A DISCOURSE, OF THE ORIENTAL TONGVES viz. Hebrew, Samaritan. Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Together with A General GRAMMAR FOR THE SAID TONGUES. By CHRISTIAN RAVIS. LONDON, Printed by W. Wilson for T. jackson, and are to be sold by him at the Star in Duck-lane 1649. TO The right reverend Father in God, James by the Divine Providence Archbishop of Armagh Primate, and Metropolitan of all Ireland, and of His MAJESTY'S most Honourable Privy Council. May it please your Grace, GReat and manifold are my obligations unto your Grace, not only as a Client towards a great Patron of studies, but more especially as an adopted Son of your especial favours. Ten years ago, only upon one humble letter of mine from hence, unto your Grace residing in Dublin, craving most humbly your assistance in my purpose towards the Orient; It pleased your Grace to write unto me (being as then by sight unknown unto you) and most favourably to offer me a certain annual allowance for my voyage, if I had already left England, or if not, to invite me to come over to your Grace, and that upon very honourable terms, upon knowledge whereof, that excellently learned, Hugo Grotius (unawares to me) commended me and afterwards carried me along with him to the Cardinal De Richelieu then the greatest Minister d'Estate de France, who, after some discourses inviting me to serve him in the Orient, and my modest refusal alleging my obligations to this English Nation, but especially to your Grace, and when upon the second and third reply of his, I did promise to write unto your Grace about it, but he being unwilling I should do so, did after a most ample, and large commendation of your Lordship dismiss me with an honourable donative, in the presence of that renowned Ambassador, with whose Son, (Anno. 1636 being a Courtier at the Court of the Queen of Sweden,) had acquaintance at Stockholme. Out of respect also unto your Grace, Mr. Pocock. Anno. 1639. at Constantinople became very active on my behalf with my Lord Ambassador, as also the treasurer his and my host and the consul of Smyrna, Mr. Edward Stringer a most worthy & excellently learned Gentleman for your Lordship's sake were never weary of affording me all the favour they could, attesting frequently this humble respect towards your Grace; And after my return home I received so freely and largely of your Bounty, that I confess myself to have had all along an exceeding rich supply from you; the consideration of all this and that it should be done to a stranger one never seen unto you, only at the motion of those learned men Doctor Elichman, Lud. De Dieu, joh. Gerhardus Vossius, that such unparalled honour I say and bounty should be done me, lays an unparalleled burden on my shoulders worthily to testify my thankfulness for the same; your Grace also prevents me even in that which alone is left me, whereby to testify my thankful remembrance of your favours; you honourably make mention of me, unknown to me, in that most learned Epistle to Ger. joh. Vossius de Symbolis lately setforths, calling me yours (Noster Ravius) and truly so I am; I esteem myself your Son, and you my gracious Father that provides for me, nay more than a Father; A Father knows his Son for whom he provides, your Grace provided for me as a part of your heart which you never saw. You have still the same gracious care of me and my lectures, whereof at all times your Grace is pleased to inquire the success. I will not excuse or deplore the state of my creeping and weak studies, Vltra posse nemo obligatur; nor speak for the tuition of this small offer; If what it contains be truth (which I have learned under your fatherly care) the offer of it is great; if the matter of it be false, and the conceit of a heady brain, the greatest Book of mine would justly be loathsome and detestable in your sight. Eruditi possunt judicare, rudes discere, scioli neutrum. I shall be as glad to be taught better if here I have done amise, as to have written a truth and a beneficial one, wherein I do not amiss. I confess I never part from your Grace but I return more learned than I came, but, which I esteem above all things, fare more confirmed, and resolved upon the following of your pious, meek, humble, sincere, unfeigned conversation, and because I can never attain the learning and exact judgement of your Grace, I shall endeavour in a higher measure, and nearer proportion to attain your Christian faith, showed in that unparallelled height of humility, wherein your Lordship outstrips all th● Archbishops of the World, and to be truly ready to follow the steps of your Grace in the Lord jesus, as your, Most Humble CHRISTIAN RAVIS. Paradigma VII Ordinum Verborum et Nominum. Rules for the Permutation & other Accidents of the three Quiescent letters. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I For. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is either. I Changed, I. into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1st having damma, 2 ●ly having damma after fata at the end, 3 ☐ having fata after damma, 4th after damma at the end, 5th A quiescent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a quiescent is changed into a movable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TWO into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1st having Kosra, 2 ☐ having Kesra after fata at the end, 3 ☐ having fata after Kosra, 4th after Kesra at the end. TWO Cast a way when a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows in any place even in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 III Remaining quiescent, as I that of union or joining if a letter with a vowel go before, e.g. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 billa except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lilla 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hism; TWO the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 characteristic of the dual before the nun para gogic with either Gizm or Teshdîd; III the Characteristic of the Agent. Participle after the first radical before the second doubled by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TWO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either. I Changed into, I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent, 1st after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the 3 ☐ final letter of a word; 2 ☐ after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 movable TWO into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 movable, 1st having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 ☐ the final after the servile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, III into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being 〈◊〉 4th or 5th & final letter of a word, IV into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 movable, 1st having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 ☐ final after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 ☐ a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following with the vowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 4th having a vowel & going before a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5th having a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & following a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a vowel. TWO Cast away, I when a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows in any place even in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a quiescent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; III before a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent. III Remaining quiescent, I as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 ☐ final after damma, having damma or Kesra III 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either. I Changed, I into a movable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1st final after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 ☐ final after a servile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TWO into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent after a fata before a movable letter. III into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after? TWO Cast away, I when a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows in any place even in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TWO after a movable being quiescent in the middle of a word III before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent. III Remaining quiescent, I final after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TWO final after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paradigm Because the Characteristics which are the cause of all that difference which is between the following 12 Orders & the first aforegoing with the whole difference itself sufficiently appears in the first words of each of them (for the terminations through all the 13. are the same) I thought it need les to set them down so fully as I have done the first: For it is but adding the terminations of each person to the first word, & the whole declension of them all is performed. paradigm Because the ninth & eleventh Order in some respect may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admit of an Exeption I have set them down at large. paradigm paradigm There are also Verbs of. 4. letters but varied only through 4 Conjugations; whereof the. first answers to the. 2 ☐. of the 3. letter verbs; the 2 ☐. to the 5t. in number of letters; the 3 ☐. to the 7th. in res: 〈◊〉 of Nun the 4th. to the 9th. in that it doubles the last radical. paradigm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows the Analogy in all those orders that have a teshdîd for their character & is declined like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise in all those. persons of the other orders where the 3 ☐ radical is to have a 〈◊〉 Gizm. So that all its Anomaly (if it may be called Anomaly, it agreeing herein with the 9th. & nth. order) consists in this that as ofte● as the 3 ☐. rad: is to have a vowel the 2 ☐. is inserted into it by 〈◊〉 teshdîd its vowel being cast away if the foregoing hath one as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or going to the precedent if it have a gizm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 4th order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are declined like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observing only the rule, of permutation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through all the 13 orders as for example in the 3 ☐ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Analogical in all the last 12 orders except the 〈◊〉 where the 1st. radical is inserted into the Characteristical. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a teshdîd. as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are declined like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2. 3. 5. 6. 9 11. 12. 13th. 〈◊〉 the 4. 7. 8. 10th. follow the rule of the first as appears. paradigm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow the rule of the first order in their variation through the 12 last, Observing only that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changeth its last radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas in the s saint it was changed into. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and moreover that the, same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remains & is Sounded like a diythong in the s saint & 2 ☐ persons, whereas in the s saint order the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 returned in those persons as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Lastly to conclude this Paradigma it is to be observed that the termination of the future is subject to a 3 fold change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By Apocope which taketh away the final superfluous Damma & Nuns in the end of the words (that is all except those 2 in the plural feminines which remain because they are formative of the gender) instead where of the plural masculines assume a quiescent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & and this Apocope is the true Analogy 2 By Antithesis with changes y final' into ' as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 By Paragoge whereby unto the form caused by Antithesis is added a Nun with a fata & a teshdîd the servile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural falling away, Also in the plural feminine is inserted an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so 3 nuns may not come together all which appears as follows. paradigm Sometimes this Nun is added without a teshdîd & is only gizmed but the singular only & the masculine & Common plural are Subject to this form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as often as the, 3 ☐ radical is gizmed the 2 ☐ quiescent is cast away as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of receiving a gizm on the 3 ☐ by reason of Apocope cast the third away. Apocope and Antithesis happen by reason of the influence of these particles vizt '. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To fill up this vacant place I have inserted this Scheme representing in short the variation of a perfect Verb the rough the tenses & persons of all the 13 order. circular paradigm The Chalde & Syriak manner of forming verbs paradigm Observe. that the second order in the Syriak is the same with the first a Dages being understood at the Second radical & a vowel at the first. The 3 ☐ order is the same with the Second insecting only an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the first & Second radical. The fourth order is form by placing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the P. & Pr. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the future The 5t. order is made out of the 2 ☐ by preposing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & the 6 t● out of the third on the same manner the line of omission under the Second radical is of no moment In the Chalde the Charactristicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sixth order is omitted through all the persons & tenses. The Aethiopile manner of forminge verbs having but 4 order. paradigm The other. Orders being form as the first, it shall suffice to set down. the first words only paradigm The Noun & 〈◊〉 of the first order is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are also imperfect verbs: yet none but what are likewise declined perfectly according to the Analogy, but in regard that some do occur sometimes defective in one of their radical it may be requisite to know (for the finding of their roots) that such as double the Second radical, 〈◊〉 it in the Second person Sing foem. and second and third person 〈…〉 of the future and no where else. Those whose first radical is 〈◊〉 cast it away through the whole future & present of the first order and no where else. Those whose second or third radical is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast away throughout the first order and no where else what other special anomalyes there are may be learned by exercise. A DISCOURSE Concerning the Eastern Tongues; to wit, Hebrew, Called, Samaritane, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopick. IF there were not a great dimness in our sight, and dulness in the understanding of our judgements, (which should ordinarily be led by reason, more than by received opinions,) there is no doubt, but all things would go far better, and in a higher way, yea whole Nations would be truly honourable, glorious, magnificent, rich, mighty, powerful, and redoubtable unto their enemies, spread more large, enjoy far more Kingdoms, than now they possess shires, govern them with more facility and less trouble, than now a handful of Cities. The lack of true noble principles spoils all great affairs. Nothing is easy, because we are childish in our actions. Let us lay a good foundation, and upon a little ground we may erect an excellent, high and glorious steeple, which will be seen far abroad. It is not money that gives splendour to the world, but reason. The sun is that which carries the bravest sway in the world, discovering all things, seeing all things of any colour, nature and condition, good or bad. And in that vastness of the heaven it occupies but a little space, yet gives light and glory unto the whole Hemisphere; The reason withus' mankind, is the sun of our judgement, whereby we are able to learn all things quickly and easily, because thereby we can comprehend all things taught us. Let there be never so many actions, it will easily discern them all. Never so voluminous works, it will lead us through them, and make way even in the darkest passages of them, and show us what method it had by the author, when he penned the book, and that it is the same sun both for his & our Hemisphere, like as we know, that the sun is the same to them at Jerusalem (and all other parts of the world,) that it is to us in England. If then these things, that come under our eyes, are so certain, why should the eyes of our judgement be so dim-sighted, as not to discern by reason such things, as are only to be made easy and delightsome unto us thereby, except we delight more in ignorance then knowledge. Yet that can never be said of mankind, wheresoever or whatsoever, but must still be granted, that indeed it doth rather embrace (according to that light of Nature which God hath bestowed upon it) REASON than UNREASON, LIGHT than DARKNESS, LOVE then HATRED. And thence it comes to pass that yet so many things are done, because reason leads us on, shows us the hope to come through, the ways whereby to endeavour how to shun the snares, to avoid the enemies, to embrace the friends, and to improve all to the best advantage, & thus to come at our journey's end. Only we confess, that this Honourable Councillor within us, given by God Almighty, is never, or very seldom heard by the greatest part of men (not out of hatred but slowness of spirit, & unwillingness of pains, unthankefullnes after having received good counsel,) but rather subdued or oppressed by vices, lewdness, corruption or malice, to the great hurt and grief of this our sun. This neglect of reason hath troubled and made all Learning's uneasy, because without it we have them all given to us without life. Reason is the life of all actions, of all learn. And thence it is, that the Mathematics are the most true and delightful studies, because the fullest of reason. And where that lays the groundwork, the fabric will be durable. Thus all Languages (when they are taught or learned by and with reason,) have an excellent easiness, and that is the cause why people generally believe, that in Heaven they shall speak some other than their mother tongue, and yet attain to it without the least difficulty, because reason will make any tongue easier than a thousand rules. The principles of all tongues are laid by reason, as well as the principles of Physic, Metaphysic, Logic, or any other Art whatsoever. But our opinions and principles not being regulated thereby, do invert all the ways to learn them, to a difficulty. Whence it comes to pass, that even all people cry out, Tongues are difficult, and lay that down as a certain principle. If now people build upon such ground, can we expect any thing from them but foolish talking and writings. Can we find figs on thorns, or grapes on thistles, or is it possible for the fruit to be sweet, where the very root of the tree is bitterness itself. Let us then lay aside, (and that with your leave) all such principles, and embrace this viz. That Tongues are the easiest things in the world to learn and that with great delight. To come then nearer to our Tongues, the subject of this our present discourse, I confess that still I find among all men (nay the learned themselves) many strange opinions of them, and such principles, that if they should be truly scanned, they would make the world to laugh at them. The nearest way that I am able to show, to speak and judge truly of these Tongues. viz. Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic, is only that you believe all things on the contrary. If they tell you, there are many; believe them to be but one, If, hard to be gotten; to be easy. If, without use; there are none more useful. If, of a hard pronunciation; not much harder than English. Ungracious; the sweetest expressions in English are found in them. Not many Books in them, More than any man is able to read through in all his life time. Of no comely Characters, as neat as English. Of few words, And the more wise, grave, serious, majestaticall speeches. Contemptible, by none but ignorant and malicious men. They are lost, no more than the Germane, French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, or the English. No good Authors extant in them. The Bible is originally in this tongue. And if you can forget or slightly pass by that book, which the spirit of God himself hath penned, and sent into your bosom, you are not worthy to look on any book else, although I would have showed you only in England about two thousand. None is honoured by learning them. True, because none did truly understand them, No people studied them. Yet all nations do. The Universities drive more the Arts, than these Tongues. Because they were taught to be many, and learned men would rather dispute, than become scholars again and again. Yet all this spoken in an opposite way is easily done and said, but not easily believed, because the old principles are so deeply rooted in men's hearts, therefore is it fit to go on a little more plainly in the declaration of their nature, then in railing and wrangling about them. Wherefore I will choose to speak first of their Antiquity; secondly, of their rare virtues; thirdly, of their largeness; fourthly, of their use; fifthly, of their unity, sixthly and lastly, of their easiness. And all this without much premeditation, but only as few day's labour of using the pen will afford: their being many reasons in the way, why I could not spend great labour or much time about this business at this instant. And first, the Antiquity of them is granted by all, to be before any of the European Tongues whatsoever. But the Greek Tongue, which spread so far in Europe, that out of Greece it took root in Spain, France, Italy, and in Africa in all the mediterranean Seashore, and almost into Persia itself by Alexander the Great (not that it was the only tongue spoken in Asia, Africa, and Europe, all other Tongues being lost, but that it came in for its smoothness, by the victoriousness of that people, and the activity of their Kings, and great traffic of their most renowned Merchants and seamen.) this Greek Tongue only might challenge a great Antiquity, and be competitor with Called, Syriac, Samaritan, and Arabic, if not with Ethiopic, whereof we are like to know almost nothing (with Hebrew no man dare bring it into competition for antiquity;) but if diversity of names make no distinct matter, and if the essence be not divers, because it has many accidents, and if the substance of any thing be remaining the same in number, although you add never so many outward pictures and titles, glosses and inscriptions, and if the thing itself be not changed, in changing the outside only, and if a man remain the very same, although he should be so foolish, as to change his habit every day and never wear the same two days together, than let us not despair, (if we can make it appear, that Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic are but one and the same language, as we shall in the fifth part) but that the argument used for the antiquity of Hebrew will show the very same antiquity to be in all the said Tongues, because they being all one, began at one instant together with Adam, given unto him by God Almighty, to talk with his Creator and afterward with his bedfellow, not with the Devil as she did. Besides, we know there was a great distance between the Caldean Empire, the Syrian Gods, the Arabian Rovery, and the Grecian setlement and well grounded assurance, or full large extent either of the tongue or government, we know further, that the whole Greek Tongue (no dialect excepted) as big as it now is,) comes by good natural pedigree from the Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, and I dare say as much out of Ethiopic. I say not only from Hebrew, and though a great quantity of Greek be already derived by divers Authors only from the Hebrew Bible words: (so that if I am not mistaken, there are above six thousand Greek words clearly derived by divers learned Authors from thence, as a son descending from his parents) yet if the very same root and stock be in the Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabia and Ethiopic Tongue, who can deny (or will not easily grant) that all these six thousand Greek words already derived out of Hebrew, are at the same instant derived out of Called, etc. And than besides, if many thousand words extant in Greek can (either by me or many hundred men) be further derived from these Hebrew words extant in the Bible, will not all this declare more and more a great antiquity not only of Hebrew I say, but also of Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic before the Greek Tongue, it being a most reasonable principle, that if the parents beget never so many children in divers Countries, let these children have never so many and various names, yet they will never be elder than their parents. Further as it would be a sinple assertion, that whatsoever word is not extant in the English Bible, is not English, even so and no less ridiculous do almost all the learned men hitherto speak, when they say, that whatsoever word they find not in the Hebrew Bibel, is not any more Hebrew, and therefore then it must be called Called; if they find it in the Called Jewish translation upon the old Testament; or Syriac, if in a Syrian Author, or Arabic, by an Arabian, and Ethiopic by an Ethiopian, or Samaritic, in the Samaritan character of the Hebrew five Books of Meses, in some passages differing from the Hebrew Bibles extant, or in their Paraphrase upon the text. This as it is unsound, and a sport of dark minds, led out of the way by neglects of their own learning, so shall it be declared in the fifth point. And therefore as we grant that there are some words sound in Called Syriac, and Arabic books, which are not in the Hebrew Bible, and besides as we know, that even of them also a great quantity of Greek words are derived by some, and yet many hundred more will hereafter be derived; all this doth show, that the Greek tongue can not come into competition for antiquity, either with Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Arabic, or Ethiopic, Neither is that dream, as if the Greek tongue had been hatched at the same instant with Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic (conceived to be so many divers Tongues) at the confusion of Babel, that dream I say is not with any reason, but only a blind talk upon suppositions. First, Of a confusion of Tongues in the plural, where the Scripture clearly speaks only of one tongue, of one pronunciation, which tongue was confounded, I grant it, but as the Scripture saith, not unto many tongues, (for so it saith not) but many pronunciations of the very self same tongue, and so much it says, and that is true. Which was enough to dispersethese bvilders, when they could not understand one the others pronunciation, although they spoke the same language. As forinstance, notwithstanding English, Scotish, Danish, Swedish, Norwagish, Greenlandish, Low Dutch, and the High Germane tongue is but one tongue all in all, with many (yet small) accidental differences, these said nations cannot understand one another at an instant and new unexpected meeting, (I say not of the nearest but most remoted nations,) because of the divers pronunciations of Consonants and Vowels together with the displacing of the accent. Secondly. Of an immediate proereation of many tongues (innumber seventy two.) Which old fable hath been among the Greek fathers, by name in Epiphanius his book of fourscore sects, (he lived in the time of Basil, Gregory, Chrisostom, & High room) from thence among the Latins Hierome and Augustine, but before these the Syrians and Arabians in Orient, and the rest of the Heathen, Jews and Christians, did afterward disperse it among the Turks & all other religions and sorts of people, and runs at this day currant through the whole world. But concerning this matter, these things are certain, that there was but one and not many tongues, and that that one tongue was divided by the diversity of the lips or pronunciation: and then, that every particular person had not a several language, nor a several pronunciation, for then there could have been no society after the dispersion; but that whole families only had their proper pronunciation; therefore certain is that also, that neither seventy two Languages, or more or less, took then beginning, neither every particular language now used was then founded, but only the Mother and Original tongue, which we now have under hand, nor that besides this primitive tongue other mother & original tongues now used or exstinguished, were then founded, out of which thers should since have been derived, as many learned think. To what purpose, I beseech you, at the confusion of Babel was the English tongue, when there was not yet any English man, at lest not Horsus and Hengistus? then we might say with more true reason, that the Low Dutch men were at that time, because in Latin they are called Belgae, which they may say, comes from Peleg, at whose time this confusion of Babel was, and he therefore called Pelga for Belga, p. for b. But as these are but fancies, so indeed is it no less a fancy, when it is so confidently asserted of the Greek tongue. What property is there in it, that it should have been at the same time with Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic, at the confusion of Babel and not English. And where have you read the names of these 72. tongues, that did then bud out of that mud? 'tis true, that some Modern writers on this point have followed and did believe Arnobius, (that African Heathenish Philosopher, and professor of Rhetoric, who was afterward a Christian and a Minister of the word of God, he lived about three hundred years after the nativity of our Lord:) who upon the 105. Psalm the 8. ver. (He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations,) conceives, that there are in the world (besides a thousand (nations mistaken for generations,) 72. tongues, to wit beyond Persia Eastwards 406. nations, only 27. tongues: on this side Persia, all Asta and Africa 394, nations, only 22. tongues; and all Europe, with the North of Asia, Eastwards 200 nations, 23. tongues. Wherein partly we find a very great audacity, or confidence as well in the number of nations, as tongues, yet a greater defect of the proper names of these 72. tongues, and withal a fare more unreasonable assertion, that Jafets 200. families or nations should yield almost as many tongues in Europe, as Sem's 406. in Asia, and more than Cham's 394. in Africa; The reason, why to Europe he attributes 23. tongues, and but 200 nations to Africa 22. to Asia 27. & yet 800. nations is because Arnobius descending from Roman Parents knew better the tradition of the Greece and Latin Fathers, than the tongues of Africa, understanding only the Roman, and unacquainted with the Hebrew &c., or at least not thoroughly with one tongue of Africa, less of Asia. And yet upon such rotten buildings, some modern Authors (speaking of tongues (and of those which they do not understand,) most confidently) tell it as a certain thing, that in the consusion of Babel there were 72. Languages divided. If than these 72. tongues are not named by this most confident Roman, or Moor, may ye not as well name the English, as the Greek. I see nothing in it, but only that we are confident to tell tales far of, where we think no body can inquire whereas in things at home we are more sparing, because we may be easily entrapped, and more cautious in believing, because we may discern them for the most part by our reason, without inquiry; as for instance. Let us but consider that tongues are only made for man, not for beasts or any other creature, were there at the confusion of Babel only 72. souls? for from so many persons numbered, as they will take it in the tenth chapter of Genesis, they derive 72. tongues; which yet cannot be true, those 72. souls not being all, nor the only bvilders of that Tower of Babel. And if many thousands, which is more true and probable, why only 72. tongues, when every one must needs have his own tongue and pronunciation if he shall not be able to understand another; or if a thousand men (after the confusion of Babel) had one pronunciation different from an other thousand, then partly this confusion of pronunciations (where one could not understand another) was only temporary, for the purpose of dispersing those, who against God's will would live together in one City, and not disperse themselves: partly no necessity of feigning and coining tongues, and that so many at one instant, and that to dure till this day, and yet many families and nations perishing, and others arising, this number of 72. tongues to have remained till this day, when some of those 1000 Nations, whereof he conceives David to speak, are now utterly perished, and destroyed. Nay notwithstanding that a Catalogue of thousand nations which are utterly lost and perished, by me could easily be brought forth out of ancient Authors, yet till this very day 72. tongues to remain, and none to be lost: from these, and many such considerations I say it would be easily discovered to be a mere fable. And if you object, that even I confess, Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic tongues to have been there, I hope you are not so forgetful, as not to remember that I promised to show you hereafter the unity of those tongues, and that it is no more many tongues (notwithstanding that it hath diversity of titles and names) than the Grand Signior of Constantinople many men, because of his numerous high and lofty titles, or the King of Spain many Kings, when he gave himself a whole page of Titles of Kingdoms, and other small places in Arabia and East Indies in his letter to the King of France. And as the King of France did more wise in my simple apprehension in giving unto himself only one Title, and in scorn of that foolery of Spain did repeat it frequently in his answer (letter of credence,) so I may say in this bunnesse, si magnis licet componere parva, if we may take an example of that wise King (as I think I may) in place, where all others speak of many tongues, I say it is but one; and therefore the antiquity of Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic is not the antiquity of many, but only of one and the self same Hebrew tongue. So than, that we may come to the conclusion of the first point, I affirm, (and am able to make it good against all opposers) that Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, & Ethiopic were from the very beginning of Adam's creation, and do remain yet with us in the world, they were before and after the confusion of Babel, and are therefore the Mother tongue of all tongues in the world. The second point is, the rare virtues of these Oriental Tongues, viz. Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, whereby they are far more noble than Greek, Latin or any of the esteemed learned tongues. And here I confess, I see before me such a vastness of an excellent plain, where my horse could run, not only a most gallant course, but even out of breath; yet not to hazard so much, because I must use that my loving creature many times more, and with more advantage hereafter, than yet I conceive to be at this race, I will at this time not so much as permit it to a Gallop, but keep it in a smooth and painles pace, being assured of its willingness upon any other presented occasion. That most natural simpleness or singleness in the comportements of this grave Lady doth keep me still in a wilful obedience and a silent admiration, nay adoration of that divinity. You will finde here a Divinity in pedigree, a comeliness in attire, a constancy in their nature and fashions, a gravity in few speeches, a due observation of sensefull ordring of words, a brevity in their contractions, an hatred of confusion of the same, a providence in placing them, no superfluity in servants, a certain office ordered unto every one of them; even accounted superfluous by men ignorant in their affairs, have their charge of a good turn. Their constant number of roots, the easy order to find them out, planted all as in an Orchard, by square, that wheresoever you send your eyes, you behold the same distance of each other. Every tree of them of a divers savour and gracious taste with a delightful smell. The branches of these trees ordered, yielding hundreds of fruits, to wit, words, all of the same taste and smell, yet with some diversity: So that Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic according to many Authors and Books yet extant, have as large an extent, as the Greek of Latin Tongue. For being a full tongue as well as Latin or Greek, it must needs follow, that all the Hebrew Language must represent the whole Latin and Greek: the Called or Samaritan all the same; Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic the same. Neither doth it contradict me and my tenants, that the Bible doth not contain the whole Hebrew tongue, therefore this tongue doth not comprehend the whole Latin tongue. For I never said, that this tongue, as it is extant only in the Hebrew Bible, doth contain all the Latin tongue, even because there is not the whole Hebrew language in the Hebrew Bible, but is partly yet in Caldean, etc. Authors. The whole Oriental tongue doth include the whole Occidental be it Greek, Latin, Germane, English, Spanish, French, Italien or whatsoever. And there is wonder enough in it. I dare say that those words which are in the Hebrew Bible do contain most part of the GGreek or Latin tongue, that is, the greatest part of the Latin or Greek tongue is expressable by such words, as are in the Hebrew Bible, be they never so few in comparison of that great voluminous vastity of Latin or English itself. If we do admire the nature of this tongue, we may justly exclaim even in behalf of it, as the Apostle in a higher strain concerning the nature of men under unbelief and confusion, and the capacity of God's mercies upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out? For God is as well the cause of this his holy tongue, which he was pleased first to bestow upon mankind, as He was the Creator of the first Adam, and in him of all mankind. Yet as there was another state in Adam even after his fall, more liveliness, less dulness, more simpleness and finglenesse of hearts, less troubles of the affairs of the world, nearer with God, because less objects from God, more clear sighted even in natural things, because using more his reason, diligency and industry on them, and more blessed in his undertake, because with a more single heart, so that in many hundreds of things Adam was even after the fall yet so much more perfect, than we. No less it was with this tongue, partly before the confusion of Babel as in the state of innocency; Few and full words. Which fullness is wondrous in all men's eyes, and yet not searched from whence. Therefore, If I shall not do a miss, I shall rather give a hint at that well and fountain, to lead you unto it, than at this time to bring you many cups full of that wholesome living water flowing, nay springing from thence. It is undeniable, that a thing is but one in essence, and yet has divers accidents, more or less, so the word signifying a thing, and but one thing also, which words we call the root, those words, those roots do only signify that one tree. And every tree, though never so many, if they are of the same stock, will have all the same taste; whereby it comes to pass, that 20.50.100. words in Hebrew, etc. descending from the same root and tree, do yield naturally alike taste or signification, and yet they are individuals and divers in number. The taste than is one and the same, the radical signification is but one, not 2, 3, 4, 6. or more, as hitherto all the Dictionary Writers have falsely asserted, even against nature itself, yielding unto one and the same root or tree many and divers tastes. Which assertion holds yet, because they are all but ill gardiner's, only considering the outward shape of the fruits, and therefore the taste being a little different, they presently conclude against the nature of all trees, that one and the same root or tree can have divers tastes or significations. When otherwise if they would but search and confer the taste of this with the taste of the other fruit, they would find a sweet analogy between them, viz. that there is but one taste in every tree, and so define that taste or signification. But by what means doth the same taste seem to be divers, and so dazzle the eyes of learned men, and withdraw their judgement? I answer, because they think not. 1. That tongues are only proper to men and not beasts. 2. That men have only a more perfect reason, and that in an infinite higher degree than the beasts, in so much that for the distance thereof these are deemed to have almost none at all. 3. That languages have reason in them, and proceed with reason, out of reason, accompanied and followed by it. 4. That men have naturally Logic, Rhetoric, Physic, Metaphyfic, Ethic: because all these (being called Arts) are branches of Reason. 5. That all these Arts naturally inhabiting in a man, do enfold themselves first in that thing, whereby reason of a reasonable creature is only expressed, that is, in the language of a man; and secondly all speeches are by reason teinted more or less, according as man makes use of his reason. 6. That as all men have only one and the same reason, as the world only one and the same sun, so all tongues have also one and the same reason. 7. That Logic, Rhetoric, Ethic, Physic, Metaphysic, (considered as it is in any Philosopher of any part of the world,) doth naturally, first, beautify, amplify, enlarge, determine the significations of any word and root or tree, how far they may proceed, and not father; as also, secondly, distinguish and keep them from confusion, contradiction, implication, and thirdly, join those, and show in what measure, and how far to join, which otherwise seem to be divers, and of a clear other tree and root, 8. That by these means those most ancient tongues, (I speak now in plural, rather as people speak, than according to the truth) Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic, having but few roots in respect of Greece and Latin, yet are multiplied beyond all expectation in significations by Rhetoric, Logic, Physic and Metaphysic; viz. by reason only. 9 That the nature of the Oriental tongue is for the most part the very same with the nature of the Occidental, viz. Hebrew itself, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic hath the greatest part of its nature even as English, it being no way less instructed by reason than these; neither hath Hebrew by way of reason a greater preeminency than English, or any occidental tongue. 10. That the same metaphors, metonymies, synecdoches, proper and translate significations, the same Ironical expressions are every where, because there is the same reason in all tongues, and among all men. 11. And therefore the same metaphorical, metonymical, synecdochical, ironical significations in words. 12. And that among others we may, and many times can, nay must frequently consider the significations of one word in Latin, how manifold they are, as also in many other occidental tongues, and apply them in the Oriental, and then proceeding thus with reason, we shall find a nearer conformity, than hitherto believed, and greater distinction, than hoped for; and all this, out of a more large ample, and natural well, even that eternal fountain REASON, than out of the best jews, Rabbins, Syrians, Arabians and Ethiopians themselves. 13. That in this tongue is never a compounded word, as there is in Latin & Greek, and that therefore it must necessarily follow, that all the compound significations of any simple word in those languages must also be comprised in that simple Hebrew root. 14. The reason of which assertion is clear, because that all the compound words, (I understand the compositions, with the praepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. a, ab, abs, ac, ad, of, ag, all, am, a, ap, are, as, at, e, ex, etc.) have still this simple word as that unum tertium, a natural meeting in that word, whereby all the compound words being joined as in the body, so in the essence and substance of signification with some small alteration, addition, or detraction, of and unto that simple and first substance. Such and the like things being set down in the general search of tongues, will show the nature, beauty, & comeliness of this Oriential tongue. And if any man demand of me, what special use may be made of the singleness of this surnamed Oriental tongue beyond the Occidental, where there is far greater toil in composition, many terminations without any need, as for example in the Latin, six cases in singular, & as many in plural, so many Declensions in Nouns, and Conjugations in verbs, divers terminations for all persons, various both in Active and Passive, and an infinite of such like conceits, these being almost all wanting in this Original tongue. I answer, that even from thence we in the Occident and North may begin to look about us, and from the corruption of our tongues, (and the great variety of circumstantial additions, and detractions, multiplications and divisions, (in Greece and Latin) in nature clearly superfluous) learn to esteem more of the natural simplicity of this first tongue, which like unto Adam in his innocency (without so many garments and additions about his limbs as we now wear about us) is still the most comely, gracious, goodly, neat, and tractable tongue, and that which is most agreeable to the nature of man, requiring to be studied more by reason than an infinity of rules, more trying the use of our reason, than the strength of our memory. In one word, it makes us (when by the Greece and Latin we were become beasts, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so tells me my Master Adam) to become Adam ourselves; to be no more under the law but under the sweet yoke of reason: differing as much from our former condition of studing tongues as reasonable Adam did from any of his subjected beasts; whereof none, was found to match with him, being fare inferior to his condition. So that this Primitive tongue (whether in Orthography, Analogy or Syntax) is as single and simple as the English itself; having (in Orthography) no more letters or consonants, (although some of them are used in place of vowels) having no case, nor scarce any masculine or feminine gender, much less neuter, common or Epicene, no active or passive (much less neuter or Deponent, no Infinity or Terminations in numbers, much less in persons then commonly is taught. No Declentions at all in Nouns, nor Conjugations in Verbs, no Modes without any more Tenses than nature requires, viz. The present, DO THOU & YE, the future I, THOU, HE, WE, YE, THEY, WILL DO, and Pretertense I, THOU, HE, WE, YE, THEY, HAVE DONE. All the superfluities of a Presens in Indicative, Optative, and Conjunctive in the first, second, & third person singular or plural are wisely cut away and not found. The imperfect & plus quam perfect of the Indicative, Optative, and Conjunctive are comprised with only one Pretertence, the Future the same. What an easiness makes this in a language? If you say I speak clear otherwise then other Gramarians have and do speak of this tongue. I answer, that I would not have you to regard what either I, this, or that man says concerning this tongue but what it doth afford its self, and when those rules, that are most confidently set down by former Gramarians, are found by themselves and others to have so many exceptions, as that the examples of these many times outreach the number of those, doth it not clearly show that that rule is indeed of no value, use, or authority? Nay the Syntax is that part of Grammar that will show the necessity or superfluity of things taught in Analogy: For if there be never so many distinctions and divisions of this or that part in Analogy, and Syntax authorise it not with the utility, but rather cry it down by its independency or indifferency of use; we may think it to be rather some fancy of a man's brain then the nature of the tongue. And of that sort of adiophorâs in this tongue are almost gender, number and person, adjective and substanstive, etc. The order of the subject & predicate will easily be observed if you know the simple and single taste or signification of the root, and have learned (in other tongues) Rhetoric and Logic, to know how such and such a signification may (by these Arts) be enlarged, distinguished, determined and turned into many and divers fashions, (yet so as that it still retain the natural, ideal, or radical taste,) and that applied to our Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic roots and words) will yield all helps that can be required to know the true sense of that text: contrarily if we have never so many rules, they will rather confound our understandings, obscure our reason, undermine our judgement, and in place of helps, bring us into farther confusion. Reason with few rules and prerequisite signification of words (which the Dictionaries have hitherto but meanly afforded and must hereafter be more fully discovered and set down) may be multiplied or divided, and according to the place sound applied by the help of Logic, Rhetoric, and Physic, and Metaphysic,) will contain all Syntax in very few rules, and then no rules can be expected without reason. Yet more especially to describe you in a competent brevity the nature of this tongue you shall have annexed a plain, little, & full grammar, at least fuller than that I formerly set out in English upon one sheet in three columns in folio for Orthography Etymology and Syntaxis, according to that brevity, (whereof those that desired it so short did show me a pattern made before me by some other learned Author,) and afterwards in some measure enlarged by my pains, and published under the title of THE RUDIMENTS OF THE HEBREW GRAMMAR IN ENGLISH, etc. this year 1648. but much spoilt in the publication, it not being according to my will, as the following is. The third point concerning their largeness, is partly clear in the largeness of time wherein they continued, partly of place where they have been & are yet in use. That of time, if it were only for a mean Honour of Antiquity, we have spoken enough of it in the first particular. But this having some farther intention, it is not to be pretermitted. Then there is no Hebrew, Called, Samaritane, Syriac, Arabic, or Ethiopic so ancient as the Bible and Moses. Therefore in those Greece Authors that have written of all those Countries, where this holy Language was naturally and continually in full course, and having written in the Greece tongue, and thereby confounded almost all the names of the Oriental places, persons and things in so much, that without a diligent search of this mother tongue, we shall never be able to find out what they mean thereby, nor will the Greece paraphrasts, interpreters, Dictionaries, or any thing else of theirs be able to help us in any thing, which themselves were as ignorant of, as those Authors they would clear up, having not themselves that which they would give to others. Now of all these thousands of Greece Authors, there is not one to be expected, that hath not now and then more or less of some Oriental words, and that so corruptly, that his sense even thereby becomes obscure, because the sense of those words remain so. Then to clear them up, there will be no more sure and catholic remedy, than to learn to reduce all the corrupt Greece words, translated out of this Oriental tongue, to their proper place, where if once brought, will presently yield a full and clear commentary upon the said author whatsoever. The same may be said of many hundred of Latin Authors; as being in the same way of darkness, and hereby to be brought unto light. Largeness of space at this present time upwards to about 1000 years ago, is all the same yet, and can be made good in few words. Whole Africa has had from its very being and beginning till this day this and the same tongue. If you object, Greece and Latin has been there, I answer, yea, I confess it, but only as French and Low dutch is preached here at London and some other places of England: not being in Africa as the Mother, but only as the Foreign tongue, exercised by strangers: the Mother tongue being this primitive of Adam, which in all Authors of many hundreds of places may be showed, and is partly most excellently conjctured at by divers learned Authors. It will be further objected, another tongue to have been in Egypt, viz. that which called Josef, Zofnat Faneah (in our English translation Zaphnath-Paaneah. Gen. 41: 45.) which they say is not of this tongue, but some other called the Coptic tongue, which they would have to be different from this true Hebrew. I answer, that all that is true, that the Copic tongue, which was used in that Province of Egypt called Copt or Coptus in Greek and Latin, naturally and by the true native inhabitants, is the very same language, which was spoken by Pharaoh, and in which Joseph was thus entitled. But to call that corrupt, falls Coptic, which was brought in with the Grecians, when the Pharaonses (or Princes) and Kings of Egypt gave them leave, not only to dwell here and there in many towns and villages, as Merchants and Handicraftmen, but also more especially the province and Metropolis of that province Copt being truly Greece, but now so corrupted with that mingling of this holy tongue then used from the beginning of the first introduction of it by Mizrayim (whereof Egypt at this very day has its name being by the Inhabitants themselves called Misr, not Egypt, a name brought in only by the Grecians from their more special dwelling place, viz. that shire Copt, Cypt or Gypt, that it is neither Hebrew nor Greece, but a confusion of both, having many words of Greece, with an Egyptian or Arabic termination; so fare deny I, that that minglemoos is the true Coptic, natural and native tongue of the Egyptians. About the Ethiopic there will be more objections. From whence I have, that that Country has the same tongue in essence, notwithstanding corrupted by divers and many hundred of Accidents. I answer, out of their books, to wit out of the New-Testament, and some part of the old (viz. the Psalms translated into Etiopien, and printed in Germany at Collen by art, industry & learning of John Potken, Rector of Georg Collen, An. 1508 in 4ᵒ. together with Greece, Latin, & Hebrew; with an in troduction unto this tongue) we have more clearness and notice concerning it, than from all the voyages unto it, or passages through it, described by divers men of Italy, Spain, France, Engeland, Germany and the Low-Country. So that it remains true, that in whole Africa, the native and true natural tongue is only this same tongue, yet with some diversity of accidents, which though never so many, are not able to bring that one essence to a diversity and confusion. And whereas it will be further objected, that formerly there have been divers tongues, but lost; as for instance; the Punic tongue, wherein Plautus in his Poenulus or Punicien Moor has left some remainders, and that that passage is attempted to be cleared by many Authors, yet it still remains in darkness. I answer, that names of this tongue there have been, and are at this day many, and may be made many more, which never the less cannot change the essence of this nor any other tongue, and they were called Poeni, whereof Poenulus, (as Graeci, Graeculus,) because they came out of Phoenicia (which you may call also Poenicia) from Tyre and Sydon (whereof is mention made. Mat. 15: 21. Mar. 7: 24. Luc. 6: 17. and else where) and all the adjacent parts of that very same Mediterranean Sea of the Phoeniciens with these Poeniciens. Now then, seeing this people (the Poeni in Latin, or Poeniciens) were the children and new Plantation of those Phoenicens, that did properly and naturally speak this primitive, holy and most ancient tongue, no doubt, but they brought with them their own tongue and pronunciation; and notwithstanding that perhaps they might find a language there, yet because they found only a new and divers pronunciation of their own (even as here in England all along the seashore the pronunciation doth change and vary round about this great Island) it was easily joined with theirs, and yet the pronunciation for the most part by time might change into the pronunciation of that country, not from whence, but unto whom they came. As for that place of Poenulus by that old Comedian writer Plautus, (a very excellent Latin Author, but full of such words, as do descend from this primitive tongue,) no doubt but it is by divers Authors finely and clearly enough explicated, and may yet be farther cleared not only by me, but by many others also: nevertheless if that Poenic or Punic tongue (being all & the same as I writ in Latin Punio and Poena,) there in Plautus will not appear to be altogether such Hebrew, as we have in the Bible, we must not therefore deny it to be this tongue, because I say, there are many thousand accidents of this one tongue, as there are in all the rest of the whole world, viz. diversity of vowels, changement of Accents unto a divers syllable, and the diversity of pronunciation of the Consonants themselves; which changement comes from the diversity of the Climas', wherein one and the same language is extant. Besides we must observe, that the Punic Alfabet, being different from that of the Romans (the diversity whereof you may see in my delineation of the Hebrew Orthography and Etymology printed in Latin at Amsterdam 1646. 