The taghmical art, or, The art of expounding scripture by the points, usually called accents, but are really tactical a grammatical, logical, and rhetorical instrument of interpretation in two parts ... / by Walter Cross ...

SECTION II.

ATnah is the next Absolute Lord in Power; but generally the Doctrine about him in Wasmuth, Schnegas, Ledeburius, is repugnant to his Title Absolute, and make him as respective and dependent, as the least Lord in all the Scheme. It is thus, that 1. Every Verse requires an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Secon∣dly, That Atnah's Power may be but a Semi-Com∣ma, for though next in power to Silluk, yet when Silluk's Power is but like a Comma's, Atnah's must be like a Semi-Comma.

A Second Argument I have against it is, That the Degrees of Distinction, at this rate, are too Subtle to be comprehended. Ex gr. 1 Chron. 28.1. There are 32 Words, and the greatest Sub-di∣stinction is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the next 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

Thirdly, Though all the Points depend on the Connexion and Distinction of the Doctrine or Mat∣ter, yet the Distinctions of Matter are of an Ab∣solute and Independant distance, where the Lords are call'd Absolute. I have therefore proposed Rules of another Nature about them, R. 1. M. 2. R. R. 1. M. 3. 4. viz. the proper office of Atnah is to End, or Rule a compleat Proposition; there∣fore there is no need of him where the Verse has but one Proposition, and consequently he is not to be found, Silluk being able with his own Do∣mestick Train to Point the whole, it were Super∣fluous

and unbecoming, to bring an Absolute Prince to supply the Function of another Prince's Servants, when the difference is but gradual between the Princes, and between their Servants also. There∣fore when we find it otherwise, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is present where there is but one Proposition, or ab∣sent where there are more than one of distinct Subjects, 1. We must either search into the Mat∣ter; or, 2. Examine the Affections of the Speaker; or, 3. The eloquent manner of Expression. For we shall find it is by a Figure, and one that bears his Mark about him (so that there is no danger of Equivocation) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is either absent when such a Proposition calls him, or present when no place or work for him; or that he changes his place, viz. if he stand not there where the greatest di∣stinction of Matter is within the Verse.

I shall First Confirm this:

Secondly, Answer some Objections against it.

Arg. 1. The Exceptions against the former, viz. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be in every Proposition, are too numerous, being between 1500 and 2000. To which I may add, That the Solutions given to these Ob∣jections or Reasons, for them are not valid enough, which is either the number of Words, or Seat pro∣per for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 If, says Wasmuth, the Verse contains but three or four Words, and one Sub-distinction, there is no place for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is indeed true, but the number of Words is not the Reason; but be∣cause it is rare, if ever, that three or four Words make two distinct Propositions. For suppose there be five Words, and one Proposition, there is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 25, 15. & 9, 4.10, 15.12, 9.23, 5.

14, 42, 17. Exod. 1, 13.6, 17. & 17.13. & 21, 1.12, 15, 17.23, 6, 14. and about 140 Ver∣ses more.

Secondly, Suppose the Verses contain six Words, if but one Proposition, there is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 36.41. 1 Sam. 30.27. and about 140 Verses more.

Thirdly, Suppose the Verse contain seven Words, if but one Proposition, there is no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 10.14.21.3. and about 80 more.

Fourthly, Suppose the Verse contain eight Words, if but one Proposition, there is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. 5.4. Num. 7.15.21.27.33, 39.45.51.57.63.69.75.81. and about 40 or 50 more.

Fifthly, Suppose the Verse contain nine Words, Jer. 23.25. Gen. 13.1. Deut. 7.11. and about 20 more. Suppose Ten Words, Gen. 35.15. Deut. 4.33. & 6.22. Jos. 10.7.13.9. 1 Kings, 1.26. Jer. 25.2. Ezek. 24.1. & 42.10. Neh. 5.17, &c. Suppose Eleven Words, Jos. 21.7. 1 Kings 9.20, 26. Jer. 52.18. Ezek. 41.17. Dan. 6.26. 1 Chron. 5.13. 2 Chron. 8.7. Suppose Twelve Words, Numh. 9.1. Deut. 5.24.13.12. Jos. 13.16.21.5. Jer. 30.2. 1 Chron. 6.46.48.29.6. 2 Chron. 1.2. Suppose Thirteen Words, Jos. 13.30. 1 Chron. 28.11. Suppose Fourteen Words, Ezra 7.13. 1 Chron. 12.37. 2 Chron. 34.20. Suppose Fifteen Words, Jos. 22.6. 2 Kings 22.12. 1 Chron. 6.47. Suppose Sixteen Words, 1 Chron. 26.26. Seventeen, Jer. 8.1. Eighteen, Eccles. 5.17. Nineteen, Jer. 13.13. Twenty Three, Ezra 6.9. 1 Chron. 28.1. Yet if but one Proposition, there is not one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Verse, though therefore he assert what is true, he brings not the true Reason, and therefore it is false, that because the Verse has but Four Words,

