lieve, that the Mafforets preferved or retrieved the aneient Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue; for the fame Helps have not been wanting to preferve the Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. A vaft Number of People made ufe of those two Languages in all Ages: A prodigious Number of Greek and Latin Books are extant to this Day: Nay, the Church has preferved and confecrated thofe Two Languages in her Offices; and yet their true Pronunciation is loft, without any Hopes of recovering it. The fame ought therefore to be laid of the Hebrew Tongue, notwithftanding the Tradition alledged to prove the con trary.

This Objection will appear weaker ftill, if we confider the Alterations and Changes of that Tradi tion. The Mafforets knew without doubt how to pronounce Hebrew, as it was pronounced in their Time. The Septuagint did alfo pronounce it, as it was pronounced in their Days. The fame ought to be faid of Fofephus, Origen, St. Jerome, and other ancient Doctors. Why then do they not agree with the Maf forets about that Pronunciation ? 'Tis because the Tradition has not been always the fame. But if that Tradition has undergone feveral Changes, how could it have been fufficient to hinder the Mafforets from runnning into Miftakes about a Thing to uncertain and fo intricate?

Perhaps it will be faid, That notwithstanding the various Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue at feve ral Times, we must acknowledge at least, that the Mafforetick Way of pronouncing it, is the beft. But, not to infift upon the Impoffibility of proving fuch an Affertion, it appears from feveral Arguments, that the Pronunciation of the Mafforets is very faulty, and frequently more imperfect than others."

In the first Place, If it be confidered that the Tradition in queftion has been fubject to many Altera. tions for fo many Ages, and that the Mafforets pronounced Hebrew differently from the Septuagint, and the other ancient Tranflators; is it not very natural to

infer

infer from thence, that their Pronunciation must needs be more different from the true one?

The Pronunciation of the Maßorets runs upon Two Heads. 1. Upon the Sound, which they afcribe to each Letter of the Hebrew Alphabet. 2. Upon the Vowels, which must be understood in thofe Syllables, wherein they are not expreffed; for every body knows the Hebrews did not write all the Vowels which they pronounced. It is no difficult thing to fhew that upon thofe Two Heads, the Mafforets are far from follow ing the ancient, and confequently the true Pronunciation of the Hebrew. As for what concerns the Lete ters, the Mafforets and their Followers affirm that they are all Confonants, and that there is no Vowel among them. But how can any one believe it? At this Rate, thofe Letters that have no Sound by them felves, have been invented; but those that have a Sound, have been laid aside. Why were Letters in vented? Was it not to exprefs Sounds? But Vowels are infinitely more neceffary to that End than Confo. nants: And therefore 'tis not true that the latter were invented, and the former quite forgotten. Befides, don't we find in the Hebrew Alphabet, that is, a, e, i, u, aleph, he, jod, vau? Thofe Letters are true Vowels, tho' the Mafforets deny it.

Our Author mentions fome Miftakes of the Maffo rets relating to Confonants, and then proceeds to the fecond Head. viz. the Vowels which they add where they think it neceffary. Wherein (fays he) they dif fer from the Ancients, not only by inferting Vowels where the Ancients inferted none, or, on the contrary, by inferting no Vowels where the Ancients inferted fome; but also by inferting different Vowels.

M. Mafclef gives fome Inftances of it, by fhewing how the Ancients and the Mafforets read proper Names very differently. This Difference is no lefs confpicuous in other Words, even fo far as to alter their Signification. What is among the Ancients a Singu lar Number, a Masculine Gender, a First Person, an Active Verb, a Future Tenfe, a Word derived from a

certain Root, appears among the Mafforets a Plural Number, a Feminine Gender, a Second Perfon, a Paffive Verb, a Preter-Tenfe, a Word derived from a quite different Root; because they have been pleafed to infert fome Vowels in thofe Places, whereby the Words are determined to a certain Senfe. 'Tis true, the Sense which the Mafforets put upon them, is fometimes preferable to that of the Ancients; but it fre quently proves worse, as several eminent Authors have fhewed at large. 'Tis obfervable, that the Mafforets do not only differ from the Ancients, fuch as the Septuagint, Origen, S Jerome, &c. in their Way of Reading and Pointing fome Words, but also from the Talmudifts. Nay, from the Time of the Mafforets to this prefent Age, their Pronunciation has undergone very great Alterations. The Jews pronounce now fome Vowels, for Inftance, the Cametz, quite otherwise than the Mafforets, as it has been obferved by fome Learned Men: Nor do they agree among themselves about the Pronunciation. The Eaftern Jews pronounce Hebrew one Way, and the Western another Way: The Portugueze pronounce it differently from thofe that live in Germany. The Chriftians are still more divided among themselves, infomuch that those who learned Hebrew of different Mafters, have frequently much ado to understand one another. So true it is, that 'tis impoffible to know exactly the true and ancient Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue; which is the fecond Principle that was to be laid down. The Author confirms his Opinion by a Paffage out of Drufius.