4ᵒ. pag. 3.) and Plautus himself or others, bringing these words from the Punic Alfabet into the Roman Letters, (as it is the natural inclination of all men now, to be careless in a just and due observing of the Orthography of a strange tongue natural to, & observed by its nation,) made no great matter about the expressions in wrong or right and due Roman letters. Thirdly, When we consider the many faults, which (from Plautus' writing till this very day in written or printed Copies) did frequently encroach, it is no wonder, if we find but small remainders of Hebrew, nay more wonder, if any at all. The second part of largeness of space, is less, to wit in Asia, where first this tongue was given unto Adam, and is yet extant full, pure, and incorrupt from Persia hetherwards till at the Mediterranean Sea; from the Persian Gulf all the land enclosed within that and the Arabian Gulf, which is commonly called Arabia, till Egypt (or Egypt) itself, whole Palestine or all Judea, all Mesopotamia, all Syria. So that seeing all these Countries of one tract, have all one tongue, making together from the Persian Sea or Gulf, till the Mediterranean Sea no more Land, than Germany, which has also but one tongue, (sometimes called the Saxon, (my own Mother Tongue, the same with that old Saxon here in England;) also the High and Low Germane or Dutch tongues, though the essence be but one: no more different, than the English and Scots tongue which commonly by other nations and strangers (ignorant of the tongue of these two nations) are esteemed different? because it has two names, English and Scots. Yet as this tongue on this side the Persian Gulf is incorrupt, so in Persia, Turkey, Mogul, Tatar, and all the Eastern parts of the great Tatary until China it has as great an influx authority and use upon them, as Latin or French has upon English or Saxon here in England. For as the English Nation doth write now at this day all things with Latin Characters, so also do all those foreign tongues use the Character of the Arabians, which is in essence the same with Hebrew, only more roundly form and joined together; with no more difference, than English written and joined together, with the printed, where the characters are separate. And as the descent of their Religion, Learning, Experience and Wit doth descend (partly by, partly without books) out of the hithermost parts of the Persian Gulf unto them, so these things being coined in this holy primitive tongue, whereof even among the Turks, Persians, Greater and Less Tatariens is the same esteem of Holiness and Prerogative of it before theirs and all the tongues of this whole round; they do honour the tongue and words of it, and use many thousands of them in their speeches, lofty discourses, sermons, court, writings, commands, poems, Romances, teachings, epistles or letters; with no less ambition to show their learning, than our writers in Latin do now and than show Ebrue, Called, Samaritane, Syriac and Arabic or at least Greek or in English where are frequently coined new English words out of pure Latin. And notwithstanding that the common tongue be different, being only frequently aspersed and beautified by those flowers and dainties, yet is this the only tongue, which the learned or learnedst men do use, to make known their excellent wit, not only unto their own Nation and Country, but also unto all Asia over. So that this holy or primitive tongue doth pass among the learned men through Persia, Great Mogul and Malayen Country till the very Chinas' themselves, and that with a great deal higher repute and respect, than all these common tongues either at home, or else where. Being the Key, whereby to insinuate one's self into men of repute and great eminency, who have their great honour as of other excellent parts within them, so also and most chiefly from this tongue. So that even those, that knew only this holy Tongue, are accounted to be as Saints and holy men, reputed, esteemed, adored, glorified, embraced, respected and desired with all prevalent ways, to grant their conversation and meeting. Nay it is certain, that even they who have naturally this tongue, (under whatsoever name by us or them, and whatsoever Religion or sect, whatsoever character of writing,) are looked upon as those, that God hath been pleased to grant their undoubted descent from Noah, and so from Adam, because they speak Noah's and Adam's tongue; and to have the prerogative to be of the seed of Abraham either by Sarah or his Concubines, (in Orient of little less esteem than the true wife,) whereas the rest of the people did live in Idolatry, so they which have not Abraham's tongue to be borne extra ecclesiam out of the bounds of the true visible Church, and only brought unto that glory and happiness by men of his lineage, to wit, Moses, David, Jesus Christ and Mahomed that Arabian imposter in Chief. I come now to the fourth part of this Discourse, to show the use of this primitive tongue in the world yet at this day extant. It is of more use, than English, Scotch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portugis, , Low Dutch, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegish. And so much have we shown in the second part, so that I think no reasonable man can judge that tongue to be of no use, which so great a part of the world makes use of, except we conceive the heaven not to be of such use to them, as it is unto us, and that the Sun doth not shine there as clear as here Even as many fools at this very day in Asia and Africa, who will not believe, that we can have the Sun, or that it shines as bright with us as them, because it falls into the Sea as soon as it hath passed Africa, just at the west end of it, from whence it is called in Orient Dulmagrib, with some parts of Spain thereabout so called at this very day; some I say of them do believe, that within the first mile of that Spanish Sea down falls the Sun and all the rest of the Northern Countries, (as England, Scotland, Ireland, France and the Low Countries, &c) have no light, no Sun, no comfort, continual darkness, storm, winter, rain, snow, night, frost, almost starved, having no bread, no flesh, thickness, lamb, sheep, geese, ducks, capons, hearts, beef, mutton, hens, eggs, doves, feasants, partridges, woodcoks or any sort of fowl, or fish, but that we feed only on grass and herbs of the field, now and then for a great delicacy a mouse, rat, or cat, dog or fox, etc. Now as we pity this their blindness and childishness of judgement, so we may this (no less childish opinion of our own) that this tongue is of no use at all. Why? because we know none. Away I pray with such childish stuff, and let us talk like men. Have we in England any profit by our tongue, can we make use of it or no? The answer is clear. But they say. Nay the strangers must be here considered, not the people themselves. And what use for us English men of Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic tongues and such rabble's more. First I say. All these are but one tongue, and it must be a poor brain that cannot learn one besides his Mother tongue. And England must needs be a silly Country, if their people never had a heart to go abroad, to see other Countries. Now there are a thousand ways, whereby English men may fall either into love or necessity to see those countries; at which accident if you will know whether the tongue will do you good or not, let us see, if any stranger coming into England will find comfort by it, if at least he can prattle a little broken English. Indeed men bereft of all senses speak thus childishly, as if there were no use of that tongue for us. What a tongue to be the only Country tongue in whole Africa, and the third part of Asia, and by the second third part a Learned tongue, (which always are of a higher esteem than common tongues) and all this tongue without use? Is their Sun, when it comes to us, of great use and grace, and can we think, that their tongue will not be pleasant unto us, if we only will not abhor it? Is not even the Sun superfluous unto a lazy body, and to him that desires not to stir out of the bed, when the Sun doth shine? Is therefore the Sun of no use because such lazy bodies would wish it might remain night? Those that buy the nights at a great price, and when they are overtaken by the arising of the Sun, before they think, they had enough for their payment, shall (for such filthy stinking bodies, and whoremasters, and all other unclean persons) the Sun (that precious creature with its comfortable beams) be stopped and cried out of the sight? Is whole Africa not many times bigger than England, hath not Asia also every way as rich, nay fare more rich Countries than this is? and if some unlearned men have an ill opinion of these tongues, shall no learned men be credited to the contrary? There are divers Authors already extant in English, which do show the secrets of Merchandise in those two parts of the world, Africa and Asia, I pray and beseech the Courteous Reader, if thou canst love gold and silver, all sorts of precious stones, and be contented, that thy wife be richly clothed, her ears and fingers, her hatstring and armrings or bracelets, her breasts and neck, and all the rest of her body accordingly and as fashion doth desire to be enriched with precious pearls and stones, as rubies, diamonds, fafirs, turcoises, carbuncles and all sorts of medals, if these things only or more rare and precious, do fall in Asia and Africa in that country, where this primitive tongue is spoken, and being always certain, that a Merchant that can only prattle, shall buy any ware cheaper, and at a better rate, than he that can speak nothing, but must trust to his interpreter and fellow, and that hereby he may get greater gains in an hour, than a whole year by iron and other mettle even here in England itself, especially seeing the Commodity is the more sure, by how much it is less troublesome or burdensome. Yea farther if whole Companies trade thitherwards, and will not send men only with one eye, one hand, one leg, one arm, one ear, but if it be possible, as good, sound, well shaped honest English factors, as they have had in their shops and trade, or meet withal, and think you not, that you now send out no better than such. I say not, that they come not home better, than they went, for that would be a soul business indeed, if they should go better with one leg, than with two, and see better with one eye, than two. Only the question is now, if ye are well contented with their service, if they make you as good returns from thence, as they did, when you did send them all along through England, where they knew the tongue? I am sure, you would be content; and I wish they did so. But I fear, that if the companies do finish, close and make up their account of some years past, they will find but small profit for all their dangers and pains. And if they, which the Merchants do send, knew the tongue, what Ambassadors think you should ye need for a handful of factors? And these Ambassadors what excellent profit have they brought into the treasure of any company whatsoever by ignorance of the tongues; whereby they are not esteemed, disrespected contemned, scorned, kict at, and by their ill behaviour all the Nation doth suffer, where some other of less rank and condition can pass through these strange Nations, without need of Ambassadors, do his work without resistance, without a protection of an Ambassador, only because he has God and the Tongue. I will not jar any longer on this unpleasant string, where I could show, and it is known and felt, and smarted enough, what ignorance of the Tongue doth, or rather, what it doth not, but suffers. Come not and tell me tale of I know not what hard dealing of the people of Asia and Africa. Believe me, they are as honest, as courteous, gracious, friendly, in always as respectful of you, as mindful of you, tender towards you, favourable, well fashioned, as any the best Gentlemen in France, Spain, Italy or Germany, nay England itself. Have not so many virtues with you, nor so well made of body and mind, soul and heart, age and actions, if you lack this key of men's hearts, believe me, you will be weary before you can break them open, for all that they would willingly give you an entrance into the most inward bowels of their good will. And if you cannot open them, it is not their fault, (for all men are but in this work passively wrought on not working) but yours; their virtues are as good as any man's, easily to be gained, but you are unskilful. Further, let the whole state come once and fall again upon that mind, which 〈…〉 was on hand, to go as much Eastwards 〈…〉 ●●tations of their people and the Gospel 〈…〉 and Saviour Jesus Christ, as they have gone 〈◊〉 westwards, and let them take courses to meet the Spanish and Portugals and Duchmen in East-Indies, to help them in their way, and to do good for themselves, also, to send out at least every two years a fleet of 20.30. or 40. sails, to fill many excellent places of the void part of the world, (which have as good an air as any part of England or Europe,) with that gracious and fruitful English blood, rather than to destroy it and the Kingdom with civel war, thereby to open the general World's commerce at a more sure and fast tie, than hitherto, so that there may be less troubles in England, which for the most part bud out of that superfluous abundancy of the blood within the narrow veins of this Kingdom, so that men may be more generally employed, laziness being the Mother of all vices and devices against the Commonwealth and peace of this Kingdom. Or if that such plantations should be among such people, whose tongue we do not understand, and yet the profit be great in joining with them, will these Tongues think you do hurt unto the State of England here or there? But let that sleep. Unto you most reverend and pious souls of England and Scotland, unto you I would willingly speak of that subject, if I had leisure, more largely and exactly, than this discourse will afford. There are three things that concern every one of what rank, condition, charge, honour, title or degree soever, and therefore I mean not only the reverend Ministers (though them truly more especially) but you all in general and I wish no man may think himself not to be of that number. First, to have the truth at home, out of the well of truth and life (viz. the Hebrew Bible well and perfectly understood without the help of any translations whatsoever, whensoever or by whosoever compiled, excepting only the Called, Syriac, Samaritic, and Ethiopic translations, they being the same with Hebrew the mother tongue itself,) not out of broken cisterns, where into break in by force an infinity of dirt and mire. Secondly, to have this truth transported in all our voyages great and small, East and West, even through the whole world, that is to take still with you such a man, as is able to satisfy you and your company with the sweet and fresh water flowing from this well. viz. the Hebrew Bible, instructing you so fare therein that you may be an eye witness of what he teaches, and so able to withstand any gainesayer: and to hold fast that which your own knowledge shows you (out of the living fountain of the Hebrew Bible) to be the undoubted truth, for you will scarcely find this fresh and pure water in any Country (much less at Sea) but only in the innermost parts of Asia and Africa (and there your ships arrive not) so that you will be forced sometimes to take in salt or brackish water of unsound translations. Thirdly, If only in the East Country viz Asia and Africa, there be this well (viz. that tongue wherein the old Testament was delivered) and that generally throughout it; every City and village therein sending it forth in plentiful streams, rushing from them more abundantly, and strongly, more clear, pure, sweet and tasteful, than we can conceive; why should not our youth (given to divine study) our young Ministers and Preachers, our young Gentlemen that would travail for the good of their native Country, choose to go to those places where this holy primitive tongue is as yet fully spoken, rather than towards France, Italy, Spain or Germany, the Low countries or any other of less note, to quench their humorous fancies with some Roman antiquities, having no life or salvation in them. Will not these considerations bring you back from a deceitful opinion of those abundant riches of your English studies, which hitherto have been more filled out of translations, than the text itself: out of annotations of men, than your own eyesight, to make you willing to trade more diligently by searching the fountain itself, to see with your own eyes, & taste with your own tongue. I conselfe I praise God Almighty from the very bottom of my heart & soul, that such riches have flowed out of those half stopped wells, whereas by ignorance of the true nature of the tongues & signification of the words in Hebrew, Called, etc. there is not a verse in the Bible, but may be made more clear & plain than hitherto; & never a chapter in the Bible, wherein there are not very gross and foul faults even in the English translation. Tell me not what other men did or do know, but tell me what you know; not that others preach out of the text, but that you do it. It is not enough to say, In the Hebrew it is so & so, it affordeth this or that sense, doctrine, admonition, use, reproof, argument, connexion, disjunction, this or that number, gender and person, this or that larger explication, because of the more large significations of the words of my text; and that with a confidence, when for the most part all the auditors know, that it is but borrowed work and only upon hearsay, not from a true and judicial knowledge many times not knowing so much as the names of the letters, much less how to read: and your conscience will tell you, that if the dawning hath such a grace in your sermons, the day light will be exceeding more gracious. Fear not, if our ignorance have done much good by other men's knowledge, but your knowledge will do more. And therefore stir up yourselves to such a holy, necessary, sweet, comfortable, living, spiritual good work. Let us not be drowsy, when Gods calls for labour and watching. Why will we sleep, when even the sleep will bring us unto the danger of eternal plagues. A watchman must be vigilant, know the language of his General, be able to receive and give it, to discern whither it be counterfeited by an enemy, or the true Motto. All our virtues do consist in actions, not wishes. Would God, (you may say) I had learned it, when I was young. True, but now you are a Minister of it, ye must learn it, and that necessarily. When ye were young, you might have learned it, but now you must. Then was it easy, but now profitable; then delightsome, now reason will sweeten it. Then would it have recommendeth your ingenium, but now your officium. Then memory was strong, but now the pleasure of God more tying. Then the knowledge or at least the study of it would have been honourable before men: but now is the ignorance shameful. Then you did not understand it. But now ye do and see the necessity. If ye did not learn it in your youth, you were, I am sure, careless. But now not learning it, you are inexcusable: nor age, nor reason, nor necessity, nor office, nor men, nor God, nay your own conscience can excuse you. There is yet remaining an extraordinary great use of this tongue, partly among learned men without any relation unto the learned in Asia and Africa, partly in relation unto them, which is so large, that a great volume in folio might be filled up only to that purpose, and that also with no small profit to the Reader. But because this is an Essay, it would be uncomely to make it to big, and unreasonable to take up the space of remaining matters; and that use must chiefly be considered in this age, where some endeavour to make us think, that learning is cried down, which I never yet could believe, because I find the contrary, and that if learning be not so richly set forth, the fault is elsewhere, and not where it is given out. Our laziness spoils us. Therefore briefly to say something to that point. No study is sweeter, than search of nature. Now for the most part all the Authors that have searched nature formerly and in foreign parts, are written in Greek, Latin, Arabic and Hebrew among the Rabbins, in all of them is still at this day an innumerable multitude of very fruitful places, if they could be rightly understood. But because they speak of things, not properly belonging to, or extant in England but Asia and Africa, and have written either in those tongues, or terms, titles, names, descriptions, words or some phrases of Asia and Africa, what hope have you to learn the full intent of the Author, and to make profit of that place, Learned men know well enough that I might instance in hundreds of Authors, and in them many thousands of things and words, which we understand not at this very day. Now the ignorant people will say, but alas, what helps us the knowledge of these things. Good people, think not, that what you cannot have within your deore at home, and see the profit of it there, if you see no precious stuff (of good use partly to the public good, partly for private ends and necessity) therefore no body besides must have it? It may be you know not how to use Pepper, Ginger, Nutmegs, Cloves, etc. shall therefore no body else use them? The greatest part of all learning doth either mediately or immediately flow unto these wholesome waters of the fountain of life, the Bible and the understanding thereof. And because it doth so, therefore honour I all learning, and so, although you cannot come so fare as to see the rushing of all learn to the public good, by a found and reasonable interpretation of the Bible (befallen you by many impediments, viz. either by your sloth, or your parent's conceit or deceit) therefore I pray do not cavil at learning. For it will be as impossible for you, to break down that light, set up within the reason of a man, as to pull down the sun from the firmament, and to banish her out of the world. Nay if only for one place of judea, for one jerusalem only there must be learned Geography, that most excellent art, whereby we know to divide the whole heaven and earth, according to reason, for quick and distinct apprehension of an orderly method as well of the stars as countries, kingdoms, cities, and that great vast Ocean itself, with all the rivers from and towards it, if we will not live in this world as in a dungeon and dark prison, but reasonably to know where we are, where that Jerusalem is situated, in the Scripture so much spoken of, and in what corner of the world our Saviour suffered for our behalf, I would think my labour or time very well bestowed upon that art. How much more have we then reason to learn it, when in the Bible there are many hundred of places named, set down, and described by the rivers, seas, adjacent neighbours, constitution of the nature of it, or some memorable passage thereabout, yet kept up by God's providence and wise orderly government in the memory and relations of the inhabitants till this very day; when on the contrary without that art almost nothing is rightly in the Bible understood. Yea for that art we have need of this primitive tongue under the name of Arabic, there being yet many Arabic Geographers extant, for the most part not yet printed, and to be found in both Universities, here at London, and some noble gentlemen's Libraries, which will afford an incredible bright shining sunbeam unto that (as yet) very great darkness of our understanding, of the situation of places named in Scripture. So further, Astronomy, Geomerry, Music, and Arithmetic, so Logic, Rhetoric, Metaphysic, so the Ethic, Politic, Oeconomic, so Poesy and all other Arts whatsoever, are honoured, beautified, nobilitated and highly advanced by the Christian faith, more than ever before in the heathenish Philosopher's times, who did embrace them more for curiosity then Religion sake, but we christian's esteem them because they willingly give all their assistance and offer up their service to the Bible and Divinity. But further, if we would speak of these arts in reference unto othermen, (viz. the greatest part of those in Asia and Africa) I avow that a more worthy work cannot be undertaken by a Generous Nation (as England I have experience of to be) than that the Learned men thereof should not only sit still at home (referring all things only to themselves and studies,) but also join with Heathens, Christians, and Jews, to learn from them, teach them, love them, and to be beloved of them, to meet them, invite, and do them good, not only with temporal, but also (which they would accept of with more thankful, humble, devout & earnest minds) with Spiritual refreshments. Are you the worse for having your Sermons frequented by thousands more than formerly? or the Exchange with thousands of Merchants more than yourselves, every one of them increasing the commonwealth and riches of the City? or for having store of spiritual, intellectual, and corporeal goods, wherewith to refresh all Asia, and Africa, by your writings, and instructions, in their own tongue? but I must leave this (to me at least) pleasant music, and come to the fifth point, to show, that these six languages, viz. Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Samaritic, Ethiopic, and Arabic, are BUT ONE Truly I would never have touched that point (either in this my English Essay, or in any of my latin books and writings) because I know it is displeasing to some, (who would not willingly hear the truth, or the nature and secrecy of this tongue discovered, or cannot believe it to be so, or if they do, will not confess it, but would keep the people still in ignorance & admiration of unspeakable high matters, whereunto no body is able to attain, but themselves; nay they think, that I undervalue the Holy tongue, feigning as if I spoke of it in a contemptible way, because of this unity (as if God were therefore to be contemned because BUT ONE) and that I lose my own reputation of Learning, by writing and speaking of it in that way of commendation. Some others are apt to think and say, that this sort of commendation doth only arise out of some philosophical notions about unity and diverfity (which are also very useful and necessary) following therein Plato's ways of discoursing of things rather in high, and witty fancies, than in plain and samiliar way, tending to, and advancing the easiness and utility of the matter under hand) but only that the truth must be said and written, much profit arising from a true notion of things (whole Kingdoms being willing to engage in a work according to their notions be they good or bad) wherefore I thought it reasonable to say something in behalf of this holy primitive tongue, when so many hundred wits lie and sleep, out of a false conceit that it is impossible to overcome these Oriental tongues, because there is no end of studying them, and never (almost) any seen to get out with credit and honour. Many thousand wits otherwise employed, that might easily be brought to any tongue, if they were well informed of the subject. Many thousand study not at all, that would be glad to have some good subject presented them. In respect of all these, & in love towards the rongue, I tender to all the English wits of whatsoever profession, honour, title, degree, and state, this sort of learning, only with this condition, that they truly love God whom they see not, fear and tremble at his power and greatness, yet withal faithfully embrace his mercy, kindness, and goodness, and rejoice in the flourishing condition of their own Kingdom: for if they cannot do this, I have done with them, and desire not to engage farther with them. Upon this point, (viz. that all those hitherto (though falsely) esteemed divers tongues are but ONE) I did (partly) before build the usefulness, and shall hereafter also set down the easiness of them, when I have fully demonstrated that unity which I now speak of. Unity then is a flower of essence, never of accidents, for they cannot have that prerogative to become one, whereas let essence be presented with all the various accoutrements that the wit of man can invent, it cannot be changed, but will always remain one and the same. Now therefore when we speak of the unity of these tongues, (viz. that these six tongues (in my opinion) are only one and not divers) it must be understood of their essence, not accidents. Ignorant people may think, that languages have neither essence nor accidents, but the learned (and such I speak unto at this time (though in some measure to others also) know, that not only created matters, but also tongues, may be considered both in their essence and accidents. And as essence is one, so hath it essential proprieties, viz. Unity, Truth, and Goodness, besides divers others: all which are so united with essence, or the essential being of things (metaphysically) considered, that if they are one and the same, it follows necessarily, that whatsoever is good and true in one, continueth still to be the same, under whatsoever climate, name, shape, or plantation it be found. Then if Hebrew be good, holy, and primitive, and Caldaic, Syriac, Samaritic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (call them by as many names as you please) be the same primitive tongue: then if you deny, whether with, or without reason, any one of them, the name of primitive, you may as well deny it to Hebrew itself, the denying of one being the denying of the other. Now than I will lay down the foundation of this unity. Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Samaritic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, is one tongue, because it hath but one matter and form, whereof it consists, and whereby it differs from all other tongues whatsoever, none of them having the said properties. The matter of these, viz. Hebrew, Called, etc. is 22. sundry letters, (reduceable unto 20.) used generally by these people in all ages from David the King and Prophet's days until us. Nay further, seeing that David used the very same words which Moses (the holy penman of the five Books of the Law and story of the patriarches before the law,) both before and after the deluge (retaining the same nature that was observed by Ezra the Scribe) I think we have a good ground (from reason) to say that Adam himself did use the same tongue. But because the antiquity of the Hebrew Alphabet (even from Adam's days) is already sufficiently demonstrated against any cavils, I shall go on to show my unity. 'tis true, that there is some diversity in the Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic Alphabet, though not arising from the tongue itself, but only that the Ethiopians, and Arabians (without any respect had to each other) do alter their Alphabet by changing their order and name, upon the authority and good liking of private men or teachers among their country men, but the Jews keep their order as they found it in the Psalms of David. Now whereas Arabic, and Ethiopic seems to have many more Letters than Called, Syriac, Samaritan, and Hebrew, it comes to pass only by the addition of a point to note some small diversity of their pronunciation in some places. Yet because that in the Hebrew, Galled, and Syriac also there is some such point to be added unto so many letters, as by the Arabians (unto fewer by the Ethiopians) not withstanding not just the same, thence it comes to pass if ye will reckon up 22. Hebrew letters, and six of them with a point now and then added, you will make 28 letters, just as many as the Arabians have. And if from these 28 Arabic letters you will take off those fix that are twice in the Alphabet, because of one accidental point more or less, than you have 22 letters in Arabic also, no more nor less. And that there is in Hebrew and Called one letter more, than in Syriac and Arabic, even from thence it is easy to be observed, that that letter is but only brought in by some accident, and was never at the first, nor esteemed as a letter a part. The Etiopic Alphabet is in essence also the same with Hebrew; the names of the letters now and then changed do not argue at all the changing of the tongue, Alf-Bet, Geml, Dent, Hoi, Vaw, Zai, Haut, Tait, Jaman, Caf, Lavi, Mai, Nahas, Saut, Ayin, Of, Zadai, Qaf, Res, Saat, Tavi. Who sees not these to be the very same letters deemed with Alef, Bet, Gimel, Dalet, He, Van, Zayin, Khet, Thet, Yod, Caf, Lamed, Man, Nun, Shin, Ayin, Fe, Zadeh, Quf, Res, Sin, Tau, only that besides these the Ethiopians have another Khet, as the Arabians have Ha' and Kha, which they call Kharam, and another Tzadeh, as the Arabians likewise, called Zappa; another Fe, pronounced P, Pait, and Ps, Psait; as also a surperfluous V, after Khet, or Kharm, K or Caf, Geml, or G, Qaf or q, thus gua, gue, gui, guo, guu, khua, khue, khui, khuo, khuu, kua, cue, kui, kuo, kuu, Jua, que, qui, quo, quu, just as in some Greek, Latin, ●talian, Spanish, French, and in some English words. Which additions are all but accidental, not material. For is this part concerning the matter of the letters of the Alphabet enough to make it out, that these fix are but one tongue, there must be the same form also. For not withstanding the Turkish, Persian, Malaie, Mogul, great and less Tatarian and Greek tongues hath the same Alphabet, yet because these tongues have not the same form, therefore they are not the same with Hebrew. THREE OF ANY LEITER OF THE ALFABET MAKES A ROOT, FROM WHENCE COMES A NOUN AND VERB. So that as three the same letters found in divers tenses, persons, number and gender in sundry places of the Bible, yet for all that do not make divers roots, but the selfsame root remains still, so also the same letters, if under some other accoutrement or fashion under other names, shorter or bigger than in Hebrew, joined or separately written, are not for all that new letters, nor able to make a diversity of roots, but only that one and the self same root without alteration. The signification or taste of that root doth spread itself as well as the root unto the veth and nouns, and yet as the root is but one, so also is the radical signification but one, and no more. This signification having the nature of the soul of the body, which consists of the matter and form, cannot be but only one, because the body being one, cannot have more souls to dwell within it, and one soul cannot dwell in two bodies; yea that one soul is able and active enough to do and perform many thousand actions by and in this body; so this signification is able to be active and extending itself into many matters and occasions, and shows its virtues still the same, and tending to the same effects, only proportionable, according to the matter, and with a consent. So that if there should be found a thousand Greek and Latin words, in one and the same Hebrew or Called, Syriac or Arabic word, all these would, nor could show a diversity of significations in the Oriental tongue, but an agreement among themselves, and that a natural or radical one of all these significations how many soever, tending unto one and the same thing. And that has been the greatest and hardest block whereon all the strongest and most learned men did and do stumble, to wit, at the diversity of the significations, which at the first sight were certainly many; and secondly, the same learned men lying in a dream of divers Alphabets of Hebrew and the rest, (as they speak) of the Tongues, these two fancies did lead them to that judgement of divers tongues. Now as it is very true, that there is only one signification, because only one root, one soul, because only one body, not as a cause, but a sign of the number of souls; Yet the actions from one soul being divers, have caused the Philosophers to make divers terms and titles of that soul; so is Rhetoric that Art, which shows, by how many means a signification in the root, may be divided, differenced, and diversely applied in divers members, and yet all this according to reason and nature, without any the least wrong at all. And learned men know, how that in Hebrew itself many men have spoken unto that sense, that every root of the Hebrew tongue hath only one radical, essential, ideal, abstract and proper signification: only that that one and necessary work was never yet done by any one. For if that had been once done, then would it never have made such a great and hard task to undertake, that the same root in Hebrew and Arabic have one and the very same radical signification without change, & those such only as may be and are certainly and frequently in Hebrew itself. From this fundamental Unity, and essential Identity either of the root or signification, descends a double Unity, first in things belonging to the words, which are Nouns and Verbs, in their matter and form, secondly, in things belonging to their signification. Because that the root is the same, therefore all Hebrew roots are Arabic, Ethiopic, Caldaic, Syriac, and Samaritic; and again, all the Arabic or Ethiopic, Syriac, Samaritic, and Caldaic roots are Hebrew; whether extant in this or that book, in the Hebrew Bible or not, where I find the same letters, (because letters make the root, and not the significations;) whence it is that all the Dictionaries are ordered according to the Alphabet of the Letters, not according to the significations, therefore am I certain, and fully satisfied, that I have the same root, be it with the signification as it will, that shall and will be hereafter better seen and considered. So then Arabic roots are Syriac and Ethiopic and Hebrew roots, and the Arabic tongue is the Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Samaritic, and Ethiopic tongue, no diversity at all under heaven in the substance and essence, only all the difference is in accidents, and that small too. And thereby it sollowes necessarily, that the Etymology of all these falsely esteemed divers tongues, is the same, to wit, all their derivations of Nouns and Verbs, Persons and Tenses, which are not in the Hebrew Bible, I may take them out of Called, Syriac, and Arabic, or Ethiopic, and write it with the Hebrew letters, and it is Hebrew, or Hebrew with Arabic letters, and it is Arabic. And thus have done all the Rabbins, and this is done in the Talmud, and so it is done in all Arabic Authors whatsoever, so that a fullness of extant Hebrew Nouns and Verbs, and their divers forms, is not in the Hebrew Bible, but in Called, Syriac, and Arabic, with Ethiopie joined and brought all together. Also all the Analogy or precepts for the forming of Nouns and Verbs in all Tenses, Persons, Numbers, Genders, in all respects are the same essentially and generally. So that from thence the Syntax comes to be the same Summa, from the Identity of significations, flows the Identity of phrases in the Essence of these tongues, the same Metaphoros, Metonimys, Synecdoches and Ironies, or Contrarieties: Nay the same Poesy to. Upon this Unity, I confess, is built that Easiness, which is the sixth and last point propounded, whereby I dare say, that the Oriental tongues, to wit, only Hebrew, Called, Syrias, Samaritic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, or to speak more properly, that one and Holy Primitive Tongue is made more plain and easy than hitherto it hath been. Notwithstanding that Schindler, that worthy Schindler, my Countryman, whom all men prefer in point of judgement, before all the learned men in Europe, that ever meddled with the Oriental tongue, did much on that behalf, and so much, as never any man before him, nor yet any other after him till this day, in finding out many hundreds of roots, to be the same in Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Arabic, or in the Rabbins. All which is excellently performed by him, yet he chiefly fails in four forts of letters. First, in the quiescent letters, which he (with all the rest of the Gramarians and Dictionary writers) seldom or never takes to be but one in the root, though they are three or four in the Alphabet: Yet doth he no less than all the rest, show his reader many hundred times the way of one of them unto the other. Secondly, the greatest and foulest fault he commits, is in confounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby he confounds the root. Thirdly, he brings not all the Arabic, Galled, and Syriac superfluous or wrong letters, to the right in the root, viz. when t in Called and Syriac stands in place of s, which the Arabians (more curious and circumspect in their writings) have constantly marked with a point, and do call it tses: which in the root must not be brought to t, but to s, from whence it descends; and so also in th', descending from tz, the same care of pointing not being observed in the Galled and Syriac writing, that is in Arabic, which not considered, is falsely brought to th', when it belongs to tz: whereby also many false roots are made, and no small confusion caused. Fourthly, he brings many servile letters to be radical, whereas the first, second, or third radical being cast away, is compensed by that servile, which then being mistaken for a radical, doth extremely confound the roots and their significations. Notwithstanding (waving all this,) because he had that opinion of a community of tongues and dialects, and a nearness ofsome sweet agreement, he called his Dictionary Pentaglotton, of five tongues, to wit, Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Rabbin or Talmudic tongue, as five divers dialects, and not as one natural, corporal, material, undistinct, inseparable body of one, to wit, essentially one tongue, therefore even with that title he spoils the business, and leaves in men's brains that opinion, which was before him, viz. that these tongues were of a near kindred, and this he demonstrated more clearly than any man in the world, but left as much business to be done, and a better ground to be laid, than he himself did find before him. Now it is one work to have found six tongues to be the same in essence, only disagreeing in some accidents; and another thing, to say they are divers tongues, though they come now and then something near one to another; as it were easy for me here to quote above two hundred testimonies of learned men, that did, and do as yet speak so. Whereas the contrary is most clear, they making an analogal thing to be anomalicall, and an anomalicall, to be analogal; in calling the black white, and whit black, sweet sour and sour sweet, day night, and night day, light darkness, and darkness light. Whereas Greek was never hitherto said to be distinct from the Jonien, Attic, Doric and Aeolic tongues, and therefore States or Universities did never settle divers professors for them as we do for Hebrew Syriac and Arabic, etc. So neither must it be thought, that these are divers tongues, but only one. Professors of them, I wish in every University rather to be TEN, than ONE, because of the fullness of work, that diligent hands will find therein. Now then only one Grammar, for all these tongues, one Orthography in essential things, to wit, the essential figure of the characters of Ebrue, (Called) Samaritic, Syriack and Arabic, and the greatest part of the Ethiopic, is the same. One Analogy or precepts and ground rules for the syntax, one etymology or Dictionary; one syntax through all, and one prosodia on poesy. All whatsoever is done in behalf of Ebrue, is done at the same instant in all the rest. So much as ye know in Hebrew and have learned, and do learn there, keep it well, because, (if it be true and essential of the tongue,) you have not need to learn it again in Arabic and Syriac. So that whatsoever ye observe in one, the same, if true and essential, you will meet withal in the other. The Arabic tongue will do as much (nay more) good to the understanding of the Ebrue Bible, than all the Rabbins or the Talmud itself, they being all sprung up but of late years? And coming fare short of the affinity that is betwixt the Hebrew Bible and the Arabic tongue. In many things Christians go far beyond them all, as in matter of Logic, Rhetoric, Metaphysiek, Divinity, Grammar, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Geography, Ethics, Politics and Physic; in matter of stories and descriptions of Cities, Countries, and any other thing whatsoever. Whereby I do freely profess, that we have but small hope to learn great matters from them, yet because they are our eldest brethren, we must learn to lead them out of their rotten ways, unto our Sovereign and Redeemer Jesus Christ. And whereas they are a stubborn people, stiffnecked, and not easily yielding unto things differing from their parents and ancestors Creed, therefore is it very needful to study thoroughly all their books, and to mark out all the best passages, whereby the blindness of the living jews may be taken away by the Medicines found in Records of their own ancestors; It is otherwise with Arabic and Ethiopic, (the language of the Inhabitans of Africa and Asia) with which people were we once well acquainted, it would do us more profit and pleasure to be taught by them their old secrets, than we them, by teaching our Arts and Sciences. For Christ is known among the Abossins' or Ethiopians, they being for the most part Christians; And Arabians notwithstanding they are for the most part Saracens or Turks, (believing by the way of Mahomed one God, one in essence and person,) yet have they many hundreds of Christian-churches or parishes among them. And they would stand admiring, when they should see that another people, which they never heard of (a fine white, gracious, beautiful people) know their tongue, can read their writings, and is willing to impart them thousands of Arabic books, which they never saw, or heard of before, and them printed in a far remote Kingdom, only out of love towards them, to show them a fuller light, to impart them their libraries gotten unawares from them, whilst they did sleep. All this would bring them unto the love of our Saviour. Besides, the method in the Grammar, is brought to a fare more easy and near way even by this, that accidentals are separated from the essential parts, which hitherto have been confusedly treated of in divers parts of speech, by the least three, by others eight or nine, by me only under a Noun and Verb, as in nature is only day and night, white and black, light and darkness. And whereas the greatest difficulties for the Hebrew bible has been in the finding of the root of any word by an unskilful beginner of the Grammar (so that they did learn two, four, eight or ten years this tongue, out of divers Authors, by divers Grammarians, still in another new method, because of thousands of Anomalies, and rules, diversely either framed, delivered or scattered, few of them being the same in all Authors, many special rules or observations being set down as general, and generals slighted as common and special on's, without trial whither there were any use of it or not, never enquiring whither needful in Syntax, never almost with reason, only upon belief, so says this and that man, yet they never became true Masters:) which so far forth as a man's study can and God's mercy will afford shall be taken away in an Hebrew English Dictionary, which is to follow. If the easiness of things in the tongue be naturally (and in itself) greater than hitherto thought, and if by men who would willingly see the glory of the Gospel of Christ duly and truly set forth, and have therefore endeavoured (by all their means and power, waving their own occasions, and divers callings to an other work, wherewith the world would have been better pleased) to advance that learning, which hath as it were in its bosom the hidden secrets and counsel of God more unfeignedly closed up, why should than all this be spoiled with the ways of teaching, or learning them? Teaching requires a love unto the work as well as to the person? The work is from God, who would never have set us on a hard task for our salvation, or at least, not harder than we are able to bear with all. God speaks in an easy and plain way, in such sort of speeches, as the most inward friends to use one to another. God is truly popular in his deliverance, and his word is plainly to be understood. It is the fault of the interpreters, that there are now so many commentators extant on the bible. If they did set down those easy and plain words in their translations, that they find to furnish their commentaries with all, there would be no need of such sort of commenting. But they give the words in the translations not according as their own natural and reasonable judgement or understanding doth clearly dictate, but according to the Dictionaties; which having but few fignifications, the Authors thereof not being able, or willing, at least conceiving it needless to give many, nay if many be given, the life of the work being in the choice of the best and most qualified signification, but that not being done it comes to pass that the Text is made obscure, and people led with an opinion of the difficulty of this tongue. The ground of this fear hath been and is yet, and for aught I know, will be still so, as long as there are not able men set on the work, (things being as yet but taken upon trust.) I may say it without hesitation, that the Greek translation (which was drawn from the Hebrew, and from thence the Latin, from whence almost all the Eureopean translations) hath spoilt all our interpreters whatsoever. They saw many things to be different and those made them begin to doubt, their own hearts began to show them some occasions to find out the truth of many places, but the translations extant before hand did dazzle and corrupt their judgements, so that when they should see with both eyes to the Hebrew Bible, they (for the most part) upon some former translations especially upon that which had then the name of the best, did doote. If they had never looked on the Greece nor Latin, but had studied earnestly one or two years the Hebrew, and than fallen on the interpretation of the bible, it had been better. Now that being neglected, darkness comes into the translations; which being spied and observed thousands of doubts arise, making every one desire to have them mended, but few are found to be able (and that's no wonder) seeing the Universities teach this kind of learning as if it wear rather for ornament than use, for pleasure than necessity, for plea, than fight; because Kings, Parliaments, Magistrates, and Ministers, do not stand close to the true reformation of the church, and removal of all Hellish seed sown unawares by the Devil, not only by night (when the watchmen sleep) but even at noon day; taking the opportunity of the watchman's carelessness: he being very diligent to take all opportunities to sow the seeds of darkness into the hearts and opinions of men, concerning this holy tongue, not being able to set any spots upon the tongue itself. Now when the World hath lain in a drowsiness for many years; when God comes in and knocl●s at the door of the church (here in England or else where, whither by persecutions, false doctrines, or by cratfy gainsayers: all alas! two strong opposers to our weak and feeble fancies) then on a sudden they arise and will do great wonders, than men must be appointed, (without considering whither they have knowledge sufficient (of themselves) in this tongue, or whither they must be feign to take upon trust what they do;) to make new translations; which must then be called the King's bible, and all Sermons grounded thereupon. And when Beza, that worthy Beza saith in his preface, on Mercerus upon Genesis. Quam in ipsa contextus verborum & phrasium explicatione, necessario & quidem inprimis sit laborandum res ipsa demonstrat Pendet enim certe à verâ & conveniente ipsius contextus explicatione tota Theologiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inde eruendae ratio, & quae inde, adhibitis locis, quos vocant, communibus, disputationes, exhortationes, consolationes usurpantur: quod quicunque vel in semet ipsis, vel in aliis erudiendis facere negligunt, magnam certè reprehensionem merentur. Verissimum enim est hic quoque proverbium illud; Nucem frangat oportet, qui nucleum esse vult. That is: how necessary it is to labour for the full and right explication of the whole context of the words and phrases, the work itself will demonstrate. For from the right, and convenient explication of the context doth depend all the means to draw forth any dogmatic point of Divinity and all sorts of disputations, exhortations, and consolations, commonly used by the help of those which we ordinarily call common places. Which if any man wave in teaching either himself or others, truly such an one makes himself justly liable to a great reproof: for no less true is here that common proverb; ye must krack the nut before ye can get the kernel. Hitherto Beza. But O good Beza! who believes thy preaching and admonitions? I confess, sometimes upon a sudden fit a humorous mind will look into the Hebrew bible, to see what word is there to brag with in the pulpit; but no body talks of a general reformation in the Church, Universities, and Schools. Quaerenda pecunia primum; Deus post nummes: First money, and then God. There is neither love to teach, nor love to learn: 'tis a wonder to see what a drowfinesse is in our very Scholars. All things of God go on with a slow and heavy pace, as if he were not worthy of the best entertainments of our thoughts; but I am sure God will once meet with them. Therefore courteous Reader I beseech thee hearty, and (with my most humble, deep and affectionate desire) tender unto thee, that thou wouldst be pleased to be truly sensible of that high and unspeakable contempt of God's word, even by those that live by it; give good counsel, help, admonish, instruct, act, stir, nay in some measure, if thou hast power in thy hand (as now 4 or 500 able men have) be vigorous, set Scholars truly on work, and let them not be squandring away their time, whither in, or out of the University, in Schools, or out of them, in a Ministry or out of a Ministry, in a public calling, or not yet called; If they will have any encouragements from the public, from the Altar, from pious and charitable gifts, houses, dwellings, or revenues; I pray let them throughly work for it. Now when the water of a general deluge hath spoilt all Piety in actions, we are all become so full of worldly care that the first word we speak in the Church is, what news? as soon as the Sermon is ended, they ask, what hear you? And thus gets the Devil away that precious seed, which should grow up in our hearts and bear fruit in patience and long suffering. I wish that Ministers would give their minds less to the reading of the daily news, and more to God's Word, Work, Tongue, Church and chosen, and bestow that money (which they usually spend upon such trifles) upon the poor, and left all the care of state affairs unto the Parliament, themselves fight only with prayers, and alms deeds, (wherewith they might find work enough) and teach others to do good by their examples, and good works; O! what a fine sunshine would arise and break forth in the midst of these clouds. I beseech the Ministers as they will answer it at the last day, that they will not any more ordain such men, as know not God's Tongue. And if that most reverend order of men cannot find it within their hearts to do this so necessary a thing, then beseech I the Magistrate, (he that wears not the sword in vain) to use his authority, and to provide that there may not be any men ordained, let him have never so many callings (poor people know not many times what they would have, what is good for them, whither, what is recommended to them, be good or bad) except be be able to make good his profession (out of the Hebrew and Greece tongue in the old and new Testament) against a Jew. And truly to that purpose I could wish our Magistrates would let them come amongst us, to be taught by us more closely at home, and to rouse and awaken our drowsy and sleepy spirits, which because they have nothing to do, apply themselves, rather to do hurt than good. God knows I pray them, I pray for them, I am willing to teach, willing to offer all my strength, but alas within one year, week after week, labour after labour, of 300 or 400 Scholars, learned men, and Preachers, now, and then in the city, I dare not say