there is no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for if it had 24 Words, and but one Proposition, there would be no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Wasmuth's Second Reason he divides in three, thus, If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proper Seat happen to be first in the Second Word from Silluk. Secondly, in the third or fourth Word from Silluk. Thirdly, sometimes in the fifth Word from Silluk, then there is no place for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Resp. That seems not to be the Reason neither, for First, there is no necessity for asserting that to be a proper place for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Examples he brings, Ex gr. Gen. 21.28. And Abraham set seven sheep of the flock by themselves. Seorsim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is too little a distinction between flock, and by them∣selves, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Resp. 2. There may be above sixty Examples brought to prove the contrary, Jer. 28.10. He took the yoke from off the neck of Jeremiah the Prophet, and broke it. Ruth 4.2. —: And they did sit down. Gen. 1.3. —: And it was light, ver. 7. Gen. 9.2. & 33.4. & 41.21. & 42.20. Ex. 14.4. & 23.23. & 36.7. Lev. 13.18.

Resp. 3. He grants that, first, if the Argument be distinct. Secondly, Or if the Propositions be re∣latively opposed. Thirdly, If the Verb is to be re∣peated, then Atnah may be in the next Word to Silluk; which is as much as to say, Wherever there is place for Atnah, whether Silluk follow immedi∣ately after, or not, there it will be, and must.

Resp. 4. Where these Limitations are not in his own Opinion, yet there Atnah is immediately be∣fore Atnah, Exod. 26.23. & 39.14. Lev. 18.20. Num. 31.20. Lev. 21.4. Num. 15.21. Isa. 8.17. Hos. 11.6.

Arg. 3. Where Atnah is absent, there two Pro∣positions are not, and the Matter is not so distinct and opposite as to require it; where Atnah is de facto, we find it so.

Arg. 4. If Atnah be where one Proposition is, Repetition of the Verb makes two; two with Sense, and two with Emphasis; and that such as the Sense and Scope of the place doth require.

Arg. 5. There appears no pretext of Reason, for designing Exceptions contrary to a Rule, if Atnah should be in every Verse, and his Office and Power as proper there, as any where; why all Verses of three Words, in number about 180, and all of Four Words, in number about 306. should want this Atnah. It is then universally true, all Verses of few Words want him; surely there must be some reason for this; they can give none, who say Atnah can become a Comma; but the Reason is Reason like, to say, because we cannot well make two Propositions of Four Words. I may add fur∣ther here, That when a Word is absent by Priva∣tion, that is, where he should be, he leaves a De∣puty in his place. Now in these Verses of three or four Words, the Points stand according to Table and Rule, and therefore are in their own proper place, and are Vicars to none. Yea, where there are nine or ten Words, the Case is the same. Ex gr. Deut. 7.11. Therefore thou shalt keep the precept, statute and judgment [which I command thee this day] that thou do them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The greatest distinction within this Verse is in Judgment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but Rhebia is not Figuratively or Rhe∣torically

here, for he stands in his proper place Major to Tipcha, which Atnah can never be; nor is Tipcha in Atnah's place, for that shuts up the Pa∣renthesis. See Gen. 7.22.35.15. Lev. 15.9. Num. 5.9.33.56. Deut. 6.6.13.12. 1 Kings 11.42. 2 Kings 10.36. Isa. 31.6.37.5. Jer. 10.1.32.34. 2 Chron. 2.14.

Arg. 6. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not Essential to every Verse I prove thus: Atnah is not necessary to Silluk's part of the Verse, nay, is necessarily absent from it: but Silluk's part of the Verse in one place of Scripture, makes sometimes a whole Verse in ano∣ther, Words and Sense being entirely the same; therefore Atnah is not necessary to that Verse; yea, is necessarily absent from it. You have an Instance for this, Gen. 1.5, 8, 31. & 13.19, 23. And the evening and the morning was the first, second, &c. day. It makes a compleat Verse in the latter Quotations, and the latter Clause only in the former Quo∣tations.

I should now come to the Second Part, viz. An∣swering Objections against it, that is, remove the Difficulties that seem to lie against it, from the Forms of several Scriptures; some having 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one Proposition, others wanting him in two; others not having him where greatest distance is, or appears to be.

To all which I Answer in general, they belong to the R. R. and R. Sheme. For,

First, The greatest number of them is to be found in the Affectionate Books of Jeremiah, Lamenta∣tions, and Song of Solomon.

Secondly, Wasmuth, P. 82. acknowledges, If there be two Propositions, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 absent, it is from Accele∣ration in short, and abrupt Speeches, from a Mind troubled, or wrestling with grief.

Thirdly, In particular, I will reduce them to Clas∣sis, and make Experiment.

Clas. 1. Of one Proposition that has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jer. 2.16. Also the children of Noph, or Tachpanes, have broken, or pick'd, the crown of thy head.

First, There are two Propositions, Virtually be∣ing two Subjects.

Secondly, There is Emphasis, in that Friends, Con∣federated Ones, trusted, should do worse than Ene∣mies. Jer. 2.9. They that observe lying Vanities, forsake their own mercy: Or, They are keepers of ly∣ing Vanities: They are forsakers of their own Mer∣cy, viz. who do as I have done, (ver. 10.) but for the future I will cleave to the Lord. So Two Propo∣sitions.

