5. It follows also that Ewald's statement is inaccurate. E.g. in 1 Sam. xiv. 24 (A. I. 1. 6), □sn-b can mean nothing but "all the people," "the whole of the people." But here it is not asserted (as Noldius strangely affirms) that not all the people tasted food, but that none of them did so. So in Ps. xlix. 18 (B. I. 1.6),

evidently means "the whole"; otherwise the article has no force. Or does Ewald mean to affirm that we may distinguish between "all the people" and "the whole people"? between "the whole" and "all of it"? But this is idle, or else the distinction between omnis and totus simply involves a begging of the question; i.e. when we know that the negation is partial, we say that means totus; otherwise we say that it means omnis. If Balak (Num. xxiii. 13) had wished "Thou shalt see none of them," how else could he have expressed himself? And yet would not, in either case, of itself properly mean "the whole of them "?

to say,

6. Reasoning a priori, we might have anticipated that a partial negation in Hebrew would be most naturally and unmistakably expressed by placing & immediately before bb, so that rather than the verb should be modified by it. Thus in English if we say, "Not all rich men are happy," we express a partial negation much more unequivocally than if we say, "All rich men are not happy." But there are no genuine instances of this position of the words in Hebrew. There are two passages, however, which at first sight seem to be such; but in each case the construction is elliptical. In 1 Kings xi. 39 (B. II. 1. α, iii) No immediately precedes, and the negation is partial. This lends apparent confirmation to the hypothesis just stated. But in Ps. cxv. 17 (A. I. 2. b) we find a similar case, in which the negation is universal. The passage reads:

,Not the dead praise Jehovah - לֹא־חַמַּתִים יְהַלְלוּ יָהּ וְלֹא כָּל־יֹרְדֵי דוּמָה

and not all descenders [i.e. none who descend] into silence." Hardly any stress can be laid on the fact that in this sentence the noun is indefinite, whereas in 1 Kings xi. 39 the article is used. For evidently the phrase is equivalent to "all those who descend." These passages, therefore, furnish no support to the hypothesis in question. Yet, curiously enough, the hypothesis is confirmed by the closely analogous construction of with . The same general rule holds respecting this case as respecting & connected with. Ordinarily the negative with (generally is). means "never." In twenty-seven passages in which they are used together there is no doubt that this is the case. They are Ex.

xiv. 13; Judg. ii. 1; 1 Sam. iii. 14 (x=x3); xx. 15; 2 Sam. xii. 10; Isa. xiv. 20; xxv. 2; xlv. 17; lxiii. 19; Jer. xxxi. 39 (40); xxxv. 6; Ezek. xxvi. 21; xxvii. 36; xxviii. 19; Joel ii. 2, 26, 27; Ps. xv. 5; xxx. 7 (6); xxxi. 2 (1); lv. 23 (22); lxxi. 1; civ. 5 (i with ba); cxii. 6; cxix. 93; Prov. x. 30; Eccl. ix. 6. In these passages, for the most part, precedes the verb, and s follows it; in none of them does it immediately precede . But there are four other passages in which immediately precedes ; and in all these the negation is partial="not forever." They are Isa. lvii. 16; Ps. ciii. 9; Prov. xxvii. 24; Job vii. 16. There remain only three other examples of this combination; they belong, so far as the position of the words is concerned, to the same class with the twenty-seven; and as to one of them (Gen. vi. 3), there is nothing in the context to require us to render ish. otherwise than "never." "My spirit will never hold sway in man,” is the rendering most consonant with usage, and one which suits the connection. Jer. iii. 12 reads, i iz “I will not keep [anger] forever." Here the negation seems to be partial; but it may be taken as a reply to the question in verse 5, "Will he keep anger forever?" That is, it may be taken as a case of negation of universal affirmation. Lam. iii. 31 is the only other passage; and this seems to be a clear case of partial negation.—But the fact remains that, except in elliptical constructions, there are no examples of

...

here לא

immediately preceded and qualified by . And accordingly we are obliged to conclude that the Hebrew language exhibits no specific method of expressing a partial negation by the combination of negatives with 5.