how few I find to be zealous of god's glory, & how many unashamed of their filthy & sinking nakedness before many men that can discern it well enough. But because the Magistrate looketh not narrowly into men's actions, whither good or bad just or unjust, whither the laborious be rewarded and idly punished, worthy or unworthy ordained; it comes to pass that all things are at so ill a pass. The easiness of teaching and propagating the Gospel of God by this tongue consists in those several things which I will here set down not as a Logician, but a willing afforder of what I conceive fit for professors. First, let him pray to God, to show him the nearest way, and God, as he is able, so is he willing to do it. And I am sure, that such a man, who doth pray to God incessantly within the chamber of his heart, to direct him in his ways for easiness, God will find him such a way, as no other man thought on before. Secondly, let him but love his work, have his delight in it, view it most diligently, even into the innermost part of it, and he will display a greater easiness, than he is ware of. Thirdly, let him love his disciples hearty and tenderly, and then I am either utterly mistaken, or else he will give unto them all possible explications of the things under hand, and will discuss all the doubts they are able to propound. Fourthly, let him thirst after more knowledge, after more good and sound reason, being certain of that, because God is the knowledge itself, therefore how much knowledge he gets, the greater apprehension of God's wonders and mighty infinity, and infinite wisdom; by whose works he will find out ways to teach his Scholars more easily. Fifthly, let him labour willingly, not being forced, not subdued and oppressed by some superiors, as being certain, every time when he doth work, he makes himself fit to teach, and the work easier for him, and the Scholar more disposed towards the work, and himself, which is the easiness. Sixthly, let him never expect, till he be called, but begin to teach in private first, than afterwards in public before he be called, striving every day to show himself as willing minded to do the work, as if the whole Kingdom had called him, and having his heart still in a willingness to work, if the State would desire his service, as deserving it, not getting it for money. Seventhly, let him go still further, than he was desired. If to read but once, let him do it twice. For as all other great and mighty works must not be done with a tedious toil someness, but with an instancy and pursuance of the matter, and that the more violent, the less it suffers any delay, so truly he must have his desires to do good increasing by trust, that thereby he may act more good, because more free. Eighthly, let him think and be persuaded, that God will have him do good not only unto a few Auditors, but even unto the whole Kingdom of England. He may truly believe, and I am sure he has the warrant of God's Word and his own conscience for it; that he doth not amiss in teaching Hebrew and this holy tongue even to the most common sort of people. His Kingdom doth not consist in meat and drink, not in that or this great and wise, or low and despicable man, but in the power of the will of God revealed in his word (in his own tongue) towards all and every soul. Ninthly, let him love the Ministers of the word of God and all pious and Christian souls with a tender and hearty love, and honour them with all his strength, mind, affection, expressions, actions. But with a fatherly love, knowing that he has so many ghostly sons to be instructed, who shall further instruct others; and the easiness of the work will be seen more fully and clear. Tenthly, let him have an undaunted spirit against all opposers in that way of learning, being sure of that, except there be no God at all, and all this called God's Word, to be a mere tale, and his tongue to be unexpressable in English (all which may be the thoughts and speeches of wicked Atheists;) he will truly assist him, add to him strength to strength, joy in the spirit, easiness to easiness, advance to profit, benefit, and much good in the Church and Commonwealth, and will make him a blessing and not a curse, to his time and following ages. Eleventhly, let him not only be willing to teach privately and publicly, but also to give in print his thoughts and learning, that whersoever he cannot reach with his voice, he may reach with his Pen. God blesses those that use their tongue and pen for the profit of Church and Commonwealth, and not for the disgrace and dishonour, or tending to the destruction thereof. It is very needful to have a mind to write as willingly, fast, and carefully, as to teach hearty. For otherwise he cannot stir up so many drowsy spirits, if he will not awake them by the trumpets of his holy alarm. Twelfthly, let him read good Authors, which have laboured before him, with all tenderness, to observe how fare they have brought the work, unto what easnesse, if there can be added, yea or no, without any detraction of their labours, with a thankful heart: and if he knows of any such, who are truly profitable, and have been so to him, let him give notice of it, that many men's pains may ease the work. Thirteenthly, and yet if the very ground work be rotten, or if it may be suspected to be so, because that almost in all parts of learn the cause and reason of unsound proceed in studies, lies at the root, ground and foundation of the work, let him make clear before all things that place to himself & others, and than he may build upon it with an easiness. Fourteen, let him have still in mind his reason, that nothing must be done, spoken or taught without it; and still direct his heart, to find out the reason of the things, he teaches or is taught, to desire and search, if by Author's reason is given for that or this thing. Being certain, that nothing makes things easier, than that golden beam of that gracious Sun within ourselves REASON. And therefore must he be skilled in these Arts, that teach to use it well, and desire it may be enlightened and not obstructed, and to work by reason unto his Scholars. Fifteenthly, let him still show to every one of his disciples and cause them to consider, whither it be possible and reasonable or not, that such a little book as the Hebrew Bible should be difficult to be learned, nay, not to be learned in a short time: especially, when out of our translations we have already given unto us the contents of every Book, Chapter, and Verse: whereby it is impossible, (if we will but read the Hebrew constantly and diligently,) considering rationally, how we in such and such a matter use to express our minds; either I am utterly deceived, or in the most part of the Bibell our own wit will lead us so, that all people shall agree in it, and shall not, nor may deem it fancies. In the rest we must go to this holy tongue. Sixteenthly, let him never be led out of the whole store of God's provision, that is, out of this whole tongue Hebrew, Called, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, as if he might do well enough in learning only Hebrew, or at the highest Hebrew and Called; being certain, that that notion is no more reasonable, than as if a man would be able to expound the first Chapter of Moses in Hebrew, if he never had any Hebrew more than occurs in that Chapter. For as he his great need of all the Hebrew, that is in the whole bible, nay more to, than there is in the Hebrew Bible, how much more than will there be a necessity of all and the whole tongue to understand so many thousand passages, which are yet to be cleared up. Seventeenthly, let him not only wish, but labour to get TEN or TWENTY more labourers with him, and if it be possible, more rare and choice men; than himself. Let him be the ablest, most diligent, rare, painful, pious, humble, meek, courteous, free and loving spirit; yet wish and pray hearty to God and the Magistrate, to set down with him many labourers more, and if he can hear, espy, and procure such as are fare transcending him, let him rejoice in that, as a special blessing of God Almighty. Eighteenthly, let him never forget the poor Brethren in other Countries under the persecutions of foreign States, within or without the Church. If any means may be procured, whereby we shall not mock God Almighty any more unto his face, praying for them, and yet stirring not a hand or foot to help them, but will work and become working in good earnest for those Christians in Asia and Africa; let him move or beseech the Magistrate, or at least under hand work out by friends or whosoever by the States, that they may not be any more unsensible of the unmeasurable want of their brethren. The Germans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Italians, Low Duchmen, nay all sorts almost of the Europians have helped England by affording us the Hebrew Bibell and other books in great abundance. Let us see now if we can at length be thankful towards them, returning good for good: or in doing good with printing thousands of Hebrew, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, Bibels; thereby to give as plentifully God's Word to Asia and Africa, as by the mercy of God we have it in England. Ninteenthly, nay let him truly desire the conversion of the Muhammedans, who are as near Christians, as many others are which bear the name of Christ, viz. Photinians, Arrians, half Arrians, Socinians, Weigelians, etc. which I set down under their several names, although their sects are rather one than more, when they will not suffer Christ, (who came into the flesh of Adam, and did take upon him the seed of Adam and not of Angels,) to be God and the Son of God, wherein the Turks come nearest unto them. Some good way should be laid down by all means for them also, who would bring in a great store of Churches and of a most flourishing beauty, if once brought to the true acquaintance with the Gospel of Christ. The fault lies not in them so much as in us; we can help, but are lazy and desire it not. Twentieth, The conversion of the jews, for whom I hear every week so earnestly prayed, and yet see nothing less endeavoured, must be one point of any christian teacher of God's Word; What? all to neglect the conversion of those people, which in God's eye are still beloved, because under the rod. I pray, let us not trample upon them, but have mercy on them. Fie for shame, A christian, and a despiser of God's counsel. Are men's ways so much towards goodness, that they will and can forgive their enemies, and should God not deal so with his creatures? He whose ways are higher than our ways, and whose thoughts higher than our thoughts. Even that is a sign to me of God's grace towards a jew, because God stirs up so many christian Ministers to pray for them. I here it most constantly in Paul's London Or are they all deceived men. Are they all praying for a thing, which God has never desired or decreed? I never hear any of them to pray for the Devil that he may be saved, and there is no body hath any thing to plead for him, nay not so much as ignorance, he knows well enough Jesus, to be the Christ and Son of God they knew him, and therefore did they themselves acknowledge him. I beseech you hearty, when you pray for the Jews conversion, do you it only out of fashion, or with your very earnest desire? If out of fashion? O ye wicked Hypocrite! If out of an hearty desire, why then so slow? And if we never had any promise of their conversion in the New Testament (whereof yet we have abundantly) should they not be as good unto us as the Heathens? Had not the Jews a promise of our (which were Heathens) conversion? They had, and God has done it; (blessed be his name for ever;) and not doubt will do it with the Jews also. There is another sort of easiness of this Oriental tongue, (for those I spoke of even now, I confess are virtues belonging to a professor, and such as will facilitate any profession whatsoever, not only of tongues, less only Oriental) taken out of the very bowels of it, viz. First, because it is the eldest or primitive, and consequently the most simple tongue, as God the first founder and giver of it, is the simpleness or singleness itself; and as Adam (the first speaker of it) in his state of innocence (when it was given him) was the most true and simple Grammarian, Rhetorician, Logician, and Metapysician that lived in the world and church, from whence it begun and continues till our days: whether its glory did ever increase or decrease, I know not; sure I am, that then it was in its highest sphere. Yet as all other tongues do not increase and decrease, saving only in the fancies of men; So neither could it be brought to a confusion at the confusion of Babel, (which Authors improperly express, viz. It did escape without ruin) nor at the captivity of Babel, which was of a fare less miraculous power of God from heaven, having no need of repairing after either of both, nor falling far short from former perfection: as out of natural grounds, (which hereafter will be laid down) may appear. This singleness is seen in many things. First, in a constant Trinunity (representing the nature of its author) in having for a union to a root, a trinity of letters: for a unity of a conjugation, a trinity of tenses: for a unity to a tense (of things past or to come) a trinity of persons: for a unity of one letter in the root, a trinity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 avy, for a unity of one tongue, the trinity of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in many things else, where this same trinunity could be showed. 2ly, that it is only divided into two branches natural unto any essence, as (Metaphysic teacheth) a finite, which is present, future, and preter, and has a time, nor can be said to be without time, and in Grammar is called a Verb: An infinite, which is neither present, future nor preter, and has no time, nor can be said to be within time, and in Grammar is called a Noun. Thirdly, that it takes single letters from a matter of 20 the most frequent and necessary words of it, and puts them in stead of that whole word, before or after another word, to make fewer words; wherein some other, nay almost all tongues of Europe do imitate it in their common speaking and writing. Fourthly, that it useth the most simple and single, easy, natural, common, and vulgar expressions that are obvious in any common tongue. II. It becomes easy because of its rationality in all things, whereof we had already many passages before: but here is observable that infinite wisdom and depth of reason in every signification of the root communicated to a great variety of Nouns and Verbs, and yet all these (as by the outward shape of the Analogy) turning about their one and only centre the root, those three radical letter, so that the signification of them all wind themselves rationally out, reflecting unto that radical signification, as a swarm of bees go out and return to their stock. And thirdly, because in nature there is nothing in vain, it becomes easy by its Universality or Generality of matters, that whereas there are 8000 roots, and as many fignifications, which do orderly follow according to the Alphabet, depending upon one another without interruption, it being impossible that any should be entered or taken out without the dissolution of the natural chain; so also do those things hang together which they signify; so that in the signification of those 8000. roots is contained, nature and idea, or, compositions and abstractions, physic and metaphysic, and do orderly depend one upon another, and their natural dependence to be not only demonstrable, but already demonstrated by this holy primitive tongue, if learned men will hereafter open their eyes, and use their reason. Whereby we shall be able to find out many things, the causes whereof we search and cannot find, (notwithstanding they are extant in the radical signification of the root from whence they are derived) so that I persuade myself, the only way of a natural search of hidden things about their causes, dependences, connexion's, separations, proportions, degrees, enlightenings, obscureness, etc. a priori, not a posteriori, (which way is very uncertain and toilsome, and yet hitherto only followed by all the Universities, and so by many millions of witty men, as I conceive, out of a righteous judgement of God Almighty, pronounced against them for the contempt of his word and tongue) is only extant in this holy tongue, and not elsewhere, let men seek it where they will: whereas if they had returned to God's gift and way, they would have found if not all, yet the greatest part. Fourthly, Easy because of its Abstractions suitable to men's spirits. As all these 8000. roots orderly bud out of 20. several letters of the Alphabet, so that the Alphabet is the primum mobile, or the first moving cause of all those 8000. roots, and of their, it may be, 80000. nouns and verbs; (and by them are expressed all things in heaven and earth expressable and revealed to us;) So that now as all the words and nouns are reduceable unto 20. fundamental columns; so also all things are reduceable not only to those 8000. radical and ideal significations, but those also unto 20. columns of the highest abstractions (the Metaphysicians speak also of an abstraction major and minor, bigger or less in some measure analogal hereunto) of things. And whereas many of these things, nay almost all are not understood hitherto, I know not where the fault lies, (unless it be in three letters, viz. SIN.) Forasmuch as my reading can afford me, I am sure, and can make it good against all opposers (which I suppose will be only younglings in learning, and not wise or learned men:) that this self same work has been still desired among Christians and Jews; the Philosophers have used their reason, but not enlightened by God's word and tongue, nay they scorn tongues (I wish they would cut out their own, and then try what they are able to say for themselves) pretending they study realities. The Philolegers, or those that found in the tongues an admirable light, use and necessity, do scorn the Philosophers, as knowing, they cannot but prove ill husbands of their time, reason and labour, having found by experience this principle to be in the tongues, viz. Verba esse signa rerum, the words to be the characters of things. Where both should labour together, and Philosophers be Philologers, and both be one. And if this were done, all studies would go better, and how higher arising, the more desiring of HEAVEN. Fifthly, it becomes easy by its Vivacity or liveliness even at this very day. Nothing is so burdensome as lead, gold, etc. because they have no air, spirit, life nor lightsomeness in them (though the wit of man makes them fly high enough:) for where there is life, there is a lifted motion, and leaven is so called, because lifting itself up by that spirit of life within it. Then, where any thing proves to have a vivacity, life, or livingnes, there is a certain argument of an easy handling of it. This tongue is not dead, but it lives: Laugh not at me also, as they in the Gospel at Christ. All the best Authors do earnestly contend to have Hebrew escape a confusion at Babel, but suffers it to be led captive in the Babylonian captivity. In the greatest and most wonderful confusion they keep it in their brain, but in that smaller, their faith decays to hold it? What reason or courage is there in that their action or assertion? Nothing. I assure you if it did live after the confusion of Babel, (there it must either be lost with all the rest, or spring out with them, or not at all) I warrant you it did live till the time of Plautus, about 1800. years ago. If the Punic tongue of Poenulus in Plautus be the same with Hebrew or the Cnaan tongue, as they themselves confess, and the natural pedigree doth allow, they being children of the Phoenicians, than their tongue is yet living in Barbary, when neither Greek nor Latin could overcome the natural tongue of the Land; nor Arabic, as Leo Africatus (in his description of Africa, 11. Chapter of the tongue of Africa) will have it; he thinking the Africans to have a different tongue from the Arabic, wherein he is deceived. Further, from Plautus it was there till Augustine, and the same with Arabic, as Gesner, Roccha, Postel, Masius, Bibliander, Schindler, Galeottus and many others do rightly esteem, having the Phoenicians (their ancestors) the same tongue with Arabic. What an easiness that gives to any man to learn a tongue, when he can live in that very Country, whose tongue he desires to learn, is abudantly known. There is nothing more easy and working than that, because that learning is full of life; within a year a man may come to a great perfection. Dead tongues get us many rods at Grammar School, because we will revive them. And living tongues can give us no gain, because we do contemn them. We smart at school for our parents and master's soolery, not for our ancestors rebellion at Babel. We are chastised by foolish Masters, because we have foolish Fathers. These will have it, and those are willing to do it. The parents lose money, the masters gain it, but we must cry: and why? because a dead tongue will not become living with us. Do but offer living tongues unto children, and see how fast they will learn. There the boys might whip the old men, because they learn not quick. It is a wonderful dimness, not only in special actions of men, but of General ones. Let England set up Masters out of Arabien, Ethiopien, Persien, Turkey, Armenian, Malayen, and Chiney Countries, with a whole College for every Nation apart, there to have its natural tongue spoken and taught in a Grammatical way (all these tongues having but one General Grammar, with observations of every one of them in particular) and boys will easier learn them than Latin. Nay a man travailing in his young years, being well Grammatically instructed in his own mother tongue, will more easily, and in a shorter time learn all these mentioned tongues, and with fare greater delight, than the Latin at School. Sixthly, another easiness arises from the near place towards us. For in Spain this holy primitive tongue has been near 800. years, as there is good reason it should, having been always in the possession of the Moors, (and long before them of the Carthaginians,) until their late expulsion from thence, and yet in the steepy mountains of Granata, named All Fukhar Râs, the Progeny of the Moors do still retain the Arabic tongue, for the Spaniards themselves call it Araviga. There are divers Authors, that show the passages of Cities, Provinces, Rivers, and Castles in Spain, to be named, invested, occupied, built and repaired by the Phoenicians, and their children the Carthaginians. Abydenus quoted by Eusebius, Aelianus by Eustathius, M. Agrippa by Plinius, Appianus, Arrianus, Artemidorus by Stephanus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Avienus, Eusebius, Eulogius, Eustathius, Homerus (sings thereof.) Isidorus Hispalensis (who should be acquainted with things concerning his own Country.) Livius, Megasthenes by Strabo, Mela, Pausanius, Plinius, Polybius, Posidonius, by Strabo, Ptolomoeus, Scylax, Seneca Cordubensis, (where the Arabic Kings of Spain had their Court) Silius, Statius, Stephanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stesichorus by Strabo, Strabo the principallest of them all, Trogus and divers others. All the Antiquities are full of words and names of things in Spain, given by the Oriental tongues and people. And at this day whole Spain is full of their Manuscripts, there being above TEN THOUSAND in several of their Libraries, especially that famous Kingly one at St Laurence in the Escurial. And in Minshewes Dictionary, you may see many thousand Arabic words yet in use in Spain at the end of his book. So near hath God brought towards us (in the West and North) this Holy and Primitive tongue. Nay within less than ten days sailing you may be in Africa, where this tongue is natural. Truly I say, if the English Nation would but once fall diligently upon true Divinity, and not trust so much unto their translations, and (which may be within a year for aught I know) perceive that Hebrew is Arabic, which being yet living and in use, is easy to be searnt, and being obtained, will give a more clear and true interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (and that with greater ease too) than all the Rabbins, I doubt not but they would hereafter change their course of studying in dead books unto that of living persons in Asia and Africa, (as Nicolaus Clenardus did begin, Mr. Pocoke and Mr. Graves those worthy men have followed, Mr. Golius, who had been there, and I myself had that happiness to live there, together with Mr. Pocoke for some months) and thus bring Divinity to a better ground, and fix their interpretations upon the Hebrew Mount Zihon. Now wheresoever you will go, either in Africa near at hand, or in Asia towards joppes, Sidon, Barut, towards Cyprus, Alexandria, or Alexandretta the Sea Town towards Haleppo, or to Smyrna, or Constantinople itself, the passage is very easy; for I myself came in a fortnight from Marseil to Constantinople. The Ship Samson, (whereof is Captain Mr. Swanley, that worthy and valiant Gentleman, that brought the Ambassadors there and here warts,) in going hence to Smyrna, performed the voyage in 30. days, Anno 1641. & brought me back again with my Oriental library of above 300 manuscripts in 17 weeks. Thus you see God will send us thither more speedily than bring us back again. Nay, that worthy and reverend friend of mine Mr. Pocoke has been twice and a good long while in that Country, whereby he hath so enriched the coffers of his understanding with that great and manifold knowledge of this orientiall tongue, that he has none but that excellent and thrice learned Mr. Selden, Esquire, equal with him. I honour hearty both these my worthy friends, and notwithstanding that I shall not be able to amount to the height of that quickness, largeness, fullness, perfection and acuratnesse of learning of these two great shining lights, the present Sun and Moon of our England, it is a great happiness for me, to have that proportion, which the stars of the fixed magnitude have towards them: yet I wish, nay hope, that our posterity may and will outbrave all even the best lights. This nearness is an unobservable occasion for the Christians to do good to all the Muhammedans (or Mahumedans as usually they are called here) But a sleeping Cat never sees a Mouse running by her claws. Front capillata est, post est occasio calva; There is yet a small remnant of the day, to labour by, the night of all the World draws on, and like a thief in the night, on sleepers; We sleep after we have stolen Gods good time of the day, and by the day we steal. What will become of us? Hang him, is every other word here in England. God grant that we be not the judges of ourselves and posterity. Is there never a man, that gins to look about, and to see, what he, we and all this Kingdom do? we confess out sins, to sinne the more stubborn and constantly. Think we not once, that all our toil, running, actions, shists, prayers, orders and fasts, are but mere hypocrisy? I, because I am a man as well as they, confess, that I have not need to pry long into my heart, to find my faults, and hypocrisy; and thereby am I sure they, (that is) every one of whatsoever condition, may see his hypocrisy in the performance of God's worship without great ado; only in the will lies all our woe; The Spirit, which we call our conscience, doth every day and hour speak within us, (and woe unto him whereunto it speaks no more!) and call us to the Work of God, (for all this World is but like a dream full of discontents, where even Kings themselves have the greatest sorrows) to give peace and glory. But because we despise God's word and tongue God despises us. Seventhly, the easiness of this tongue consists likewise in the largeness of those Countries, wherein it is extant. The greater a Kingdom is (if the King be wise and pious, and will let God have a hand in his commands, the easier will he withstand his enemies abroad. The greatest enemy that the Church of God meets with, is our ignorance, whereby we are afraid to deal with a Papist, a jew, a Muhammedan or a Heathen When with a formality of prayer we could do enough in the sight of our consciences, than were we good Christians. But conscience, conscience, conscience that doth gnaw your heart within, and cries you are but very hypocrites. What Asia will not afford, that Africa will, and what Africa cannot, Asia can. I confelse there are many different pronunciations, but never a Dialect, or Idiom in Africa but it will help most comfortably against the darkness and ignorance of this tongue with us. But we are blind, and cannot see the clear Sunbeams. Let there be a hundred divers pronunciations (which common people presently call tongues) in Africa, yet I know, there is but one tongue. For it is in Africa as in Europe and Asia. One cries, a diversity of tongues, they cannot understand one another, another gives them a divers name, the third derives them from a very unknown antiquity, the fourth from the confusion of Babel. My way is contrary. The tongues of Africa, are brought in by Kham, his sons and nephews and the tongues of Europe by Yafet, which they foolishly called Jupiter, and his sons and sons sons. Only in Europe is the Greek immediately from this Oriental tongue; which Greek is the same with Latin. If nothing else could persuade you; 10000 Latin words at least, already derived by divers Authors from thence will suffice to do. Now from this Latin some affirm Italian, Spanish, and French to descend, others deny it. If you look upon two narrow a time and space of that tongue, (viz. Latin) as only in that part of Italy, where Rome is seated, called now Lo stato Ecclesiastico, and at the time of the Counsuls of Rome, than you must not bring all these tongues from thence, because all these Countries had tongues before the said time, but if you can rationally judge, that tongues breed not out of the earth, nor reign down from Heaven, and are propagated only by mankind amongst themselves; than reflecting back; that all these men came from Yafet, all these I say in Germany, Italy France Spain, Poland, etc. their tongues are without all doubt derived from thence. So that, as Italy had a tongue at Aeneas coming thither from Troja, and they were descending from the Grecians, and the Grecians out of Asia (whereof Troja is a Town) then brought Aeneas the same tongue with him out of that same Fountain, from whence Evander and all the Grecians before had fetched theirs. So before Aeneas came, people lived already in France, Spain, Germany, they were children of the Grecians, had their tongue, which grew different in Italy, so much more in France, Germany, Spain, and Poland, etc. And so fare you may deny them to descend from the Latin. There is also further easiness, viz. by way of teaching. First, to teach the whole Hebrew Bible (every part and Word thereof affording some good ground for Exhortation, Doctrine and Learning) so that I cannot commend the ordinary way of teaching only one book of it (notwithstanding it hath been the constant practice hitherto, some teaching Genesis, others the Psalms, or the books of Samuel, Hoseas, or some of the major or minor Prophets, (and this under pretence that these books contain in them a great part of the Hebrew Bible) never going through it all.) For by that means the learner is left to shift for himself before he be able, whereby he conceives a greater difficulty to be in it then indeed there is, and so gives it over; not only himself but likewise (either by example or persuasion) deterrs others from undertaking it. I would likewise have you to teach the Caldean, Targum of the three Authors, jonathan, Onkelos, and joseph the blind: together with the Syriac and Arabic (published at Rome,) but hence it may be objected that the Galdean Targum is not extant by itself but only in those bibles in folio published by the Venetians, Buxtorph, both the Kings of Spain and France; To this I answer that it is true, but if this course were taken that I prescribe, and that there were professors (established by authority) that would teach them in English, (and that every day throughout the year) I doubt not but that the Citizens would most gladly be auditors and buy the books, which the Book sellers would most willingly get printed so soon as they shall perceive a certain gain to come in by the plentiful vending of them. Farther I wish my Oriental Professor would first, teach my General Grammar with the essential part of it, viz. consonants in Orthography, and Analogy or Etymology: secondly, teach the whole Hebrew bible without points exercising his Scholars to depend only upon the consonants, they giving the full sense) and upon all occasions to tell them that the pronunciation is not material to the words or sense, and that all tongues differ (amongst themselves) in point of pronunciation, still increasing by every mile (though not observed) even as the Sun proceeding every moment upon the dial is not perceived till it hath passed some certain time, so here the difference of the pronunciation will not so well be observed in few miles as in 50, or 100, or more. Yet if the professor do meet with such as will have the vowels and accents (which indeed is but a burden without profit unto them) I advise him to engraft into their minds that Orthographical ground work which the jews did esteem needful to have, viz. in Hebrew and Called 15 Vowels (when five (as by the Syrians) would have served) but in Analogy or Etymology to show diligently their mutation, long into short, and short into long, permutation, long for short, and short for long: and contraction or abjection of any of them long or short. And because he cannot show that perfectly before he have set down what vowels there were in this or that place (all the Grammarians having left that out) he may take a delineation thereof from my Latin delineation, page 73. 74. tit. Anal. Specialis. And likewise I advise him to go a different way from that commonly used for Hebrew (with such disciples) because they will expect a Grammatical Analisis of the words.) viz. take buxtorf's Hebrew Dictionary Printed here at London, and resolve all his examples by these Grammar precepts that I have given and thereby he will do his Scholars more profit than with the greatest book in the bible, because in none of them do occur all the Radixes, extant in the Dictionary; for there is observed not only the Alphabetical order of the roots, but also that most necessary Grammatical order of the Tenses, persons, and orders, (though not in the same order that is in my Grammar) the order herein doing neither good nor hurt. Or if yet a shorter way must be had, then take Tossanus little Dictionary upon the Psalms and do therewith as before; and for the Called take buxtorf's Concordance where at the end he hath set down all the Called words occurrent in the bible. Where you will find the essential parts, viz. of Consonantes to be according to Grammatical precepts, and for the vowels you will find the distinctions of long and short to be forgotten by those late jewish punctators. For the Syriac go the same way in Crinesius or Trostius Dictionaries upon the New Testament In Arabic the Grammatical Analiticall way is fare more easy: and as yet there is not any Dictionary extant thereof either upon the Bible or Alcoran, but upon the latter I expect one speedily. This fundament being once well laid (which will make the following work easy) let the Scholars first read, and give the interpretation of, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, or more Chapters every day, beginning with Hebrew, and then with Called, Samaritic, and so on until they have gone through the Bible therein, 3 or 4 times, if possible, in a year. Secondly, let them make some small exercises (as some little story, sentence, fable, or at the highest an Epistle) in every distinct dialect of this tongue. Thirdly, let them make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as Aphthonius calls them, in his Progymnasmes) Orations, or Discourses in the Tongue. Fourthly, let them take some Rabbins works, and bring them into Arts and Sciences by way of common place referring unto the number of the leaf, Columns, and line. This work will be very useful hereafter not only for themselves but also for the public; for thereby Christians may the better show the jews their errors in Arts as well as tenants in Divinity, and so bring them to Christ. Fifthly, the same thing may be done on the Talmud which the next year will come out at Amsterdam in 4ᵒ to be bound up in 6, or 8 volumes. It is further to be made easy by a good way of learning which here is written in respect of the most who cannot here the Professor, or have a Master at all, unto those I will give this council; That yea would resolve never to give over the study of it until you have obtained it perfectly, and you may do it if you will follow this way. First, (if you understand Latin) take Arias Montanus Hebrew bible with the interlineary Latin version, good for two reasons 1. because the order of the Hebrew words are now and then differing from the English, and common Latin translation, 2. because the root is written in the margin whereby you will be presently enabled to use any Hebrew Dictionary. If you understand not Latin then take an Hebrew, and an English bible (without expecting any English Dictionary, for it will serve in stead thereof) observing the transpositions of words which will not be difficult because not frequent. Begin with the first Chapter of Genesis (never with the Psalms for they being written in a poetical strain are to hard for a young Scholar) thus. The first verse hath seven words: Bresît in the beginning: here B. signifies in: resît: a, or the beginning, it is a Noun bara created, it is a Verb: (here you see a transposition) Elohim: God, a Noun: êt: the, a Noun: (which (as is frequent even in the English tongue) was left out in the first word resît) hassamayim Heaven a noun: uêt: and the, a noun, with u; and, haaretz the earth, a noun where e or h notes the, in this verse besides six full words, viz. five Nouns and one Verb, you have three little words, viz. b: in, e, or h: the, v, and, these three and those six, (together nine) words, will presently carry you a great way in the Chapter; and so continue till you come through the whole bible; Regard not the vowels so much as Consonants, for if you find aretzes or eretzes, Lamek or Lemek, Habel, or Hebel it is not material. And to that purpose (if you find yourself strong enough) buy the bible without points for by that means you will have gained half the work which otherwise you must have with vowels and Accents. You need not care whither you pronounce it right or wrong, for at this very day the jews differ among themselves therein, and why then shouldest thou bind thyself when thou mayst be free? Regard not the Accents at all, for they are but superfluous fancies. When thou hast gone through the first Chapter in the Hebrew Dialect, do it in Called, Syriac, &c: therein taking notice that the different words are Synonyma's, for example bqadmin is sinon. to bresît. bram and bara, is the same. Thovah to Elohim, yat and êt the same, (as by this rule: The quiescent Letters, viz. a, v, y, e or h. do frequently change without altering the signification.) Smayya the same with Smayim, arha the same with aretz (it may be that ayin is constantly in Called mistaken for izade, or else changed thereinto. The Samaritan is the very same verbatim with the Hebrew throughout the pentateuch, but only in some places where those jews which were called Samaritans (in Luke 10: 33.17: 16. john 4: 9.48. and divers other places) did differ from the common reading of the Law. In this way you may exercise yourself in the essential part of the Grammar, viz. Consonants, leaving the vowels and Accents: which notwithstanding I have set down in my Grammar, and (as ye may observe takes up the greatest part thereof, for ad superflua sudatur, says Seneca) because every body will not be content without them, though many Scholars have left this study by reasonof these superfluities. Now thus fare I have spoken my mind concerning this. One oriental primitive tongue, (comprehended under the name of six tongues viz Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arahic, and Ethiopic) the mother tongue of the whole World: only I desire to leave with the courteous Reader some general notions about the tongues. First, A torgue may be general and yet not vulgar. Which not being observed, makes the common people believe that this or that, is the Mother tongue, here or there, as for instance; The Greek tongue was spoken (as is recorded by Strabo in his 14 book) by the Galatians, Carians (a people of 16 several Nations) Cataonians, Cappadocians, Galatians, Maeonians, and Sydians. All Provinces of the said Carians. Yet Hierome and Euphorus affirm, that Greek was not the vulgar or native language of these parts, but they had their peculiar and natural tongues, so that of these 21 Nations of the Carians there were only three Grecians, all the rest used there own native oriental tongue which (because different from theirs) the proud Grecians called Barbarous. This being well observed will clear up many doubts about particular tongues. Secondly, We must look at the writings and not pronunciations of a people. So that although never so many Authors affirm that this or that tongue are different from each other, and ground it only upon the pronunciation, they will not be able to make good their position: for even here in England (as also in other Countries) there are not any two shiers that pronounce the Language in every respect alike, and yet no man attributes to every shire a several language. Thirdly, We must look to the radical writing of a word: this hath been excellently well practised in the Oriental primitive tongue, but never yet or very slowly in the derivatives. Which if once performed would doubtlessly make us able to judge of tongues more rationally in general, to give the etymology of a word more exactly. Fourthly, The diversity of Cbaracters make not a different tongue. For even in one and the same tongue every man writes severally, and as it pleaseth himself, viz. One man formeth them thus, and another 10. Fifthly, The unity of the Characters make not divers tongues become one. As we see in Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Poland, Hungary, Irish, English, and the Hurones with other people in the West-Indies who since the coming in of the English, Spaniards and French have learned the Latin Alphabet, and it may be in time all the West Indies will get and make use of the same Character. Yet it cannot be thought that so great a part of the new World (lying opposite to our three known parts of the old, Asia, Africa, and Eurepe,) should not have many different tongues. Sixtly; All tongues will participate in some things with their Neighbours, for as it is in other actions so it is with man who being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, asociable and tractable person is sensible of his own want and others abundance in divers things: whereby we are consirained to borrow and lend one of another. This being so common and so necessary in any society of men, is performed before we take notice of it, and because it is naturally inscribed in us we do it constantly and willingly making no scruple at it. And seeing nothing costs us less than the lending of words, and more needful (to deal with strangers) then borrowing, that makes a daily trade between tongues and tongues in all the World. Seventhly, Authors, names, and tongues, will afford good ground for the unity or diversity of them. As for instance when Gesnerus (that learned, and extraordinary painful man in Switzerland) Angelus Rocca. Postellus, Masius, Bibliander, Schindler, Mart. Galeotus. And divers other learned men do affirm, that the ancient Punic tongue (spoken in Africa about the time of Plautus and Augustine) was Arabic, viz. that tongue which is at this day vulgar in Africa; And that many words thereof extant in several Authors (as that in Plautus his Poeiulus) will appear to be of the same essence with Arabic, who will hereafter argue that these learned men were possessed with a fantasy as it hath been heretofore done, or that the name Phoeaicians, and Punics are not judiciously argued to be the same people for descent, like father and children, and therefore one and the same tongue, yet in way of weight I will place these three contrary and conclude, that the Tongue, the name, and the Authors together: do yield a good ground to judge of the unity or diversity thereof. Eighthly, The situation of a Country conduceth much to the right judgement of a tongue. As for instance the Persic tongue is very hardly believed to be of kindred with the Germane notwithstanding that many words are the very same, or almost the same with one another. Ninthly, A Tongue cannot suddenly be made native. For that which is already in use and every day practised will not easily give way unto a new one especially if it be different in essence. Tenthly, A Tongue suddenly arising is the native Tongue. When a people are quiet and not active either in War, merchandise or shipping (especially if fare distant) men will not regard their tongue, but let them be active and show themselves abroad, and then they will be presently taken notice of, when therefore the Arabic tongue (as authors weakly affirm) had over-runne so vast a space of above 3000 English miles in length, from its East the Persian Gulf until the last place of Africa West hitherwards, and that with ease, and without the groaning or murmuring of the people, as lying under the burden of a new tongue: is not this sufficient to convince us (Europeans) who are ignorant in our homebred tongues) that without doubt this hath been the natural and native tongue. Eleventhly. The derived tongues in Europe make up only one body of a tongue, always varying, but never wholly decaying. As the Original and Primitive (opposite to the derivative) is yet remaining, so are also the derivatives, and not yet lost. For as long as the Analogy of Adam remains in men, so long will the Analogy of the derived tongues remain in Hebrew, the accidentals whereof being many in one age, are but one in many ages: And I wish that hereafter it might be considered how much nature works in this behalf. Twelfthly. No Country populated is void of a tongue. For where there are men, there must be a tongue, and hence that proverb is true, Non datur vacuum in rerum natura, there is nothing void in nature. Wherefore it is unfound to say that this or that Country having before no tongue, hath in time gotten this or that. Thirteenthly. We must not rely only upon History. This I confess, belongs unto the name Authority, so that it should not have made a new propofition. But because every one looks not upon History as an argument from Authority, (especially the Author being behind the curtains) and I profess not to write here exactly logically, but only by way of Essay. I thought good to set this apart from that of Authority, others having done it before me. Neither this nor that must be looked upon so fare as to dote upon either of them, especially when other men have better grounds (in reason) from the very tongue itself. As for instance, if Historians assirme it never so confidently that the Punics were of a different off spring from the Arabians, and that it is only a thousand years since that tongue was by the Arabians brought into Africa. Yet because we know that the Arabians, and those from whence the Punics did descend (viz. the Phoenicians) were of one tongue, we know that it is an unsound assertion to say that the ancient Punic tongue is not the same with Arabic spoken at this day in Africa. Fourteen, The Primitive tongue never altars its nature. This proposition is not much thought on by Authors, when they conceive that the Oriental tongue doth sometimes change from pure, to impure, from learned, to unlearned and vulgar, sometimes increasing, and then again decreasing: But this cannot be so because of its primitivenesse, whereby it is simple, and will not suffer such gradations and declensions: For by their singleness they are more strictly bound unto the consonants, and less unto the vowels, their change and castings, than the unskilful of them can conceive. Fifteenthly, All derived tongues are changeable. So that if the Occidental, Meridiall, or Septentrional tongues would consider this, they would not claim such a prerogative above the primitive. A derived tongue will vary in the generality, and conceived pureness and elegancy, and cannot remain constant. Because, First it is derived. And secondly, it hath a vast variety of pronunciation expressed in all their writings, both in vowels and consonants. Sixteenthly, A strange tongue howsoever it may endure for a time, it cannot continue for ever. We have an example hereof in the Greek tongue, which spread very fare, especially towards the East, viz. in Syria, Palestina, Cilicia, part of Mesopotamia, and Arabia as is affirmed by Hierome: the dialect thereof being taken from Tyrus (for Sir, Sur, Dyr, Dur, Dor) was called Doric. But yet at the inundations of the Turks or Saracens it came to ruin; having been a stranger there for about 7 or 800. years. Seventeenthly, A tongue that rises in a country, and casts out a known strange to gue, is the true native tongue though formerly unknown. Hierome in the Proem upon the second book of his comment upon the Galatians says, that part of Arabia (which must needs have had the Arabic tongue) spoke Greek: hence it follows that Arabic was the vulgar speech thereof, as Syriac of Syria. Eighteenthly, Diversity of a climate, mingling with strangers, and tract of time, may do much to change a tongue. It is not the confusion of Babel, and the punishment of the Sinar rebels that is hereditary unto us (in the multiplicity of speech) as Adam's corruptions are, but those three things I set down in the proposition. For had there never been a confusion at Babel, this multiplicity of tongues would have been. The Scripture, Called paraphrasts, Sibyls and all speak of one tongue, not many. No man will deny that there is a multitude now, but whither from Babel or not is the question, which I determine negatively, It is, but not from Babel. Nor is Augustine's reason right, pro peccato dissensionis humanae, for the sin of man disagreeing, not only different dispositions, but different tongues came into the world. For Cayin and Habel, (or Hebel) disagreed, (but there was no such punishment) and so by degrees this disagreement grew hotter and hotter, insomuch that in 1656. years there grew such a fierce fire, that all the water in the world (much less a confusion of their tongues) but the whole cataracts from heaven must break out to quench it. Nay there was rather a contrary nature in those at Babel, for before the deluge they could not agree, but after it they conspired to be together in one place. Cum quisque principatum rapit, when every one would govern, (as Austin thinks) was rather before the deluge then after it, for it is without warrant of Scripture, for there it is not said that every one did strive at Babel for dominion. Nor was it (as Abidenus did conceive) to make them a way unto heaven, a childish conceit. Nor for fear of another (perhaps) ensuing deluge, as Josephus L. 1. de Ant. jud. ca 2. thinks. Nor for fear of the consumption of the world by fire. Nor upon that false reason of their certain agreement for Idolatry, (which the Jerusalem translation holds forth) by the phrase of preparing an everlasting name, a phrase too common in all languages to be here understood for that fearful name of God Almighty, as is to be seen in the 2 Sam. 18: 13. Es. 63: 12. & 14. Jer. 32: 20. Dan. 9: 15. Nor because they feared a confusion or dispersion to come; but because they would live altogether in one Kingdom, and set up at Sinear the Residence for their King, and get for themselves an everlasting name, which being against the counsel of God, (who would have them to fill the earth here and there) he did disperse them with that temporary variety of pronunciations whereby they were not able to understand one another, though the tongue remained one and the same, no new tongues then coined, no new languages then on a sudden arising, the variety of their pronunciation being abundantly sufficient to disperse them, which was the intention of God. One tongue being before the confusion of Babel, one in it, and one after it. For the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shafah signifies a lip, is contradistinct in Genesis 11: 1. to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dbatim words. This is the matter and the form. The tongue speaks, the lip forms it. Yet these two organs in our mouth are contradistinct, for the tongue is not the lip, nor the lip the tongue, and the tongue letters are different from the lip letters (as all Hebrew Grammarians show) and so they are also opposed Psal. 12.4. Who have said, with our tongue will we prevail, our lips are our own, who is Lord over us? and Ps. 140: 3. 1 Corin. 14: 21. We have but one tongue, though two lips: one tongue, but divers pronunciations. And the scripture tells us that God did not confound the tongue (less tongues) but the lips, the instrument forming the pronunciation, not of coining words. Abydenus by Eusebius and Cyrillus, expressly oppose these things also. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon those which hitherto had been of one tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was cast upon them a variety of sound or pronunciation. And the Sibylla by Josephus speaks only of the pronunciation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when all men had but one sound or pronunciation, they built a Tower, so that in our English the translation should run thus. Further, the whole earth was of one pronunctation, and that of the same words. 2. Therefore came it to pass, etc. If this be rightly (and I think it is by me) considered, I am sure no man will think that I have rondered the least word contrary to the mind of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, and many false suppositions being thereby taken away, will make an end of many endless questions about the escape of the Hebrew, as when, where, and how confounded or lost. Nay these three reasons have been briefly touched by that worthy and learned author Edward Brerewood, in his inquiries touching the diversities of languages in two places first page 51. The Punic tongue seemeth to me out of question to have been the Cnaanitish or old Hebrew language, though (I doubt not) somewhat altered from the Original pronunciation, as is wont (1) in tract of time to befall (2) Colonyes planted (3) among strangers fare from home. Again pag. 57 And certainly touching the difference that was between the Hebrew and the Punic, I make no doubt but (1) their great distance from their primitive habitation, and (2) their conversation with strangers among whom they were planted, and (3) together with both the length of time which is wont to bring alteration to all the languages in the world, were the causes of it. Nineteenthly, The Ebrews and Hebrew tongue are not denominated from Eber. The text Gen. 10: 21. translated runs thus. Concerning Sem (born to be the Grandfather of all the progeny beyond the River, brother of Yaset the Elder) 22. The sons of Sem were Elam, and Assur, and Arfacsad, and Lud, and Aram. 23. But the sons of Aram, Uz, and Khus, and Geter, and Mas. 24. But Arfacsad begat Salakh, and Selakh begat that Eber. 25. But to Eber was borne a twinling of sons: the name of the first was Feleg, [division] because in his days [niflega] there was divided the whole earth, but the name of his brother was Joqthan [the little one] Upon this place have the Jews constantly built the title of their name and tongue, but in my weak judgement, without reason. Nay Abraham in Gen. 14: 13. is also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haibrai, the stranger from beyond the River [Frat] which is unreasonably translated, the Hebrew, as if he also took his name from Eber. The reasons given for this opinion are these. First, if the word came of Aber, rather than Eber, the word should have been haabri, not haibri. I answer, 'tis true, but there is no such word as Aber a pass, but Eber, that proper name itself denotes a pass. Secondly, Eugubinus says, because they terminate the names of nations and kindreds (descending from proper names) in Yod, as Yhudy from Yhudah a Jew, Amalqy from Amaleq an Amalekite. Therefore this name haibri is most like to be derived from the proper name Eber, and to signify the Hebrew. I answer, in the very same chapter, viz. Gen. 10. there are 21 names of Nations, viz. in the 4. v. Kittim, Dodanim. 6. Mizrayim. 13. Ludim, Anamim, Lhabim, Naftukhim. 14. Fatrushim, Keshlukhim, Flistim, Caftorim. 