Secondly, It's no wonder to hear Jonah Preach with Affection and Emphasis, in such a Pulpit. Gen. 24.34. Numb. 25.17. Ex 6, 21. & 8.4. & 25.7. Gen. 13.5.41.37. 1 Sam 30.31. Gen. 14.6. Ex 12.49. Jer. 25.22. Gen. 17.27.

Clas. 2. Of Two Propositions where no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is. Gen. 40.23. Numb. 12.9. Cant. 7.11. Lam. 3.18. Gen. 26.30. Ex 15.24. Gen. 29 22. Cant. 2.4. Ru. 4.16. Cant. 1.13. 1 Chron. 17.31. Ezek. 34.15. 2 Chron. 39.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Emphati∣cally.

Clas. 3. Of them that seem to be but one Pro∣position, and yet have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but are really two, which will appear by adding the Supplement. Gen. 7.5. Supply, so he did, before Silluk, Deut. 18.7. Sup∣ply, he shall Minister after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Now that we may be sure this Supplement is according to the Author's Intention, compare Gen. 6.22. and Deut. 18.6. where we may find the Two Supplements ex∣pressed.

Clas. 4. Of them where the Two Propositions are respective, there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not be, Numb. 14.20. & 16.4. Jer. 38.24. but Emphatically and Figu∣ratively, Gen. 24.34. from Joy, Hope, Confi∣dence of Success, boasting in his Master. Jud. 14.11. It fill'd them with amazement, and they took counsel. Jer. 28.10. False Prophets his Indignation.

The Fifth Classis is, Of them that have not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place where the greatest distinction in Matter appears. Observe, That the place of the greatest Distinction, needs thought to know it, for its not in the middle of Words. Gen. 1.7. there is but One Word behind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Fourteen before him, which contains Two Propositions, but the difference between the Purpose and Product, Act and Effect, is the greatest. Gen. 1.22. the former Hemistich has but one Proposition, the latter Three. Deut. 16.19. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, &c. Our Translators make the greatest Stop at Take a Gift, and any Body else, on a superficial view of the Text, would think so with them; for the Verse consists of Five

Propositions, three of them Prohibitions, and two of them Reasons for it, the greatest Stop appears between the Precepts and Reasons: but on a more narrow Perspection, the two Reasons belong only to the last Precept, and the former two Propo∣sitions are related as Text and Explication, there∣fore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rightly placed on Persons. Gen. 15.13. And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. Here our Translators have put no Colon at all, but the Emphatick placing of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Original is a Comment on the Text, and a better one than many, or any Chronologer has given on it. Isaac Vossius, among his many other Additions, to Sacred Chronology, asserts 200 Years into this Epocha, saying, There were 430 Years from Jacob's going down to Egypt, until Moses coming up out of it, which he confirms from Exod. 12.40. though he himself takes Acts 7.6. where they are said to be evil treated 400 Years, by way of Synecdoche, for a part of that time, but Matter of Fact will not suf∣fer it, for Gal. 3.16. this Prediction ended with the Law, and began with the Promise; and we find 215 Years after the Promise, before Jacob went to Egypt, viz. 25 from Abraham, 75 to Isaac's Birth, 100 Abraham, 60 from Isaac's birth to Jacob's, Gen. 21.5. 130 from Jacob's, to his appearing before Pharaoh, Gen. 47.9. This Summ'd makes 215.

Secondly, We find but two Generations in Egypt, for Levi begot Cahad in Canaan, hence Amram Moses: Reuben begot Phallu in Canaan, hence Eli∣ab Dathan and Abiram: Judah begot Ezrom, and he Pharez in Canaan, hence Jephunna Caleb. Now

if we examine the Original of this Prediction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put after afflict them, whereas distance of Matter seems to put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 between their Pilgrimage and Af∣fliction, with Service and Bondage; the latter being only in their Brick-Days in Egypt, the former all their Tent-Days in Canaan, from Abraham's first coming to it. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being placed after both, and between both, and 400 Years, informs us, that the 400 Years comprehends both, or all three, viz. Days of Pilgrimage, Service, and Affliction.

Another Example you have of this Emphatical Displacement of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 29.21. And Jacob said to Laban, give me my wife, (for my days are ful∣filled) that I may go in unto her. The greatest di∣stinction is justly on Wife, but the Hebrew has it on fulfilled. Jacob made no stop in his Speech un∣til he had inforced it with irrefragable Justice, lest Laban should have put in some excuse or delay; and then if they had come to balancing of Reasons, the covetous Heart; and crabb'd Temper of a La∣ban, had cloathed it self with the Mantle of Fa∣ther-hood. It was dishonour to a Father to yield, though some Justice appear on the Son's side; but a Son of Honour would not bear it, to see his grey Hair'd Father bending to him; and besides, the Son's Father, like enough, might have taken it ill, to see the Father dunn'd after a Denial; therefore the Stile shows his great haste to prevent a Denial.