's late Book pleads hard for this.  
In Answer, I shall propose only the Characters of distinction that these Points afford when Elohim is thus Metaphorical for exceeding, or the superlative degree, than the Word qualified by it wears a Minor, not a Minister, as here. And First, Observe that the relation and coherence in sense, is much different, and we may see this from the Phrase in Greek, Act 7.20. the English is that Moses was very fair; but the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was fair to God. The Parallel to which you have Jonah 3.3. Nineve was a City great to God, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paschta upon great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sakephs minor, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here, sakeps Minister; for sakeph is upon Elohim in both places. So 2 Cor. 10.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mighty thoro God, or by him; he with others, think the sense is very powerful. A second Observation is, That the Phrase is never used but where it admits of a Literal Exposition, as we see our Translators say a Truth in this, 2 Cor. 10.4. mighty thoro God, and so 11.2. a godly Jealousy, and 8.2. the Grace of God; Great Charity, says he, bestowed among the Churches. It is true God is in the Genitive in these two places; but not so true, that that is their sense, though the Rule is true, and therefore the sense of this place would be a Wind created by God, preaexistent to Wind afterwards created, as the Body of Light was to the Sun.  
Third Observation which contains the decision of the Case, ruahh would have paschta on it, sakephs minor, as Jonah 3.3. for confirmation whereof see Gen. 30.8. with great wrestle, or the wrestle of God; there is indeed Kadma, but Clod's Bible shows a variety of Reading in the Case, and the constant Chain of Points shows a mis-Printing, and that by turning the iron Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Points in the Text stand thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now compare tebhirs Dominion, T. 1. Col. 11. and it's thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2dly, Kadmah is only servant to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and geresh is not here, therefore no place for kadma. 3dly, Two Ministers can never come together, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Minister, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another Minister cannot come next, and the same Case occurs, Gen. 23.6. Thou art a great Prince among us, 2 Chr. 28.13. has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly, the other places are but compounds, Cant. 8.6. Jer. 2.31. or Poetical, with a Rhetorical Point, as Psal. 36.7. & 80.11. So we see the Phrase is to be retained, the Spirit of God, not a great Wind, which may be confirmed from what doth precede; as 2dly, from other Scriptures, Psal. 33.6. By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth. See Job 26.33. & 38.4. Acts 1.6. & 4.24. And 3dly, the Phrase for though ruahh signify the Wind, never ruahh Elohim; it were absurd to mention it.  
VI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under tehhom signifies the haemistich of the verse, to terminate in this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is now Grammatical, and his Office by R. 1. M. 2. to divide the true middle of Sense, which is an evident index of these Points being a Logical Instrument, as well as Rhetorical and Syntactical; the Preacher can never mistake in dividing his Text, taking them for Rule.  
The sum of the Verse is to  the Earth as first made, before it was brought into a comely and perfect Order. Now the Characters are such us denote imperfection or perfection, and between these on the one side stands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and on the other side the adversative [ן] not to be Translated and but but (but— the Spirit of the Lord, etc. though it was in such a stupendious, confused condition, yet there was a Dam's influence over it that could preserve it from Dissolution, and ripen it unto Maturity.  
VII. The Negative Properties are Three, the last in a Proposition by itself, And darkness was upon the face of the Earth, pointed regularly, as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see T. 1. col. 2. R. 1. M. 2. R. 2. M. 1. R. R. 3. M. 1. R. 3. M. 1. a defect with which neither Form nor Inhabitant could consist, and therefore first removed in general, in the later part of this day, and more perfectly in the Fourth Day.  
VIII. The other two Properties (though every Copulative, whether in Subject or Predicate, makes two Propositions Logically) make one Grammatical Proposition, and one in the Author's intention, which is the scope of the Points (as the Author of Cosri says) and is a considerable help to the Interpreter; for often, formal Propositions, by the Rules of Logic, as in this very Chapter, are but amplifications of the Subject or Predicate in the Author's intention; the Points in this Proposition stands thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if one consult the Table 1. Col. 4. Sakeph's Train stands thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reasons of the variation I shall immediately prosecute.  
1. Then we see sakeph more visibly than under silluk's dominion, beginning Atnah's Proposition by R. 4. M. 3. which shows that (is or was) is to be supplied (another use of these Points, little observed in our Translation) for a Proposition cannot be without an indicative Verb. and standing in the end of his own by R. 6. M. 1. and this upon vabohu, which B. Var. (the only Interpreter I have heard of for this Thousand Years, that used this Key to unlock Scripture-sense, and he out of Raschi) turns well thus, But also void of form, it wanted not only Inhabitants, but it was uncapable to receive them, a privation, want is common to both, Jer. 4.23. Isa. 24.10. and Moses ascends by gradation, want of Men, and want of fitness to receive them.  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pascha on tohu which is doubled by T. 1. N. 5. because the accent is in the penult, or the Word is mihil, signifies that (ן) here is adversative, signifying not copulation, but opposition, or that tòhu and bòhu are in distinct Propositions the Word was being repeated, it was without inhabitants, and it was without form; it is probable, that tehom the abyss, and tohu without inhabitant, come from one root, for that mixture with waters, or covering by it, was reason sufficient for it. This Privation or Emptiness was filled up on the Fifth and Sixth Day.  