16. Ybusi, Emori, Girgjasi, Khiwi, Arqi, Shini, Arvadi, Zmari, Khamati, Cnaani. Are all these derived from proper names, and none from appellatives? Thirdly, that Abraham was called an Hebrew of Eber, because all those, and none but those that continued in his faith retained the name. I answer, that we have not any place in Scripture which commends Eber for his faith. And therefore Abram may not receive this name upon an uncertain conjecture, when we have an infallible reason why called haibri, and that is this. That Abraham being in Mesopotamia or Aram Naharayim, (which place he and his servant in Gen. 24: 4.5.7. & 10. v. called his Country, because he had dwelled there with his then dead father, and yet living brother Nakhor) was called away from Kharan, from his brother Nakhor, out of the house of his father to go into Cnaan, where he was a stranger,; and so all along in Cnaan, Egypt, and Elon Mamreh he was called from being a stranger, a passenger: the Cnaanites not regarding or happily knowing any thing of Eber. To be short, Abraham was not esteemed or called by those Heathenish Cnaanites an Hebrew with respect to Eber (of whom perhaps they knew nothing) but from his being a stranger, a foreigner, a passenger, a Highlander, a Sojurner, a beyond-sea-man, whom the Arabians call Ma-waranahny, and in Latin we find Transylvanus, Trans-Isulanus, and by the Italians Tra-montano. The reason is rationally drawn. First, from the common fashion of all people to call a stranger and foreigner, not from his father (who usually they know not) much less from his seventh Grandfather, and yet lest from an unknown man who was borne 270 years before. Secondly, from the holy Ghost out of the mouth of a dying Martyr, Acts 7.6. And God spoke on this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange Land. His seed should be called a sojurner why? Because in a strange Land, Thirdly, none were called Ebrews from Eber before Abraham. Fourthly, Abraham himself was not called so before he came over the River into Cnaan, and although he be not called a stranger in all the 12 and 13, and until the 13 Verse of the 14 Chapter, it must not seem strange, because of his most valiant and strange victory over four Kings, (under one whereof he was likely borne) and relieveing five Kings of his dwelling Country. Moses sets down first that contemptible name, which he had before and now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 became more renowned. But to make it more clear whither the Nation of the jews could be called Ebrews from Eber or no, I will give you all those places where that name is used in the Old Testament, but before I do that I would desire you to consider what josephs' Mistress knew of the 10th Grandfather of her servant. Whom she loved (not because descending from Eber, nor because a stranger,) but because beaucifull, that grace in him did suppress all that contempt usually following a stranger; nor did she aggrevate her accusation against him to her Husband as being of the race of Eber (of whom I dare say they knew nothing) but because a servant, and a stranger. The places I give you here at large, Genesis 14: 13. 39: 14.17. 40: 15. 41: 12. 43: 32. Exodus 1: 15, 16, 19 2: 6, 7, 11 13. 3: 18. 5: 3. 7: 16. 9: 1.13. 21: 2. Deut. 15: 12.1 Sam. 4: 6.9. 13: 3.7.19. 14: 11. 21. 29: 3. jer. 34: 9.14. jona. 1: 9 And that Aber notes a passing over a River (as pasah to pass over a Country) see the place, 1 Sam. 13: 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Veibrim aberu et hay-yarden erez gad ugilad. And the Ebrews did pass over the River Jordan into the land of Gad & Gilead. So that I conclude that neither Abraham, joseph, nor the jews (in general) nor their tongue had the Name of Hebrew from Eber in whose family they will have his faith to remain, (and when this tongue was divided, it was wholly preserved in his family. A contradiction of dividing one thing so, as that it yet remains whole) whereas they also confess and cannot deny that the Yoqthanites, Yismaelites, Ydumites, Moabites, Ammonites, Madianites, and Amaleqites, do belong to that family, but have neither his faith nor tongue. So that we see the folly of the new jews, and our old Christian Hebrew professors in believing that the jews speak Oracles. Twentith, Hebrew, Called, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic, are of one and the same antiquity. This proposition takes away many superfluous questions, and unreasonable answers of many Authors that have hither to handled this subject. For if Hebrew were chief in Cnaan, than I am sure Arabic would be the elder, because first inhabited as lying nearer Babylon, but because they are all but one (and using only divers Synonima's which shows not the difference but largeness of them) there is none of them elder or younger than other. And thus have I done, Courteous Reader, about this, the most excellent, ancient, primitive and Mother tongue of all the World. And to learn that tongue is to learn the fundament of all things, as in Histories the names of Cities, Provinces, Kingdoms, Rivers, Plants, Trees, and Beasts, the ground of many fables whereof the Romances both old and new are full and too full. Nay because I am not able to speak fully enough about the usefulness of this Oriental tongue, I will here set down a part of the very words of our grave and judicious Ministry of London, in their petition to be humbly presented to the honourable Court of common counsel, subscribed by the appointment and in the name of the society of Syon-Colledge, jan. 12. 1647. That great and glorious appearance of our Lord jesus Christ in his Churches, by his spirit and power (so often foretold in the holy Scriptures) for the calling of the Jews, which belong to the election of grace, and for bringing in the fullness of the Gentiles, that all the Kingdoms of the Earth may become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ, seems to us, to be now coming upon the wing in the midst of those formidable concussions of all Nations, to make way for his glory, that the Earth may be filled with knowledge of the Lord, as the waters over the Sea. As a praeludium and preparative to this great work, we observe, that generally other Kingdoms, Commonwealths, and Cities of eminency and honour begin to look towards the study, and advancement of the Oriental Languages with greater care, than in former ages, as it were by a secret instinct and strong impulsion, making ready to receive of that blessing and grace which we cannot fully describe yet confidently expect. Hence it is that not only in Italy and Spain, but in Germany, France, and Switzerland the Netherlands and other states, the Magistrates are zealous promoters, and magnificent patroness of the Illustrious Professors, and profession of those tongues, with honourable maintenance at the public charge. The too great defects of able and profitable Professors of those tongues in this Kingdom (except in the Universities) the strong apprehensions of many men of the difficulties of attaining those Languages, together with the small success of the various attempts of sundry Smatterers in those studies (which have rendered them both obscure and contemptible) do plainly declare the great necessity of public countenancing and advancing more apt and effectual means, to facilitate and carry on so great a work. Manifold and inestimable are the benefits of it. Thereby shall industrious men see more clearly with their own eyes the very mind of GOD in that same Tongue, wherein himself uttered it, and be not only better settled in the truth of our own Translations, but able to understand those ancient versions of the holy Bible in those learned Languages, and other Authors of worth and use, as also with greater advantage to converse, and traffic with the Eastern Nations in their own Languages, which marvellously winneth upon the Natives of any Kingdom, where ever Travailors or Merchants come. Besides it will greatly propagate this kind of learning, whereby not only the present age, but our posterity will be more capable of the spiritual advantages of the Jews conversion, if not to contribute to it. So fair that passage of the Reverend Divines, My very much honoured, esteemed and beloved brethren and Friends. I will add only one word concerning Arabic, viz. because it is the same tongue with Hebrew, I desire my courteous Reader to lay aside all ill opinions and preconcept fancies concerning this tongue, because it is the tongue of the Turcks. For it is not their true and natural tongue but (as they descend from the Tatars) they have the Tatar for their Mother tongue but because the grand Signior or Emperor's government spreads over Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and all the Mediterranean Seashore of Asia and Africa, (except only Asia the less) speak the Arabic tongue and are for the most part Muhammedans, known to us by that general name of Turks. Let us not scorn this tongue but rather rejoice that we have such a considerable progress of it (not only under the name of Arabic) diligently advanced not only by Germans, French, Italians, and Low Duchmen, but even by Englishmen themselves, partly by setting up particular professors for this tongue in both Universities Oxford and Cambridge, the latter being honourably upheld by that renowned Citizen, And right Worshipful, Alderman adam's, late Lord Major of London my especially respected and beloved patron and Friend; partly by giving and bestowing an infinite treasure of this kind of Manuscripts upon both Universities, lately by the Parliament; and by that worthy and Honourable Knight Sir Thomas Wroth, unto the Library of Zion College here in London, partly by elaborating most gallant books in this kind, partly by the diligent studying of this judicious Nation in them. Let therefore the Arabic tongue be commended unto thee, as that wherein lies hid, greater profit than in all Greek and Roman antiquities. yea as far as piety hath a greater reward then worldly wisdom. I would I might now prove a true Prophet in this, that God hath left all the innermost parts of Africa, unknown unto us, and us unto them, that when we come unto them, it may be with the Arabic printed bible in our hands, thereby to call them to the church of God. England, England, would to God thou knewest the things that belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes! Couldst thou but love the men of Asia and Africa, (as well as thou dost their silks and precious Stones,) give them the Hebrew, and Arabic bible, teach them thy Art of printing and receive from them their Arabic, and Ethiopic rare Jewels of books, what joy would arise in the heart of thy children, and what a thankful mind wouldst thou find amongst these ignorant men. An infinite treasure is not necessary to bring this to pass, one week's revenues of the excise would do it. Nay let but those gifts (dedicated unto pious uses) be rightly bestowed, and there would be no need of a new supply. All the ports of Africa, and Asia will admit you with the Arabic bible. And if ye had thousands thereof, Turks, jews and Christians would buy them of you in Asia and Africa, if you would but go unto those parts where the grand Signior of Constantinople hath not so great authority, or else to the Ethiopians (who are Christians like us) and so from behind the Muhammedans bring in their printed Books. FINIS. Postscript. COurteous Reader, I confess ingeniously, that I have been deceived in the true Arnobius upon the Psalms, but yet according as I learned it from Erasmus Roterodamus in his preface to Pope Adrian the VI set forth at Basil Anno. 1522. in folio. But his Grace, My Lord Primate, was pleased to inform me, that this Arnobius upon the Psalms was not that African Arnobius living about 300 years after Christ. And hence it is that Hierome in whose age he lived, spoke honourably of his writings adversus gentes, but that upon the Psalms he could not mention, because this Arnobius the author of it was not then living, and therefore by Sixtus Senensis called Arnobius junior, and that African, Arnobius Senior. Nay Erasmus himself confesses, this author upon the Psalms too be so full of manifest Solecisms, ut vix Holcot & Bricot soloecisset crassius And then no wonder that this suppositious author should have that foolish mistake of 1000 Nations for Generations, and of 72 Tongues in the World. Now doth follow a general. A GENERAL GRAMMAR FOR THE Hebrew, Samaritan, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic Tongue. BY Christian Ravis. LONDON: Printed by W. Wilson, for T. jackson, and are to be sold by him at the Star in Duck-lane, 1648. paradigm Praxis lectionis A practice of reading: paradigm Elementa Primoerae Linguae Sanctae consistunt in The first elements of the Oriental language consisting of The Preface. IF this Tongue shall become easy and common we must lay down good fundamental Rules for two divers Books, viz. The Grammar and the Dictionary. Orthography gives the fundamental Rules for Analogy; for whatsoever is natural and essential unto this Tongue in the former, will yield essential Rules for the latter. And whatsoever is only accidental to this tongue (being brought in by some ingenious invention) will afford Rules only for accidental observations in Analogy. Analogy is the second part of Grammar containing Rules for Noun and Verb, and layeth down likewise the fundamental order of the Dictionary. Upon the inward essential division of the Analogy dependeth the multitude and distinction of the Syntacticall Rules. Every part being of a different Office, Degree, and Action must be kept within its bounds and limits, as for instance, whatsoever belongs unto Analogy must not be brought unto Orthography, nor Syntacticall things unto Analogy. We must first diligently and distinctly consider single Words, before we come to the joining sense: Therefore in the Dictionary as well as in the Grammar all care must be had to insert such things as will make the Tongue easy and plain. The Dictionary will afford greater ease for this Tongue then the Grammar itself, and it is either General, or Special. The General comprehends not only all the Roots of Hebrew, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but also their divers forms of Nouns and Verbs analogal, or Anomall, collected out of several Authors, and Dictionaries, with all their special significations. The special containing all the 8000 Roots, with the Hebrew, and Called forms, so fare only as they are extant in the Hebrew Bible, not only with all the significations of them as hitherto set down by Authors, but also much enriched with Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic significations, which will do much good frequently in the Bible. A General Grammar for Hebrew, Samaritan, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic. RULE I. AS other Tongues may be written forwards or backwards, that is towards the right or left hand, so this. Therefore Hebrew, Samaritic, Syriac and Arabic is written towards the left, Ethiopic towards the right hand, like Greek, and Latin, and all other European tongues, descending from this primitive. Rule II. As other Tongues, so this writes the Letters a part, or joins them. The jews as they writ any tongue with their letters, so did they the bible and other books of note with Letters a part, (as we do in printing) yet in their common writings (doubtless) they did (as we do for celerity sake) join their Letters. And that by a threefold argument, 1. Because it is natural to all people to write fast, and joining the characters is the only way. 2. The heathens contradistinct to the Jews of that Country, viz. the Syrians being Christians, and Arabians for the most part Muhammedans, do write the Letters jointly, as other Countries do, when they would write fast. And no doubt, it is the common course of that Country as well as it is of ours. Only some few Letters they join not, (viz. The Syrians a, d, e, u, tz, r, t, or Olaf, dolat, He, Vaughan, Tzode, Ris, and Taw. The Arabians, a, d, w, z, & r, or Elif, Del, (Dsel) vaw, zayin, ra.) with any following Letter, but with the foregoing they are as well as any other. ●. a, & l, or Aleph, and Lamed are found joined in one figure by the Jews. The Etiopians do write every Letter apart like the Jews, which I think is done by them only in some books of note as the bible, and all Church-books, yet in common writings I doubt not but that they join them as well as we. Otherwise they may be thought to want the common sense in writing. I desire that this may be enquired after, and being found by experience to be so, that Europe may be acquainted with it. Rule. 3. The essential dust (or stroke) of the Letters in this whole primitive Tongue is one and the same. Hebrew and Called Letters are the very same, for there are no Chaldeans extant, but the jews (since the Babylonian captivity) who gave unto that form of writing and pronunciation (which they learned there) the name of Called; notwithstanding they lived in Jerusalem and the rest of the holy Land. The jews use these murabba or square Letters which they call Called in any tongue whatsoever, as in Italian, Spanish, Germane, French, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Polonian, or Muscovian tongues. The Samaritan are the old Hebrew Letters, used by the Jews before the Babylonian captivity. My reason is this, First, because they are less polished more crooked, unproportionable, uneven and ill-favoured, than the common Hebrew now in use. For as the Jews (before the captivity) were less civilised, more proud, stiffnecked, rebellious, untractable, and hardhearted, not only to strangers but to themselves also: (as appears by the general complaint of the Prophets) so (after that affliction of 70 year's captivity) they became more meek, humble, patiented, and tractable: and in that time finding that the Chaldeans had the same Language, in essence, with them, and that their writing was more neat and comely than their own (by how much those were a better governed and policyed people than they) they began not only to learn, but affect, and that so well that they left their own, crooked, and ill-favoured Character unto those Samaritans, (which they called Cuttims, because descending from Cuthaya, or Scythia,) out of an hatred of their worship, and religion, and love of their own religion, and new learned Character, which they found to be more easy and neat than their old. Secondly, because it is the common course of all Nations to mend the fashion of their writing, as the Germans, Lowduch, Polonions, and English themselves have done, and do yet daily. The Syrian Characters are the same formerly used in Syria, Cnaan, Flistea, or Palestina, by the Heathens or Christians, not the Jews, and thence it is that the greatest difference betwixt Called and Syriac is only in the characters, the tongue being the same called Called, when the Jews speak it, and Syriac when the Christians. Now we know well enough, that religion doth not change the tongue, as when popery was cast out of England, the tongue did remain the same. And those petty differences between Called and Syriac taught by Emira, Ecchellensis, Waserus, Masius, Crinesius, de Dieu, and others following them, shall all be cleared up, and taken away in their proper, place. Neither do they write downwards (as Masius etc. affirm) but only some men for their more perfect and accurate writing, turn first their paper downward, then make they that basis or fundamental stroke, whereby the characters are joined, downward, and so write the body of the Letters all along upon it; which fully done, they turn again upwards; Nor do they use many different fashions of their writings about the lines, but writ line for line as we do. And there are many thousands that do not turn their paper and yet write as fair and swift as the other. And this I have observed myself by many that have resolved me that question; The other Syriac Estrangelo Letters are also the same, but only that they are less polished as being more ancient. The Arabians as they have the same way of joining, so have they likewise the essential writing. The names (if fully written) would appear to be, [1.] the same names, [2.] the same fort of Letters, [3.] the names to be taken out of the same tongue, and [4.] that their order should be the same with Hebrew Samaritan, Called, and the Syriac Alphabet. All the difference may easily be shown by degrees, going from Samaritan to the old Syriac, hence to the new Syriac of Trostius his new Testament, or the books printed in Germany and Leyden by Erpenius, hence to that latter printed at Rome, given out by Gabriel Sionita, or by that Syriac Old and New Testament lately given out by that same worthy and learned man at Paris. Hence to some fare better Syriac Manuscripts extant in England, which being compared with the most ancient Arabic writing (as I have seen it at Ephesus in a table) that hangs there in a Church built by a Turck to the honour of jesus Christ called Isa Peigamber; the characters thereof being like Syriac) you will find them to be almost all one Nay among my own Manuscripts, I have some pieces of Arabic witten upon Parchment being the Cufi. writing, which comes very near unto the neatest Syriac extant. There are here in England above 20000 several fashions of Arabic writings, every Manuscript being different from other, and some of them being composed of several tracts, bound up together will afford 10, 20, nay 30, several forms of writing. And I myself have one Manuscript that contains above an hundred different sorts. Wherefore you must not stand either upon this or that print, for even as we ourselves differ in writing so do they. And therefore I desire you to acquaint yourselves with the written books as much as possible. Nay there are some copy books published in sundry countries, wherein (that they might be thought to be skilful in strange tongues) they have made such soul work about the Syriac, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Malayan, Tatar, and Mogul Letters that I am ashamed of them. Nay among printed books only France and Italy have good Arabic characters, those in Germany, and the Low countries are not good. Nor are Erpenius his characters according to the true and neat Arabic dust in writing. Nor are those Arabic pieces cut in copper, in the deceased Crinesius his book called Babel, or Joh. Zechendorfius yet living; (both Germans) well performed. But I hope we shall shortly make neater work in that kind here in England then hath been done hitherto in Europe. Rule 4 They have all one and the same consonants in power and by way of pronouncing: not much different from our English. The pronunciations, which we have in our English Alfabet of all our letters, we see to be almost the same with French, High and Low Dutch, and other Nations of Europe; on the same fashion those of the Orient being as well Men as we, have not much less, or much divers soundings of letters. The primitif thus. (a) b g d h (e) v (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. y (i) k l m n x (sh.) (o) f (p) (rz) q r s t. Our English is, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, w, x, y, z. just so pronounces the Ebrue, and Samaritic, Called and Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, viz. A b c, or g as we English pronounce g before e or i, ge, gi', the reason is, because that c in Italy, from whence we fetch our Alfabet, before e or i, is pronounced, as if à t were before je, ji, thus tje, tij: and our g is pronounced as if there were à d before je, ij, thus, dje, dij. So that the difference is between the Italian or Roman c and the English, Ebrue, Arabic, Called and Syriac g, as the proportion of 〈◊〉. D, e, because the Grecians, who did immediately receive their Alfabet from this primitife Tongue, as the son is the immediate heir of his parents, almost generally have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e, yet for the most part even that same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they pronounce as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e, hence it is no wonder, that in the Greece, Latin, English and all occidental alfabets is a simple e (in place of that easy, the easiest breath of all the guttural letters after a,) called by the Grecians the spiritus lenis and he the spiritus asper. F is unjustly, yet according to many hundert Nations in the World, arisen in place of the primitive w, or v consonant, which being too hard pronounced by the Coptites, the Romans, Italians, Spaniards, French, made filius from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with an interpofition of l between two i, viz. u & i; thus is f in place of w, v. G is come in place of the primitive easy s; for the pronunciation of zayin, is as the Grecians, Germans, and Low Coùntry pronounces in the beginning of any word. And because that some of the Aeolians and old Latins did pronounce g as the French do, je, ge, hence is it, that they mistaking the second degree of s (done only by the tongue and the teeth) which is, the tongue not coming at the teeth, as the teeth closed, and the made with a cavity, make z a g, as the French ge and je. Then the primitive letter requires a single sibilation, and the Greece letter, from whence the Latins have it, a compound one. H, this is from the second fort of h in the primitive tongue, the second whereof is here the single h; in Ebreu it is of a double pronunciation: first Kh, easy unto all the Europians almost, except English and French 2. half h and half kh, almost impossible for all the Europians. Yet by the Jews ye may learn it the best. Here follows a letter unknown unto the Latins, from whence the English have their Alfabet, to wit, th'; the Greecs as the nearest unto the Orient and these parts that did speak this tongue, have it from this primitive tongue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thét, theta. And must be pronounced with the breadth of the tongue. I, is in this primitife tongue the y of the English and French pronunciation. The Latins mistaking it to be naturally a vowel, when it was a consonant, made it a vowel. Yet as in this primitive tongue all the letters are consonants and not vowels, so is also the whole Alfabet of Greece, Latin, English and of all Europe only consonants, not vowels, whereof now and then some become to be vowels, yet by a mere accident. K, l, m, n. are of the same nature in the primitife, that they are in English, only take heed, that you never pronounce, k as kh, but constantly as ca, co, cu. Ka ke, ki, ko. ku. Here comes in another letter, known by the Greecs, Romans and English (rightly placed only in the Greece Alfabet) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x, which all the people pronounce es, but yet many times must be pronounced sc, or sh: and that by these following arguments. 1. You have in all tongues the sound of s and sh. Now if ye pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x as cs, and not sc, or sh, than you bereave the Greece and all other Europian Alfabets of that sh. And yet as you have in this whole primitife tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sin, or sh and s, (the names of these sounds let them be, whatsoever they will) so naturally in all the occidental tongues: and if x be pronounced only like cs, then is should in n one of our occidental alfabets, whereby they will become not only shorter than their parents, the oriental alfabet, but also of their own natural expression. 2. The name of the letters are not sin and ksin, but sin and shin; as all the World doth agree. Now in the Greece we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin theo, cum Deo, being that one name of these two letters, ergo must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not be read ksyn, but shyn theo. 3. cs or ks is a compound sound but sh is not a compound sound. 4. The Arabic tongue which is spread through whole Africa and almost a third part of Asia doth pronounce sh in most of those words, which in Ebreu, Called and Syriac are written with that shamek in whose order and place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greece alfabet expressly stands. 5. The figure of the Greece letter itself shows, that it is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. three teeth, only that in the primitife these teeth stand upright, in the Greece towards the right hand. 6. The name of the letter in the Greece is not from shamek, but from shîn, and n being cut off doth remain shi, which now commonly is called csi. Yet in the Jewish, Called, and Christian, Syriac, or Muhammedan Arabic, and Heathenish Greece and Romish tongue this Letter is not constantly read as sh, but only as s; whereof many it stances might be made. O. In this primitife tongue. ayin is and signifies an eye and that form has it in all the tongues; and as no body in English, Latin or Greece calls it gno, ngo, hno, nho, or otherwise, so it must neither be pronounced thus in the primitife. First, because it is a pronunciation of non sense, used by no people 2. Because the Arabians, and Syrians, and Ethiopians do pronounce it only deep out of the throat. 3. the Latin could not pronounce it. 4. Gn is a compound sound of g and n; but all the alfabet letters are of a single sound 5. it makes a confusion of two instiuments of our speech, the palate and tongue, as if these two made up the throat, when these two are different parts of our mouth as between themselves, so also with the throat. It is therefore the surest way for us, to leave it out wholly in our pronunciation. P. Is never pronounced thus in this holy tongue, but constantly f, nor has yet whole Africa and that great part of Asia (where this primltife tongue hath continued ever since the Babylonian confusion) any p at all, but f: hence it is that the Ethiopians have gotten in their Alfabet a new letter to a p, which as you may see in the words, where it doth occur by them, is used only in such proper names of the Greek Testament and elsewhere, which were pronounced p, as; Paul, Peter. Nay the Persians and Turcs have some words wherewith they jeer the Arabians, because they cannot pronounce p. Hence is it that the Romans did use an h by that p, to sweeten it. The Greecs had both sounds, poe and see, which they call pi and fi, nor is that Greece fi more than a fingle f. Here comes in the letter tz, not so much with a t, or d, as different from the hard s by a broad and obscure pronunciation of it. For the hard s, which follows, is of an acute sound, and for the most part with the vowels, a, e, i, o, u. but zet, er zade with the vowels a, o, ou. Q. This letter the Romans, and also we Northern people have gotten from this primitife tongue: it hath the pronunciation of k, I confess, yet a great deal deeper out of the throat. The Greecs being unable to pronounce it so hard, left it out, and put in all places a k instead thereof. The Romans more Northerly being of a harsher sound than the Grecians retained it, and for difference sake put constantly an u consonant by it, which yet they did not pronounce, as out of Cicerôs' jest is observable, ego coque te adiuvabo, for quoque: and hence is it that the French never pronounce qu otherwise then a simple k. therefore should we leave out constantly that u, and never pronounce it neither. For this our mother tongue shows it to be a superfluous v, and not to be expressed with a sound, and that q is expressable without the writing or pronouncing of an v. R. Has nothing to be noted. S. This is that fifth degree of an s, as we constantly pronounce si sharp at the end of a word. The first degree thereof being as it is used in the beginning of Germane and Low Dutch words pronounced like an English z. the second degree like sj. the third sh of a more hard pronunciation, the fourth sa. T. Is that simple t, which all these dialects in the East, and the most of that offspring in Europe have at the end of their Alfabets: it must never be pronounced like th', nor written with an h. And because it doth frequently mingle with the s before, and the s with this t, hence it is, that d doth also now and then mingle with s; yet must they be constantly looked upon as divers letters. And therefore where the Called and Syriac doth not show the difference of a natural d and t from a d and t grown out of s, there the Arabic is more circumspect, and doth show it. And where in Arabic it should be left out, or superfluous added, that must not be ascribed to the tongue, but the Authors of them, who do fail therein. Rule 5. The consonants are either of a hard, or of an easy and sweet pronuneiation. This is to be observed in all these dialects, howsoever set down only in the Arabic, the observation whereof doth frequently open the eyes of the jews & Christians in the Hebrew, Called, Samaritic and Syriac. It being the old question, why so many s, so many d and t, h and g, k and a. The answer is, because they have in the orient for an easy, sweet, and acute pronunciation an easy a, d, h, g, k, and t, for a hard one, an hard a, damn, ha', ga, qa, ta. The easy letters are following, 1.2.3.4.5.7. 10.11.12.13.14.15.17. 21.22. the hard letters are 6.8.9.16.18.19.20. In the Arabic names you may easily discern them, for all those that are of a sweet pronunciation, are with e, i or u: Elif, be, te, the, gim, del, dsel, ze, sin, shin, fe, kef, lem, min, nun, he, ye. The hard with an a, ha', kha, ra sad, dad, ta, da, ayin, gayin, qaf, vaw. Rule 6. They number by the order of the Alfabet. The first nine begin from one, still adding a unity, arise till nine. The second nine begin from ten and still adding ten, arise to ninty: in the third nine, which is not as yet half, they begin from one hundert, and arise to four hundert: and so further as in the table. The Arabians have the same order and numbering from whence it is clearly seen, that they had formerly the same order with the Ebrue Alfabet. Yet they have also another sort of figures for those nine numeral figures, which as commonly esteemed, they received out of the East Indies, but that is but an old fable. For they do arise from the Ebrue or Arabic letters. You have them at the end of the table. The Etiopians use the Greece letters but of a very old and rude stamp, whereof you may learn by the way from the Etiopians an old kind of Greece letters. Rule 7. The number of them is two and twenty. The whole tongue has 22 letters; for so many, and no more are in Ebrue and Samaritic, Called and Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, confessed by all the Grammarians, who do agree about that number. Yet there are some objections. 1. There are 23 consonants because Shamek or Samek, Shemkat or Semkat is a letter a part, Shin and sin being two divers letters, which make up that number of 22. Answer, Shamek or Shemkat is only a surname of Shin, and by accident of Sin, as the figure of it in Syriac shows, which is the same with the Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only closed above by quick writing performed with one stroke, and joined with the following, which joining the Jews have not observed in their Ebrue Text, and Called paraphrast, where for more perfection sake they do write all their letters a part, as we in our print. The number (as likewise the order in the following rule) is to be demonstrated out of the Psalms of David and the Lamentation of Jeremy. The space of time between them both is 450 years almost, whereof we see the constancy of that number and order of the Alfabet. In the 25 Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joined in the 2 verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 5 verse, no verse begins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary has two verses, and thus to make up the number of 22, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed at the end. In the 34 Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begins again the 2 verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in the 6 verse, and to make up the number 22, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth it, yet it hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the conclusion as in the Psalm before. In the 37 Psalm every letter has two verses, excepting only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have but one, whereof the second doth lack. The 28 verse must end in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 29th begin with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sake, whereunto belongeth the 30th beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is now the 29th, the sum of the verses then being 41, and adding those 3 lacking, it shows plainly that the Psalm than would have 44 verses, the half of it 22, the sum of the Letters. In the 112th Psalm there are joined two letters in one verse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 25 and 34 Psalms, and thus would the number of the verfes be 11, but now seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is cast to the ninth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 10th, there are but 10 verses. Yet in all these Psalms there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning any verse, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Samek or Shamek is constantly there. In the 119 Psalm there are besides 8 verses from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his order, three should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among 5 s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its order, which is the only confusion I find in these Psalms in this Letter. In the 145 Psalm it seems as if the verse beginning from Nun, were loft, whence it is, that this Psalm hath only 21 verses. In the first Chapter of the Lamentation (made as I say 450 years, or thereabouts after the Psalms) there are 22 Verses according to the number of the Letters. Now to answer unto that great objection, which out of all these Psalms may be made, I say here only, that in all the Dictionaris of this tongue, already extant, is to be seen, a great part of the words with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1.2. & 3. radical to be written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and those with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be written by the jews in their rabbinical books with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet these two names, Shin and Sin to be all along this tongue, except in Syriac. And that the greatest part of those roots which have our Hebrew, Called, and Syriac, to be written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of three points, which expressly is called Shin; Yet some words with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have only in Arabic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of no point: which is an exception. For that which hath the greatest weight, makes by me the rule; and that which hath the fewest examples, makes by me the exception. I have also observed in some christian Manuscripts in Arabic written among the Muhammedans for our christians sake, that they frequently writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 3 points in place of Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they do, as I was told of them, only that the Turks should not presently understand the christian books, for fear of finding something written against their faith, they might begin a persecution. But I believe it to be rather out of ignorance of Orthography than such reason, the Turcs knowing it before hand, that Christians have other principles, and that they do write something now and then in their books to retain them Christians, and avert them from the Turkish faith. Summa, even this letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being esteemed to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and anomalically with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, has made that great obstacle, that learned men could not find that unity of those six tongues; And that what Wemmer says in his Etiopie Grammar, that Saut and Saat be of the same sound, both pronounced likes, is false; no tongue in the World lacking these two degrees of s and sh: not Hebrew, Samaritic, Called, Syriac and Arabic, why than Etiopic? But so men do speak and write, when they learn and teach without reason, and trial. Nor 24; as if Vaughan quiescent or pronounced were two divers letters, which is false, and yet thus set down by Elias Hutter, in his Cubus, forceably brought in only to fill up the number of 24, and so to make a right square or cubas: where as there is à double vau there must then be given also a double alef movable or quiescent, a double he movable or quiscent, and a double yod movable or quiescent. Nor 27; as Abraham de Balms a Jew will have it in his Grammar, feigning the five final letters in Ebrue to be new letters besides these 22. Nor 28; as the new Arabians have it in their Garmmar; and as all the Christian Grammarians do follow them; because that six letters do receive a point for a double pronunciation sake: which fix letters added to those 22, should make up 28. For upon the same ground in Ebrue also six letters receiving a point dages (constantly asserted to be for a double pronunciation sake of them, which is false, yet in the interim admitted) would make also in Ebrue 28 letters; whereas in both dialects this point not regarded leaves only 22 letters. Nor 29, because the new Arabians have joined two letters in one, Lam Elif, and the Syrians, Lomad olas or claf lomad, and the Rabbins Alef Lamed; for this combination of two letters of the Alfabet makes no new letter, otherwise would the Arabians and Syrians have thousands of letters more, according the variation of joining two, three, four, five, six nay seven consonants; from which it is, that the Greece combinations of Letters in the Greece Royal at Paris in the Lovure do amount unto 600 and odd, where there are only 24 letters. Nor 30; as Wemmer and all those, that have written about the Etiopic Alfabet at Rome and elsewhere, do falsely assert: some of the former being doubled in pronunciation, as by the Arabians, and some new Latin or Greece Letters added, who made a new Alfabet. Rule. 8. Their order only one, of a divine authority, of God's wisdom and of a secret connexion of things signified by them. The Arabians have formerly changed this order, which is clearly of divine authority and evident unto any one that looks upon the 25.34.37.112.119 and 145 Psalms together with the first Chapter of the Lamentation of Jeremy, where always is observed one and the same order, never changed or altered. Now this holy tongue being given by God Almighty to Adam, and being retained till David, and 450 years further till jeremy, should not that make us consider, that as God order all things wisely, so truly there is God's wisdom in this order also. But mankind is so blind, that thousands cannot see, what easily is seen by others, thousands think themselves to see something, which others perceive to be nothing at all, some seeing to much, others, to little. Yet if they see with reason, notwithstanding esteemed to see to much, see and look more truly into things, than those that will not use the eyes of their mind, or reasen. And further, because that the consonants in this tongue make the root, and give them the signification, it is clear, that the consonants have to signify things, and consonants following according to God's order, here is, no doubt, a secret connexion of those things, which either the consonants, (before they come into the root,) do signify or their names import. A thing necessary to be studied, inquired, deeply searched, and in many hundert places easily observable, by hundreds observed, and formerly inquired. Yet it is clear and evident, that the Arabians of old had the very same order of the consonants with Ebrue, Samaritic, Called, and Syriac, because the same letters with Arabic do signify the same number with the Ebrue letter. Which numbering arises from their order; And the numbering being the same, the order is the same. Notwithstanding this divine order, some Arabic Grammars, and Masters of their Schools and children ignorant of God's Word in the old Testament not looking upon this order as a divine thing, did change their Alfabeticall order according to the changement of their figure, and brought b and t together, g and kh, r and z, shin or samek and sin (should or or x and s) f and q; yet did retain some small remainders of the old Alfabet, a, b, g, d, z, x, tz, e, f, q, k, l, m, n, v, y. Which changing of the figure did immediately descend from the rounder writing of the Siriac letters, as any body may observe. And yet the Etiopians have changed their order a great deal more thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (again) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereof having nothing to say, when, by whom, why, how this change of that old divine order came to pass, we rest, till we learn some thing out of Etiopia thereabout. In the Ebrue, Called and Siriac dictionaries is this order happily observed, and is to be observed still, only that upon one rule quiescentes alternant, the quiescent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 avy do change among themselves without alteration) all the words of v and y the 1.2. & 3. radical are to be brought to a; which hitherto is not done. And that excellent Man Mr. Bedwell as also Mr. Schindler in Germany did both right well, to bring all the Arabic roots to the Ebrue order. And I wish hearty, that England would remember its honour in that man of this Country. Rule. 9 The words are usually left wholly and rot broke in two divers lines, as we do in our writings and printings. I confess this not to be of the essential part of things in this tongue about the writings thereof, yet it presents the most diligent and curious cautions of writing, whereof in the whole orient they are a great deal more curious and accurate, than we or any others that have the art of printing. The writing of their books being very chargeable, they perform it with as great diligency, as formerly the Monks did among us, whereof we have at this very day many great, precious, and beautiful remainders in public, and glorious libraries of private Gentlemen. Hence it is, that the letters are dilated or contracted, are longer or shorter, are of many and different forms even as among us every one writes diversely: And yet if the line be filled, they writ the rest in the margin, parallel with the line, or write it above the last word or syllable: scarce ever break the word so, as to put the rest in the following line. Rule 10. Constantly these Consonants do begin the syllable. It is not in this tongue as it seems to be in ours, where many hundrets of words begin with the vowel, not with the consonant: so that if any syllable in this tongue be heard to begin with a, e, i, o, u, you must still imagine an alif or ayin to be before that vowel. And yet, if ye rightly scan our English, Latin and Greece Alfaber, it is in our tongues as in theirs, in theirs, as in ours, because that notwithstanding some of our Alfabet, viz. a e, i, o, u, being true consonants (which appears out of this primitife tongue, from whence our Alfabet arises) yet are they taken to be vowels, even so in this primitife tongue, these six 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a, e, i, o, u, and y, notwithstanding that they are true consonants yet many times they are esteemed in place of vowels, and therefore called matres lectionis, to read by them. Rule 11. The alfabet is divided into letters of the throat, lip, palate, teeth and tongue. And this division as it holds in all tongues of the World, so here in this whole tongue, not that the teeth and tongue letters are form by the teeth and tongue only, as the throat, lip and palate letters are by them, which 12. letters the Arabic Grammarians ascribe to the Moon, but the tongue is the chiefest instrument with the teeth in the tongue letters, as the teeth the chiefest instrument with the tongue in the teeth letters: which tongue and teeth letters are by the Arabic Grammarians ascribed unto the Sun. Therefore alef, he, Khet, ayin are of the throat. bet, vav, man, fe, are of the lip, gimel, yod, kaf, quf, are of the ; zayin, shin or Shamek, Tzade, Res and sin are of the teeth principally, besides the tongue; and dalet, thet, lamed, nun, and tau are of the tongue principally, besides the teeth. Rule 12. The figure of the consonants are for the most part a little changed at the end of a word. And thereby you may easily observe the end of every word almost, especially in Arabic, where you have very many of letters written with some confident struck at the end, more than in Syriac, Called, and Ebrue, where there is only five such, kaf, man, nun, fe, tzade. Besides them in Arabic bêt, gimel, he, khet, yod, lamed, shin, ayin, quf, sin, tau. Whereof we see, that the Jews in the Ebrue, Samaritic, and Called, the Christians in the Siriac and Ethiopic have had many more final letters, than now are seen, nay in Samaritic and Etiopic as yet we see none at all. But those are such adiaforâs, and indifferent things, that they as mere trifles cannot make à real diverfity of these tongues. Rule 13. Many of the letters are very like one another and therefore well to be distinguished. In Hebrew and Called, 1. b, k, n, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b has a sharp corner within, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k more round. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n hath the upper and lower struck shorter, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. d, k final, 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d is not longer than the rest of the letters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k final is longer, and hath in books with pricks either (:) or qamez within. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d is with a sharp corner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r with a more round one. Hierome says of d and r excepto larvo apice similes sunt, they are like one another except a little point: this point we shall find in the Siriac Alfabet. 3. h, kh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h is open, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kh is close, 4. v, z, n final. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; vau doth denote a hook, and so it is shaped, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Latin z, whereof the sound is almost the same within the Latin S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n final is longer than the rest of the letters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 z of the same length with the rest. 5. sh, m final, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sh is round. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m square, 6 kh, t. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kh is made with a direct stroke downwards, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t with a crooked one. The rest are easily discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ft, vy, ng, should m th', tz, a. In Siriac. 1. ayin and lamed. ayin is not so high as lamed. 2. nun and yod as they have the same figure in Arabic, so in Siriac. Yet for some distinction sake the n is higher, and the y lower. Though, as reason will teach, every man that writes, doth not constantly make the strokes so perfect as it should be, thence comes it, that n is frequently mistaken for y, which has afterwards caused a false rule by all the Syrians and Called Grammarians as if n were the formative letter of the third Masculine singular and plural in the future: which exception in Called and Syriac from Hebrew Arabic and Etiopic being false (only a mistake in writing) can make no different tongue, r a point above d beneath. In Arabic you have in the table my nine figures, whereby all the distinction is easily observed. And so far have you the first Elements of the essential parts, viz. Consonants (of this Oriental and primitive tongue, viz. Ebrue, Called, Samaritick, Etiopic, Siriac and Arabic, their uniform found, number, order, name, form either Biblic, or Rabbinic in Italy or Germany, either capital, middle or final letters, separated, or joined, either through the whole Alfabet, or of some among themselves: and how that all the letters are joined both with the foregoing, and following, except in Siriac and Arabic five, Elif, del, (dsel) ra ze, uâu. Whereunto is added in Siriac three others more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Arabic table they are showed separated and joined, according to the order of the latter Arabians, which Erpenius, and others did propound: yet it had been better not to follow it so closely. And finally you have by mine invention nine figures of those 22 Arabic letters, whereby you may better understand the reason and essential struck of their shape. APPENDIX. Followeth now the second part, viz. of Pricks, and Strooks. The accidental parts of this whole Tongue. RULE I. Pricks and Strocks are either in place of Vowels, disting vishing, or Accents. IT is a great question, and mightily debated by two learned men of this time, whether any of these pricks and strooks, representing the Vowels, Characteristics and Accents, were from the beginning of the use of the tongue, and so in the Ebrue Bibel a part of God's Word and tongue, without which almost no place in Scripture could be rightly understood or no, I deny them to be coaeva consonis, to have been written by Moses the holy penman of the Law, and punctually fet unto the consonants, as we now see them printed; nor the rest of the books where by any author of theirs so ill and silly handled, as to have cast so many unnecessary, idle, unreasonable, superfluous, useless fancies upon them. I confess, we cannot punctually set down the time, place, method, authors, and other circumstances of these pricks, strokes and crooked knots, there creeping in in all writings many things, whereof the year, authors, place and reason was never set down. Yet the chiefest reason, (for here I would have nothing simply rejected without grave reasons) is, because if they were essential to this tongue, then would they be constantly the same in Hebrew, Samaritic, Called and Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. I beseech the Reader to consider, 1. that it is as old a fashion to have Bibles without pricks as with prics, and in my apprehension, older to; yet here I do speak only of a time of 1300 years or thereabout. If we confess, Hierome to make mention now and then of points, yet we see also, that there is a great quantity of places otherwise rendered by him, or at least, the proper names otherwise read, than now the prics will suffer. And though Zoar (that very old rabbinical book) makes mention of the Names of the vowels, who will not confess, that those names might be very easily written by some other in some copy of Zoar, which either by transcription, or impression is now in the Text. Have we not thousands of such encroachings upon the Text in hunderts of Authors. But if that were not so, and that some of them were named, doth it therefore follow that they have been all at that time? If the Grecians could be content with a, e, o, for vowels, as Plato says, and the Arabians had nor have any more, but these three from Platês' time till this very day: and if the Syrians could be content without vowels, till they becoming Christians, and translating many books out of Greece in their tongue, did in proper names first, afterwards also in other Nouns & Verbs assume the Greece a, e, i, o, u, and if the Persians, Turcs, Tatars great and little all Mogul and Malaye could be content from their very beginning till this day to be without prics instead of Vowels, what think you was there then a curse of God upon the Jews and all the Prophets, that they could nor would understand the writing of one another without so many superfluities. Is a, e, i, o, u, y, enough for us in all occident to read by, and is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enough to do the same, when these do as well represent Consonants and vowels as those do. And what a malediction will you cast upon God's Word, that when many hundreds can understand, and that without any hesitation at all, thousands of other books without these prics, they should not be able to understand God's Book without such a do. If that Word of God were written with all that infinity of pricking and stroking every line and letter, were it not the greatest injury that could be done to it, to have it once printed without them? How think ye would the jews once dare to offer such an unexpressable sacrilege? Or by what means are the Jews wiser, than God himself, who could not find out an easy way for his Word to be read and fully understood, till the Jews found it out? Why must only the Jews have 15 vowels, and 20 or 30 Accents, but no characteristical points between a Verb and a Noun, the second and the third person, active and passive, as the Syrians are said to have? What a strange thing is it, that the Syrians have never a sva, never a dages fort (as Emira and Ludoyic de Dien do rightly affirm) that there should never be found any dages lean in Arabic, but all dages fort, and contrary, no fort but all lean in Syriac. In Etiopic and Samaritic nothing; in Hebrew Bibles without points nor dages fort nor lean; Nay in the Samaritic the whole Law without vowels and any pricks or strokes of Accents. No Accents in Etiopic, Arabic and Syriac, no Accents in any other Ebrue book, nor in my Called Manuscript, being Questions and Answers upon the Law. No Accents nor vowels in the Arabic and Syriac old Testament given out in the King of France his Bible, until added by Gabriel Siovite, as he publicly confesses. And whence that infinity of anomalies in vowels, in Accents, and what an absurdity is in all the Accents, not one only except. What has atnakh the Duke to make a determination of 25 Verses, otherwise to be done by Silluq the King, when He stands in hundert of places as a boy and servant, which nor the Text, nor reason regards. What a boys trick and childish punctation of atnakh is in the third word of the bible, In the beginning created God. Is it sense or nonsense? And yet there must be the Duke Arnakh. Truly I pity all those great Man, that are become boys and children, playing thus for the Vowels, Accents, and diacriticall Notes, that they writ whole books about fancies, and childish stuff, given over unto reprobate minds and labour without the blessing of God. Rule 2. The Pricks, added unto Consonant vowels, instead of vowels, are various, according to the fancy of the inventours in various Countries of the Orient. In Ebrue, Samaritic, Called, Arabic, and Eticpic are there naturally none, because superfluous, the same letters by them being the true Vowels, a, e, t, oh, u, which are used by us in English; look only to the table and observe their order. Yet with all according to the traditions of Grammarians of several dialects here will we speak distinctly of every one of them separately. First in the Ebrue. 