whether the is not dropped in, the light of them, Joel. ii. 10. and iii. 20. have as good a right to fay that

For I is a fuffix

here, as it is made by M. De Calafio the fuffix to in a, Ezech. x. 12.- But the truth of the matter in my humble opinion, is this; the Lexicon-writers have treated this root as they have and the reft;made many independent roots of one primary root. They prefent us with a mappicked,-with, and Man, to fupport their idle distinction of the power of the point mappic in rendering the immutable. They place under the inflexions which preferve the ; and under ' and those in which it is dropped. Where the is retained, the full image is, as I think, included; which is the light and its operations; namely, as it iffues out from the orb of the fun, ftrikes against any thing in its way, and is thence reflected, and by frequent reflections makes that bustle or agitation, we call fplendor: And thence it is transferred to tumult, and agitation in other things, as grief, and so forth which strike, fmite, and pierce the mind with tumultuous agitations.-So to meditate, which is an act in the mind fimilar to the act of light in fplendor; where the action and re-action is repeated till fome image, or, &c. is formed. And in these usages of the word, the final is dropped. So that there feems to be some ground for the obfervation made above, that

G

;

the

the ferviles ferve to make out the original, or fome alteration in, or variation from the original image or idea.

The Doctor fays, (p. 36.) that

cannot

be the participle paffive of , because according to the rules of inflection it should be

that דוה but we have an inftance in אלוי

the

may be fometimes retained, as well as

changed into,-Lamen. v. 17. we have maftum, and Ifa. i. 5. it is 17, fo Levit. xv. 33. Jer. viii. 18. and Lamen. i. 22.

The great Chriftian Ravis in his general Grammar, printed 1648. lays down fome rules which, I think, deferve confideration. One is, "that, all words, (none excepted) of this

tongue, (viz. the Hebrew,) may, nay must, "be brought to a certain root.' Another rule is," that the root is neither in the verb, "nor noun, nor in any other part of speech, (if there were any as there are not) but "abfolutely in the letters, tho' not confidered as yet, if a noun, or verb, lefs if active, "paffive, neuter, deponent, mafculine, femi

66

nine, fingular, plural, prefent, præter, or "future, participle or pronoun, &c. The rea"fon for this affertion is, because it contradicts "the nature of a root, which never is the tree ❝itself, the branches, the leaves, the blossoms, "the fruits, nor the trunk or body of the tree, "but that part which lies under ground, and

none of all thefe is called the root, and is

..the

66

"the first principle and caufe of all these; "that the letters only (and not joined with "the pricks or points) make the root. The "reafon is plain, for if it be pronounced by "putting the vowels thereunto, it is no longer "a root, but a noun or a verb; for the letters only, and not the pricks (efteemed vowels) are in the alphabet, much less the third fingular in the præter tense, or the infinitive or imperative, or any noun. And therefore it "is a falfe affertion, to fay, that because the "third perfon fingular in the præter tense is not "found in the Bible, ergo, the root is not <extant in Hebrew or Chaldee. Whereas if

66

..

"there be but one form of any root whatsoever " in any dialect, perfon, gender, number, de"clination, or conjugation; nay, if but only "one radical be extant, so that either the first, "or fecond, or third, firft or third, or any "two of them be caft away, yet if there be but "one radical letter to be found, fo that by

grammar rules the two deficient may be "recovered, the root is truly extant in this « Oriental tongue.

This great man would not, therefore, have

becaufe אלהים for the root of אלה rejected

the was dropped or changed in fome of its inflexions; neither would he have gone to the

אלוה and אלהים Arabic to feek its root ; fince

have both of them the letters in them;

G 2

and

and all the Doctor's inftances have

in them, and fo the root is truly extant in the Bible. The candid reader muft judge for himself, whether I have, or have not made out the thing I have been endeavouring to fhew, viz. that the rule about the mutable and immutable is a mere rabbinical figment, and has no foundation in the nature and genius of the Hebrew language itself. I fhall now proceed to enquire into the precife radical image or idea of , the word which is in difpute.

Dr. Sharp is of opinion, that to adjure is the fenfe of x, preferable to that of swearing, affigned by Mr. H. and Mr. C.-But, I humbly think, that adjuring includes the sense of swearing. And the Doctor feems of that opinion, when he fays, (p. 12.) " that the expreffion

by which the verb is explained, viz. to bind "a perfon, to fulfil, &c. is capable of being “understood of adjuration or giving an oath, "as well as of fwearing or taking an oath." But the Doctor, to make his argument conclufive, muft prove that is confined to the fenfe of giving or adminiftring an oath; fince, if it may fignify taking an oath, it may fignify what Mr. H. and Mr. C. render it, viz. to confirm by oath, to bind a perfon to fulfil certain terms under the penalty of a conditional execration,

But

But cannot be confined to the fense of giving or adminiftring an oath, but it muft include that of fwearing, or, &c. because to adjure, give, or administer an oath, is to put a perfon under an, a conditional execration, for fuch is allowed to be by the Doctor himself. For where there is a giving, there must be also a taking of an oath. When a perfon voluntarily fwears to do fo and fo, &c. he is both juror and adjuror.When he is fworn or adjured by another; that other is the adjuror, and he the juror; but he is equally put under an, whether he imposes the oath upon himself, or it is impofed by another. So that the putting under an 8, must come into the idea or fignification of the verb 8, because it is included in the act of adminiftring an oath. And by the Doctor's own explanation of the word, he will fignify to adminifter an oath, or fwear another by adjuration, and thereby put that other under a conditional execration. But , thus explained, will do the Doctor little

fervice.

For then will fignify persons (thofe of the Trinity) who adjured each other, and thereby put themselves under the penalty of a conditional execration or ; and Mr. H's etymology of the word will not fuffer by this interpretation of the Arch-deacon's; because each person was both juror and adjuror, all adjuratores and juratores; And fuch, must be fuppofed

!