3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paschta's, not sakeph's servant is on hajetha, was, and shows Mr. Bamp. Pansophia to miss this part of Learning, for he translates the Words thus, and the Earth was, and tohu was, and bohu was; Three distinct Globes, Earth, Hell, and the empty Space between them; for Earth is separated from was, and tohu is joined with was as predicate to some subject it is affirmed of: So that it is a qualification of some subject, and not a distinct subject.  
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sakeph's major is on Earth, and imports the whole to be but one Sentence; and 2dly, it imports that Earth is by no means Nominative to was, for then the Points would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But rebhia a major, makes a great distinction, and shows that Earth is proposed as the Subject of the whole future Discourse to this effect: Para:] But as to the Earth; ' Beside this Earth God created many Heavens, Celestial Spheres of vast Number and Variety; Many Mansions, of whose Nature or Form we are neither capable to know or speak, except we be transported thither, and though we were, would not be capable of instructing any body of this Globe, the Words Paul heard were unutterable as to any such purpose, for had he called things by the Names he heard, it had been an unknown Tongue. If by our Names, our Thoughts had risen no higher than the accustomed Earthly Idea that. Word is a sign of. We call the Places Heaven or High, and the Natives Angels or Messengers, let the Species be what it will. Now says Moses, though this Kingdom of Heaven some one may be Mat. 25.34. is prepared for you, and though I assure you God made them all out of nothing; Yet I will not undertake to describe these Places, or how they were made: But as to our own Country, this lowest place, the Earth, know that when it was first created, it was without Man, without any living Creature: Job brings in the Angels shining like Morning-Stars, and singing like the early Larks, even shouting (from the first Moment of the beginning) hallelujahs to that great Adori, the Creator; but however the Heavens were replenished, this little Farm was neither stocked nor tenanted; And void of that due Order and Form that was necessary to afford Man or Beast a comfortable Habitation; the Materials of this House were provided, but lying in heaps, the Walls not built, nor the Wells digged, the Canopy not spread over the Tent, nor the Partitions set up; the very Floors were not laid, nor Drainers cut: Hence all was a Deep, an Abyss, a Lake of Water, without a bottom. And darkness was upon the face of this deep; Neither Sun to shine and rule by Day, nor Moon by Night, not the Sparkle of one Star; Never was there a Night so dark as what belonged to the First Day: Here was neither the Light of the Candle, nor the flame or glow of Fire to supply this defect; the faint and pale light of the Glow-Worm had been here a Consolation; the Egyptian darkness that could be felt was preferable to this.  But the Spirit of God did brood upon the face of the Waters; though it wanted all these, it was put under a tendency toward them, a quantity of Motion was created capable of all Varieties, and able to put the World into the most complete Perfection, being directed by that Imperial Word of GOD, and these Directions exerted by that immediate quickening and influencing Spirit of GOD. 
Hence we learn, That all this Discourse of Moses, and all these Objects spoken of in this Chapter, Heavens, Sun, Moon and Stars, all belong to this Earth, and all come within Moses' proposed subject Earth, in opposition to Heavens; all brought out of this Water by the Spirits hatching Motion. This Earth has its Heavens and Earth, its aboves and belows; but the Heavens that were made the First Day, are not where in our Bible Characterised, they are left for our study when we come to dwell in their Mansions.  
Scope:] Rhetorical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebkia shows that the scope of this Verse is to describe the Earth by its Characters after the first creative Act.  
Division:] Grammatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atnach shows the first Division of the Verse is at deep; the first Haemistich containing the negative Characters, the second the positive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sakeph subdivides the first into two relative Propositions, the first whereof is complex of two properties as to the Earth; it was first without Inhabitant: Secondly, without capacity to receive them. The second is simple, darkness was upon the face of the deep, in which state it was not capable to produce one Plant or Herb, therefore that defect was first supplied by Creation of Light. The second Haemistich contains but one Proposition, viz. an assertion of the preserving and Nursing Care of Divine Providence. To withstand the wasting and wearing of Creature Nature, there was need of the Breasts of All-sufficiency to maintain what Omnipotence had produced. It is therefore only subdivided into Three single Terms, the Agent by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of the Lord, the action by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an hatching or brooding motion; the object by the same, the Waters, the Deep or Earth.  
By a Wellwisher to thy growth in Grace and Knowledge, Walter Cross.