Nominalization: 50 years on from

Chomsky's remarks Artemis Alexiadou

And Hagit Borer
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/nominalization-50-years-on-from-chomskys-remarks-
artemis-alexiadou-and-hagit-borer/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

50 Years of Central Banking in Kenya Patrick Njoroge

https://ebookmass.com/product/50-years-of-central-banking-in-
kenya-patrick-njoroge/

The Economy of Ghana: 50 Years of Economic Development

1st ed. Edition Mozammel Huq

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-economy-of-ghana-50-years-of-
economic-development-1st-ed-edition-mozammel-huq/

Nancy Chodorow and The Reproduction of Mothering: Forty

Years On Petra Bueskens

https://ebookmass.com/product/nancy-chodorow-and-the-
reproduction-of-mothering-forty-years-on-petra-bueskens/

Elite Education and Internationalisation: From the

Early Years to Higher Education 1st Edition Claire
Maxwell

https://ebookmass.com/product/elite-education-and-
internationalisation-from-the-early-years-to-higher-
education-1st-edition-claire-maxwell/
Cheating Academic Integrity : Lessons from 30 Years of
Research David A. Rettinger

https://ebookmass.com/product/cheating-academic-integrity-
lessons-from-30-years-of-research-david-a-rettinger/

Nancy Chodorow and The Reproduction of Mothering: Forty

Years On 1st ed. Edition Petra Bueskens

https://ebookmass.com/product/nancy-chodorow-and-the-
reproduction-of-mothering-forty-years-on-1st-ed-edition-petra-
bueskens/

Exploratory Data Analysis with Python Cookbook: Over 50

recipes to analyze, visualize, and extract insights
from structured and unstructured data Oluleye

https://ebookmass.com/product/exploratory-data-analysis-with-
python-cookbook-over-50-recipes-to-analyze-visualize-and-extract-
insights-from-structured-and-unstructured-data-oluleye/

In Control at 50+ Kerry Hannon

https://ebookmass.com/product/in-control-at-50-kerry-hannon-2/

In Control at 50+ Kerry Hannon

https://ebookmass.com/product/in-control-at-50-kerry-hannon/
Nominalization
OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
General Editors
David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary University of London
Advisory Editors
Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Büring, University of Vienna; Nomi Erteschik-Shir,
Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher
Potts, Stanford University; Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius,
University of Tromsø; Moira Yip, University College London

 
62 The Morphosyntax of Transitions
A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages
by Víctor Acedo-Matellán
63 Modality Across Syntactic Categories
edited by Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero, and Andrés Salanova
64 The Verbal Domain
edited by Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego
65 Concealed Questions
by Ilaria Frana
66 Parts of a Whole
Distributivity as a Bridge between Aspect and Measurement
by Lucas Champollion
67 Semantics and Morphosyntactic Variation
Qualities and the Grammar of Property Concepts
by Itamar Francez and Andrew Koontz-Garboden
68 The Structure of Words at the Interfaces
edited by Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa deMena Travis
69 Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers
The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
by Osamu Sawada
70 Encoding Events
Functional Structure and Variation
by Xuhui Hu
71 Gender and Noun Classification
edited by Éric Mathieu, Myriam Dali, and Gita Zareikar
72 The Grammar of Expressivity
by Daniel Gutzmann
73 The Grammar of Copulas Across Language
edited by María J. Arche, Antonio Fábregas, and Rafael Marín
74 The Roots of Verbal Meaning
by John Beavers and Andrew Koontz-Garboden
75 Contrast and Representations in Syntax
edited by Bronwyn M. Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall
76 Nominalization
50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks
edited by Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer

For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 450–2.
 Nominalization
50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks

Edited by
A R T E MI S A L E X I A D O U
AND
H A G I T BO R E R

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© editorial matter and organization Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer 2020
© the chapters their several authors 2020
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2020
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947982
ISBN 978–0–19–886554–4 (hbk.)
ISBN 978–0–19–886558–2 (pbk.)
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 General Preface