1. The sounds a, e, i, o, u, are naturally in every language, and therefore in this primitive tongue by all means. 2. Because the sound will be heard more long, when it stands at the end of a syllable, as va, ve vi, vo, vu, sva, sue, svi, svo, suu; and shorter, when after that sound follows a Consonant, vas, ves, vis, vos, vus, therefore did some Jews, Masters of children, or Grammarians for their Disciples sake invent a double sort of pricks for that double syllable, which I call long and short, (as the vowels are of late called long and short, otherwise called great and little) viz. for the long syllable qumez, zeri, hireq, holem, sureq. For the short syllable; fatah, segol, hireq, qomez, qubbutz. 3. Those that have but one name as qametz or qomets, and hireq, have also but one shape: which breeding a confusion doth show us the silliness of these Grammarians (God being able to make better work in his primitise tongue) that they were not able to invent two pricks more, thereby to prevent all confusion, which hitherto lies as a plague upon those, who will learn this Ebrue with these pricks, and not otherwise, and being almost impossible to overcome, casts them of from God's tongue. 4. The difference between the long and short hireq is not greatly needful, because both is an i 1. If their follow immediately the same or any other of these pricks which I named, then is it qamez. Why? because the syllable is long? Why long? because the following Consonants having its proper prick, (WHICH WE FOR FASHION SAKE RATHER THAN WITH REASON CALL VOWELS) or Vowel, concludes a syllable, if none of those but some others, which are called suâs, then is it qomez. Yet because there is great trouble with the accent, which changes all this work, and makes new troubles, therefore the true easiness is. 2. If you pronounce a or o according to your pleasure. 1. Because the greatest distinction between the pronunciation of Hebrew and Arabic, Syriac and Ebrue, Syriac & Arabic, is that the former loves rather o, the latter a, where the Hebrew says foqed, the Arabic says faqed. 2. The Hebrew itself doth change a and o frequently, foqed and faqed, yacöy and ucal, Rôs and Rasim, Enôs, Anasim. 3. The same change is in Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, and that in the same words, which do so change in Hebrew, that the unity of this tongue is even in the unity of a vowel by this or that letter to be observed in thousands of examples. 5. And because in no language at all just every consonant or letter hath its Vowel, and having none must go either to the foregoing or following letter which hath a Vowel; as: sva, vas; these Jewish Masters thought it necessary now and then to prick such letters, that had no vowel, yet not always, with two pricks (:) which they justly called sva (to wit troubles, falsehood, vanity, without need and reason, à lie, the Latins, frustra, gratis, mendacium, tumultus, falsum; the Greece LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with sav of the same root and fignification. Where observe again following confusions. I. That they put it not under the last letter, and that again with a threefold exception 1. The letter kaf shall have it. 2. and the letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b g d θ f q t, if the letter going before have not a Vowel but a sva. 3. That second hath again exceptions in some words in the Bible. II. That they make a distinction between a movable and a quiescent. The movable they conceive to sound ordinarily e; and yet 1. they can never pronounce it so short as they say it must be, to wit, as quick as a lightning from Heaven; but sound it as long as the best e in the Bible. 2. They find in the Greece LXX translation in many names, (where now in the Ebrue Bible a letter hath no Vowel,) an a, e, i, o, u, which confounds again that tenant, 3. Some allege divers Authors which held that opinion, that sva was pronounced according to the following Vowel. The quiescent sva to have no sound, and therefore frequently and almost always in the final to be left out as superfluous: and yet 1. Now and then left out on the midst also under the quiescent letters. 2. It is frequently written where any reasonable man might observe; 1. That it is impossible that one and the same thing should naturally both have and not have a sound. And if they bring in the distinction of places, where it is sounded, to wit, in all, where it is called movable, and of others where not; I answer. 1. That that distinction is broken down by many examples in Nouns and Verbs, where in place of the quiescent as well as the movable is any Vowel a e i o u in the same proper names pronounced and written. 1. By the Greecs. 2. By the Latins. 3. In Called. 4. Syriac 5. Arabic. 6. Etiopic. 7. By the Persians. 8. Tutcks. 9 coptics. 10. In the Ebrue Bibel itself in divers places. 2. that the Arabians, who have, I confess, à quiescent, which they call gezme (writing it continually, never leaving it out from under the last letter, nor in the middle under the letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they are to be pronounced, better than those silly Jewish Masters with their sva quiescent) but they have no gezme movable, but set any Vowel of theirs in such a case. Yet in hundreds of places, where Ebrue has a sva quiescent they put in any Vowel; whereof, being the self same tongue with Ebrue, and having in Ebrue itself frequently a Vowel, for the most part an I, men of reason should conclude, that the punctation of the Jews in the Ebrue Bible and Called Targum is not authentic, it being so full of variations, incertitudes, confusions, that hitherto there hath been no end at all found in these things. About Holem and Sureq these Jews have many silly ways, whereby they obstruct and make difficult the reason of this tongue. First, Holem, 1. must never be set upon the right shoulder of the following letter, as hitherto hath been constantly done by the Jews (from whom the Christian Printers got it,) but upon the left shoulder of its own proper letter, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moze, in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for both is as broad as long, only that is confused and difficult, this proper and easy. In the casting, or cutting the Mattress of one will cost as much and no more than the other. 2. It should be written and cast, or cut at the left band of its proper letter, within the line, not above, and than we had no need to distinguish it from the point. 1. Of Sin. 2. of the Accent Rbia. 3 It should never be included in the point of shin and sin. Because, 1. that gets no reasonable compendious way in writing. 2. It puts the beginner to a great deal of trouble. 3. It makes a great deal of difficulty in the reading of this holy tongue. For here is to be observed. 1. That (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sh, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s,) when the foregoing letter hath no Holem, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a Vowel, that point denotes an o of the foregoing letter as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mose. 2. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having no other vowel but o, gets two. points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having no vowel, this point signifies also o; sho. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having a vowel, and that point besides, must be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oshe, because then the foregoing letter doth constantly lack a vowel. Yet all these precepts may be avoided only by making better Mattresses. The greatest troubles about Sureq is that, that these Jews did not invent a long u, without the adjection of the consonant v, which doth so perplex the Analogy and Etymology of this tongue, that many places and words do thereby become of a dark and obscure explication, notion and interpretation, causing men many times to miss of the true root: insomuch that this prick alone were enough to confound all the tongue, to indarken all oriental Ebrue Authors, and to breed thousands of unnecessary and endless questions in the Ebrue Bible and Divinity; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v being the consonant, and the point the vowel u, as Grammarians do usely speak, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the beginning not to be read u but vu. Or otherwise we run on into eighteen confusions and errors, which I have set down in my Grammar Delin. Printed in Latin at Amsterdam, p. 18. Num. 34. 4. Further in sva there is yet a greater imperfection, viz. that whereas it hath naturally not sound (for thereby it is distinguished from the vowels, who have a sound) these Jewish Masters would give it one by joining thereunto the shorter vowels fatah, segol, hireq, qomez, qubbuz. Which Doctrine destroys that position of sua mobile; for if it be movable and to be pronounced like an e, what need is there to join it with segol to make up e? and if it were an e before, hath it not the sound of two e now? and is it not with fatah, ea, or ae? with hireq ei, or, ie, with qomez eo, or oe. With qubbuz eu, or we? And yet they set it only a simple a, e, o, And if it may be joined with a, e, o, why not with i and u? What have these two short vowels sinned? only the wit failed these Grammarians. Or if they did it (to avoid confusion) because sva joined with hireq, would make up the form of segol, for three points sake, and sva qubbus would get five points, and so make up the same form with sva segol, it is clear again, that they had not wit enough, to make such forms of hireq and qubbuz, that sva hireq and sva qubbuz might not make a confusion either with sva segol or segol. And yet where is that compound sva in Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, for in the Samaritic, the whole Talmud, and divers Rabbins, and thousands of Arabic books, you find neither it nor any vowel; And if you say, that the Chaldeans have all these vowels and these suâs, I say, either they had them from the Jews before the Babylonian captivity or during the time of it: now if any man can produce any one line in any Author (warrantable or not, I care not) showing us so much as one line only of the true Called writings, with vowels and suâs and then I will yield. If you say, in Daniel and Esra we see it plainly; I answer, do ye not remember, that they were Jew's, nor did they write and point their books with the Called letters and points, but with their own. For every one of those dialects have a peculiar manner of vowelling differing from the other. Samaritic hath none. Syriac hath assumed the Greece, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or v, and afterwards some who did nor like to take the vowels of the Grecians to their books, and to spoil their own writing therewith, invented an other sort of points. And as true as it is, that these Greece vowels are the proper vowels of the Syrians, so true is it, that these Hebrew Jewish vowels were once the Heathenish Caldean vowels also. Arabic hath divers vowels from Syriac, Etiopic has divers from Arabic and Syriac and Ebrue; so that we find every dialect of this tongue to be different from the other in the matter of this accidental work of pricks for vowels, from whence it clearly appears, that neither these are proper to the Caldean, or not proper to the Hebrew. Either of them must fall. And we see that the nature of the Jews constantly is, first: to change the Consonants, secondly: the vowels of any tongue whatsoever. We have example of it in the Persian, Turc, Arabic, Greece, Spanish, Italien, French, Germane, and Polonian tongues, when there is none of these vowels of theirs, no suâs at all; and yet for all that, they have printed them so; and printed not with our letters, but with theirs. Will you now go and say, that Latin hath the Ebrue consonants, and those 15 vowels? And that the Chaldeans had the same points with the Hebrew? It is to be pitied, that that excellently learned Man, and My worthily honoured Friend Dr. John Buxtorf at Basil Professor of Divinity & of this tongue, hath thus fare deviated from all reason, as to play for the primitivenes of these points, and to write a great book in quarto in defence of it, being condemned to such a and yet superfluous labour, that stone of Sisifus. The whole tongue reclaims their antiquity. Those that look a little farther than the Ebrue Bible, may easily see, that whereas there is an agreement amongst the Consonants in these dialects, there is none in the vowels. I pray let not authority make here slaves of us, and keep us still in a fear, and give us an infinite toil of anomalies in the Ebrue Bible, whereby we shall never be able to get the Siriac, Arabic, and Etiopic tongue. One only of these compound suâs, viz. sva fatah read after its Consonant, as it doth stand under it, loses under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 final the sua, because that sua is not admitted under the last letter, as is said here before: which fatah makes no syllable, being neither a long vowel, nor a short one, but only a part of sua. It might have been left away together with the sua, only they thought it requisite; that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be pronounced with an a being guttural letters, and not easily to be pronounced without it. And because taken away from sua, it was called gnuba, or taken: which the latter Jews and our Christian Gammarians not rightly understanding thought, it signified that it must be pronounced before its consonant. A false assertion and of such gross an error, that it overthrows the nature of this tongue, wherein every syllable begins with a consonant, and yet is here neither reason nor a powerful cause, why this fatah gnuba should begin a syllables; when it cannot so much as make a syllable. This gnuba is superfluous, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is its letter, because that sounds high that point within being hireq, as that excellent learned Schindler it hath in his Grammar, and is frequently underwritten, coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This gnuba falls away, if a letter follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elohim, God, etc. and is only after a long en i ō un, never a long a. You may leave out the gnuba in your reading. These compound suâs are frequently in the Ebrue Bibell not under the throat letters, (for the use whereof they are said to be invented,) but under the non-gutturals. b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 31.39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Num. 10.36. z. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 2.12. q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very freqently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nehe. 10.34. And contrary there are above 200 of examples, where a single sua is under a throat or guttural letter. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I well desist. Job. 16.6. jud. 15.7. Out of which confusion, multitudes of exceptions; and exceptions upon exceptions, and that in the Ebrue Bible also, not only in the Called part of it, and that all printed and written copies of the Ebrue Bible never do agree herein, we may clearly see, that this Monster and mishap of creating and destroying, this inconstancy and fury of building up & levelling to the ground, will descry unto any wise eye the madness of the Authors thereof: whence it is, that if ye take the Called in the Ebrue Bible, you will find more examples for anomaly than analogy. And that all this madness of the sua simple and compound, and the fatah gnuba are only invented by the Jewish brains is also seen (besides that inconstancy in all things, which is their one and only lest constancy) by the Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, where they have neither single nor compound suâs, less a fatah gnuba. I confess, the Arabians have a gezme, but that is only in the place of sua quiescent: where is here a sua movable? So in Etiopic john Potken and Wemmer will give us besides ba be by bo bu, à b with a short a, and a short e, yet that cannot argue, that that short e is sua quiescent, which hath no sound at all, but if any thing, rather a sua movable, and the short a, with a sua fatah. But why is than that figure of the letter with that sua fatah (in the mean while supposed) singler than that with a single sua? Therefore whatsoever that short e, (which Potken calls a short o) may be by the Etiopians, certain I am, that the short a is not the sua fatah, nor have they any sua at all, single or compound, whole or gnuba. By the Syrians, to wit, those that from Jews became Christians after Chrisis' Passion, Resurrection and Ascension at the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, who did retain the vulgar custom of writing at Christ's time, (that of the single letters being only used, as is probable, in the Law of Moses with the rest of the Bible) in joining the letters, had never any vowels or sua in their writing: and that by these arguments. 1 Because we find no sua at all, either single or compound, movable or quiescent, in their writing; here the eye is witness. 2. The Greece vowels are surely none of their own; and that is manifest. 3. The Samaritans, who did and do live in the same Country have no vowels at all. 4. The Syrians leave many times a way the vowel, which otherwise they writ. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marci. 9.34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marci. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marci. 7 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marci. 7.30 which vowel in this form of the Noun is never left away by the Arabians, nor always by the Syrians (and the Jewish Called constantly) because that the first radical must have no vowel, but because the vowel of it is so generally known and certain, that if not written yet there will not remain so much as the least doubt of it; which the Grammarians of Called and Syriac do not so much as understand, and make a false form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 5 These points or pricks, which they have above and below the Consonants are yet newer by them, han the Greece vowels; which is demonstrated by the greater variety thereof than of the Greece vowels in their writings: Nor is there any Syriac Manuscript to be seen only with those points instead of the Greece vowels: contrarly, we have many of them, which have neither the Greece vowels, nor those pricks. 6. Nor are the names of them the same with the Called (falsely supposed) names of vowels, except only one ftoho, which is fatah of the Ebrue and Arabic, the rest: e is called rboso, the i, Khboso, the o, sqofo, the u asoso: expressed in the following proper names. Abrohom, Esayo, Ishoq, Odom (Adam) Vriyo. They have no long, or short vowels, nor the suâs. Whereby we see, that the whole Bible may be understood. 1. Without all these five suâs. Because Siriac Samaritic and Etiopic may be understood without them. 2. Without that difference of the long and short vowels. Because Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic may; nor has Etiopic long or short-vowels but only a, e, i, o, u, the name of long being superfluous, where there are none short. 2. The Called punctation is not precisely made after the rate of that distinction, which was set upon the Ebrue Text; and yet for all that may as well be understood, as the Ebrue Text. The Arabians have other prics for vowels different from the Ebrue Syriac, and Etiopic: And as the Grecians (by Plate in Cratylo) had only 3 vowels, ●, v, o, (for ω is a double o) and as there are only three quiescent letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a, v, y, and as Ebrue hath only three compound suâs, so also hath Arabic only three vowels, e, v, o, or fatah, kesra, damma. Fatah is a or e kesra i, Damma o or u. The true pronunciation is in these orientals not to be had, because Ebrue, Samaritan, Called, and Syriac are dialects, which are passed, and no more extant in the World, in respect of 2000 years ago (the tongue being one and as yet still remaining,) and Arabic with Etiopic have occupied all Africa and a fixth part of Asia, and contains above a hundred different pronunciations, insomuch that you can not well follow any pronunciation of those dialects,; and therefore if ye cannot learn the pronunciation used by them in their Country, here in England you may pronounce them as ye will: yet if ye will follow Erpenis his pronunciation, ye must observe: to pronounce fatab like (a) upon, (and sometime before) the hard letters (the names whereof I have given before) and upon (or before) the easy letters (e): Damma upon (and before) the hard letters (o) and upon (or before) the easy letters (u). If Gab. Sionites, then pronounce fatah constantly like (a) Kesra (e,) and following the (ye) quiescent (i) Damma (o) and following (vau) quiescent (u) These three vowels they do now and then pronounce as if there were an (n) but that is only at the end of a word. As an, on, in, the note whereof is, that it hath that vowel doubled; except only that on hath the form of (69) for (99) which they think to be neater written. Fatha and Damma is written above the letter, Kesra beneath. Fatha and Kesra hath but one figure, so that there are only two figures of all the Arabic vowels. By the Etiopians there is a great deal of difficulty to make certain Rules for the vowels apart: out of their printed books, and the written Etiopic books are very rare; in so much that I believe there are none in all England, which is a shame for us Christians so to slight other Christians in such a manner, as not to care for their learning and books. And as Wemmer and Potken number the letters, there are 202 by which way if we go, we shall never easily learn to read Etiopic. And yet as we have the letters apart, to also should we have the pricks or strokes apart, whereby the vowels are pronounced. Ordinarily it is as followeth. 1. A is marked with the stroke of the letter toward the right hand more downward, then ordinarily. 2. E the round circle at the right hand below. 3. I. a little i joined there where e. 4. O. an o joined for the most part with the upper part of the letter at the right hand. 5. V a stroke, like the i was, in the midst of the letter; The first standing by Potken and Wemmer being only the most simple figure of the letter, I have brought into the Alfabet among the letters, as the essential part of the tongue and word. And every letter with these five vowels, together with the sixth standing among the accidental parts of the word, the vowels. Yet what abstract precept properly to give to that sixth standing I know not for the great variation sake. And to express it only by the sua is so unreasonable that thereby you will have many words, that will consist only of the fixth standing, and if that be constantly by suâ, what pronunciation can be had in them. There are also many exceptions in the Alfabet about every vowel a, e, i, o, u, as the Table shows. Therefore I wish again that some man or other would give us hereafter better instruction out of Etiopia itself. Rule. 3. These pricks are uncertain to make up Syllables, and to further the reading of any of these dialects. 1. Ebrue and Called have the most perplexed work, though not by their nature, which is as plain as English consisting only of letters, without other additions of Pricks for vowels and Accents (the Vowels being extant already in the Alfabet,) but by the brain of the inventors. Every letter hath not naturally a Vowel a, e, i, o, u, as for example London, l hath the Vowel o, but n following hath none, d hath the Vowel, o, but again n following hath none; again, in saying, a prime man. P. hath no vowel, r hath i; So you see there are in every word letters, which have vowels; and others that have none. The Masters of the children observing it, did put a sua underneath such letters as have no vowel. Now I conceive that the inventors of those pricks were able men, honest, willing, good, and careful teachers, yet too too accurate about a thing of no great matter, but only for children's play. Therefore, I confess, it is truly said, that every letter hath either à vowel or sua, viz. every consonant a part, or two together make a syllable, yet I avow it to be à very simple assertion, to make that, which is in thousands of places left alone, and hath no vowel by its proper nature and constitution (following a letter with a vowel, or going before) to become that very mark and sign of no vowel, a vowel and a non-vowell, to sound and not to sound, to live and not to live. And because. 1. à long vowel hath a long pronunciation, a short vowel a short one; 2. There is required a long vowel, when à syllable endeth in à vowel; a short when it endeth in a consonant, 3. à syllable ending in a consonant, many times hath naturally a long sound; and ending in a vowel, a short sound; Hence did the Ebrue Masters consider four sorts of syllables. 1. A long ending in a vowel, sa, se, si, so, sum; sua, sue, sui, suo, suu. 2. A short ending in a consonant, vas, ves, vis, vos, vus. 3. A long, ending in â consonant, uâs, uês, uîs, uôs, uûs. 4. A short, ending (in à vowel; in Latin pêrdore) as e in darkness, i in syllines. Yet they did not propound it so naturally, and with a reasonable apprehension, nor did they speak of long and short vowels and syllables; of little and great ones. Therefore a letter without a Vowel doth go to a letter which hath a Vowel, either Foregoing, 1. The last letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sefer. 2. The letter before one without a Vowel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dibbrù, the first b. 3. Any letters which should be written twice but compensed with Dages or Teshdid as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. After a short vowel, as Dib in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dibru. 5. After a long vowel with à Mediator accent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lay la. or Following. 1. The first Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fri. 2. The letter after one without a vowel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dib brù the last b. 3. Any letter which should be written twice but compensed with dages or Teshdid as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. After a long; as damn, in in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabru. 5. After a short Vowel with a Mediator Accent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lafoy ylah. All this (except in the three first numbers) are unconstant in the Jewish Caldean Translation made at Jerusalem or some other places of Jury. Whereby I conclude, that in no tongue under Heaven there is observed such a strict disruption of the syllables, nay for the most part the love of joining of consonants, prevails against the Laws of the Jewish Grammar, as for example; in English the Grammar teaching to pronounce Trustees the tongue pronounces trusties. So in Ebrue, the Grammar says pa-qdà, the pronunciation pàq-da. Hence it is, that in the whole Caldean tongue, and in the Ebrue Bible in hundreds of places that distinction between the long and short vowels is never strictly observed, the reason is, because this distinction is forced and not natural. In Syriac having no sua, it is reasonable, that we conceive, in all Ebrue and Called sua reasonably to be left away in thousands of places and wheresoever it is, there not to be requisite. Hath Greece, Latin, English, or any occidental tongue à sua? and conceiving that the letter may not go unto the following and foregoing, except it have a note and character, then are all the European tongues imperfect, nay all the orientals, and of all the World, except only Arabic (besides the Jewish Ebrue and Called) having for a sua quiescent à gezmâ, which even itself might be left away in Arabic. In Etiopic, I confess, the letters with the vowels, and suas to be so confounded, that three, four letters having no vowel may not be pronounced, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: put these three letters, b l v together without a vowel, and see what pronounciation they will yield. Here is the question to be discussed, if the oriental tongues have any diphthongues; I answer; yea. Ai, ei, oi, ui, au, eu; are expressly in all these dialects: by the following arguments. 1. You will hear them in these dialects yet extant. 2. In all tongues, and therefore in your own mother tongue. 3. Because as consonants may be joined, so vowels; neither one nor the other being against the nature or practice of any tongue, reather both constantly used. 4. And the chiefest against the deniers that the Alfabet doth not consist only of consonants, but also of vowels, having 19 consonants, and three letters for five vowels a, e, i, o, u. 5. Because these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a u y are not simply consonants, as it is conceived here, but also in place of vowels which all the occidental European tongues confirm. Rule 4. The Pricks for distinction, jointure, and other designs are divers but useless. In Ebrue and Called. 1. Maffiq which is only a point within 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is the last letter, in steed of being below it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being such a superfluous thing, that, 1. Though the Dictionary writers themselves have it (yet they unjustly) confound, it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent; as deriving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forswearing. 2. In many places of the Bible this point is lost in that letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is the affix of the three person signifying he, his, him. 3. In Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic it is never found. 4. It is not pronounced in the orient as a syllable a part, and yet the Grammar would have it so. 5. It is superfluous because when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a fatah gnuba it is sounded ha', what need then of high too, either ha' must be left out or hi. 6. Because it falls away, as the Grammarians say, when the letter receaves a hireq, but observe that even this maffiq is that hireq, and that hireq is that maffiq. 7. It is a non necessary thing upon a non-necessary ground, raised by those unhappy bvilders the Jews, who invented these pricks because they conceived a necessity of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent: whereas if there had been none but movable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew, as it is in Syriac, Arabic, Etiopic and Samaritic, there had been no need of that invention of maffiq. It is never in Jod, for that point which is in it, is dages, which is now to be spoken of. 2. Dages a point with in any letter whatsoever, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth double the letter if there go immediately à vowel before, but if a sua either expressed or understood under the last letter of a word go before, than is its power of doubling superfluous. Whereby you may see the superfluity of this point. 1. In all places of the Bible without doubling wheresoever it is in any of these letters as bgd kft 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the first in the word, the last letter of the word foregoing not being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. In the same letters, in the middle of a word an express sua going before. All the euphonics are superfluous as not being now observed either by the jews, or Christians, in their pronunciation: the true nature condition and use of them being unknown to both parties alike. 4. The Characteristical are superfluous as being left out in many places. 5. The compensative are superfluous, as being omitted in as many. 6. In Syriac, Samaritic and Etiopic it is generally omitted. 7. The distinction of fort and lean is unknown to the Syrians and Arabians. 8. It is many times easily mistaken in Ebrue for Sureq. In Siriac they have two names qusoy and rukok. yet the Grammarians, nay those natural ones, which do yet live Sionita, Ecchellensis and Emira, as I take it, do deny, that the Syrians ever had a dages forte. But if not, what is than that qusoy and rukok.? both cannot be lean, both cannot be fort, nay it is denied that there is any fort at all: this point doth almost never appear: but if it be of a great use, why doth it not appear, if of none, why is there in the Hebrew such a stir about it. If it doubles, why is it not fort, if not, why is there qusoy and rukok both. If superfluous, what need have we than to trouble us with it? Farther the Syrians do many times use a point above or beneath the letters, (as in the foregoing to denote a, e, i, o, u, above) distinguish betwixt certain words of a divers signification. Below, the letter d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ido a hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hu, he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 high she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sento sleep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khadto new in Masc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abdo a servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ulo a babe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 biso base (belg. boos) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 henûn they m. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 henen they f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 min of or from: the same with the point above are pronounced otherwise, and do signify; aido what Women? have that Man, hoi that Woman, santo year, the letter r. Khadto new in f, abodo service avolo wicked. (without it aulo wickedness) boiso miserable honun they Men honên they Women: Men who? But alas is any man so bereft of reason, that he thinks, he shall not be able to discern these words without a point? Take from me these three observations. 1. The Masculine and Feminine genders are adiaforas, and let them not trouble you. 2. Abstract and concrete notions will easily be discerned by the Text. 3. The farther the signification of one is from the signification of the other word, so much the easier will it be discerned in the Text without a point. The same is to be observed in the point which is in the Verbs. 1. Below, it denotes the whole pretertense except the first singular; and the third sem. sing. hath it sometimes above at the left hand of t. 2. It stands frequently with the singular and imperative. 3. All the persons in future tense, except the first person in both numbers. 2. above. 1. The first of the pretertense. 2. the noun agent, otherwise called participle bnoni, denoting together o or a. Yet in the fourth order it is below, the second radical being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. The first singular and plural in the future. 4. Two do denote the plural as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ktobe Books the boto goods in Plural, or in the Verbs of the Feminine gender only fqadei they did visit, fqadôn do you visit nefqdôn they shall visit, refqdên ye shall visit. If an r be in the word, then is one point unto that of r, added sufficient, to make up two. Where three do occur (besides these two of the plural number) the third denotes the vowel, or qusoy, or the tense. In the verbs of a radicail r, one point is for the letter, and one for the first person of the future tense, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qriyt, I have cried and called, not qrayt, thou didst cry and call. Yet all these points are added out of a childish fear, that the people will not let reason have the sovereignty, rather than for necessity sake; nor is it to be esteemed, that they are of such necessity or of the essence of the tongue. In the Arabic the points difference some letters, one, above as Kh, ds, z, dh, th', gh, f, and by the Turcks and Persians at k pronounced as gh. one below as b, and by the African Arabians about Fes, Morocco, and Algir sometime the f, that which is above denoting by them the q. two above t, at the end sometimes shaped as an h, only by the contraction of writing. q. which the African Arabians frequently and almost at all times do write above with only one point: two below y. Three above is descending from s, one point coming unto those two naturals of the t, for difference sake, sh, and by the Turks and Persians the k pronounced as, ng kitabung of the book. 3. below by the Turks and Persians the b then pronounced as p g. then pronounced as tie; and; s for a difference from sh. Yet are these three points frequently to be seen above s in Arabic books written at Jerusalem, and elsewhere by the Christians in their Bibles and Service-books, the reason whereof I have given above, yet many hundred Manuscripts are to be seen even without these diacriticall and superfluous points, for them that know perfectly this their mother or learned tongue. STROACS. 1. In Hebrew and Called Meteg: Fsiq and Maqqêf, the two first are put downwards, the third in the breadth: meteg between any vowel and a following sua, to keep them asunder, from being read in one syllable. A thing clearly superfluous, partly in all our Eastern now yet living tongues, where the boys are able enough to learn the separation of syllables without such troubles; partly in the Bible itself, there being such a variety of it in all Prints, that it is past belief: it was invented so short (instead of a longer, which should have begun above the letters and passed between them and the vowels underneath them) because the inventors thought it more gentile as it is now, whereas the other would have showed more plainly their intention. Fsiq such as meteg, between two words, to show that you must rest there a little, not by the force of sense, but only to observe the thing following the more accuratly. Maqqef joins two or three words together, and is placed evidently at random, no reason in the World being found, why written or 〈◊〉. Therefore are these strokes also in vain, superfluous, and unnecessary. 2. By the Syrians ye have but one, viz. Maqqef, called Marhothno under neath a letter which they say shall not be read or heard in the pronunciation: as the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ana. I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 akhrino another in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 akhroyo the last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 akhyono a brother in Law, Kinsman, Cousin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enoso, Men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erozo a secrecy. Yet this line is in many copies frequently left out. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idto a Congregation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khadto new. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yhab he did give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r humayo a Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thobhu, it is good, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malkauhi his kings. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l in ezelet I went away, ezalt, she went away. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yamme the Seas. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 santo a year, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zba to at a time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mdinto a City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zbi to redeemed shfinto or Sfinto a ship. Any word which is to be read with a meditation its point is called Mhagyono III. above the letters, signifying the number. This last is of the best use: but Marhothno and Mhagyono, are not worthy to be observed, it being mere fancy, that those letters should never be pronounced in that tongue: it being certain, and I myself have many times heard it at Constantinople, (where there were many Kershuni, (for so are those called that retain the Syriac books in their religious service) that they did most constantly pronounce every letter of those: but only when they were posting through, than I confess for celerity sake they leave out many letters, as even among us; and what lafoy France leaves out of letters, those are pronounced in the Province and elsewhere: therefore I beseech the Reader, not to think these precepts to be absolutely true and needful. 3. By the Arabiens ye have medda, wesl, hamz, gezm, and Teshdid. Medd, they use over the letters signifying numbers, as in all Astronomical books is to be seen. 2. Signifying the circle and lines by the Geometriciens described by letters. 3. It stands in stead of the circumflex of the Greecs to pronounce that syllable with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent more long. Wesl only upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent in the beginning of à word, joining its word with the forging, as if it were only one, line as Maqqef by the Ebrwes. Hamz only upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 showing them to be radical and naturally movable, they being sometime and that more frequently quiescent also. Yet over, or under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do write it more frequently, whither it be radical or servile when the word is written with the vowels. Yet in old copies of the Alcoran, and in printed books the hamza is in the latter case justly and most frequently left away Gezm is a round circle either whole or half, and stands above that letter, which is to be joined with the foregoing: not so frequent upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the rest. Teshdid is made of two Gesmes, and is the dages by the hebrews, only one, and yet representing all, that was falsely esteemed proper unto two, lean and fort. Rule 5. The strokes and pricks for the accents are not of the essence of this tongue, and therefore only in the Ebrue Bible and the Called translation of Aquila (or Onqelos) on Moses. As all the rest of things, so truly these strokes and pricks for accents are set to the Bible without necefity, only I wished, that the vowels and suas had got no greater credit, than the Accents have, which by the most learned of Europe for almost 150 years, were still left out as not cared for even by them, that took upon them the translation of the Ebrue Bible. Nor can or will I blame them, as if they had mightily mistaken in the translation, because of the ignorance of these Accents, as if only by their order the true connexion and disjunction of senses could be had. Wherein we see à more general and natural inclination in these, that did strive so eagerly for the vowels (and yet confess the Accents to be of the same divine Authority,) not to care much for an additional thing in this tongue: the most of them never working so much in such an idle thing, as Munsterus, Claius, Neander, Buxtorfius, but especially of late Mr. Symson a Scotch man Anno 1617. Mr. Bohlius (deceased) my condisciple under Mr. Trostius, An. 1630. and Mr. Ledebuhr his disciple (both Germans out of Pommerens) in a book of 36 sheets printed in Octavo at Leyden by Le Mair 1647. called salselet hammiqra, as he out of a high conceit thinks it to be a chain of the Scripture (catena Scripturae) written in Latin, as if without the accents the Scripture would fall asunder. If that were so, how was it possible, that the Lxx, Hierome, and all our interpreters for 200 years and upwards could so nearly interpret the Bible, that all these new raised great Masters of Israel are not able to show a sensible, foul and faulty translation, arising from the ignorance of the Accents, whereas we know they had no knowledge of these high mysteries, which these three late Authors would have the World to believe they have found before all the rest, and brag of it in their books almost intolerably. Therefore let no Englishman think, that he hath not learned the Ebrue tongue, if he know not these Accents, and the infinity of work in them; and rather with me pity the pains of those painful Germans and Scotchman upon such rotten principles, and learn hereafter of them, to labour upon a sure ground, or to think, that God hath laid a curse upon his labour fisyphi saxum, a stone, that will give him an endless and unprofitable work; and I wish this painful man, and Buxtorf, and all those, that are so busy about the pricks, (and will not believe that excellently and exceedingly learned Author Mr. Capell a Frenchman professor at Saumur, whose learned book in Latin Arcanum punctorum revelatum, that judicious and illustrious Author Erpenius caused to be Printed at its own charge in his own most excellent oriental Printing house at Leyden, Anno 1625.) that they may bestow their pains upon better work than about these trifles of the point, and the Samaritic Characters, if they or those, wherewith now the Bible is commonly printed, be the true old Ebrue Characters, whereas both are of the same essence, and one not more true than the other, as I have showed before. Yet all that can be said for these strokes and pricks of the accents (and for those that will care for them) as very necessary is only this. 1. That one accent may do the business. 2. That it stands at the syllable, which is to be lifted up in the pronunciation. 3. That it stands at a certain letter also. 4. That that letter must have a vowel, because it cannot otherwise be elevated. 5. By consequence, never at a letter with sva. 6. That their form is either simple, opposite, or compound. 7. That in Ebrue they do give in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uâl (that is after along vowel, when the following letter hath no vowel but sva) the nature of a short vowel, that anothe letter may follow this long vowel in the same syllable, whereas otherwise it should go the following syllable or word, the long vowel naturally desiring to end the syllable. And again in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanlen, the nature of a long to a short vowel when the following letter goeth away to the following syllable, having its own vowel (long or short) when the short vowel had need of it to rely upon; as being of a short pronunciation. 8. That it is the nature of every accent to change (upon such conditions) the nature of the short and long vowels. 9 Those conditions failing it doth not change that nature of the vowels. 10. And yet as that nature of the vowels doth not hold constantly, so neither are these stroacks constantly of that nature. 11. There are no euphonic accents, for meteg, who is only called so, I shown to be only a stroack keeping two letters asunder. 12. To call accents tonics is a tautology, both words descending from one root, and signifying one thing. 13. That meteg with silluq is improvidently made of the same figure. 14. That rbia and holem also are improvidently almost confounded, whereby arises a necessity of new and many Rules. 15. The Accents are unreasonably and without sense called Grammatical and Retoricall, for Retoric hath never any accents, nor doth speak of them. 16. It is without profit to give in the Grammar a title and term for a word, which hath the accents in the last syllable, or the last but one. Notwithstanding the Grecians did the same, perispomenos, barytonos and oxytonos in the last, properispomenos and paroxytonos in the last syllable but one. 17. It matters not if ye call the words milra, below the last syllable, milel, above in the last but one, Called or Ebrue words. 18. To show the union or disjunction of words by Accents is the invention of men also. 19 As the union of words belong to Syntax, so the sign thereof by the Accents. 20. For that purpose those are invented which ye have in the table with the Names. THE END OF ORTHOGRAFY. FIRST RULE. THE SECOND PART OF GRAMMAR is, called Etymology, and Analogy. ETymology is a part of the second part of the Grammar, whereunto all the rules, mediately or immediately have their respects, and reference. For whatsoever word occurs in the Bible or any oriental Author whatsoever, the question about it is, I confess (as in the Greece and Latin tongue) what signifies it, and (to know that) whence is it derived? The first part is again either of the simple and abstract signification, viz. Etymology (that is the Lexicâs and Dictionaries, which handles the first more properly) where if possible. 1. The reason why this root signifies this and not that should be showed, but hath been hitherto neglected by them all. 2. That signification should (according to Retoric, Logic, Fisic, and Metafisic) be distinguished unto all its branches. 3. The division (with the reason thereof) should be clearly set down. 4. The Authority, as not superfluous should be added, that we might see it to be truly humane, good, sound and satisfactory reason: which all Authors hitherto want. Or of the signs of the signification whereof as also of their reasonable and analogical reducement unto this or that root, the other part of the second part of Grammar doth speak, to wit analogy. From the principal office thereof Authors call it Etymology, yet from the nearest part in respect to us, (as all concrets are more suitable to our apprehensions and the nearest to our senses than abstracts) the old Romans did rather call it Analogy, as Vossius shows in his Latin Grammar, or great and good book about the Latin Grammar. The first part considers the root, without any the least consideeration of the parts of a speech, unto how many parts of a speech every root is dividable. The second lays down certain rules, into how many parts all the words of this or that or any tongue may be divided, and than applies every word, or lays down certain rules, to which they may be applied. The first is mightily abstract, as a new Metafisic, the second is merely concrete, as a new Fisic. Yet the first part hath the greatest abstraction in the letters and their signification, and the most concretion in the multiplication of that signification and division by Logic, of these multiplied significations by Rhetoric, Fisic, and Metafisic. Both parts hang together, yet so that Analogy is the easiest, grounded and built upon the natural precepts of any tongue whatsoever, viz. a general Grammar, which ground and foundation is not yet laid down by any learned man of the whole Universe (how necessary soever) because it requires an excellent wit, a perfect Philosophy, a good Arithmetician, a Retorician, in one word, the most perfect Aristoteles that ever yet lived on earth. Yet before we come to Analogy we will hear lay down only the precepts for the root according to the Letters, not significations either of the root or words radical or accidental, proper or improper, first or second, ideal or natural, Metafisicall or Fisicall, which things shall be laid down in the Dictionary, which is, God willing to follow. Rule. 2. All words, (none excepted) of this tongue may, nay must be brought to a certain root. As this tongue is the primitive from Adam the first man, and remaining yet till our days in all Africa and a great part of Asia so is it the most simple (or if we will call it) single and accurate of any other tongue in the World, that I could ever yet attain any skill in. The Greece Dictionary Writers, and after them the Latins did never lay down such certain Rules in their tongue (for the finding such accurateness) as this tongue hath. The remainders of Greece and Latin Authors (which two Nations are the most accurate writers (as in other things so about their tongue) of all other Nations, whatsoever) do show that they did not arise to the height of this perfection. For what out of this tongue may be demonstrated to be a derivative, they took for a primitive; and a primitive, for a derivative. The title they had, but for the thing itself to bring to a right stay, so fare they never came. The benefit of this Rule will be made manifest, when in the Dictionary certain Rules will be laid down for the abstract signification of the letters: the inquisition and determination whereof doth only belong to the Dictionaries. And truly without that principle of the inward and natural signification, which every letter of the Alfabet (being as a natural dowry bestowed upon it by God) brings to the root, I see not, why we should make any Analogy or Grammatical rules at all, to bring every word to a root. For as the rules show that so many words, (which otherwise would seem not to be of one and the same family,) belong unto this or that one root, ●o is the root required for its natural, ideal, and abstract signification, different from any other whatsoever signification, because proper to another root. And because the root is required and that by all men, that shows plainly and evidently, that indeed there is something in the root, for which it is so sought after and desired, viz. The signification. And that denies none. But another question and that more necessary and before others to be determined is, from whence this signification comes; If they say, from the people, that is false; for Adam alone in the World had the whole tongue and the signification of all roots. If ex impositione humanâ by Adam's pleasure; that is false, because as Adam was not the orator of himself, his reason, wit and tongue, whereby he spoke to God, so neither did he invent the significations of every root, he being enabled by God Almighty with the consequence the words themselves, not a priori, to coin roots, and from thence words, and then to speak with his creator. So that this question is almost analogal to that in Fisic, if the soul be ex traduce or per traducem. I determine it thus, that as nothing makes the root, but the letters, so nothing makes the signification of the root, but the signification of those letters. Rule 3 A root consists of three consonants, not of 2, 4, 5 or more, much less of one only. This is the formal part, whereby this holy primitive and oriental tongue (for perfection) excelleth all the tongues in the World, because all the other are derived from this. It may be, that some learned men have studied to find out several ways, whereby to bring this or that tongue, which they did most affect, unto this or that more ancient, and for the most part unto this primitive tongue; and therefore from hence they take a most cautious way to find out first the root of every word in that tongue, and to bring many words to a most simle and abstract way. Yet I am sure and certain, that no tongue in the World, but this hath such an extraordinary, holy trinunity and unitrinity: as first, that every word (of how many letters soever, proper or accidental, natural or adjectitious) may, nay must be brought to certain radical letters. 