In the next Place, he lays down a third Principle to fupport his new Method. In order to understand He brew (fays he) 'tis altogether needless to know how it was pronounced formerly. Is it neceffary to know how Greek was read and pronounced in the Time of Demoftbenes, to learn that Language? Not in the leaft. So tis with the Hebrew Tongue. The Signification of Hebrew Words lies in the Characters, and not in the Manner of pronouncing them. As long as the Characters are preserved, every thing is fafe. The Author adds, that one might raife the fame Difficulties against

against the Pronunciation of the Jews in the Time of Origen, as against that of the Mafforets.

M. Mafclef having endeavoured to fhew, that the Pronunciation and Punctuation of the Mafforets may be laid afide, establishes a fourth Principle in order to prove that it ought to be actually rejected. In order to understand the Hebrew Text of the Holy Scripture, (fays the Author) and to tranflate it according to critical Rules, it ought to be read without the Points of the Mafforets, for feveral Reasons.

First, the Points of the Mafforets have been added to the Hebrew Text, and make no Part of the Holy Scripture.

Thofe Points do not represent the Senfe of the Sa cred Writers, but only that which is afcribed to them by the Mafforets, who were not infallible in their Punctuation.

From whence it follows, that whoever reads the Bible, as it has been pointed by thofe Jews, cannot pretend to read it in its original Parity: He only reads the Commentary of the Mafforets.

Befides, it ought to be obferved, That the Mafforets pointed the Bible according to their prejudi cated Opinions; and that their Punctuation is fre quently wrong, as it has been proved by feveral great Criticks,

Thefe Confiderationf lead the Author to a fifth Prin ciple, viz. That in Order to have a good Hebrew Grammar, it must be fuch as may teach the Hebrew Tongue without Points; fince 'tis plain that the Defign of a Grammar can only be the understanding of a Language. Whereupon M. Mafclef beftows a great Encomium upon Lewis Cappel, and quotes a long Paffage of that Learned Critick out of the VIth Book of his Critica Sacra, Chap. x1. That Chapter is intitul'd, Nova Grammatica ratio ex ifta de variis lectionibus obfervatione inftituenda. Cappel fhews at large," the " Infufficiency of the Punctuation and Grammar of the "Mafforets, and the Neceffity, of compofing a new "Grammar, He lays down the Plan and the Rules of and above all Things would have it to be with

F 3

QUE

.

"out Points. 'Tis true, the Difficulties of fucceed"ing in fuch a Design appear to him infuperable ; "and therefore he only withes that fome body may "at laft prove more happy than he has been, and "invent fuch a Grammar, for which he had taken "fo much Pains

I need not infert here the Paffage of that Au-> thor; his Critica Sacra is not a fcarce Book. M. Mafclef concludes his Difcourfe with thefe Words. "It appears that the only Reason why Cappel dares.

not affirm, that the Grammar of the Maforets ought "to be wholly rejected, or decide whether it be pof: fible to have a better one than theirs, is because "he fuppofed that it was impoffible to read Hebrew "without Points; being otherwife difpofed to lay "ande that Grammar, if any one could find a more "certaiu and convenient Way of Pointing and Pronouncing Hebrew.

What Cappel dares not affirm to be poffible, ap pears to me not only poffible, but even fo eafy, "that I am furprised how fo Learned a Man, who "had meditated fo long upon that Subject, did not perceive it. This I fhall fhew in the fecond Part of my Project,”

See an Account of it, in ART. XXX.

A NEW OBTERVATION upon the Nature and Qualities of the wild Afb-Tree, Shewing that it may ferve instead of Sena, By M. TABLET. ::

BY taking a narrow View of the Nature of Sena efpecially of that which is brought into France from Tripoli, I plainly found that it was of the fame Species with the wild Afh-tree, that grows plentifully