7. For convenience of reference we append a list of the passages, arranged in the order in which they occur in the Hebrew Bible, with an indication of the place where they are to be found in the foregoing classification. The abbreviation "p.n." stands for "partial negation"; "n.a." for "negation of universal affirmation." Passages not designated by either of these are instances of universal negation. It will be seen that, of the whole three hundred and twenty-six, there are only six unequivocal cases of partial negation, with a few others that may be so regarded. There are twentyfour cases of negation of universal affirmation, with a few others that may be so regarded. It must be said, however, in regard to some passages in which is connected with the indirect object, that it is somewhat difficult to determine whether they may be

properly included in the list.
Hosea vii. 10 might perhaps as well have been omitted.

Such passages as Job xii. 9 and

xxiii. 48, A. I. 1 a.
xxviii. 3, A. I. 2. a.
xxxi. 8, A. I. 2. a.
xxxi. 14 (bis), A. I. 2. b.
xxxiii. 13, A. I. 1. a.
xxxiii. 16, A. I. 1. a.
xxxvii. 23, B. II. 2. b. ii.
xliv. 9, A. I. 2. a.
xliv. 13, B. II. 2. b. iii.
xliv. 21, A. I. 2. b.
xliv. 31, B. I. 3. a.

Hosea.

vii. 10, B. II. 2. b. iv. xii. 9 (8), A. I. 1. a.

Zephaniah.

iii. 11. B. II. 2. b. ii.

Psalms.

xiv. 4. A. I. 1. b. XXV. 3, A. I. 1. a.

xxxiv. 11, (10), B. I. 3. b. xxxiv. 23 (22), A. I. 1. b. xlix. 18 (17), B. 1. 1. b. lxxvi. 6 (5), A. I, 2. b.

Ixxviii. 32, B. II. 2. b. i.

lxxviii. 38 (n.a.), B. I. 2. b. CXV. 17, A. I. 2. b.

cxliii. 2. A. 1. 2. b. cxlvii. 20, B. II. 2. c. if.

Proverbs.

ii. 19. A. I. 1. a.
iii. 15, A. I. 1. a.
vi. 29, A. I. 1. b.
vi. 35. B. II. 1. b. i.
viii. 11, A. I. 2. a.
xii. 21, A. I. 2. b.
xx. 1, A. 1. 2. a.
xxx. 30, B. II. 2. a. ii.
xxxi. 12, B. II. 1. a. iii.

Job.

i. 22, B. II. 2. b. i.
ii. 10, B. II. 2. b. i.
xii. 9, B. II. 2. b. ii.
xxxiii. 13, B. I. 2. a.
xxxiv. 27, B. I. 2. a.
xxxvii. 24. B. I. 3. b.
xlii. 15, B. II. 2. b. ii.

ii. 10, B. I. 4. a.

ii. 10. B. II. 2. c. iii.
vii. 28, B. II. 2. b. vi.

Daniel.

ii. 10, A. I. 2. a.
ii. 10, B. II. 2. c. iii.
ii. 35. A. I. 2. a.
iii. 28, B. II. 2. c. ii.
iv. 6 (9). A. I. 2. a.
iv. 15 (18), A. I. 1. a.
vi. 5 (4), A. I. 2. a.
vi. 5 (4), B. I. 2. c.
vi. 6 (5), B. I. 3. b.
vi. 16 (15), A. I. 2. a.
vi. 24 (23), A. I. 2. a.
viii. 4, A. I. 2. a.
ix. 12, B. II. 2. b. ii.
xi. 37, B. II. 2. c. i.
xii. 10, A. I. 2. b.

Ezra.

vii. 24, B. II. 1. a. i.

Nehemiah.

xiii. 6, B. II. 2. b. i.

1 Chronicles.

iv. 27 (n.a.), A. I. 1. a.
xxix. 25, B. II. 2. b. ii.