2. That the least as well as the biggest word hath its equal portion in the root, the least not having fewer letters than three, nor the biggest any more. So that whatsoever lacks or abounds, must necessarily be made up or detracted by certain Etimoligy and Rules of Analogy. And this Rule is not now invented by me, or a principle of my stamp, but the generality of Grammarians in whatsoever dialect of this tongue give this very same Rule. And yet a man would wonder to behold the inconstancy, sloth, and irregularity partly of the Grammarians and partly of the Dictionary or Lexica writers, who do not observe this their own and all men's rule, as making no conscience to confound the art of this tongue, by not closely adhering to the principles of it, and thus themselves unloose that ty and knot, wherewith they professed to keep all roots in a strict order, when by their practice it is observable, that they never intended any such thing. And which is the worst of all, none of the Lexicas extant are without that great fault. And so long as the Dictionaries are not brought (amongst many other things yet lacking) to that strict, observation of things propounded by the Grammar, (which is expected and presupposed to lay down no false precepts) there will never be that clearness and eaisinesse of the tongue, as there would be if the art of the Grammar and the art of the dictionaries were brought to a greater perfection. I persuade myself, that there are very few, that can believe me: but it is no wonder, for ignorance and prejudicated opinions are never able to judge well of any thing. Rule. 4. Every root consists of letters only, not of letters and pricks joined together. By this Rule all roots as also all letters none excepted are included, and all pricks even excluded. Whereby many questions are resolved, which hitherto have troubled the brains of the learned. First, it shows, that there is a unity in the nature of roots whither in Ebrue, Called, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic or Etiopic; whereas if you ask a man skilful in Ebrue (but not in the other dialects) what the nature of the roots in these dialectsare, he will doubt, not being able to give a determinate answer. Thus learned men make themselves seem to be unlearned; and whereas I can make them more learned, viz. by giving them a good and true notion, (whereby they may enlarge the use of their knowledge, and that without their pains,) invented as I may term it by my own industry, and yet I know not whither I shall ever have thanks for it or not, sure I am, hereafter it will do much good. Secondly, it is against those tenants, that the root is either in the Noun or Verb, and herein the most excellent men do disagree: some will have it in the Noun, others in the Verb, and by some again it is attributed to the Noun in Siriac, others deny it, thus they strive one against another, and that neither de lana caprina, of the Wool of a Goat, who has none, for whatsoever party hath the prerogative, will give Law unto others, and all the rest, if there be more than two. And it is a great matter in a Kingdom, who sways the Sceptre, the Verb being Sovereign in Ebrue, will be so in Siriac, and yet Emira will have it by the Nouns. De Dieu thinks the Verb hath it by the Syrians, and yet begins with the Noun. In this manner I could name above 300 men, the most whereof (I confess) do give the radical dignity and sovereignty unto the verb, yet many unto the Noun. But they all fail herein; for the root is neither in the Verb, nor Noun, nor in any other part of speech (if there wear any, as there are not, which I shall make more clear hereafter) but absolutely in the letters, though not considered as yet, if a Noun or Verb; less if active, passive, neuter, deponent, Masculine, Feminine, singular, plural, present, preter or future, participle or pronoun, etc. The reason for this assertion is, because it contradicts the nature of a root, which is never the tree itself, the branches, the leaves, the blosomes, the fruits, nor the trunk or body of the tree, but that part which lies under ground, and none of all these is called the root, and is the first principle and cause of all these. Thirdly, it shows that the letters only, (and not joined with the pricks,) make the root. The reason is plain, for if it be pronounced by putting the vowels thereunto, it is no longer a root, but a Noun or Verb; for the letters only and not the pricks (esteemed Vowels) are in the Alfabet, much less the third singular in the pretertense, or the infinitive, or imperative or any Noun. And therefore it is a false assertion, to say, that because the third person singular in pretertense is not found in the Bible, ergo the root is not extant in Ebrue, Called, etc. Whereas if there be but one form found of any root whatsoever in any dialect, person, gender, number, declination, or conjugation, nay if but only one radical be extant, so that either the first or second or third, first or third, or any two of them be cast away, yet if there be but one radical letter to be found, so that by Grammar rules the two dissident may be recovered, the root is truly extant in this Oriental Tongue. Thereby it is also clear, that the division of the letters (into radical and servile) is false, because all the letters are radical, viz. They have all one and the same right, to make a root, not only this but every one of them. Otherwise the Alfabet had not the same honour in the Etymology, which it hath in the Orthography. For as all letters are used in the reading, so all letters are used, in the constitution of any word: and than you might with all reason say, that these 11 Members of the Alfabet, viz. msh v k l b a tin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be also questioned, whither they had any right at all in the pronounciation or not, if they have none in the constitution of the root. 3. Then would the practice of all the Lexicâs be false, who have roots not only forth first but also second and third radical, of every letter of the Alfabet, none excluded. 4. There must then be given sufficient reason, how it came, that those 11 letters were not radical, nay, why never radical; which is impossible to give. But if ye say, the Grammarians do not conceive that they are never radical, but always servile, and the radicalls never servile but always radical. I answer; that I wish they would then speak plainer and clearer; but when, I dare say, above an hundred Grammarians make that distinction, that 11 are radicalls, and 11 servile, why should I not believe them to speak proper? Why do they not then call all the letters radical, and then give a distinction, which of those are for the most part radicalls, though many times servile, and why do they never set down, what servise those 11 letters (by them called perpetual radicals) do perform, when they are now and then found in the Ebrue Bible not to be radical? As if it were not as easy to speak proper and plain, as well in the Rule, as in the explication of the Rule. Rule. 5. The three quiescent letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do change among themselves without alteration of the essence of the Root. As these three letters in the Alfabet are opposite to all the other 19 letters in Orthography, and stand only as one man, representing the five Vowels, so here in Etymology, they do stand as one man too, and represent but one letter, not three. And that by these following arguments. 1. You see no practice in any Grammar of any of these dialects to the contrary, but you may find a multitude of examples in every one, and out of many, many thousands; not only in the permutation of the radical letters, but even, when they are but servile, and do stand to wait upon radicals in any respect whatsoever of place, part of the word or speech. Open but any Grammar (if ye have skill to understand its precepts) and ye will find it. And yet of all those Grammarians there is not one, that says they are but one letter in respect of Etymology. 2. It is the practice in all Dictionary and Lexicâs of whatsoever dialect of this tongue: that in truth I pity all the Authors of Dixionaries, not one excepted, that out of so many examples they could not see so much. 3, That this rule doth show in a very great measure, that all the dialects of this tongue, none excluded, have one and the same nature with each other; if not in other things, (which hereafter will be seen,) yet in this particular. 4. Because all the Authors speak of that changement of the quiescents, only I reduce them, 1. From four unto three, and 2. Unto a unity, not a Trinity. Now whereas it might be objected, that in Ebrue and Called there were four not three, and in the rest three, and that even this diversity of: the number of these do show the diversity of the nature of the dialect, and therefore no unity; I answer. 1. That à potiori fit denomination You must look to the highest and greatest number, and then you have Syriac, Arabic, and Eriopic, the Grammars whereof in general have but these three (and of a Samaritic Grammar you cannot produce any Author). 2. The Called is not the true Called (of those Heathens, amongst whom the jews were dispersed in the Babylonian captivity) but only a rabble and mingle mangle made and corruptly made by the Jews in Jury. 3. The Ebrue tongue itself stands against the number of four 1. For the first radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not changed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiesent. 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first radical is never quiescent but always movable. 3. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first radical is almost never changed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being scarce ten examples in all the tongue, and you know unica hirundo one Swallow makes no new spring. 4. All the second radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remains and never changes into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 5. The third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is naturally movable as you may see in Siriac, Arabic, and Etiopic. But the jews have spoilt their root, by bringing in only once the quiescent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 6. Because the jews themselves confess a distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third radical movable and quiescent, which they never do in the 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 movable and quiescent. 7. They never made that distinction in the first, or second radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as movable and quiescent, being constantly one way movable. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 1, 2, & 3. radical movable or quiescent never made any distinction of a root by any one of all the Grammars and Dictionaries. Rule 6. The order and number of the Roots are easily to be known, and of a Divine authority. Both of these things are either never rightly inquired after, as being esteemed not worthy of inquiry, and esteemed necessary. And yet if that principle be true, that. 1. The letters only make up the root. 2. Every letter. 3. And that the order and number of them in the Alfabet be of a Divine Authority, than the things laid down in this rule, necessarily follow. Now as the order of the Alfabet is not laid down by the Spirit of God at random, so neither is the order of the roots to be esteemed of a slight and small consequence: whereof partly in the principles before the Dictionary will be spoken something concerning the connexion of the roots through the whole tongue; partly here must be said, that as it is showed in the rule before, that these three quiescent letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are but one, so therefore all the roots beginning (in Ebrue, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic) with ye or yod and vau must be brought to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and all that have the second radical vau and yod must be brought to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all that have the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent, must be brought to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which done there will follow a double benefit. first, there will be no need of that infinity of the remissions by all the Authors none excepted, from one of these letters, to the other; secondly, (which is of the greatest and best use, and for which this right and due ordering is desired) that as the roots which are naturally not divers but one, are joined and made whole, and brought to their life (whereas by that unhappy disruption they were torn in pieces and spoilt of their life) so their soul comes now again to that right, true, and one signification, which without that joining no man is able to show the way to get necessarily. So likewise when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to be the 1, 2, or 3, radical it must be reduced to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 15th order. The number is easily cleared by the number of the Alfabet (containing here in Etymology no more than 20 letters,) which must be understood to be the 20, first laid down in the Alfabet, and so as we proceed in Arithmetic from the right hand to the left (which is just contrary to our manner of writing) even so in this we must proceed (contrary to their manner of writing) from the left to the right, always beginning with the third radical, varying it through the whole Alfabet (the first and second remaining the same) thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a a a, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a a b, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a a g, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a a d, etc. which being done will make 20 Roots for the third radical only. Then after the same manner vary the second radical through all the Alfabet, and that will make 20 Roots more for the second radical, which being multiplied with the 20 of the third raradicall (the first as yet remaining the same) will make 400 for the first radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as many for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as many for every one of the letters throughout the Alfabet; which will in all make up the number of 8000 neither more nor less, as will appear more plainly by this adjoined Cube. CUBUS OCTO MILLE RARDICUM TRILITERABIC Whatsoever Dialects have the same number and order of the Alfabet, and the same sormall principle, that three letters do make the Root, have the same number, and order of Roots with Ebrue. Now Orthography shows, that Samaritic, Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic hath the same number and order in the Alfabet, whence it follows, that all these dialects have also the same number and order of the Roots. And if the same letters throughout, then also the same Roots throughout. Which is the foundation of that unity, where of we speak. Nor must we look here, what order the Syrians, Arabians, Etiopians or jews themselves set down in the Alfabet in the Orthography, or number or order of roots in Etymology; for that which they set down, is rather an unartificial then Grammatical proceeding, for Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, and Phisic with Metafisic proceeds juxta artem by artificial not mechanical ways. And therefore it must not seem strange unto any man, that I leave the order and number of the Roots of all the Authors already extant, (as being merely mechanical) and follow the art of the Grammar, setting them down altogether different from those that have preceded me. Rule 7. The first Root hath 36 more special Roots all of one and the same essence. The first letter in the Alfabet being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without doubt the first root must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet (as is said) because these three quiescent letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and in Ebrue only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is the third radical) do stand in Etymology only for one letter, those three Aleffs cannot make up the first root alone, but the following thirthy five do also belong unto it, viz. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 3, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 11, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 30, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet in Siriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, there, are only 27 special roots, because they use not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent in the 3 radical. Rule 8. The first and third, or second and third radical only being quiescent, such a Root hath 12 special Roots in Ebrue, etc. but in Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopick only nine, all of one, and the same ess nce. I will instance first in those that have the first and third radical quiescent: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now because the quiescents do change among themselves all these following belong unto the same root, viz, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Secondly, in those that have the second and third quiescent, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto which belong these following, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rule. 9 The first and second radical quiescent hath nine special roots all of one and the same essence. Because in the first and second radical there comes not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent which doth in the third radical, it comes to pass that (as it was in Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, in the first and third, or second and third radical quiescent,) here in Ebrue, Called, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic, in the first & second radical quiescent only these nine following, 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rule to Where the third radical is only quiescent there are only four special roots, in Ebrue, in Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic only three all of one and the same essence, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Rule. 11. Where either the first or second radical only are quiescent, there are only three special 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Rule 12. Where there is no quiescent letter in the first second or third radical, there is only one root without any special roots of the same essence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule 13. The quiescent letters changing their place (and the movable retaining theirs) make a root of the nearest kindered. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. And Which roots ye must not confound with these ten following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8 Which are among themselves of the same affinity, that the first ten are among themselves, but I say the second ten must not be confounded with the first, because the movable letters have changed their place. Rule, 14. These quiescent letters are naturally falling away in any of their roots. This rule (here in Etymology) though left away by all the Grammarians and Dictionary writers whatsoever, is very necessary; for if we give that rule here at the root, then have we not need to set it down in Analogy either in Noun of Verb: for this falling away is common both in Noun and Verb. And herein is all the anomaly that they make, viz. When they are cast away; for when they yet appear in their changing, than the root is still full and present, which is defective, if one or two quiescents be cast away. If they are quiescents or movable in their appearance, makes no anomaly; and the 12th. rule tells you, that seeing two radicalls ye may choose to put the quiescent at the 1. 2. or 3 radical without any sensible error. Rule 15. The roots of the 1. 2. or 3. radical quiescent are of a near kindred with the second and third the same. Because that according to the 13 rule the quiescents are easily and frequently cast away, two non quiescent letters only remaining, the second of them is doubled or written twice, in place of that quiescent, so that the roots of the second quiescent more frequently, the others of the first and third quiescent sometimes do change with the roots of the second and third the same, in many tenses, persons, and genders, nay in whole orders: as for instance 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third and sixth order hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying no less, than that the root also is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rule. 16. The roots in general are of the same proportion between themselves, that their letters are between themselves. What all the Grammarians say, concerning those letters of the same organ (to wit, of the throat, lippalat, tongue and teeth) that they do frequently interchange is true, and because roots do consist of letters and not of vowels, it comes to pass, that the roots do interchange in like manner: the effect being of the same nature with the carfe. Rule 17. Some teeth letters easily become tongue letters, yet retaining their own nature, different from that of those tongue letters. The reason is, because these two instruments do frequently and most constantly concur unto the pronunciation of their ten letters, whereof five are more especial teeth and tother five more especial tongue letters. Zayin is many times changed into d, fade into thet, sin into t, yet they do retain their nature, so that these d, th' and t arising from zayin, fade, and sin must be distinguished from these letters d, th' and t when they are natural, and of their one stock. Rule 18. Such roots as have the 2 and 3 radical one and the same, do frequently double the first, and put it between the 2 and 3. The reason of this transposition, as is conceived is for Euphony sake: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and many other the like. Rule 18. Some roots take in certain epenthetick letters, whereby they seem not to be any more of three radical Letters only, but of four, five or six. As for instance 1. The letter R, the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebeth a Sceptre, which is sound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sarbith whence is the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence is that falsely esteemed persian word parasange (or miles) etc. 2. the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g m d which we find thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 3. N. the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 súr but doth assume n, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bassanvertm in Gen 19.11. 2 Reg. 6.18. 4. M. the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but assumes m as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. 2.13.15.5. The three quiescents are frequently in erted after the second or third radical as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Arabic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; with divers others. Rule 20. Some roots seem to be of more than three letters, whereas the fault is in the letters. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen 2.12. Num. 11.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jer. 44.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 41.45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen 2.14. Rule 21. Some roots seeming to have more letters than three are easily (by many ways) reduced to that number As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a band, n in l by the Latins balteus nine times 〈◊〉 in the Ebrue Bible hath the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 band by the Arabians, a rope, cable cord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a flame; thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Rule 22. Some words are compounded of two or three roots together, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compounded from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teeth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elefant, 1 Reg. 10.22. 2 Chr. 9.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan. 3.5. from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in all other dialects. An observation for Etymology. ALl these rules will be a great deal clearer made out by the ensuing dictionary. And therefore I beseech the courteous and gentle Reader not to judge upon half done work. For the chiefest reason, why we cannot see that more perfect unity and identity, (which is given us by Metafisick) of these dialects, and that they are no otherwise divers tongues than Eolic, Attic, Doric, Jonic are divers from the Greece, is because neither the Grammar nor the Dictionary were ever made to join them, except in the Grammar of Lud. de Dieu, Anno 1626. Mr. Gerhard the year past. In the Dictionaries, only that excellently learned Schindler in his Pentaglo●t●n (given out after his death 1612) made up long before the smattering in that kind of Rapheleng in his Arabic Dictionary Anno 1613. and of Calasius in his Ebrue concordance 1621. And I doubt not, that when hereafter many excellent wits do fall upon such general Grammars and Dixionaris or Lexicâs, they will make a great deal bette work, than ever hitherto is dreamt of. The said Mr. Gerhard is now about such a Dictionary. And I hope, that (besides him) I shall give some further light, and perhaps open a door, where no body did expect one; beseeching only in the mean time my Reader, to help and assist me with whatsoever he is able, assuring him, he shall find me a thankful man. Analogy or the second part of Etymology. Rule 1. From each of these 8000 roots may be derived all sorts of words, of whatsoever part of speech. BEcause that every speech may be the better understood and considered, the art of Grammar doth divide all speeches into certain parts, in some tongues more, in some less, according to the greater or less variety of the terminations in every tongue. For the less variety of the terminations of words there is in a tongue, the fewer parts of speech in that tongue, and the greater variety, the more. That tongue which hath the fewest parts of speech is the most perfect, and that which hath the most, less perfect. The parts of speech in this primitive tongue is by all set down and made too many, there being only two, viz. a Noun and Verb, the greatest part of them have also made particles as the third part. Other 8 parts, some (but very unreasonably) have made nine, and that ninth only for one letter sake: as if it were to be conceived that one letter could make a ninth part of speech; for then there would be ninteen, eight ordinary, and eleven extraordinary for those several Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (one letter of these eleven) be worthy to make a part of speech, all the rest may be worthy also. Yet more specially of that in the second rule. Here it is enough to observe that any kind of word whatsoever, none excepted, comes from a root, seeing that the root itself never stands in any book, as the root, but the words descending from the roots. This first rule of Analogy shows us likewise, by what liberty, and yet with a regularity, words may be multiplied, to wit, (as we say in Latin and Greece, Analogicè,) according to analogy, the right whereof is to form words in a decent way; For otherwise if there were not such lawfulness, than we might never make bold to form any new word in this oriental primitive tongue, where we had none before. As for instance. In Ebrue I may make a verb of any person and tense, although we have it not in the Ebrue Bible. And that is demonstrable à priori by this first rule, and à posteriori by the practice of the Jews, who have made many Nouns and Verbs not extant in the Bible, which they never could have done, if it were not lawful. And thus all the tongues become more full and copious. Secondly, it is practised by the jews in the Called translation, in the Talmud, in all rabbinical books; so that it is a mere fancy to call those form Nouns and Verbs, we find with the rabbins, and not in the Ebrue Bible, rabbinical words, and rabbinismes or talmudical words, and Talmudisines. Thirdly, the same is done by the Syrians Arabians, and Etiopians, who have many Nouns and Verbs, which are not in the Ebrue Bible. Rule 2. This the simplest tongue hath only a Noun and Verb, and no more parts of speech. As God is the singleness and uncompoundednesse itself, so it is no wonder that his tongue, which he (by reason) gave unto Adam, is the most simple and least compounded tongue. Neither can any tongue be brought to a greater singleness, than this, which hath the greatest, to wit, only two parts of speech according to nature itself, which goes almost constantly upon a division of two, in an opposite way. One part cannoe make up a whole story, discourse, description, or opem but Noun and Verb, (taken in th●● sense as here) may. For here in Analogy we consider them for the most part only with relation to their terminations, not significations. Therefore notwithstanding the Greecks and Latins have made 8 or 9 parts, and some Grammarians in this tongue have unreasonably followed them, yet the Arabians and Jews in their Grammars have the nearest way, that they could find, and that is a Noun, a Verb, and a participle. I confess, a threefould distinction is frequently used in nature, by the third to joune or separate the better the opposites; as Comenius goes much upon that ground: And so in Logic in every proposition we have a Noun, and Verb, and the Copulative, so that considering the nature of speeches, they go upon a Noun, Verb and Participles as Copulations. Yet because here we consider them not logically nor rhetorically, neither Syntactically, or pöetically, therefore when all the Nouns and Participles may be couched as one part, as they are one by termination only, and that both Nouns and Participles are unvariable, and thereby a more compendious way may be found for Syntax, I think not, that I have done amiss, in leaving away the third part, being in outward show all one the Nouns in all tongues becoming adverbs, and here, because undeclinable, also prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections, to show that singleness, (whereunto the Arabians and Jews came very near) to be yet more fingle, and that without any hurt to them, remembering that saying of the Jews; before all things let a Master teach his Disciples the nearest way. And as the Syntax by many excellent men is already brought to a more compendious way by this trinity of the parts of speech in analogy (whereas Buxtorf hath 22 Chapters in Syntax, because built upon those 8 parts a Noun, Verb, Pronoun, Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction and Interjection, and Hottinger hath 12 Chapters with an Appendix of three seciall anamalies in the Ebrue Syntax, printed 1647, at Zurich in 80 and many others of that stuff) so is it certain that it may be brought into a nearer way by cutting away the third part, and making it all one with the first which is generally for Hebrew, Samaritic, Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic; whereof I have given (the year past, viz. 1647.) The proof in that little English Grammar. and shall show it in the following Syntax. A Noun is defined by all the Logicians, (and that very exactly), to be a word of no tense or time, yet with capacity of any tense, as present, preter, or future. Those Nouns that are substantive Nouns, as 〈◊〉 Bench, Stool, House, Mouse, Man, Wife, Woman, Table or Cloth are all without a notion of Tense, The adiectives also, have yet a capacity of an Adverbe, as well, good, ill, base, right just, etc. But the Nouns of action as, drinking, sleeping, walking, etc. drink, sleep, walk, etc. Have the capacity of any tense of a Verb; whence, they are surnamed participles, as participating of the signification of a Verb by any of those three tenses. But about a Noun and all the differences of Nouns as their significations, etc. must be spoken in a general Grammar, which things you may take out of other Authors, and are in the mean while here presupposed. A Verb cannot be without the signification of a time present, preter, or future. And thereby it is distinguished from a Noun, and the Noun from a Vorbe. So that as in nature there is only the Masculine and Feminine sex, each having its difference, (and regimen being a mishap in nature) so here these two sexes a Noun and Verb. Rule 3. Both have two Genders, Masc. and Feminine. This rule is general for all tongues in the apprication, though not in the termination. For innalice, he writes, she writes; the first is Masculine, the other Feminine, and yet there is no difference in termination. Even so in this Oriental tongue (to speak the truth) there is no more difference betwixt Masculine and Feminine in Verbs: then there is with us; In the Pretertense (of Ebrue and Called) the third person both Maseuline and Feminine are the same, for wheresoever you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogick it is Masculine, and when it is with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formative it is Feminine. Now who is able (at the first aspect) to see into the heart of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whither it be paragogic, and superfluous, or formative and necessary. The second person Masculine and Feminine have both but one letter as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The first hath but one termination, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is therefore called common, which doth not detract any thing from what I say; for the common gender includes both Masculine and Feminine under one termination. So likewise is the first and third plural in Ebrue as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the second plural in Called and Syriac as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore the Masculine and Feminine gender in Verbs is to be understood rather for application then termination, yet by the pricks (whereof I shall speak in the Appendix) there is I confess more difference made, but in common speech there is not half so much difference made as is conceived, as for instance when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written with pricks the Masculine is lathasta the Feminine lathast, but in common speech whither it be to man or woman it is pronounced only lathast: It being clear enough to the eye whither it be a man or woman that is spoken to. Also in the Nouns it is the same, as Malkeka, thy King (to a man) and Malkek, thy King (to a Woman) yet both are commonly expressed only Malkek. And this distinction in dead things, as Sun, Moon, Soul, Day, Night, etc. is not material, for it will not alter the sense at all whither yea put them in the Masculine or Feminine. And hence it is that there are so many exceptions about it, so that in buxtorf's Thesaurus ye have no less than 6 or 8 pages full of rules and exceptions about the gender. And in living things only men and women are of that worth, to be accuratly distinguished, all the rest deserve not that honour. And again that must be a silly brain, which (understanding the sense of the Nouns) should not be able to know whither the Verb be Masculine or Feminine, whereas if it speaks of a woman, it cannot but be Feminine, and of a man, Masculine. Yet for the most part every Noun and Verb that ends upon the third radical is Masculine. A common gender and a neuter are without neid, this excludes and that includes both. Rule 4. There is neither Active nor Passive extant. I confess it is otherwise laid down by all the Grammarians that have written of these Dialects, except Samaritic, whereof we have no Grammar necessary: in all the rest this is laid down as very necessary. Nor do I deny it to be natural, but that in this tongue there is a certain termination and changing of Consonants for it, that I deny. And the reason is, because it is so naturally sensible unto every one to feel, whither he gives or receaves blows, whither he smites or is smitten. So that if we only know the signification of the Verbs and Nouns, reason, nature, the antecedent and consequence, will easily show whither Active or Passive must be understood, although there be no distinction at all for it. Yet in the Appendix, when we come to speak of accidental things in this tongue, there we shall have some more trouble, because we cannot be contented with ease, and that which is sufficient in our tongues for the very children (as those that have not such a great quickness of reason and understanding) will not be sufficient for our high learned great Scholars, but they must have (besides the Sun) some petty little candles with them in their hand for fear they might miss the Exchange, Church, or Tavern at noon day. Or as if their legs would not serve them well enough to go abroad, but they must have go-carts (whereby children learn to walk,) with them in the street, for fear of falling. I cannot give a better comparison of the madness of all the Grammarians, when they (forgetting their and our own natural strength in such trifles) make such a great matter to find out, whither the Noun and Verb be of an active, or passive signification, as if nature had not made distinction enough to know whither a man carry, or is carried. And why should nature have been so provident by the senses of every man to distinguish between active and passive, and yet that to be esteemed nothing, except it have a special termination or punctation all along. Rule 5. There are no moods in this tongue. I deny not that there are in tongues an indicative, subjunctive, optative, potential, imperative (and by all superfluously added infinitive) yet as the most Latin Grammars extant did reject the old way of the former Latin Grammars (who did imitate and follow the steps of the Greece Grammars, yet without reason) in leaving away the oprative and potential mood, because of the same termination with the subjunctive, (as in English I teach, the indicative, that I teach or might teach: the optative, when I teach the potential, the Verb teach remaining without distinction in respect of these three moods,) so here in this oriental tongue the subjunctive must be taken away, because no special termination for it here. The imperative (as in all other tongues) leaves the expressions of i, he, we, they, as unnatural and unreasonable in commands, being done only to the second person, one or more; Which unity is uncapable of distinction, and less, to be an accidental mannen, or mood. And is therefore by me called the commanding present; and referred to the tenses. The Infinitive is in all tongues a Noun; as in English, (an) act, (to) act, in this oriental tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mori, mors; to die, a death. So then there remains only one free mood, viz. the indicative: yet when there is no more but one, you need not give unto it a title, (the titles for the most part being given for distinction sake) nor call it a mood; as we use not ordinarily the number one, two, three, in things but one in nature, as Sun, Moon, World, or Matter, a Book, a Pen; etc. saying one, when there are either more, or supposed to be more; one God, one Book. Hereby gaining a shorter way towards our purpose by cutting of that whole long street called mood, we fall directly into the next street called tenses. Rule 6. Tenses or times are only three; present, future and preter. The present or first position of a time in nature is either commanding some body, or declaring. Which cannot be but to the second person only, one or more this is of three persons expressed either by the future or preter, or by the Noun agent with the verb substantive. The future hath its temporal distinction by the first or third radical of the 1. 2. or 3. personal Nouns singular or plural, prefixed before the root. The terminations of the present remaining here, because it gives the being unto the future. The first of both numbers, the second masculine singular and the third singular ends upon the third radical. The second Feminine singular here as in the present, upon y, the 2 and 3 masculine as the second masculine plural in the present upon u The second and third feminine plural as the second feminine plural upon n. The preter (under which is comprised imperfect and plusperfect) as nicer distinctions of the time past, the perfect expressing both sufficiently, because reason will distinguish, where the eye reaches not, either for want of a distinct object, or defect of its power. In Syriac, most frequent, in other dialects now and then the preter with the Verb substantive makes the plusperfect, and the Noun agent with the Verb substantive, the imperfect. Yet such a constancy is not here to be expected or that the imperfect may be plusperfect, or both to have that verb substantive only for fashion, as a certain emphatical confirmation of the thing past, as sufficient or its 1. or 3. radical by the Arabians before the future, a certain emphatical confirmation of the thing coming. The termination it hath is t in all the singular of all persons and genders except the third Masculine which ends upon the third radical; the second Feminine doth frequently put before the affix personal letter a y paragogic, as in Ebrue there is in the 1. singular. The third plural hath an u in both genders, (the third radical of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying two or more,) which, u hath been already in the present and future. The second plural hath t as in singular with that paragogic m from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Masculine by Ebrue and Arabic, and in the rest of the dialects with n the Feminine with n from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout. Whereby Called, Syriac, and Etiopic takes away that distinction between Masculine and Feminine, as we have also examples in the Ebrue Bible, m for the Feminine and n for Masculine. The first plural with the last syllable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nakhnu, we. All these Letters and. Syllables put behind the root. Rule 7. As persons are three, 1.2.3. So numbers are only two, singular and plural. There are ten or 12 personal, and as many numeral Nouns, the catalogue whereof ought not to be set down in the Grammar, because what can be said of them must be done in the Dictionary (under their proper root,) which hitherto hath not being observed, and thereby the Grammarians become big and confused by heterogene all and superfluous things. The personal Nouns are otherwise called Pronouns, and have made almost (by all Authors) a separate part of speech. Which if according to reason, why was not the same done for the numeral Nouns, viz. 1.2.3. 4 5.6.7.8.9.10.100.1000. Person and Number, number and person having the same right in a Noun and Verber. And if the Nouns of person make up a part of speech, than the Nouns of Numbers should do it likewise, and then there would be made 19, (or one being added unto the 19, I spoke of before, 20) Or if the numeral Nouns make no part of speech, (as no Grammarians have allotted to them) the personal Nouns make none neither, the former being justly left away by all, the last by many. Here in Analogy they are both to be made mention of so far forth as there come any certain several letters from them, to serve in their steed retaining the signification of the whole word. And that shall be done in the following rules of letters. So that we see, the Nouns do not only denote the third person (be they personal, proper, or appellative, as Grammarians conceive) but also the first person, if the speaker speaks of himself, as there are in all tongues infinite examples of; or the second, speaking to some other present or absent supposed to be present, whereof as many examples may be shown. That the present commanding, otherwise called the imperative, is only found in the second person, I said before; and that all the three persons of the present declaring were made good by other ways in the future and preter, (an extravagant way from all Europe) or by our ways in the Noun agent with the Verb substantive, I said also: and that future and pretertenses have their three full persons; it being without loss or gain whither ye begin from the first, and so go through the second unto the third (as for the most part the Grammarians set in the future) or from the third; and so passing through the second unto the first, (as for the most part Grammarians set in the preter) or whither you begin both alike from the first, or third; or change it so, that ye begin the future from the third, (as, some did,) and the pretertense from the first as others, for that, or this order, will not alter the case. Of the numbers there is more work, viz. whither there be not three numbers also, as well as three persons, viz. singular, plural, and dual, (as all the Authors affirm) I answer no, 1. Because only one and the same letter serves for the dual, that doth for the plural, it being one and the same numeral Noun, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies two, or more from whence the third radical being cut off is employed instead of the whole word to form the dual and plural. 2. Because that in the very personal Nouns there are none distinct for the dual and plural, in the second or third person. 3. Ebrue, Called, Samaritic and Syriac with Etiopic, have it not in Verbs. 4. Syriac, Samaritic and Etiopic have it not in Nouns. 5. Because the same letters, which in Arabic make the dual in Nouns and Verbs, makes the plural in Ebrue, Called, etc. 6. Because there is only singular and plural in the most of our European tongues, Greece seeming to have the dual, but the examples are so few in respect of the plural, that you will say it is either superfluous or ridiculous. The n, which in Arabic is joined unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Greece to o, or on, is paragogic. Rule 8. Masculines are for the most part the Names of, 1. Men. 2. People, 3. Mountains, Rivers. 6. Months. The names are either proper, or appellative, therefore we understand here not only the proper, but also the appellative names of Men, etc. 1. Men as Adam, Qayin, Hebel, Set. A King, A Duke, A Prince, A Freeborn, A Slave. 2. An Egyptian, Ebrue. German. Frenchman Spaniard. 3. Carmel, Hor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of Excellency known only by the appellative name, the Mountain, for that signifies the name Hor, from whence the Greece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Mountain. 4. Fisôn, Gihún, Degel, or Deqel, or Hiddeqel, and Frât, (not Eufrât) the four rivers in Paradise, or Garden of pleasure. 5. Beginning from March, nisan or Abîb, April Ayir (others reed iyyar, but falsely) or Avir, whence our name April. in the Bible surnamed sîv. 1. Reg. 6.1. May shiuân. June tammûs a name only occurrent by the rabbins taken from the Latin name Junius by putting i for t, and ni in m, mistaken in their writings and copies. July, Ab. August. Elûl. September Etanîm, or Tisri. October Bul, Mercheshuân. November Kisleu. December Thebet. January Sbâth. February. Adâr. Rule 9 Feminines are for the most part the names of 1. Women, 2. Countries, 3. Cities, 4. Any opposite part of the World, or things. 1. Women, Hawa, Ada, Zilla, Naamah, Noemi, Rutilio, Rahel, Leah, Bilha, Zilfah, Sharah, ribqah. Hannah or Johanna, or Anna. Fninnah or Margaret, etc. Wife, Mother, Daughter, Queen, Princes, Midwife, concubine, etc. 2. Egypt, or Misr. Persia, or Fars, Media, or Midyan, Arabia. 3. Babel, Kharân, Somrôn or Samaria, Yrikho. 4. The opposite parts of the World, South and North, East and West, of things. two hands, feet, legs, shoulders, arms, ears, eyes, knees, cheeks. Yet some of them are to be found in Masculine also. Rule 10. By termination, any words ending on the third Radical are Masculine. Except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All these I have taken out of that excellent learned Mr. Buxtorf his great Grammatical treasure p. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. (Whereof the most part are of both genders, and many of them only feminine. The reason whereof leys in the two rules going before. The significations of them you may find there, or in any Dictionary. I was therefore so large with them, because the same holds in Called, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. Nay of all these you will find the most part in Arabic (which Dialect of all these six is unto us the best known, because the fullest of books) first agreeing in the same gender with Ebrue. secondly, in the same variation of the gender, thirdly, not only generally in other words, besides these occurrent in Scripture, but even in all these reckoned up, there being not one of them not to be found in the Arabic tongue, (as ye call it,) or Dialect. And further if that the other words which are ordinarily Masculine and ending upon the third radical, should be found in Arabic, Syriac and Etiopic at a variance from the Masculine towards the Feminine, as there are many, that you may wonder the less at it, having in the Hebrew Bible itself the same variation. Finally, that ye learn hence, not to stand so highly amazed at the frequency of these and other excepted words, nor think, that you dare or cannot go without stumbling through the Ebrue Bible or whatsoever, Called, Samaritic, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic books because of this great block, but rather learn hence to judge, that even this multitude of exceptions demolishes that distinction of Masculine and Feminine, and these two great Mountains of Grizzim (not Gerizzim, or Garizzim) Deut. 11: 29.27: 12. Ios. 8: 33 Jid. 9.7. and Ebâl, Deut. 11: 29.27: 4.13. Ios. 8: 30.33 upon which formerly it seemed the blessing and curse were put by the former Grammarians. Rule 11. Feminine hath a t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Root in singular and the Letter of the plural, and sometimes by accident an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent. In these the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t is servile, and not radical; and yet this servile is not constantly Feminine neither, partly in singular as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partly in plural, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and all the infinitives with the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are many times Masculine: and yet is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t servile, and they are also otherwise frequently Feminine. So also ending on a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent, as the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before, written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, item, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because all these end on the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent by accident in place of the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is clear in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and several others. Now because it is so full of difficulty, to distinguish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servile from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 radical, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servile from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 radical, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogic, (being then for the most part Masculine both in Verbs and Noanes,) from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary and formative, these distinctions being so full of difficulties, that not only the greatest Grammarians of the Christians, (but all the greatest Masters of Yishrael, among whom the Massoretes are by no means of the least rank) did so frequently stumble at, that it is a wonder to behold; and observed partly by some others of them, and partly by the Christians, and there are daily many discoveries more about such mishaps. And why should we chide and trouble young Scholars, when they did not know the distinction, or that they should know it, or else go no further. That hath been the crosses, and exceeding great stumbling-blocks, which those blockheads the Jewish Masters did lay in the way for themselves and us; and yet their authority is so highly cried up. The same is true (in Syriac and Called) of the words ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural or accidental, of a hard task to be demonstrated, and proved to be this and not that. And God be praised, who raises us out of the dust, by opening unto us the eyes of the vanity of this terrible business, and Babel. And I hope, I shall have hereafter in some Latin books fuller and larger occasion, to answer unto several doubts arising in Scripture, & elsewhere by not greatly regarding the Masculine and Feminine Gender, which I will gladly perform, if God will spare me my life, and great learned men will be pleased in the mean time to set themselves on that labour, as to seek together all the doubts, which either are all ready made in the behalf of the Gender, or themselves might be able to make, so that sparing that labour (which otherwise I could perform as well as they) I finding it ready and done unto my hand, may the easier go through the resolutions thereof. Rule 12. Any of the Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are for the most part the note of the plural number. This rule is to be understood to hold. 1. In the dual, (which as we said before appartains to the plural.) 2. Both in Masculine and Feminine as well of Nouns as Verbs. 3. Both in present, future and preter. 4. With or without the affixes following. 5. That they are frequently cast away in all these Dialects, as I said in the 14 Rule of Etymology. And than in books without points there is no difference between singular and plural, whence is to be seen, that that distinction is not so constantly observed in this tongue, as we imagine. And therefore we must go higher, to wit, unto reason (led by the signification of the word, the Syntax, Retoric, Logic, Fisic and Metafific.) And if you think to shun it here or there, yet you must resolve some time or other to step forward thereunto by your own reasonable strength, because all these letters will fail you in many particulars. And is it not better to do that willingly, which otherwise you will be forced unto; and to do it quickly, when it is so that you must do it, not being able to avoid it, and when ye have done it, will give you a great joy? viz. that ye are rid of that infinite toil of the pricks and points, whereupon you set your hope as upon that which would lead you through all difficulties and doubts, though as yet they never performed any such thing in matters of consequence, (where your reason could not have led you thorough without them) but only in easy things, where reason would have done you as good service, and that with as much ease too; But if it be so that ye did never (and as yet are loath to) try your reason, nor will grant that those (which have done, and do use theirs,) can see as much nay more with reason (though without these pricks) than you without it (though having them.) I say plainly, you are no reasonable Creature. Therefore these following Nouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are ordinarily plural (and so without anomaly) and so Aquilas (in his Called Parastase) renders them. And yet Raze or R Slomo Yarkhi takes them all for singular with a yod superfluous, as he writes upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Es. 20: 14. which is with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 movable, because the letter before it (as it is also in all tother Nouns) hath a fatah sounding, ay: And so Buxtorf hath it in his Grammar and Concordance; yet in his great Bible, as also in the King of Spain's Bible, with the interlineary translation of Pagninus the letter before it hath a zere e, whereby that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to be quiescent: the Masoretic note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is not found in Scripture any more is true, whither ye point it with fatah or zere. Therefore I pray answer me to one question: do you think, that the Bible is now utterly spoilt, because it hath a zere and not a fatah? if you do, then let all buxtorf's, the Kings of Spain's Bible and many other Editions, (which I doubt, will not have observed this fatah) be burned, nay if ye will be so zealous, and punctual, we shall not leave one Bible in all the World, which would be the ruin both of Jews and Christians. Or if you think, that you cannot understand that place, except it be pointed with a fatah, who do you think is in the right Aquilas or Raze, Buxtorf or Aben Esra, for he will also have them for the most part to be singular, which he makes very plain by showing that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shaday is joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bo an affix singular in the 96, Psa. 12. verse and that by that general Grammar rule, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent, do alter among themselves without changing either the Root, signification, or form of the word, whither singular or plural, etc. Now if others as Raze say, it is a yod formative and not superfluous, they have as much reason. And besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the first word in the first Psal. in Ebrue, and Called) in Arabic are both pricked with a farah, and is set by all the Arabic Grammarians for the singular feminine, vix. A blessing, goodness, felicity prosperity, And where is than that observation of a Ebrisme, blessednesses in the plural So rendered by men, that are not throughly grounded in this Oriental tongue, but sing and prate like Parats, never learning well that which they were taught; So that you may see either of these three letters are the note of the plural, yet with this caution, 1. That you must not be punctual upon the points. 