the whole use of those points is to serve to this purpose. And,

2dly. This use of them being absolutely necessary, from the time that the Hebrew language ceased to be vulgarly spoken (as it certainly did in the time of Ezra,) we have sufficient reason from hence to conclude, that soon after that time the use of them must have been introduced: for from this time the Hebrew language being only to be acquired by study and instruction, and that being necessary to be first acquired, before the sacred text could be read, which was written therein: as there was need of such a profession of men to take care hereof, that is, to teach and bring up others to know the language, and also to read the Scriptures as written in it; so was there as much need of these vowel points to help them herein, it being hard to conceive, how they could do either without them, or some other such marks that might serve them for the same purpose. What the Jews tell us of preserving the true readings only by tradition and memory is too absurd to be swallowed by any one; for had there been nothing else but tradition and memory in this case to help them, the load would have been too great to have been carried by any one's memory, but all must necessarily have dropped in the way, and been lost. But the truth is, there is no need of depending only on memory in this case; for to those who thoroughly know the language, the letters alone, with the context, are sufficient to determine the reading, as now they are in all other Hebrew books; for, excepting the Bible, few other books in that language are pointed. All their rabbinical authors, of which there are a great number, are all unpointed; and yet all that understand the language can read them without points as well as if they had them, yea, and much better too, and not miss the true reading. But the difficulty is as to those who do not understand the language; for how they could be ever taught to read it without vowels, after it ceased to be vulgarly spoken, is scarce

m All those authors, as originally written, are without points. But the Mishnah and their Machzor have lately had points put to them; bat still they are reckoned the best editions that are without them.

possible to conceive. When all learned it from their cradles, it was no hard matter for those who thus understood the language to learn to read it by the letters only without the vowels. But when the Hebrew became a dead language, the case was altered: for then, instead of understanding it first in order to read it, they were first to read it in order to understand it; and therefore, having not the previous knowledge of the language to direct them herein, they must neces sarily have had some other helps whereby to know with what vowel every syllable was to be pronounced; and to give them this help the vowel points seem certainly to have been invented: and therefore the time of this invention cannot be placed later than the time when they became necessary, that is, when the Hebrew came to be a dead language, though perchance it was not perfected and brought to that order in which it now is till some ages after. It is acknowledged on all hands, that the reading of the Hebrew language could never have been learned, after it ceased to be vulgarly spoken, without the help of vowels: but they who will not allow the points to have been so ancient" tell us, that the letters Aleph, He, Vau, Yod, which they call matres lectionis, then served for vowels. But there are a great number of words in the Hebrew way of writing, both in the Bible and in all other books of that language, in which none of these letters are to be found, and scarce any in which some of the syllables are not without them; and how then can these supply the place of vowels, and every where help the reading instead of them, since every where they are not to be found? Besides, there are none of these letters which have not, according as they are placed in different words, the different sounds of every one of the vowels some time or other annexed to them; and how then can they determine the pronunciation of any one of them? As, for example, the letter Aleph hath not always the pronunciation of the vowel [a,] but sometimes of [e,] sometimes of [i,] sometimes of [0,] and sometimes of [u,] according as it is found in different words; and the same is to be n Arcanum Punctationis, lib. 1, c. 18.