2 Chronicles.

vi. 5, B. II. 2. b. iv.
viii. 15, B. II. 2. c. v.
ix. 19, B. II. 2. c. ii.
xxiii. 19, A. II.

xxix. 34 (n.a.?), B. I. 2. c.
xxxii. 15, A. I. 2. b.

xxxiv. 21 (n.a.), B. II. 2. b. iii.
xxxiv. 28, B. II. 2. b. ii.
xxxiv. 33, B. II. 1. a. i.
Xxxv. 18, A. I. 1. a.

.אל WITH כל

Gen. xix. 17. B. II. 1. a.
Ex. xxxiv. 3, B. II. 1. a.
Lev. xi. 43, B. II. 1. b.

xvi. 2 (p.n.), B. II. 2. b.
xviii. 24, B. II. 1. a.
Num. xvi. 26, B. I. 3.
Josh. vii. 3 (p.n.). A. I.

vii. 3 (p.n.), B. I. 1.
Judg. xiii. 4, B. I. 2 b.

xiii. 7. B. I. 2. b.
xiii. 14, B. I. 2. a.

1 Sam. xxii. 15, B. II. 1. b.
2 Sam. xiii. 25 (n.a.), A. I.
Isa xiv. 29, A. II.
Jer. ix. 3 (4), B. II. 2. a.
xviii. 18, B. II. 1. a.
Ps. lix. 6 (5), B. 1. 2. b.

ciii. 2 (n.a.), B. I. 1.
cxix. 133, B. I. 2. b.
Prov. iii. 31, B. II. 1. a.
Eccl. vii. 21 (p.n. ?), B. II. 1. c
Neh. ix. 32 (n.a.), A. I.

Gen. xxxix. 23.
xlvii. 13.

Ex. ix. 14.
Num. xi. 6.
Judg. xviii 10.
xix. 19.

1 Sam. x. 24.
xiv. 39.

2 Sam. xii. 3.
2 Kings iv. 2.
v. 15.
Isa. li. 18 (bis).
Jer. x. 7.

xii 12.
Nah. ii. 10 (9).
Hab. ii. 19.
Prov. xiii. 7.
Lam. i. 2.

Eccl. i. 9.

2. b. ii.

NOTE. — Gen. iii. 1 (B. I. 2. b.), inasmuch as is not the direct object of b, might perhaps more appropriately be classed under the division B. II. Similarly, Num. xvi. 26 (by with B. I. 3.) might be put under B. II. But the verbs here have no other object, are practically transitive, and may be regarded as directly governing the nouns with which the prepositions are joined.

ARTICLE VI.

EDMUND BURKE.

BY THE LATE GEORGE SHEPARD, D.D., PROFESSOR IN BANGOR THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

I PROPOSE as the subject of this lecture Edmund Burke. I shall present so much of his history as will illustrate the growth of his power as an orator, and discuss the excellences and defects of his oratory, turning the whole, so far as may be, to present practical account.

Edmund Burke, the son of a respectable Irish barrister, was born in Dublin, January 1st, 1730, o.s. In early childhood his constitution was very delicate, and threatened to give way utterly under the influence of a passion for reading, which, even then, he indulged without restriction. In order to check the consumptive tendencies lurking in his system, he was sent to reside with his grandfather in a region remarkable for its wild and romantic beauty. The spot which fed the imagination of the author of "The Faerie Queen" also nourished that of the most splendid of orators. At the age of twelve Burke was placed under the care of Abraham Shackleton, a quaker of considerable talents and reputation, who conducted a classical school at Ballitore, about thirty miles from Dublin. Referring to this period in a debate in 1780, he says: "I have been educated as a Protestant of the Church of England, by a dissenter who was an honor to his sect, though that sect has ever been considered as one of the purest. Under his eye I read the Bible morning, noon, and night, and have ever since been a happier and better man for such reading." In 1743, at the age of thirteen, Burke became a member of Trinity College in Dublin University. Here he remained six years, acquiring no particular distinction, for, though he was not indolent, he would not study in the pre