2. That ye must not be punctual in saying it is either the plural or singular, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added. Wither it be a superfluous or formative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and finally, whither it be the third Radical, or (that being cast away) the yod servile: but rather be content. 1. To read it as it pleaseth you. 2. To understand it in either number, singular or plural: and if the sense will clearly have it, to be singular, then let it be so, if plural, then let it be plural, and that will make an end of many thousands of questions and disputes, or endless doubts. Rule 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is for the most part (and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also sometimes) put after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formative or superfluous in singular, and plural. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is constant in Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic, in the dual and plural number, but in the Ebrue the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more frequent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with divers others; yet many times you shall find them in the Ebrue Bible with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even as they are in the other Dialects, as for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and compounded as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benyamyn a Son of old age, Gen. 35: 16. as it is expressed Gen. 37: 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This paragogic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is therefore. 1. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dual, and Plural of Nouns, 2. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural of Verbs whither present, future or preter: and in the Arabic after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formative of the plural as well in Nouns as Verbs as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ragilûn men. 3. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the dual Number of Nouns and Verbs in the present (or imperative Mood) and future Tense of Arabic. 4. After 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular present and future. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is only in the Noun dual and Plural (ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in the Ebrue Dialect; Now because these mems & nuns are only additions, it makes no anomaly, when they are left out in any of the Dialects: but on the contrary the irregularity lies in these superfluities, and the regularity or Analogy in taking them away, as they are most commonly but not always (in such Nouns as follow a Noun of relation to the foregoing) in Ebrue, and Called: but indeed in Syriac and Arabic it is not considered, as being esteemed an unnecessary observation. And so we have in Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve: the Man remaining in the former word too whereunto ten hath relation to make up twelve, hereunto are to be referred two personal Nouns, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be, she which have in the plural Masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you, Masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they or both, with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hemmah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hennah (and also hinneh) look them there: yet in Called, Syriac and Arabic, nay also in Hebrew this distinction of gender is not observed by man and nun; man being now and then found in Feminine, and nun in Masculine. The reason is because they are only additional letters and not formatives of the gender, for the distinction thereof is not observed so strictly in this tongue. Rule. 14. In place of the plural number (as in all tongues, so in this oriental) the collective singular, are used. The collective Nouns and Speeches, to wit, when the singular Noun or Verb is put for the plural, are natural in all tongues. And are either in the same tongue, or in translations into any other tongue, rendered by the plural. As for instance. Work Gen. 2.2. in the new Testament work, Ebr. 4 4. and again the singular Psa. 95.9. in the new Testament, works Ebr. 3.9. Him the people. Exod. 7.8. the Lxx, and Acts 7.34. them soul Gen. 12.5. Lxx every soul, dweller Gen. 4.20. Lxx dwellers. Heart Psa. 95.8. hearts Ebr. 3.8. Jebusite Gen. 10.16. (Aquilas in Called) jebusites: parable, Psal. 78.2. parables Mat. 13.35. (In Ebrue both fingular and plural, because the fignification is plural as man, 1 Cor. 10.1. men, 1 Sam. 31.1. Jebufite the inhabitant 2 Sam. 5.6. inhabitants. 1 Cor. 11.4. enemy, 1 King. 8.37.44. enemies 2 Cor. 6.28.34. spear, 2 Ki. 11, 10. spears. 2 C. 23.9. ship. 1 Kioto. 22 ships, 2 C. 9.21. dweller. 2. Sam. 5.6. dwellert 1. C. 1.4. wizard 2 C. 33.6. wizards. 2. Ki. 21.6. so tree Gen. 3.2. for trees. And figtree in Ebr. always singular, in the English translation is seventeen times rendered in singular, and four times in plural, viz. Deut. 8.8. Psa. 10.33. jer. 5.17. Hos. 2: 12. (but that place Nahu: 3.12. speaks not of the tree, as it is falsely rendered, but of the fruit, of the figs themselves, and contrary Num. 20.5. the fruit is falsely taken for the tree, as it was rightly taken, Deut. 8.8.) Leaf Gen. 3.7. for Leaves. And an infinity of such examples more, in all Dialects, in all tongues in our English as frequent, as elsewhere, if it please you to observe it. In the Syriac and Arabic dialects (because in both there are the collective Nouns as frequent, as these plurals ending on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Masculine or Feminine.) Those that did formerly put the points unto certain books, did add two points as a sign, that it should and must be taken in the plural, notwithstanding it be singular by form. But what must be done where the points are not added? Truly I would not always rely upon him (in pointed books) that hath I know not what skill in the tongue, nor in unpointed books despair of my own reason, but to use that well I would bestow all diligency, to learn a great quantity of Nouns and Verbs with their significations, and that my greatest study should fiercely fall upon the New Testament, thence to the old; thence to other Authors. In Arabic there hath been the greatest puzzling about this plural number in the Nouns. And there things were set down so obscurely, partly by the Arabic Grammarians, who are exceeding large, and unskilful in this work, partly by the Christians, as Erpenius, Guadagnolus and some others, that it may be thought, they left more to be cleared up, than they cleared in the Arabian method, because they gave us their terms, and titles, which are so strange, that no body knows what to make of them, some Nouns were sound, others broken, whereof no sound sense can be made at this very day in all England, unless it be by three or four learned men. The business is; what they called sound, there those three letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were extant in Masculine or Feminine, and do follow the common road of this tongue: and that was easy to be understood, but what these broken Nouns were, none did understand. I say they are collective Nouns, singular by termination and plural in fignification. Erpenius sets down 22 forms of these collective Nouns, but that is a superfluous toil; because the easiness of learning them, lies not in knowing their forms, which are the same with the sound Nouns, which in fingular termination have but the fingular signification, and not plural; 2. one sound or common singular, having two or three collective singulars of divers forms, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an eye pl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sea. pl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nay the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without pricks is a collective plural, and what distinction then? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a witness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Boy whence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maid Es. 7.14. The collective is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the same in outward form with the Feminine a Maid) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here you may say, alas how shall I get out of that mingle mangle of a Boy and Maid, many and one. I shall help you shortly, stay a little. Therefore here the knowledge of forms nothing helps us, if you know the fignification of every Noun and Verb, you have before you in the Text. I warrant you, as our English translators could translate Figtrees in plural in four places, notwithstanding the Noun be singular in Hebrew, even so they could do in hundreds of other places, understanding the word and context, and seeing by reason, that the plural must be understood; and that not only the English translators, but every one that did meddle with the translation of the Bible either in part or wholly, or did make observations upon the translations; so may you (or any body else, that hath reason) see well enough, when the Text desires singular or plural, be they never so much confounded by the termination. And yet here the Arabic Dixionares already extant, and which are to come abroad do help and are to help you, telling you in every root these forms, wherein besides the common singular the collective plural are extant, and that is enough. The Masculine or Feminine sex is clear by the circumstances in persons, and in things is not very necessary. And here ye must know, before we part, that all these collectives are Feminine, and the refore construed constantly with a Noun or Verb Feminine singular. Rule 15. The personal Nouns do yield one, or two of their Letters to stand in place of themselves. For the composition of words (thereby to avoid the multitude of words which would otherwise ensue, by frequent repeating the whole Nouns) here is common that contraction which in other tongues is now and then begun, but not finished and constantly used. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any I or me yealds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in Ebrue, Called, and Samaritic, but also in all the other Dialects, notwithstanding the third radical as well as the first be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they retain the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the syllable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote the first person. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou (in singular) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masculine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feminine ye (in Plural) yealds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third radical in singular, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masculine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feminine in plural; which being to signify not the personal but possessive Nouns, as in singular thing, in plural yours. For distinction sake changes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he, his, him she her, it, or its, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feminine (in plural) doth yield in singular either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or both, in plural they remain as they are. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we, us, yealds' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. our, ours. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that, which, he, who, by casting away the first ladicall Aleph, (according to the 14 rule in in Etymology there remains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third radical whereof (viz res) being either left out in writing, or cast away their remains only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of divers words in Ebrue, Called and Siriac. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Masculine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, feminine: this, that, these, those, theirs, them. yield 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yealds' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Dialects yea many times it remains entire in the Bible (but in Arabic most constantly) as Psa. 2.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truth Ez. 13.11. 13.38.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pearl, metaph: the hail as big us pearl, compounded of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extant in Yob. 28.18. and sundry other examples. The jews using constantly (instead thereof) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Etiopians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Chaldeans and Syrians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rule 16. Some other words most frequently used in speech do the fame. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vau a hook (of the first root) signify to attend, to long or desire or wish for joining, coming. fetching; the first letter there of being put before a Noun or Verb signifying: and, but, both, for, if, and if, namely, or, that, that is, that, which, then, therefore, who and which. To be brief it denotes all the Greek and Latin conjunctions of whatsoever signification; whereby you may see the plainness of this tongue and the easiness to know how ye shall tender van in this or has place, it being absolutely left unto your reason, wisdom, and learning so that if you tender it ill the fault is not in the difficulty of this tongue, but in yourself, viz. your ignorance, and onreasonable discretion. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 (of the 420 〈◊〉) signify to lodge, yealds the first better which is put only her sore a Noun, (never, before a Verb) and denotes the greatest quantity of prepositions, I will set them down here in Latin (you may put them into english at your leisure) ad, ante, spud, comra, cum, de, e, ex, in, inter, intra, juxta, per, prope, propier, etc. whereby you may see again the easmere of this tongue. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 koh: or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ki: so, why, (of the, 3201 root) it signify to clear, it yealds the first letter and puts it for the most part before a Noun very seldom before a Verb, it denotes (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) sic ut, quod, uts, sicut, sicuti, silicet; (and before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) si, nisi, quia, liun, 〈◊〉 quom, quamvis, nam, certe, etc. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Min, of from, (of the 4232 root) it signisyes graciously to give and take, and is placed before any Noun, never before a Verb, and should be written apart as it is constantly in other Dialects; only the Ebrews delighting in a compendious way of writing when they put it before a word do always cast away the nun, (whereunto they seem to be cruel enemies) and in compensation of it do double the following letter, which sancy cannot make Hebrew a tongue apart notwithstanding none of the other Dialects do the same, which is easily enough observed. 1. In regard all the other dialects disclaim it. a Because reason shows it not to be a compendium of such value as to be worthily esteemed a principle or a rule, (as some Grammarians have made it) whereby to separate Ebrue from the other dialects as if it were a tongue a part, and more accurate than the rest. 5. In Arabia (besides these four) there is an other word, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suf, (from the 7215 root) signifying, further, certainty, and is set either whole before the future, (whereby to restrain it to the determinate signification of a future because otherwise it would be now and then taken for a present, or preter.) or the letters so, or s alone, or f only, signifying further, then, and relates constantly to something which went before, whereby it differs from the plain vau, which is only a pure conjunction. Observation. From hence came the occasion of those 11 servile letters, which the Grammarians constantly take by mere accident to be radical. whereas on the contrary we see them to become servile merely by accident, viz. upon occasion of the junction of some particular, the most frequent words in this tongue with others less frequent, and that in a contract manner. And yet neither are they just 11, for there are two more, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nun and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fe; and in the 19 rule of Etymology we had, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 res, in the twntieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khet, and I am certain all the Letters of the Alfabet, none excepted, will in such respect be found servile. Rule. 17. Nouns and Verbs are distinguished into 7 degrees or orders of an external form, and internal signification. The first order is presented only by the third radical, (the serviles of present, preter, and future, as also of certain Nouns are not to be reckoned here) so that naturally there are not serviles between them, but all the servils are either after, or before the root, except a superfluous vau between the second and third radical in present, preter, and future. The second order is the same with the first, only that it hath the second radical twice pronounced, and if not twice written, compensed (with an invention called dages and Teshdid,) which in Ebrue is only a point in the middle of the letter, to signify an emphatical expression. The third order is the same, only with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or some one of them) put in between the first and second radical. The fourth order is by putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the root in present, and pretertence; but in future that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never, (but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes) expressed, and when neither he nor alef is expressed, than that order (in the external form of it) is like unto the first, unless vau and yod be now and then put in between the second and third radical, or when the second is alef, vau, or yod, the yod constantly appearing. The fifth order is the same with the second, only that it hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prefixed, yet in the future that he and alef (except it be alef in the first person) do constantly fall away, and we see by the taw, that the taw is only the characteristical letter of this order, because constant in all tenses. The sixth order is the same with the third only observing the same things (in general) that are to be observed in the fifth order. The seventh order hath nun prefixed before the root; either alone or with the same he or alef, put before it in the present and pretertense. By the Jews the nun is not expressed in future, and present, but then the following is for the most part doubled by compensation. The Arabians do constantly write it, but only when the first radical is a nun also, than they writ it not, but in stead of it, they double the radical nun with a mark called Teshdid. Rule 18. Besides these seven there are six other orders, which because more rare, I put asunder. The vl order (but the first of these six) is known by putting taw after the first radical; but when the first radical is a taw (whither natural or taken in for sin, whereof is spoken in the 17 rule of Etymology) or alef, vau, yod, when any of these is the first radical, it is cast away, and the servile taw doubled instead thereof. The ninth order is the very same with the first, only that it hath the third radical doubled either by setting the letter down twice, or else by that mark called Dages or Teshdid. The tenth order is known by putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is't (an old Arabic and thence a Turkish word signifying desire) before the root; the alef is put away in the future Tense, excepting only in the first person singular, which will have it even as the fourth Order hath. The eleventh order is the same with the ninth only it hath alef, vau, or yod, put before the third radical doubled. The twelfth order is known by putting a vaw (doubled by Dages or Teshdid.) after the second radical. The thirteenth order hath the second radical doubled and a vaw movable put between it, In the 7.8.9.10.11.12. & 13. Orders there is an alef superfluous in the present and preter, which (as is said) is cast away in the future (but only in the first person of the future, whereof it is formative) as well as in the fourth, where the alef (or he) is the Character of the order. Observation. The signification and special respects of each of them in changing the orders belongs properly unto the Dictionary (where it must and may be set down) and not unto the Grammar; it being altogether unfit and useless therein. Rule 19 The termination of the present, future and preter Tense of any Number and Gender doth hold through all the 13 Orders. This rule doth show. 1. That there are no Moods or manners, as indicative, optative, potential, and subjunctive, as in Greece and Latin. 2. That there are not 4, 6 or more conjugations in this tongue, as there is in Latin and Greece, where there are divers terminations not only in the indicative, but also imperative and conjunctive, in active and and passive for those four or more conjugations. All which is not here in this tongue, where all the Verbs through all the Dialects are form after one general, fundamental, essential manner; and the termination of the pretertense is the same for all Verbs through all the 13. Orders, the same in the future and present tense. Nay the terminatives of the present and future being one, there are only two sorts of terminations through all the 13 orders for all Verbs, through all the six Dialects, one for the present and future, the second for the preter tense. In the present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the third radical, in the preter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the third radical, so that it could not be almost more simple than it is, except that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might have only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would have been enough, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which would suffice. Nor must ye look upon the Vowel, (which we do not here speak of) but only upon the letters, neither that the third radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes cast away, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed among themselves, or superfluously added. Rule 20. The same 13. Orders, belong unto the Nouns as well as Verbs. That is the greatest task in this Oriental tongue, to finde out the signification of the Nouns according to those thirteen orders, whereof we say the same, that Seneca did of the Latin Cases of the Nouns, not that every Noun hath them all, but that none have any more. To find out the reason a priori, what this or that order signify in the Verbs is an easy thing, and what respect, proportion, degree or reason one order has to the other is easier to be found then in the Nouns. And yet the same is in the Nouns also. Which (as I promised) we shall observe as in the Verbs, so also in the Nouns, in the following Dictionary; (if the public wealth and the private aid will sufficiently assist me in that, which no Learned man, whosoever that hath any understanding in this tongue, and observes the obscurity in the translations of the most excellent places in Scripture, and which are framed by the Holy Ghost in a Poetical way,) can deny to be the only way, whereby to cure all these diseases, wherewith our translation is burdened (it being full of nonsense, and falsehoods,) and to advance a more perfect, clear, certain, and reasonable knowledge of the whole tongue, (which is not only Ebrue and Called, nor yet only Samaritic, and Syriac, but also Arabic, and Etiopic) both in the true Grammar and Dictionary, except our Ministers will preach and quote nonsense and falsehood, and the Right Honourable the Lords and Commons Assembled in the High Court of Parliament, (the expected Great Reformers of the Church) will not have it otherwise. For many godly Ministers see and find it well enough, that the translation is as yet very full of nonsense, and almost in every Chapter some falsehood, nay very many pious, religious, and only worthy Members of the Church of England do hearty and instantly wish for this work, which is as yet not laid to heart, nor so much as once moved to the Parliament. God grant we may become thankful after such infinite mercies, and not lay aside, (I will not say trample under our feet,) that exceeding bright shining light of this holy tongue, which God has first alighted in our Neighbour Countries, where they did and do labour hearty for it, spending not only much labour, but money also in the midst of the War; that they might have clearer expositions of the Word of God, than heretofore, and do print Ebrue, Called, Syriac, Arabic Samaritic and Eticpic parts of the Bible, procure all forts of books in this tongue, entertain the laborious scholars, nay the best Gentlemen, Princes, Earls, Dukes, States, and Kings have a delight to study or to promote these tongues; and God blesses them and prospers their good and Christian duties and works; whereas we might reap the fruit of their labour without labour, if we will prove living Christians. APPENDIX OF ANALOGY For the Pricks and Strokes. Rules 1. Any of the letters being cast away, are for the most part compensed, or as yet remaining by virtue of Dages and Teshdid. IN the Orthography it is told us, that there are two conditions, that you must rely upon (in Ebrue, Called and Arabic) to see the Dages or Teshdid expressed. 1. That the former syllable end upon a Vowel. 2. That the letter which is to have Dages or Teshîd have a vowel, or go to the following letter with a Vowel. If any of those two conditions fail there is no Dages or Teshdid to be expected, and if it be there, it wants almost all its virtue and power. Yet ye must not expect to find this Dages constantly in any Manuscripts without pricks, and yet you will find it in some places of those Manuscripts that are written with the least care. And therefore it must be denied to the Samaritic, Syriac, and Etiopic in some measure, because they have not written it, except in Syriac now and then, and in some measure ye must confess it to be not only in Syriac (for if it be but once written in the book, it is enough to demonstrate that it is extant;) but also in Samaritic and Etiopic to. Wheresoever you find it in Ebrue, Called and Arabic, you will either find it (or else must understand it to be) in Syriac, Samaritic and Etiopic. The profit of this Rule is; that it takes away all these anomalicall examples, in Ebrue Syriac, Called, and Arabic, where any Radical or servile letter is compensed; for than that letter is yet extant, it being only a compendious way in writing, not observed in all places or Dialects. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at thou, in Syriac and Arabic ant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mibbne, n Syriac and Arabic min bne. Rule 2. The Dages or Teshdid is either characteristical, eufonic, or superfluous. This Rule is by all Grammarians given in Orthography, where it is not proper. For I would only know of them whither a beginner be able to read Ebrue, etc. without this distinction; or whither he must needs know it? I am sure he may read Ebrue, Called Syriac and Arabic without it. And why than must it be put there, where nothing is taught, but only that which belongs to reading. Tell the beginner, that Dages and Teshdid double the letter, and thou hast done all that is needful in Orthography. But as for Analogy, here these differences, (if there be any) which express the inward nature of it, are to be set down. And for that purpose, the Grammarians have allowed unto Ebrue and Called, a compensative, a characteristic and an Euphonic, whereunto R. D. Qimhi in his mielol puts one which he calls Atemerakhiq, a foreigner, stranger, coming from foreign unexpected, unprovided way of reason. The Eufonic is by Erpenius subdistinguished into Deltale, Lambdale and Initiale. Deltale is the Teshdid upon the letter t after the letter d without a Vowel. Lambdale is upon the teeth and tongue letter after the letter l in the personal Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ille, a, ud) without a Vowel. Initiale or that Teshdid written upon the first letter, is only upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the letter n is the last without a Vowel in the foregoing word, either express or in the Vowel, an, on, in. And thus much they say. I give my judgement thus, that I esteem, the title of compensative to be superfluous, it being the nature or intention of all the species of Dages and Teshdid to compense the letter before, left out in writing or pronounciating, with doubling of that following letter, that hath a Vowel. The characteristic is only that which is written in the second Radical when the first is not cast away; and that both in Nouns and Verbs in the second, fifth, ninth, and eleventh order. Now this is also compensative, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are only for a compendious writing contracted into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for any virtue residing in this Dages or Teshdid. Whereby is to be observed. 1. That the title of characteristic is not necessary. 2. That this doubling of the second and third radical is a mere accident. And therefore in thousands of Ebrue, Called, Syriac and Arabic words left away. 3. That the doubling of the second or third radical dependeth upon the pleasure of the Reader 4. That leaving the Dages or Teshdid out of the second or third Radical the first, second and ninth Order hath one and the same external form; and hence it is that there are so few examples for the ninth order in Ebrue, where notwithstanding there are some. 5. The same reason may be given for Syriac where there are none, because Dages is almost never written. 6. That there is no essential alteration in the signification of the word with or without the Dages or Teshdid characteristic. 7. Why some word have the same letter doubled, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yisshakar which is now in the Ebrue Bible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be read yisshashkar; the name of the fifth son of Jacob by Leah. And so in many other words. 8. That this doubling of a letter is used in every tongue (as well as in this primitive,) where a man will expressesome emfaticall pronunciation. 9 That a man may easily add such an emfaticall pronunciation unto the Ebrue, when he observes the matter, as Jud. 14: 6. of Simson when he with force tore in pieces the Lion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the punctatours considering, (to express that force) did write the radical twice, or which is the same, did prick it, to be pronounced twice. And so far of the characteristical dages or Teshdid The Eufonic is no new species of Dages, or Teshdid, because every one of them are for eufony in the sweet pronunciation with an emfaticall expression. Here is to be observed that the Grammarians call that Dages or Teshdid (in the third radical eufonicr which I call characteristic, Erpenins compensative. Compensative and Eufonic are general names, appliable also to the characteristic. Therefore is it not to be esteemed, as if I were at variance with them. That which Qimhi calls Ate merakhiq, is also eufonic. not contradistinct unto it; and is the same, which otherwise the Grammarians call Dages lean in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b g d k f t, when the foregoing word ends on a Vowel with or without an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent intercurring. As for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hayahbbayyôm, which quiescent h doth nothing against that eufonic joining of these two words by this Dages, falsely called lean: and this Qimhi calls atemerakhiq, when it is in any other letter besides bgdkft, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mahzzôt Ashitalli Lamma Lo Higgadtalli. What need is there to call this Dages by a new fancied name out of the Called Dialect, when it is the same with that falsely esteemed lean? Further that which Erpenis calls eafonic, 1. In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is called Dages leanly in Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saqatta or faqadta) I call superfluous. Because it is of no purpose in the pronunciation of it. 2. After n without a Vowel in lunmir, is the same with the other letters bgdkft, for if t after d without a Vowel receives a Dages or Teshdid the other five, viz. bgdkf in Ebrue and Called, and six more. viz. lunmyr in Arabic do so also. Ergo that lean is not only in six, but 12. letters. And if it be not lean but fort in Arabic, neither is it in Ebrue, but fort. 3 five letters more (besiders some of those 12) have it after l (of the personal Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) without a Vowel. Ergo summa summarum, that Dages lean, or superfluous is in 17 letters if ye will pronounce the letter before, which by the Arabians is not always left away, as Erpenius and others teach. Rule 3. There is a certain Analogy of the five Vowels. The paradigmes of Ebrue, Called, Syriac, Arabic, and Etiopic in Nouns, and Verbs made with the Vowels or pricks, will give these particulars 1 That you may observe in every Dialect which letter hath a Vowel, and which hath not. 2. Wither it hath a, e, i, o, or u. 3. That the uncertainty of them in the several Dialects doth show their fallibilty. 4. That the rules in Ebrue, Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic are too many. 5. That Arabic hath a Vowel on a letter, where Ebrue, etc. hath none. 5. and Ebrue, etc. hath it where the Arabic hath none. 6. That this general variation (when the essencialls are unanimous) showeth these pricks to be only accidentals. 7. That that rule or observation which sets down diversity of Vowels, Accents, or Dages, in any of these Dialects for distinction sake, is not sound. 8. That it is convenient for beginners to know these paradigmes, as a help for hereafter to read without these Vowels. That there is some small accidental agreement in these pricks in some certain words throughout every dialect; And therefore the Analogy of the place of these pricks, (that is, either this or that Vowel stands for the most part in this or that dialect) is to be set down. 10. That this Anomaly ought to be distinguished from the Analogy. And many such other observations, which may be deduced out from them by a diligent and industrious mind and memory. The special explication of every dialect I will set down here as short as may be, and give some reasons for these alterations, which I use, (and have formerly introduced,) to the end, you may observe, that I constantly intent and endeavour a facility. Of the Paradigme for Ebrue. OF the seven Orders of the Verbs and Nouns I have spoken before. These seven Orders become so many rather by the pricks, than consonants, or letters. In the present Masculine singular the second radical hath only a Vowel, and that threefould, a, e (whereunder is comprehended i) or o (whereunder is placed u) for the expressing whereof you have fatah, zere, and Holem in the point of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By this multiplication of the Vowel under the second radical is taken away many hundred anomalicall observations extant by Buxtorf, and the greatest part of the Grammarians, who setting only fatah, the examples of zere and Holem must necessarily become anomalies. The same holds in the future, and in the pretertense, so long as the accent is at that second radical. So is it than, that the first and third Radical for the most part hath not a vowel nor accent. The same variation of the second radical, doth hold in the first and third, if it receaves a Vowel: the variation thereof will be generally under any letter whatsoever, yet which Vowels are the most frequent in the Ebrue Bible, you see out of the Paradigme. Only you must remember that this extends only unto Ebrue, not to Called, Syriac, Etiopic and Arabic. For in these dialects the change and variations are a great deal less frequent, then in Ebrue; as for instance, that the letter hath never a sva movable, but always a Vowel: that the letter hath neither constantly a gezm or sva quiescent, but in many places in steed of that, a Vowel. So that all these petty observations, which Buxtorf and the rest have in a great quantity, concerning the Vowels (not the letters) and accents, are not considerable. Under the name of the infinitive only in the first order there are expressed forms of a Noun, that you may see and observe the same multiplication in the following orders. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. six with the qamez under the first radical six with zere, six with Hireq. &c and in so doing we have brought in the greatest part of all the forms of the Nouns, which are to be found in qimbi his miklôl, and in Abram de Balms, nay many of these also, which Buxtorf and other Grammarians think to be mere rabbinical and talmudical, not Biblicall forms of them, an opinion of no worth, because false, among whom there are many of those, which miklôl has as Biblicall forms of Nouns. And in truth, whatsoever Author teacheth and speaketh of the rabbinical and talmudical Dialects, and thinks those forms and many other things do not belong to the Ebrue, and doth include the Ebrue into so narrow a compass as the Bible, he sees not that forms of words (Nouns and Verbs, Frases and Speeches) may be Latin and of the true Latin tongue, though not extant in Cicero: and the same of Greek words not extant in Demosthenes. In this Paradigme of the seven first orders you may see the distinction of Active and Passive only in the second and fourth Order, by the distinct prick under the first Radical in the second, and the servile of the fourth Order. And according to the received rule and opinion of all Grammarians, the present passive in the second and fourth Order is left away. Yet the reason given by them, because it is impossible or at least improper in the passive to be commanded by himself, is false, whereas we find. 1. Nifqad to be for the most part (as all Grammarians, agree) the passive of qal, or the first Order, and yet it hath a present commanding or imperative. And it hath the same among the Arabians. 2. Hitpael or Hitfaqqed, Hitlatthas, the fifth Order (by all the foregoing Authors the fourth conjugation (' is to have the active signification, and reciprocal; and yet we find many places of Scripture, where it is the passive; nay the reciprocal signification is that which is both active and passive, as, I love myself, there I am the same man that loves, and is beloved: so that in this form the Arabians look more for the passive signification, than the active, using it almost constantly for the passive: and notwithstanding all this, it hath the second person of the present commanding or the imperative in singular and plural, not only in Ebrue, but also in Called, Syriac, Arabic and Etiopic. Whence it is clear and evident that, that exception of the Ebrue Grammarians, that only Pual and Hofal (as they call the second and fourth Order) because pasive have no imperative, is false, I warrant you, if nifal & hitpaelitpeal and itpael in Ebrue, Called, and Syric, and tefaal in Arabic may have the present commanding being passive, then pual and Hofal may have it to. In the Nouns there is not that diversity introduced by the Grammarians, notwithstanding in all tongues, the Nouns appellative or substantive are of divers sorts, 1. The ability of the act, to write or drink. 2. The act itself. Writing or drinking. 3. The actor, writer, drinker. 4. The abstraction of the act, drunkenness, and by Analogy, writnesse. 5. The instrument wherewith is acted, ink, drink. 6. The place appointed or accustomary to the action, whereunto in English for the most part is added house, place, room, yet in some words the very latin termination of it is taken as Oratorium, and Oratory, auditorium an auditory, so by Analogy printery, writery, drinkery. 7. The inclination in a person, drunkard, sluggard, by Analogy writard, or with a circunscription by adding the word Master, whoremaster, etc. 8. The abstraction of that inclination; as we say hardness, so drunkardnesse, sluggardnesse, writhardnesse. 9 Special Man, Woman, Husband, Wife, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter, Child, etc. 10. individual, Adam, Hawa, Qayin, Hebel, Sêt, Enós, Ada, Zilla, Lemek, etc. Now as all these are in many tongues clearly distinguished by divers forms, so were it well, if our Grammarians or the Jews had done so; but because they have not done it, therefore it follows not, that we must leave it undone. And yet if this tongue doth not afford a clear distinction of forms by this or that Letter and Vowel unto every sort, as we see, other tongues do not, why should we than be so mightily vexed with near 350, or 400 forms of Nouns, the greatest part whereof are set down by Qimhi in his Miklôl, the rest by others, as well Jew's as Christians; or at least with those, 311. forms, or several 'scapes of dwelling-houses of the Nouns, which are divided into 26 streets by Abraham de Balms p. h. 8. li. 25. & 28. when these things are merely superfluous, if they do not so much as distinguish unto us 10 or 12 sorts of several accidents of a signification of the root, except to do that, whereunto he leads us by his Motto, (which doth comprehend the number of 311, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), which is seven times in the Bible,) to set all these 26 streets and 311 Houses on a lusty huge, great fire, (as the name of the Lord in little less than a blasphemy is taken by these Jews, to enlarge, and amplify a thing by) and to make a good fire at the victory of such a terrible enemy. The special Analogy in Ebrue, is to be observed in these following joints. 1. Qamez the long a, is for the most part found in the Noun of the first Order, under the first Radical, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the second of the whole first preter tense, without or with the affix letters of the personal Nouns as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These are the examples of the first preter with qamez, when they receive the personal Nouns by their letters only, wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have a long qamez a, as all other persons in that first preter without the affixes, but with the affixes they yield constantly no qamezes, (and therefore left it away,) except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has a qamez a in any person, but that comes not within the compass of the first second or third Radical. Except where the second radical hath a kholem, there it turns into a short qamez o, because the mediator doth fly from the second to the third. As for instance, under the second radical k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the preter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yakôl we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ex. 18.23. vyacolta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Esa. 13.5. the reason of that changing of the o long in a short o, I give, because the mediator accent doth leave the Vowel: and in the manual concordance in Ebrue it will be plainly seen, whither a verb hath really or is capable to have the kholem at the second radical, which is easily seen, if it have kholem in any Person, number, Tense, Order and Gender, at least in one place, for than it may have it in all places. 2. This long qamez is in the whole first preter without affixes, as ye see in the paradigme. 3. The same in nifal the seventh present and future under the first radical, as is also to be seen by the paradigme. 4. Under almost any letter following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and frequently following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you partly see by the paradigme in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And an abundance of such examples through the whole paradigma. Zere a long e; 1. Under the second radical of whatsoever verb, conjugation or order, tense, person, number, and gender. For what I said of qamez, and of kholem, the same I say of zere. If ye find only one example among a hundert in the Bible through all the orders, etc. which hath a zere, that is warrant enough to admit it in all the rest of the places and persons, if it please you, for this liberty is used in all the rest of the Dialects; so that ye need not fear to wrong the tongue: and good reason for it: such a foundation being laid by God in nature for a variety of pronunciation of every tongue (not only of tongues, 5.6. 700 or a 1000 miles distant from each other, but even in every tongue) insomuch that there is not one tongue under the Sun, that doth not change within every 20 miles (I confess insensible,) but sensible within 40, or 50, and odd miles; which holds also in this Oriental tongue; whence it is, that this primitife mother tongue to whole Africa, and a fifth part of Asia being but one and the same, and seeing that the greatest changing and alteration of the sound (besides the letters) being in the vowels and that within so narrow a compass, viz. only five, a, e, i, o, u, it is no wonder at all, that there is a greater harmony of the very vowels, (being only the 19th part of the Alfabet) then is believed or esteemed. Secondly, Zere before the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the plural (the dual included) in such words, as have relation to the following, where the m and n being ordinarily superfluous as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malke haarez the Kings of the Earth are cast away: which the Gramarians call in statu constructo. But without vowels there is no matter, whither ye pronounce, e or i, even as we see in Latin itself such a variation of a, e, i, pango, pepigi, compingo, compegi, in one and the same word changing a, e, i. Thirdly, Zere is under the first radical, where the second being the same with the thirdis cast away, and that in the fourth order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yassêb: because the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but this holds not constantly, for there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yassim yirm. 49.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vannassîm, Num. 21.30. and yet the root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And some such more. Whereby we see, that even this observation of the Grammarians about zere, is not constant. And the truth is, there is not one constant without exceptions, whereby we see the instability of them, the inconstancy of those that did put these pricks unto the Bible. And good reason for the anomaly of this third is, because the second radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is of the nearest kindred with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we told in Etymology rule 14. 3. Hireq the long i is under the second radical, in the fourth order active as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hilthis or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malthis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 David or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this the Grammarians take to be constant in the roots that have the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in the same conjugation we have the present commanding for the most part with zere; and in Syriac and Arabic the second radical hath in that fourth Order a. e, i, o, as well in active as passive. And that neither accidentally, but one and the same root in Ebrue, Called, Syriac and Arabic hath frequently one and the same vowel in the second radical in the fourth Order: ergo all the variation is here without prejudice unto Ebrue because it is without prejudice in Arabic: and as the Arabic hath a, so the Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higlah, so that zere or hireq is not the characte risticall vowel of this order in active. Second, under the letter before the following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servile in plural, (dual included) out of construction, as they call it, that is when the following substantive hath no relation to this foregoing, or stands absolutely for itself as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m l a k i m Kings. Yod is the true formative of the plural, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only the paragogic: and in such a case we have a long hireq before the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent: yet one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 masculine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feminine two, hath a zere. Nay where that yod is left away as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes a segol or short e as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which, with many other examples we see a variety, which teaches us, not to stand too precisly upon pricks. The same hireq we have also when a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Holem first, with a following vau quiescent either radical or servile, 1. After the first radical throughout the third and sixth Order as well in Nouns as Verbs. 2. Before the vau quiescent in the plural Feminine (a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the most part following) or masculine a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogic following as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; both the quiescent vaus have a kholem before them. Thirdly, after the second radical in the present commanding, future and preter tense as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqôd visit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efqôd I will visit, I do visit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yacôl he may or can; yet this vau is superfluous and should not be there. Secondly, without a following vau quiescent, as 1. In all present, future, and preters in all Orders, and persons, and members, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efqôd is better written than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but where the second radical hath ormay have a kholem will be easily seen in the Hebrew concordance, for if we have but one example, that will show for all the rest, and in Arabic there are many Dictionaries only for that purpose to show what verbs, whither perfect or imperfect have a fatah a, or Kesra e, or damma o, in which vowel Ebrue, Called, Syriac, and Arabic do marveilously agree. And in many other places. Sureq is never written without Vaughan, from whence many times a confusion of Roots proceedeth, the Vau sureq servile not being discernible from the Radical, where it comes to pass that many Grammarians, and all Dictionary writters, none except, have set down false roots. Now whereas the root is as it were the House, wherein a certain signification doth constantly dwell, and is not to be found else where, it must necessarily follow, that when the root is mistaken, the signification must be mistaken also. Therefore I set down first the sureq as without that vau. 1. In the letter vau servile, signifying all sorts of conjunctions be, fore a word beginning from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vubderek, and in the way. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vumiyyôm and from the day. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vufetakh, and the door. 2. In the formative Letter vav of the plural number in the verbs as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 la thsu where the point sureq should stand before the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belonging to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin, not to vau. 3. When that letter is the third radical: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tohu, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bohu, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vayyis tákhu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hitu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higlu. 4. When it is the servile at the end of a Noun, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malkû. 5. Where the second radical is vau, in all the first Order, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aqûm, etc. 6. When it is elther between the second and third radical, the second and servile, (the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being cast away) or the third and servile. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lathûs 7. When it is in the first Radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ucàl I can. 8. When it is before the first radical at the servile letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fourth Order passive as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 huqam, where that vau is clearly superfluous, and should not be there. And in many other places. Fatah: first, under the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demonstratives as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hayyom to day, this day. 2. under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put away, for yet understood, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bayyôm, cayyôm, layyôm. 3. Under the servile letter before the root in the present and future of the fourth order active. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 halthis, althis. 4. Under the first radical in the second present and future active, in all the fifth order. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 latthes, alatthes, hitlatthes, etlatthes, under the second radical of any Verb, Order, Tense, Person and Number. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lathàs, etc. 6. Before the yod in dual with an accent, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 samáyim. 7. Under the second radical in some (though few) Nouns. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dbas Hony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mah. 8. Before the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accent very frevently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqadáni. 9 Before a letter with a sva fatah, its letter being to give a sua or short hireq, and no other Vowel, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rakhazu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rikhzu. And in many other places. Segol. 1. under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preformative of the first person, in the first and seventh future. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elthas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ellathas. 2. In Nouns it is very frequent in the last syllable. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sefer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yrusalem. 3. In some few Verbs, in lac of zere under the second radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kiffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kibbes. Yet constantly in the future, when the third radical is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yaashèh. 4. Before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servile which is afformative of the Feminine Gender. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nkhoset frequently also a double segol before it, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mneqet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foqedet, and in many Nouns, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melek. And in other places. Rule 4. The greatest Anomaly is in Ebrue, in the rest of the dialects there is less according to the quantity of the vowel prics. This part of the inward variance, anomaly, or mutation of points and prics, which are wrongly called vowels, dependeth in method upon Orthografy in matter upon Orthografy and analogy. The method of their variance arises from their variety in Orthografy, from whence it comes that where there are fewest, there is the easier and less variance. In Arabic where there are only three vowels and one sua, it is impossible that the anomaly of them should be so great, as that of the Ethiopians and Syriac, where there are six or five, and the Chaldeans, where there are as many as in Ebrue, but yet without intent of such a strictness, as is observed by the jews, where the fifteen pricks are divided into three orders, long, short, and shortest, for certain several uses, not observed in Called Orthografy. The Anomaly of them in Ebrue. This is threefold, 1. When any one long vowel is changed for any other long vowel: as for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bên, a son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 banim, sons. Nor is it needful to make a new and unusual singular, (so called, because never found in the Ebrue Bible) as R. D. qimhi in his Miklôl in this and many other examples would have it, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baneh item, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fen, a face, (whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fen, lest otherwise) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fanîm from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faneh, because this permutation of en into ā will do as much as a coin of a new unufuall singular: the like is in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rôs a Head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasim, Heads. