it is not to be found in the Bible? Again, in words which end in &, one of the four quiefcent letters, (as grammarians call them) the & is retained in the plural of the noun or participle active,

קראים פלאיכם מלאים רפאים בראים as

almost, if not conftantly, yet it is dropped in the other inflexions of these words, and fometimes changed into . For we find in the

פלארפה and רפאברה and בר Lexicons put promifcuoufly for קרה and קרא פלה and

each other, or under each others roots, and the fame fignification given to each. To these let me add on, which retains its in the plural noun, yet drops it in two places, (Gen. xx. 6.-xxxi. 39.) which fhews, in my humble opinion, that we really want other rules, befides thofe as yet laid down, to make us understand the genius of the Hebrew language. For if, which has the very fame fignification as, be made a feparate root, only because it drops the ; why fhould not on, in these two places, be a feparate root from Non, for the fame reason, because the is dropped? Or if the dropping the & in on, be no reason why it fhould be looked on as a feparate root, as it has the fame fignification as

גב in ה why should the deficiency of the חטא

make it a separate root from 1, when it has the very fame fenfe affigned it? Befides, the Doctor tells us (p. 8.) that the rabbins derived

juravit : Now when they did אלה from אלוה

fo,

fo, they denied, by this derivation, the authority of the point mappic, and flighted this diftinction as of no confequence. And when (p. 56-61) the Doctor takes fo much pains to prove that an oath, and 8 to swear,

-,God אלהים and אלה may be deduced from

he forgets, or flights the diftinction of the mutable and immutable -For if x to fwear, and an oath, with their mutable, can be regularly deduced from with its immutable; then the prefervation of the plural number is no proof that the unchangeable in the derivatives: Since which is by this conceffion, a derivative from

in the

must be

, changes or drops its , as the Doctor obferves in every inftance where it is found, as a verb, in fcripture. And the fame may be faid of it as a noun, where it is inflected, or used with fuffixes. Hence we may learn, that, though this distinction, of the mutable and immutable , is fo ftrongly infifted on in this place; yet both the Doctor and his rabbinical mafters, when it ferves their turn, fet it aside and flight it as of no force or confequence.

But to come clofer to the point, and examine

and, the only words by whofe ufage he would fupport his diftinction of the mutable and immutable.

And here I must beg leave previously to hint the advantage which the gentlemen, who, thus by piece-meal, attack Mr. H's works, have by

this means, over his defenders; not to mention that which they draw from their superior abilities and characters.

Mr. H. has, throughout his writings, fhewed,
I. That the Hebrew language is ideal, fo per-
fect. The confequence of which is,
II. That each root has only one ruling idea

or image; or that there are not two roots
for one and the fame image or idea, and
therefore,

III. That a word, which has in it, or partakes of part of the fame image or idea, though it may fuffer fome grammatical variations in refpect of a fervile letter fuffixed, prefixed, inferted, changed or dropped, or, &c. is, notwithstanding, of the fame root c.

Now

"When I limit, (fays Mr. H.) each root, of two or "three letters, to one idea, I include the variations in the "application of that idea; where changing gender, or, &c. "varies the application: For a word of the fame three "letters, tho' it keep the idea, [where it can be applied to "different things, fo that there might be danger of con"founding] is fometimes deflected with various terminations, or, &c. as , when applied to time is 7, "when it is chief of what the text is treating, 'tis N, " &c. And a letter or two poftfixed, or, &c. may "deflect the root into any peculiar fenfe. So that we

,ראשון

suppose the Hebrew has a word differently writ, or with a "difference in letters from the fame root, for every altera❝tion or variation in its grammar, except the verb præterit, "and noun." Heb. Writ. Perf. Vol. VII. p. 303. Edit. Hodges.

4

Now the Doctor, as well as thofe who have gone before him in this controversy, takes no notice of what Mr. H. has, I had almost faid, proved; but will fuppofe the Hebrew to be a vague language, without any fuch precision in its ideas, or regular formation of its words from the fame root, in order to express the variations of the fame image, as fubfifting in different degrees, things or perfons, by differently terminating the word; which all languages have imitated, tho' with lefs precifion. This, I fay, is overlooked by our opponents; and this, the confiderate reader will confefs, makes a very material difference between what is urged by each party. It adds weight to every objection, be it ever fo trifling, which is brought againft his etymologies; whilst the answers and arguments, in fupport of them, lofe much of their force, by this fuppofition, that the language is not ideal, fo perfect, but an hodge-podge of I know not what, or a rotten plank of the hipwreck at Babel.

After laying down these premises, which I beg the reader will keep in mind; I return

גבה to

The Lexicographers make three roots for one and the fame idea or image, viz. 11 or

And they give us .יגב and גבה גבא גב גבאים גב as inflexions of גבנים גבן גבים

and, the dropped, as inflections of .

And under - .ינב as an innexion of יגבים

גבה

na they place all the inflexions which retain the and mappic the, as one of the four perfect verbs ending in .

,נאל or יאלאל Similar to this we have c. Now if I muft refer every& אלה and אול

inflection where the is retained to the root

na, and every other, in which it is dropped, to, and ',-then by parity of reason,

; אלה to אלה אלוה אלהים ought to refer ! and ; נאל or אל to - יאל אלי אלית and

גבה is as immutable as in אלה then the in

Nor is this any chicane, but a fair ftate of the cafe. For why muft the Doctor be at liberty to fay the is not dropped in, and the prefixed, [2 Kings xxv. 12. terram colentibus, fays Pagninus, making it à particle active predicating the action expreffed by the verb, to lift up, &c. as the earth is in plowing, digging, &c.] but that it is an inflexion of ' ;- -and I be denied the fame liberty to make ne, Fudges xvii. 2. 48, Joel. i. 8. and '8", 1 Sam. xiv. 24. fimilar inflexions of, and 8, and

? אלה not of

Whatever the

is the other instance. final ♬ may be, the is not immutable; being dropped in four places, viz. 2 Sam. xxii. 29. Job, xviii. 5. Pfal. xviii. 23. Ifa. xiii. 10. I would ask here, if the firft radical may be dropped, and the root remain the fame, — why muft dropping the final fo materially affect it, as to destroy its identity? I would also query, whether