said of all the rest. And, farther, all the other oriental languages have in their alphabets these same letters, which they call matres lectionis, as well as the Hebrew, as, for example, the Syriac, the Arabic, the Turkish, the Persian, the Malayan, &c. and yet they have their vowels, too, to help the reading: neither can we find that they were ever without them; though such as are well versed in any of these languages read them readily without vowels; and all the books, epistles, orders, and public instruments that are in them, are generally so written. And why then should we think the Hebrew had not such vowels also, especially when, after that language had ceased to be vulgarly spoken, there was such necessity for them? The unpointed words in Hebrew are the same with abbreviations in Latin; and if it be impracticable for any novice to learn the Latin language by books, wherein all the words are so abbreviated that only two or three letters of them stand for the whole, we may justly infer, that it is as impracticable for any who is a stranger to the Hebrew ever to learn it by books, wherein all the words are unpointed; yea, and much more so: for the abbreviations in Latin are certain, such an abbreviation being always put for such a word, and for none other: but it is otherwise in the abbreviations of the unpointed Hebrew; for in them all the vowels being left out, the remaining letters, which are to stand for the whole, may, as pronounced with different vowels, be different words: as, for example, there are two conjugations in Hebrew, one called Pihel, and the other Puhal; the former is an active, and the other a passive, and both are written throughout all their moods and tenses, (except the infinitive) with the same letters, and they, as differently pointed, may be either the one or the other; and although, in the reading, the context may determine the active from the passive, yet if we do not, by pointed books, first learn what vowels properly belong to the one, and what to the other, how can we know with which to read or pronounce either of them in the unpointed books? And abundance of other such instances may be given in the Hebrew language, wherein the same letters, as differently pointed, make different

words, and of different significations; and how then can a learner know, what different vowels, and what different pronunciations, belong to these different words, if he be not first taught it by the points, or some other such marks of the same signification? All that can be said against this is, that the Samaritan hath no such vowels; but although it be now grown to be a dead language, as well as the Hebrew, it is taught and learned without them. To this I answer, that it is true that all the books which we have as yet brought us into these western parts, in the Samaritan character, are written only with the letters, and without any such marks as the Hebrew Bibles now have to denote the vowels, or any other instead of them. But this doth not prove, that they have no such vowels in use among them: multitude of books are brought us out of the East, in Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Turkish, and Persian, all written with the letters, only without any vowel marks. But this doth not prove that they have none; for it is certain that they all have them and use them, where there is need of them; and therefore it is no evidence, but that the Samaritan may have them also, though all the books that we have hitherto seen in it are without them. The sect of the Samaritans are those only who use this character and language (if we may call it a language, for it is no more than the Hebrew in another character;) and they are now dwin dled into a very small number, and those dispersed abroad into several parts of the East. And what their practice may be as to the use of vowel figures in their other writings (though none that have as yet come to our hands have any such,) we have no account of, either pro or con, and therefore we can argue nothing from it. Only we say, that as to this, as well as the Hebrew, and all other such languages in which books are ordinarily written with the letters only, it seems almost impracticable for any one to learn to read those books, after the languages are become dead languages, without some marks put to the letters to denote the vowels with which they are to be pronounced. Without a previous knowledge of the language, it is impossible to be done; and therefore the only way to make 18

VOE. IF.

it possible, is to learn the language first by rote; and when a perfect knowledge hath been gotten of it this way, then only can it be practicable to learn to read that language by the letters only, without any vowel marks. But this is such a great way about, such a tedious and operose method of learning it, that we must look on those to be a very dull and stupid sort of people, who, being in this case, could find out no other way to help themselves in it; and that especially in the Jews' case, since their neighbours on each side of them (I mean the Syrians and Arabians) had vowel figures, and they might easily from them either have taken the same, or learned to have framed others like them. Though the Greeks in their language have the vowels intermixed with the letters, yet it no sooner became a dead language (I mean the learned Greek, from which the modern doth as much differ, as the Chaldee from the Hebrew,) but they found out accents, spirits, and several other marks to help those who were to learn it, which were never in use among them before. And so also are there in the Latin several such marks; as, for example, a mark over the [ò] and [é] at the end of adverbs, to distinguish them from nouns ending in those vowels, and the mark over the [4] ablative to distinguish it from [a] nominative, &c. none of which marks were ever used, while the Latin language was vulgarly spoken, but were invented for the help of those who were to learn it afterwards. And is it possible that the Jews only were so stupid and dull, that they alone should find out no such helps, after their language became a dead language, for the easier learning and reading of it; but, on the contrary, should have continued so many hundred years after, not only without any marks for accents, pauses, or stops, but also without any figures so much as to denote the vowels with which their letters were to be pronounced! The necessity which was in this case for such vowel figures, evidently proves that they must have had them; and that as soon as they needed them, which was, as soon as their language became a dead language, and was thenceforth to be learned by books (and not by common converse) as all other dead languages are.