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it a City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arim and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ayarîm Cities. 2. Or short for short. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lekhem and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Called, Syriac and Arabic also hath, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bêt lákhem from Betlehem. Lemek & Lamek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Or the shortest among themselves, the fingle instead of the compound, or compound instead of the single: or one compound in stead of another. Yet to speak more fully of every one, we shall follow the orders laid down in Orthografy, viz. qamez, zeri, hirek, the long kholem surek, fatah, segol, hireq the short, qomez the short, qubbuz, sva, sva fatah, sva segol, sva qomez. 1. Qamez for zere, and zere for qamez in one and the same word, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasim, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resit, the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath both a and e, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bayit, pl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 battim, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the affixes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beti, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bêtkà. 2. Qamez for Hireq, and Hireq for qamez both long. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasim and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rison, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arîm. Item where there should be a hireq (as under the second radical in the fourth order active) when the thi● Radical is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Qamez, for Holem, and Holem for qamez. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rôs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rasîm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enôs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anasim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ziffôr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ziffarîm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misôr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mesarîm. 4. Qamez for surek, and sureq for qamez. In the first person of the future. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ucàl and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aqul here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a or u: so under the same radical in divers tenses, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâm, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qúm. 5. Zere for hirek the long, and hireq the long for zere. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hafqed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hafqîd. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tomêk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tomick, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yosef, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yosif, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misor and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mesarim. 6 Zere for Holem, and Holem for zere. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rôs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 êt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ôt (whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oti, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otkà 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otâm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otân, etc. 7. Zere for sureq, and sureq for zere. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqûd. Which two forms have one and the same signification. 8 Hireq the long for Holem, and Holem for Hireq the long. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 môt, mors, mortis, with an interposition of r, more, death, and in many other places and forms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Hireq, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hemît. And many more. 9 Hireq the long for sureq, and sureq for Hireq the long, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rakhîm, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rakhúm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqid, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqud, which two forms have one and the same signification. 10. Holem for sureq and sureq for Holem, is the last among the long Vowels, and is very frequent. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yarôm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yarûm Because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth quiesce both in o and u. There are ten change also among the short vowels where either two sorts of short vowels are found either in divers forms, at the same letter, or in the same form at the same letter. 1. Fatah for segol and segol for fatah. Here all the Grammarians do give many examples; especially if the last or one before the last be a guttural letter, and the accent at the syllable before the last: in place of one or two segols' is for the most part a fatah and do call that a fata vicar for segol, whereas they should call all Vowels vicar, none of them being exempt from that changing, as we saw in the long. 2. Fatah for short Hireq, and short Hireq for Fatah As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all those, that have the first radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Fatah for short qomez or qubbuz, and short qomez or qubbus for fatah is not frequent but rare: except in the active of the second order, where there is fatah or short hireq, in the passive there is qubbuz at the first radical, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiqqad, pass. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuqqad. An unnecessary alteration because of the vowels, our reason discerns the gender. 4. Segol for short hireq, and hireq for segol. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this permutation is constant in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh future, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath segol, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hireq. Except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Verbs that have the first radical vau and yod. 5. Segol for short qomez or qubbuz, and short qomez, or qubbuz for Segol is not frequent, but rare: The examples of that alteration ye must put herein. 6. Short hireq for short qomez or qubbuz, and the short qomez or qubbuz, for the short hireq. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. B N Add hereto Fatah for segol p. 217. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the letter Rês will have it also, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regards it not, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also cares not for it sometimes, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never, but sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fatah before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being made long for any great vowel sake, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seldom. By these many examples, you see that whither you read a or e: it is all one. And, segol for fatah: when the guttural Letters have a long a, or sva qamez. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fatah, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no qamez ā. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which before the Nouns hath for the most part qamez not segol. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many more. By which you may again perceive the liberty ye have to pronounce, and to point otherwise than the bible now is in every word, there being almost none example for any form, person, tense, or order, where ye will not easily find many exceptions. And I wonder that all the learned men should not have been able to make that necessary conclusion out of such an innumerable multitude of anomalicall punctations, that there was no need at all to seek for and observe that punctation. The shortest do interchange among themselves. 1. Under gurturall letters in place of a single sva is assumed a compounded. Instead of fqod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first letter (without a vowel) because no guttural hath no compound but a single sva; whereas in the same form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath sva fatah, because guttural: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sva segol, because guttural; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fri, fruyt with a single sva, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kholi, with a sva qemez, (because a guttural letter,) in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khli. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adonay because guttural hath sva fatah, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yhovah, because no guttural, a single sva. That name doth not so much as once take the vowels or pricks of the name adonay, neither doth adonay admit of these belonging to yhovah: there being a great diversity between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yhovah and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adonay, as there is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abôd to perish, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elôh God, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqod to visit, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thom, an abyss. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bahouâh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lahouáh hath not the points of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for than it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we never find is, nor is it regularly capable of these points; but loses its single sva, and the letter before hath fa ah for hireq only by permutation of one short vowel for another. Where with we determine that great question about the pronounciation of the name yhovah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying, that it hath always its own vowels, and never those of adonay, nor doth it lose a compound but a single sva in the compositions with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (and those who say it hath the pricks of adonay are either blind, or unskilful in Grammar;) and therefore it is never to be pronounced adonay, nor to be esteemed unutterable by the pricks, it hath, or by the loss of its proper pricks, which are as proper now to it, as zere and Hireq were or are to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brefit, and so, no ignorance, nor mystery is there to be conceived about the pronounciation of it. And if the Jews did it because they would not have that name profaned by pronouncing it, then is it partly à childish, (nay impious) invention, where the command of God Almighty for not profaning is precedent, and more binding the consciences, partly blasphemous, striving thereby never to have it pronounced at all, whereas God forbids only the irreverent and vain using thereof. But to excommunicate them that should offer to pronounce it, as if they (by the abolition of God's proper Name out of men's hearts) desired to pull the very memory of God himself out of the heart of men, that God forbidden we Christians should allow of in them or us, or any sort of people. Secondly, instead of one compound sva, there is another by the same pronunciation. As for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, in many places under these guttural letters there is a single sva in place of a compound, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fourthly, under a non guttural à compound for a single sva, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many others. The use whereof is, that this sva whither single or compound is a mere fancy, without any the lest use, as being in none of all the tongues in the World, except brought here into by these Jewsh dreamers and high philosophers in needles things. The second degree is the true mutation for necessity sake, and is fourfold, a long vowel is precisely changed into its contrary short one, viz ā in ā, en, en, i, i, on, on, un, un: 1. When that syllable which was a long one, he comes a short one. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bull: as for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhemmanh: the long syllable man, becoming mat instatu constructe, (or with a relation to the following word) getting in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhemat: and again the first long bhen, becoming bhem, as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bhem tka gets a segol: the reason is, because the long syllable becomes a short, therefore the long vowel a short. 2. Constantly, a short vowel becomes long, when the short syllable becomes long. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bal into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ba, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bell into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bill into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bell into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bull into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but. As for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fa qad with the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqa do. Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written with the sva expressed or understood under the final non guttural letters, but never under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when a long vowel goeth before, but when a short one precedes it, is there also understood. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ehyeh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Again the long vowel becomes short. Thirdly, when standing in a short syllable with a Mediator, that Mediator doth shall away: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bill into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bêl into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bell, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bîl into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bill, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bôl into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bol, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bûl into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bull. For instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accent being taken away by the following maqqef. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 côl becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 col. Again 4. the short vowel becomes a long if either the Mediator leave its syllable, or being a lower, do become one of the higher degrees, which they call the kingly accents: as for instance; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hassamayim, the accent is Mediator, and thereby the short vowel is able to make up a long syllable: but in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hassamayma: the same Mediator is a great Duke, called atnakh, hence the short vowel is changed into a long: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqad with a Kingly accent is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faqâd. In statu constructo, (or in relation to the following substantive.) he accent is understood to be gone, which is all one, as if it were really gone, and hath the same virtue, notwithstanding the accent be present. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the quiescent letter makes the vowel long for long to change by permutation. Observation. WHere this down right opposite change (from a long a, into a short a, or short into long) is not found, but some other not so opposite, as for example e, i, o, u, for a, or a, i, o, u, for e, or a, e, o, u, for i, or a, e, i, u, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a, e, i, o, for u, ye must conceive first that the down right opposite mutation hath been there, and then that the other permutation came in, and brought a e, i, o, u, for a: a, i, o, u, for e: a, e, o, u, for i: a, e, i, u, for o: a, e, i, o, for u: and then the thing is well, and rules remain constant. Four exceptions about the Rule. As the true mutation is sourefold, so the exception is four fold. 1. Where a short vowel (without a following movable letter in the same syllable, or without dages, or an accent mediator,) absolves a long syllable: as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by permutation of a short fatah for a short hireq. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. N. B. that false conceit of the Grammarians, as if all the compound svas were movable, viz. constantly to go to the following letter, hath made them to put a meteg by the short vowel before, whereby they raise another error, teaching that meteg hath the same authority, that the true accents have, viz. to keep short vowels in a long syllable by its mediation, and so make meteg a true accent. Three things, for meteg is no accent, nor hath the propriety of a mediator, nor is necessary by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For instance in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ohlo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eshe. 2. That long vowels may stand in a short syllable, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that constantly in the last syllable ending on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a nun paragogic, but without a mediator. 3. In relation, or statu constructo the long vowel is not changed, as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ctâb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mibtâh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mattân, etc. 4. Of the fourth except, that a short vowel doth not change into à long, notwithstanding the word be in statu constructo, or in relation to the following, and thereby the accent is esteemed to be lost, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Kings 4.5. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The third sort of Anomaly is the contraction of syllables, viz. when one or two syllabies (more than there more before) some into the word. This contraction of fillables cannot be done by casting away any letters, (whither necessary or unnecessary) of that word, but rather by casting away of these pricks esteemed vowels: whither long or short, none excepted. After which casting away of any vowel, the fashion of these masters is to put the sva simple or compound underneath that letter, (as you had it in Orthografy.) The reason or sign of this casting away of vowels is, when the accent looseth its place, going from its letter to the next, or the next save one or two following: As for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lathas, lathês, lathôs, the accent is at the second radical, which hath either fatah, zere or kholem. Now if à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a vowel given unto the third radical, do come unto this word, than the accent must go towards that third radical, as ye shall have it in the following rules of accents. Which being done thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sorts of vowels (none excepted) that are at the second radical fall away and then it becomes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Only of two syllables, whereas otherwise it would have been of three. Many more examples might be given for this kind of casting away, it being so frequent that there is scarce one line in the Ebrue Bible without it. Further, because there may arise a doubt, which of two vowels is cast away, the first, or the second, and why in that example not as well the first as the second, I must give here some small directions, when the first or second, or both vowels are cast away. (Yet for a beginner these are unneedfull, for he will see well enough, if he hath the full word before him, which is there cast away; if not, let not that trouble him.) 1. Without affixes (in all orders, tenses and persons ending on these letters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so that the foregoing letter receive a vowel, in all verbs without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and second radical,) the second vowel is cast away, as we saw it in three letters: one example more for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lthas, lthês, lthôs, (I confess it is only one syllable, yet it is the same case as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first radical had a vowel) I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lithsi, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lithsu: where you see the second radical hath lost its vowel. But why? because it hath lost its accent, which is gone to the third radical and it went thither, because that hath got the vowel. 2. The same persons, and tenses which have two vowels, if they get the affixes, lose the first vowel: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lthasor and thus with all affixes, the same in these following and the like Nouns, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gadol 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maor, etc. 3. Both Vowels, in Nouns ending on a short Syllable as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayit, etc. All the monosyllables, both Nouns and Verbs: in the Noun is comprehended the infinitive of the first order; in the Verbs, the imperative or present commanding of the first order. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Or look to my Grammatical delineation in Latin. 1646. at Amsterdam printed in quarto, where you find it in the paradigmes, therein more clear, because I did put there black next to white, that is, whereas in the Bible, or other Grammars you should only find the anomaly without the show of analogy, where, that it might be clearer, (a thing very necessary for all beginners in Ebrue only, and that for those, who will not go on in this tongue without these pricks, unjustly called vowels,) there I did set the analogy by it. The exceptions of this third sort of anomaly is, when the vowels remain, where otherwise they are usually cast away (in Ebrue only, for this speech of the pricks doth extend no further for the present) as for instance. 1. When the accent is not falling away, for its going downward to the following Letter or syllable, was the requisite condition, ergo that not being performed, the casting away of these vowels cannot be expected: for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abi à father, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, abi my Father instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a brother and my brother, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a father in Law, and my father in Law. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the accent is gone from b to k in abikem, hence is that qamez fallen away from under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the like in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the most part is so at those accents, which are of some higher rank, as silluq, atnakh, rbia, saqefqathon, etc. Because they love not to stand at the last syllable, but for the rest sake choose rather the last syllable save one. 2. No short vowel in a short syllable can be cast away; for instance, hireq and fatah in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hitfaqqadtèm: because it is said, that all vowels long or short may be cast away, when the accent descends, with provision that the short or long vowel be in a long syllable, or the syllable before short, become now long. The reason of the necessity of the long and not of the short syllable is, because that in the short syllable there being already one sva, if that short vowel should also fall away, there must needs come in its place another sva Now two suâs in the beginning of a word cannot be pronounced, or to speak more accuratly, in this tongue no Letter with a Vowel doth take before itself two Letters without one, as we do in English, in spring time, where only r hath the Vowel i, s and p hath none, and yet both these Letters without a Vowel are pronounced together with ri, saying, spring; but this I say is not used in this tongue, for in place of sva under the first Letter (if it ever had a Vowel) a Vowel must return, so that it is better not to cast it away at all, then after such casting away to fetch it, and place it there again. 3. A short vowel in a long syllable as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hassamayim cannot be cast away: because the accent must first be gone; and a short vowel in a long syllable doth presuppose the presence of the accent. Now the presence and absence of the accent at one and the same time, are contrarieties, and cannot be expected; therefore the short vowel cannot be cast away being in a long syllable. 4. Upon the same ground a long vowel cannot be east away in a short syllable, because the accent is required together with the long vowel in a short syllable, and here is required the accents loss. 5. Neither can a long vowel be cast out of a long syllable, which having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescens, stands in stead of a short syllable: for instance: if in hitfaqqadtèm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 none of these short vowels can be cast away, by the reason given, ergo neither if the second letter of any short syllable should lose its movableness or sva, the vowel notwithstanding by the necessary mutation becoming long, could be cast away, let the accent go never so far: as for instance; if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo do stand in place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liv, this is a short syllable, that a long, there are in both alike two Letters, only here the second is movable, and so makes a short syllable, there the second is quiescent, and makes a long; I say, that the vowel cannot be cast away either in the one or the other, when the accent goes away, notwithstanding the long stays in a long syllable, because it is in place of a short one, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 6. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent be cast away, yet because they are in certain places necessarily understood, the long vowel in such a long syllable cannot be cast away, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lothsim. 7. Where there goeth before the long vowel in a long syllable a sva either belonging to that long syllable or not, as for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this fashion of sva is in this tongue. 1. Expressly in the same syllable: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. In the syllable before as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ascarà. 3. In dages. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baqqasa in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. understood under the quiescent going before. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 motzaim the same observation is about the long vowel zere, hirec, holem, surec, and other short vowels, if such examples are to be had. Except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sabuim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 salisim instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sbu, sli, for distinctio sake, as Grammarians will have it, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but I believe no such distinction to be in the pricks, but only by a mere accident in these and sundry other words this long vowel is not fallen or cast away, notwithstanding the accents removal from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sabu, salis. Analogall unto this contraction is the combination of two letters without a vowel into one syllable, which the Grammarians in Latin give by this rule: duobus svayim concurrentibus pro priori assumitur hireq: that is; if two suâs come together for the first is put à hireq: for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqod; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a sva, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second radical hath both a vowel and an accent: in the feminine gender this fqod receaves an i, to say, di, whence the accent goes to the third radical d, because it receaves a vowel, hence is that o of qo cast away, and q remaining without a vowel receives a sva, thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In such a case the first letter receaves à hireq and then I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiqdi, because here in this tongue three consonants before one vowel the masters do not allow, but after the vowel it may be. About this rule are to be observed these following things. 1. The Letters that have no vowel must go before that letter that hath one in the same syllable, so that no vowel go before these two svas, for then each of these two vowels take to them the nearest Letter without a vowel as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yifqdu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are without vowels, d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yod have vowels, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes the nearest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d the nearest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. there comes not in only hireq, and sometimes fatah and segol as the Grammarians say, but also qomez the short; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hofqad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holtas, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hfqad, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hlthas; and qubbuz. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuqqad instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqqad, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lutthas instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ltthas: so that the rule must be more general, duobus svayim concurrentibus assumitur vocalis brevis. Two suâs coming together before a vowel in the same syllable, assume any of the short vowels in stead of the first sva. 3. No long vowel can be taken instead of the first sva, because it is against the nature of a long vowel to stand with a sva following in the same syllable without à mediator accent, as is showed in Orthografy. 4. That it must not be understood to be meant only of a singlesva, but also of a compound one, not only under a non guttural, but also under a guttural Letter: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kholyo, in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 firyo in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fri. 5. If the second letter be a guttural, look what vowel it doth then assum to its single sva to make a compound one, such a vowel is constantly taken under the foregoing letter with a sva, which the Grammarians give by some other new rule, viz. gutturales punctuant se & praecedentem, whereas that rule is superfluous, being already enclosed in that rule; svayim concurrentibus propriori assumitur vocalis parva: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in yamod receives fatah, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has sva fatah. 6. Nor is here any exception to be made as if sva qomez gave to the foregoing letter a long qamez, as some Grammarians falsely assert, reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vakholi, where you may nay must read vokholi: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oholibamah, not aholibamah, as in the English translation. 7. If three svas come together, as from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gbéret, with the affix of the first person in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the middle or second sva is put a short vowel, gbirti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oppofite to this contraction is a frequency of remaning vowels, because the Accent remains at its place, and notwithstanding one or two syllables are joined unto that words end, yet the accent remaining, where it was before, the vowel, either at the accent or before, is not cast away. 1. Nouns and Verbs ending in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the affix letters of the personal Nouns: for instance in Verbs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nouns. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sebi for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ani for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ni, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yofis for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yfis: also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kholi for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khli or with affixes, in stead of sva is set qamezes, fatah, zere or segol before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zaréka for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zarkà. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yiraséka for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yiraskà. Before which Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ka in some words one syllable remains by transposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 2. More especially in the 1. and 2. person of the 1. and 4. preterrense in verbs that have the 2. and 3. Radical the same, there is constantly a holem in stead of sva, the accent remaining or going down to the new fillables: of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zmm is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zammóta for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zammtà of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mqq, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nmaqqotem for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nmaqqtém: of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 khll is hakhillota 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hakhillta 3 The same is always in the seventh pretertense, but in the fourth pretertense only sometimes in verbs of the Radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuz, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vunfozotem, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vunfoz tem. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qûm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vahaqimoti, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vahaqimti. 4. In the fourth order active in all persons ending with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogic, the second Radical hath a vowel in stead of sva, because the accent remains. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hafqidu, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hafqdù. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tafqidu for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tafqdù. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hifqida for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hifqdàh. 5. In verbs of the second Radical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same persons and tenses of the same termination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in in any order whatsoever: of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qûm is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qamu for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qmù 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qumu for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qumù. The same. 6. when the 2 and third Radical are the same; viz. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sbb. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sábbu for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sabbú. 7. of the personal Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either with vau 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or without it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 high, with hirec the long, as it had it in the whole Noun. This notwithstanding by no Grammarians is esteemed a syllable, yet it is a good, full, and true long syllable; high, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 high is a true full word, This hirec is sir-named maffiq, because it brings its letter to be heard, no letter without a sound or vowel being capable of a pronunciation, as by, so high, and as b without ae i ou is not pronounced, so neither h. Notwithstanding this syllable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is now most frequently & only yet falsely written) the accent not tending to the vowel, is not cast away, nor the syllables contracted, as being a thing of no great importance, if one syllable be more or less. This maffiq or hirec is most frequently cast away and leaves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were quiescênt, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heirs, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lahi: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sicmàh, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sicmahi, which is constantly in the affix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Observation. These three sorts of permutation, mutation and contraction of syllables, or Alternation, Alteration and Abjection do comprehend all that infinity of Rules, whereof a man might easily collect above a thousand out of divers 〈…〉. And yet the whole sense of Scripture is not better or clearer, if ye know them, nor worse, if ye know them not. Rule 5. The Analogy of the vowels in Called is not much different from Ebrue. Qamez the long a. is 1. In the affix personal Noun of the second person. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 osifca. 2. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ana I, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anakhna nos, we. 3. Under the first radical in the Nouns. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qathêl, kill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qathil. killed, for it is a mere tale and fancy, to say, that the participle peil under the first radical hath no vowels but a sva. For the fashion of writing in the Orient is, that in their Manuscripts they leave away for the most part that vowel, which is so well known, that whither it be written or not, no body doth doubt of it. Therefore in the Syriac we have examples of the vowel under the first radical. 4. Instead of a fatah, where the following Letter (in place of a suà) doth receive à vowel, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aqim, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aqyîm, etc. Zere en, 1. Under the second radical very constantly in all the orders, especially in the fourth. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abrek, to bow the knees. 2. In the plural instatu constructo following or not following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paragogic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trên two, Masc. and Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tre and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taruè the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tarrên duae, o, two, feminine & Neuter. 3 Under the first radical in Nouns & Verbs, where the second or third is cast away, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ém, à Mother. 4. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quiescent following without the plural, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leluân neights, 5. Instead of the segol in the second plural of the pretertense in any orders, as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ithasténs instead of Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ithastèn, etc. Hireq the long is for the most part, where yod quiescent is following. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obida, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 osifkà, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yyethib 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yhosia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himsiv instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himsu. etc. Holem, for the most part where it is in Ebrue, especially when there follows à vau quiescent. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obida 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mhuqzaôt. Surek is as in Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heeznikhu. Patah is before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Character of the feminine gender, as in Ebrue constantly before the Nouns, and in some Verbs, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 azlat he went. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helât he wearied. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoglât, it is cast out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vashât, but these 3 by anomaly are written constantly with a long qamez, not fatah, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiqdat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lithsat. And good reason, because here the syllable at is short, therefore à short vowel, but in Ebrue ordinarily the syllable is long, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lathsà, therefore a long vowel. And that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the true formative of the third Feminine, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only by accident, we may easily see by the constancy of it in Syric, Arabic and Etiopic; item in Ebrue in the examples we gave, and many other, when any Letter is joined to the end of that person either paragogic superfluous, or formative: item from the second Feminine, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forms the Feminine constantly, as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also (but of another Noun) the second Masculine, item the first person fingular being of a common gender, hath a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Masculine and Feminine in all orders, in all dialects. 2. Fatakh is under the second radical, as in Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etkhabbar. 3. under the first radical in pael and etpael, or the second and fifth order in all tenses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Segol is almost in all places, as in Ebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heezinu they have heard: so in Called. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uheeznikhu Es. 16.9. they have cast far of. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elthas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etkhabbar, etc. Hireq the short is unjustly come in under the first radical in the first Preterrense, instead of qamez a by Ebrue, and Fatah a, by Arabic upon that false principle, as if the first radical in the first pretertense had no vowel, which I say is false: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor esteem I the punctators of the Ebrue Bible, and consequently Daniel so very old, less or far less the punctators of the Called Targum, as they call it, it being done, written & used after the Babylonian captivity, but points a long time since Christ. 2. In many other places, as in Ebrue. Qomez the short, and Qubbuz just as in Ebrue. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoglat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mhuqzaôt, etc. Rule 6. The Anomaly of these pricks may in some measure (but not constantly) be reduced to the Ebrue Anomaly Because the punctation of the Targum is latter, and not done with such accurateness, nor by such learned Jews, less upon such principles as the Ebrue for the generality is, hence is it, that the punctation is very anomalicall in all places. Now these five Reasons by me given. 1. Not the same principles. 2. Not the same learning. 3. Not the same accurateness 4. Not the same Authors and. 5. Not the same time; thew well enough the Roo●e of that disagreeing of the Ebrue and Called punctation. And how greater that difference is, the easier it hath been to persuade the common sort of learned men in this tongue, that they are either two divers tongues (for so many Authors do ignorantly speak) or at least dialects of a great distance one from another; whereas it is known, and clear, that Ebrue and this Called was spoken in one and the same Jury, nay City of Jerusalem, only the time differing, Ebrue before the Babylonian captivity, Called after it. And if a diversity of punctation makes a divers tongue or dialect, then am I sure, that Abraham de Balms (a Jew Grammarian,) who wrote an hundred years since in Italy, hath a divers dialect, for if any would scan that punctation of his Grammar, he would neither find true Ebrue, nor true Called. The same might we say of that late Edition of Mis●ayot pointed by a jew in the Low Countries and Pointed at Amsterdam by R. Mnasse ben Yishrael Theresore I desire the Reader to believe the pricks to be but mere fancies. Rule 7. In Siriac, Arabic and Ettopic the ancmaly is no more to be regarded, than in Ebrue and Called. To shorten all the long and tedious, (though unuseful) observations either of mine, or all the rest of the Authors before me, seeing that the greatest part of them are individual, and the same of them nothing worth at all, for the Syriac Manuscripts that are at this day extant, are without prics, and stroacs, and among the Arabic Books not one of a thousand is to be found pricked or pointed, and in the Ettopic there are none found amongst us, except the New Testament printed at Rome, and Psalms at Colen, and both of them fully to be understood by letters out of the generality of this tongue, without the observation of the stand or divers vowels, I shall here shut up, that which would otherwise scarce be comprehended in an hundred leaves, and yet do nothing to the sense of the Text, and so consequently instead of the easing the Reader, burden him excesfively. Rule 8. All the Observations of the variety of the forms in the Syntax are needless. The forms are either in Nouns or Verbs, both are considered in the outward form either as they stand a part without reference to the foregoing or following word in the Text, or in reference to them, this the Grammarians call Syntax, supposing the pricks to be of the nature of this tongue, (as if by them only the sense were clear, without them impossible to be had) hence are all books full of such like Observations, and Directions: all which (though in number they cannot amount, to less than fifthy thousand) yet are superfluous, the pricks being only brought in by some Jews, the names whereof are uncertain to them & us, and they are given by them only to show us, what they thought to be now and then in a Syntax; whereas we may see, (if we know the significations of the words and phrases) the same thing without them, and that they many times have mistaken, and from their mistakes arise many examples for Anomaly, so that the divers forms either in Nouns or Verbs in the Treasure of the Ebrue Grammar, writte● by that excellently leatned and painful Grammarian john Buxtorf are needless, also two Chapters of his Syntax, to wit, the seventh and seventeenth are absolutely superfluous concerning the points or pricks, which they call vowels. Rule 9 Whatsoever Observations are or may be made upon the Bible, Called, Targum, Syric, Arabic, and Etiopic Authors only in reference to their pricks, are of no use. The Jews and Christian Authors have made upon the Bible an infinity of observations, whereof that body of the Masoreticall notes is no small part of, almost all which are to be rejected, as of no use. Hence also the very concordances of D. John Buxtorf are of no more authority and use, (if the eafinesse, truth, and nature of the tongue be only the main scope and drift of him,) than R Natans concordance, who followeth without regard of prics the order of the Ebrue Text without points. Rule 10. The Accents not being of the nature of this tongue, are in Ftymology and Analogy of no use. To Analogy (or otherwise called Etymology) belongeth the greatest part of Doctor John Buxtorf his Observations in his Grammatical Treasure about them, by him set down in Orthografy, which fault is also frequent by others. The substance of whatsoever can be said of them concerning Analogy, is, that their place is to be considered, and that not only in respect of the syllable either in the last of a word, or one before the last, but also in words only of one syllable; and there of the concurrence of two Accents. Therefore more especially in reference to every Letter, at what Letter of two, three or four in one syllable, to wit, that they do stand only at a Letter with one of the prick vowels long or short, not at the Letter with a single or compound sva And that every Accent may go to the following Letter. Or come back to the foregoing Letter. Or be wholly cast away. Whereof maqqef is the sign nor the cause. or understood to be absent in the first of two Nouns joint together in relation of possession, not of appellation or apposition. And because the second radical hath before others the vowel, therefore the Accents do stand more regularly and frequently at the second radical From whence it doth remove to the first radical, if the first radical only have the vowel. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yoma day, the first radicll y hath the Accent, because the second radical vau is quiescent, and hath no vowel, nor hath the third radical m any vowel; therefore only the first having the vowel o, yo, hath the Accent: so also in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Khet, Nerd, Qost. Or if the third radical be cast away. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Váicall, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vaizav 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vattqas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vayyitgal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vattitcas the accent in these is at the first radical, k, z, q, g; and many and many hundred such like. Or where the third radical hath no vowel, and the second a short vowel, whereby the two last radicals make up a short syllable. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sefer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 melek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erez or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arez. To the third radical, if it doth receive a vowel. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sfarim by r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malka by k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arazot, by z. To the serviie Praefix, when the third being cast away, the first and second doth make a short syllable: as for instance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vayyáan, by y, the Root being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To the service suffix, if it do make a short syllable with the following servile: e. g. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fqadtem, by t, the Root being fqd. And yet all these foregoing Rules are so many times violated, or not observed by the Authors of them, that you will find many sorts of Anomalicall places of them, where they are at the right syllable, yet not at the right Letter, or at the false syllable, before or after the right Letter and Syllable, whereof I have set down some Observations in my Notes on P. Martinius Ebru Grammar Englished, Printed at Amsterdam twice, both Anno 1645. and 1646. Item in my Latin Delineation of the Ebrue Grammar Printed at Amsterdam in 4ᵒ 1646. page 80. Rule 11. The accents are supposed to join and disjoin words for the making up a true and right sense. Before I have fully done about these accents, there is as yet one use of them remaining to be handled, which is assigned unto them by all the Grammarians that have written hitherto, to wit, that they have the power of a Syntacticall combination of words, and disjunctions of them, that is, to show which words are to be joined together to make up a plain sense such as is intended by the Holy Ghost in every place, & in every verse of the Bible, whereon also for the most part depends distinction of verses, which according to the best observation of mine and others upon such a supposal (notwithstanding I am not of the mind that it is truly in them, So that I do disclaim here what formerly I have preceptically set down either in my English or Latin Books concerning it, yet if some men will stand to it, be it right or wrong I will shortly repeal it here) is as followeth. 1. That they are the accidental sign of a Conjunction or disjunction of words. 2 That they signify; first, a greater or fuller point; secondly, a lesser point; thirdly, two little points; fourthly, a little point with a Comma; fifthly, the stroke Comma; sixthly, yet they never show where there is an exclamation or interogation, neither which words together belong to a comma, comma with a point, two little points, the less and the greater or full point. 3. All this in a natural order, where a sense is full either of one word, or of two joined, or of three, whereof the two first or last be more nearly joined, yet in respect to the third or fourth words, where also the two or three former or latter more nearly to be joined with relation to the body of fewer or of many more with none greater, or greater distinction; now by reason these five degrees of distinctions which are in all manner of speech in any tongue whatsoever used here in the occident and the North, though not in the whole Orient. 4 The accents are of five degrees thus call d by the Grammarians. 1 One King, Silluq. 2 Dukes, Atnah, and compound merca. 3 Earls, zaqef, sgolta, and tifha. 4 Lords, salselet, rbia single or compound with a silluq, sasta, zarqa, tbir, a double merca, ytib, five Knights, fazr, qarnefarah, t lisa geres. 5 These make up whole senses according to those five degrees of senses. 6 The rest are called servants, because they only join words, two three or four, to bring them to the following Knight, Lord, Earl, Duke or King, to make up the full sense. 7 Every one of these according to his degree makes a greater or lesser joynr, and hath before him first a great distinguisher: secondly, a lesser, (but Knights have none of both before them;) thirdly, a joiner, each with his servants of a greater or lesser distinguisher before him: & finally follows the fourth, the King. 8 Yet whereas in the whole Bible there is almost one and the same order observed) three books, viz. Job, the Proverbs, and the Psalms have no Earls, and do differ in some small matter besides, as to the following fiame. 9 They are generally in the Bible thus. 4. Kingssilluc, 3 joiner merca. 2 the lesser distinguisher tifha. 1 the greater distinguisher zaqef. 4. Duke Atnah. 3 munah. 2 tifqa. 1 zahef or sgolta. 4. Earl, either the higher zaqef, sgolta, or the lower, tifqa. 3 munah or merca. 2 fasta, zarca, tbir, 1 Rbia. 4. Lord, either the higher, salselet, rbia, or the lower, fastha zarca, tbir, mercayim, ytib. 3 munah, mahfac, merca, darga. 2 (fsic) geres. 1 tlisa, fazr. 4. Knight, Fazr, qarnefara, tlisa, geres. 3 munch, yerah, qadma, tlisa, merca. 2 and 1 none. 10 But in the said three Books there is such an order as is in some sort differing. 3. King, silluc, 2 munah, merca, 1 rbia compound with zaqef, or salselet. 3. Duke Higher, compound merca. 2 yrah, (zarqa) 1 rbia. 3. Duke Lower, atnah, 2 munah, merca (tifha) 1 rbia. 3 Lord Higher, rbia fingle or compound, salselet 2 merca, mahfac, munah. 1 none. 3 Lord Lower, zarca. 2 merca, munah. 1 fazr, or the lower, tifha. 2 munah. 1 fazr. 3. Knights, Fazr. 2 Yerah. 1 none. This is that feigned commonwealth which was set up by the Jews, which for the matter I esteem to be against the fundamental laws of that tongue: and for the manner this palpable vast difference is not only in three books by which notwithstanding we may perceive one and the same spirit did not frame and order all, but there are above ten thousand examples, where neither in the general, nor in this particular agreement is kept: so that I utterly disclaim it from being either natural, moral, political or juris divini. And so I conclude the Etymology or Analogy. FINIS.