It will be objected, That if the Points of the Maforets are laid afide in the new Method, I infert others, which are alfo an Human Inventi

on.

I own it but this Human Invention makes no Alteration in the Senfe of the Scripture, as the Points of the Mafforets do. No one will deny it, who confiders that the Points of the Mafforets fignify fomething: They confine the Senfe of the Words wherein, they are inferted: They determine those Words to a certain Modification, whereby they are derived from a certain Root rather than another. Whereas the Points of the new Method' fignify nothing at all: They do not modify the Words wherein they are understood, and determine their Signification to a certain Senfe, rather than to another. For in this new Method, the Modifications of Words are not grounded upon the Points, as in that of the Mafforets, but upon the Characters, and when the Characters are not fufficient to exprefs thofe Modifications, they are taken from the Exigency of the Places, and the Authority of the Ancient Verfions. In a Word, fome Vowels are only understood in the new Method, to read and pronounce the Words; and confequently notwithstanding thofe Vowels, the Holy Scripture may be read in all its Purity,

This Advantage, arifing from the new Pointing, is fo great and fo effential, that it would be fuffi cient to make one prefer it to that of the Mafforets ;. but we fhall be more willing to do it, if we confider, that the new Method is not only more certain, certior, but also more convenient, commodior; which is the Second Qualification required by Cappel.

Any one, that confiders the great Simplicity of the new Method, muft needs own it. A fingle Rule, without any Exception, is fufficient to learn to read Hebrew, and all the Ancient Languages, without Points, and in less than a Quarter of an Hour. Whereas the Method of the Mafforets requires a continual Exercife; and after feveral Years, one

can

can hardly read without being afraid of ftumbling upon every Word.

We have therefore a Method of reading Hebrew, that is more certain and more eafy than that of the Mafforets; from whence I infer, that Cappel, and the moft Learned Criticks, would doubtless have approv ed the Grammar, which I have made upon that Pointing.

It differs only from our common Grammars in leaving out the Points, and all their Confequences; and therefore any Body may use the Grammars that have been printed hitherto, and yet learn Hebrew, according to the new Method. 'Tis but leaving out, or not minding at all the Rules and Obfervations relating to the Points, and all their Confequences. The remaining Part of thofe Grammars, (viz. the Rules concerning the Letters,) makes up the whole Body of the new Grammar. However, confidering that fuch a Separation may be attended with fome Difficulty, and that there are fome new Obfervations, which the Readers will be glad to find in a Grammar, tho' they could make them of themselves, I have drawn up a Grammar that is ready for the Press.

In order to fhew more particularly, that the new Method is preferable to that of the Mafforets, I fhall make fome other Reflexions upon the Advantages arifing from the former, and the Inconveniencies of the latter.

To begin with the Method of the Mafforets, it is no difficult Matter to fhew, that it is full of infignificant Things, proper to fpoil a Reader, to make one lose a great deal of Time, and to discourage those, who are most defirous, and more particularly obliged to understand Hebrew.

It is full of Trifles and infignificant Things, and of frivolous Obfervations. So we may call above one Half of the Rules prefcribed by it. They are of no Ufe: Befides, they are liable to fo many Exceptions, that 'tis no eafy Thing to apply them. To what Purpofe Fifteen Vowels ? Why Two or

L 2

Three

Three different Characters for fome Vowels? Why a Mute Scheva, a foft Daghes, a Raphe, &c. and that Multitude of Accents, which, abating Two or Three, are only proper to fpoil the Eyes, and con found the Print? Is there any Neceffity to change the Pronunciation of the Words upon fo many Occafions? Is it not an old Complaint, that the Jews have filled their Grammar with Trifles, as well as their Theology? Those who blame them for that Fault, ought carefully to avoid it..

The Jewish Grammar is only proper to fpoil a Man, to make him Superficial, and well pleafed with Trifles. Any one may be convinced of it, by the Method of the Jews in teaching their Grammar. A trifling Nicety puzzles them: They dispute about an Accent, Half a Point, the Pronunciation of a Word, and many infignificant Things. Several Chriftians, skilled in Hebrew, are unhappily affected with the fame Diftemper, and acted by the fame Spirit. They are not afhamed to make long and frequent Digreffions about Grammatical Trifles. Which proceeds from the wrong Way of teaching that Grammar, whereby a Beginner is apt to look upon those Trifles as Things of great Moment.

The Grammar of the Mafforets is tedious and difficult, and makes one lofe a great deal of Time. Most of those, who have applied themselves to the Hebrew Tongue, muft needs own it. What Progress have they made in that Language after a long Stu dy? Nay, how ftrangely perplexed are those, who understand it beft, when they are put upon reading a Bible that is not pointed, and have not yet acquired the great Art of gueffing? Don't we fee, that moft of our Divines, tho' highly concerned to learn Hebrew, never went about it, being difcouraged by the Difficulties attending the very Beginning of the common Methods?

On the contrary, the new Grammar is fhort, eafy, free from needlefs Obfervations, favourable to the Ancient Verfions, in a Word, fuch as the moft Leared Criticks defired it fhould be.

I fay, it is fhort, eafy, and free from all needless Obfervations; which is fo evident, that it were almost needless to prove it. The Difficulties of the common Method proceed from the Vowels, and their Concomitants; and therefore when the Vowels are left out, all the Difficulties muft needs vanifh away. Which agrees with Cappel's Obfervation, in the Paffage I have quoted out of that Author. Si confonarum duntaxat in legendo habenda eft ratio, quidquid ad punctationem & punctorum mutationem Spectat, illud totum una litura effet delendum, atque ita longe maxima Grammatice pars abolenda foret. I add, that the new Method is favourable to the Ancient Verfions. The Criticks know, that the Pointing of the Mafforets is generally the Reafon, why the Septuagint and the vulgar Bible do not feem to agree with the Hebrew Text. Let that Pointing be laid. afide; and it will appear, that the Hebrew Text agrees with the Vulgar and the Septuagint, much better than 'tis commonly thought.

The new Method is of general Ufe to learn the Ancient Languages, fuch as the Chaldaick, Syriack, and Samaritan. Thofe Languages have been disused for a long Time; and because they were formerly written without Points, and almoft without Vowels, like the Hebrew, the fame Reasons, that fhew the Usefulness of the new Method for the Hebrew Tongue, prove alfo the Ufefulness of the fame Method for the other Languages. Perhaps, in order to prove it, I fhall publifh, in a fhort Time, new Grammars of thofe Oriental Languages according to the new Method.

Laftly, That Method is fuch as the moft Learned Criticks defired it fhould be. I need not repeat what Cappel fays about it. I fhall only obferve upon this Occafion, that one may very well wonder, that Great Man fhould have lo clearly mentioned the new Method, without making the Discovery, or affirming the Poffibility of it. Which is a new Proof of what every Body knows, that Discoveries depend very much upon good Luck, and that the finest

L 3

fineft and the most useful were not always made by the moft Eminent Men. Were I allowed to enliven this Subject, I would mention an Ingenious Reflection of Mr. de Fontenelle, (in his Hiftory of the Aca demy of Sciences for the Year 1708.) upon a Thing that has fome Affinity with this. 'Tis no Wonder, fays he, that the Ancients fhould not have improved the Knowledge of Burning. Glaffes: They knew thofe Glaffes, and had no Notion of Telescopes. But it is much more furprifing, that we fhould reckon Three Hundred Years from the Invention of Spe&tacies, to that of Perspective-Glaffes.

Every

Thing goes on flowly among us: Perhaps fome important Discovery is now ready to break out, and it will be a Wonder how it was not made fooner.

I do not think any Body will be offended with me, for calling my new Method an important Difcovery, confidering how useful it may be to underftand the Holy Scripture. The Baron de Spanheim would not look upon this Method, as an inconfide rable Thing, if one may judge of it from his Letter concerning the Critical Hiftory of the Old Teftament, in which, fuppofing that Mr. Simon defigned to fet up for the Author of a like Difcovery, he expreffes himself thus. Mr. Simon muft needs be a very Lucky, or a very Great Man, fince he has retrieved a Language, that was loft, as he thinks, for many Ages, or at leaft fhewed a certain way to attain to it. If it be fo, will any Body deny, that this Difcovery is as Glorious to our Age, as any that was or can be made in our Days?

ARTICLE