The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents

of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces
between the different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of ‘interface’ has
become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky’s Minimalist
Program) and in linguistic practice: Work on the interfaces between syntax
and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc., has led
to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the
architecture of the linguistic component of the mind/brain.
The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including
syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics,
morphology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing,
semantics/pragmatics, and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in
the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired
and deployed in use (including language acquisition, language dysfunction, and
language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of
particular linguistic phenomena, languages, language groups, or inter-language
variations all require reference to interfaces.
The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and
schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be
understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in
cognate disciplines.
Nominalization, the process whereby new complex nouns are created in a
language, was a central area of investigation in generative grammar even before
Chomsky published his seminal Remarks on Nominalization. The succeeding
decades have explored in further depth the issues that Chomsky identified:
how notions of synonymy are to be encoded in syntactic theory; productivity
and exceptions to proposed rules; the architecture of the grammar, and how
different kinds of information are stored. Analysis of these issues has deepened
our insights into how morphology, syntax, and semantics interact and has led to
major revisions to the lexical and phrase structure components in generative
syntactic theory over the years. The current volume is a state-of-the-art collec-
tion of chapters, showing both how broadly the cross-linguistic investigation of
viii  

nominalizations has developed and how far theoretical understanding has

deepened. Though Chomsky, in his brief remarks here, indicates he is still in
favor of a lexicalist view of non productive nominalization, the chapters them-
selves mostly argue that nominalizations are fundamentally generative, though
exactly how to express their structural complexity is still clearly a question of
vigorous theoretical debate.

David Adger
Hagit Borer
 List of Abbreviations

√ Root
π passive
1 first person
1 first person singular agreement
2 second person
2 second person singular agreement
3 third person
3 third person singular agreement
12 first person, second person, third person, first person inclusive
 ‘Set A’(ergative/possessive)
A agent-like argument of transitive verb
AASN adjectival argument structure nominals
 ablative case
 absolutive
 accusative
 active Voice
 additive (particle)
 adjective
 adjectivalizer
ADJZ adjectivizing affix
 adnominal
 adverb
/ Agent Focus
 Agent
 agreement
 anterior
ANTIP antipassive
AP adjectival phrase
AS argument structure
ASN Argument Structure Nominal
Asp aspect
AspP aspect phrase
ASPQ telicity (quantity) aspect
ATK -ation and kin (latinated NOM suffixes)
 ‘Set B’(Absolutive)
BA big-type adjectives
 lexical category
x   

 causative
CAUS.ACT hif ’il template (hiXYiZ)
 case domain
 Complex Event Nominal
CI conceptual-intentional level
 connegative (stem)
 Corpus of Contemporary American English
 comitative
 completive
 copula
COS change of state
CP complement clause
 converb
 dative
, Decl,  declarative
 definite
 demonstrative
 determiner
DFG German Research Foundation
DIR direction
 dispositional
 derived intransitive suffix
DM Distributed Morphology
DN deverbal nominals (also derived nominals)
DOM differential object marking
DS different-subject construal
ECE Existential Closure Exceptional
CM Case Marking
 emphatic
EO Experiencer Object
 epenthesis
 epenthetic
 episodic
EPP the extended projection principle
 ergative
ES Experiencer Subject
Ev event
EVG English verbal gerund
 evidential (past)
EvP event phrase
exam examination
ExP Extended Projection
ExP[X] Extended Projection of X
    xi

EP[V] Extended Projection of V

,  feminine
FA frequency adjectives
Fin finiteness
FL faculty of language
FN factive nominalization
Fn[X] (n an integer) a functional node in the Extended Projection of X
 focus
 frequentative
 future tense
 genitive
GloWb Corpus of Global Web-based English
 gender
GNI German nominal infinitives
GS grammatical subject
GVI German verbal infinities
IDEO ideophone
 illative case
 inclusive
 inessive case
 infinitive
 inflection
 instrumental
 interrogative particle
. piél template (XiY̯eZ)
. hitpaél template (hitXaY̯eZ)
 intransitive
 imperfective
IRR irrealis
ITER iterative
,  intransitive
LASN Long Argument Structure Nominals (including prenominal
subject)
LAT lative
 locative
. locative nominalizer
 malefactive
 masculine
 middle Voice
 nonfinite or nominal form of lexical verb
NACT nonactive
 negative
 neuter
xii   

 nonfuture tense

NG noun gerund
NI nominal infinitive
 nominal suffix
NMZ,  nominalizing affix
 nominative
NOW News on the Web
NP noun phrase
 nonpast tense
NPI negative polarity item
NVP nonverbal predicate
NZLR nominalizer
. object nominalizer
OBL oblique
OED Oxford English Dictionary
P patient-like argument of transitive verb
p, pl, ,  plural
. past perfect
P5 position 5 clitic
 passive
PASS designated passive template
 perfective
 possessive
 Principles and Parameters
 participle
 predicate
 present tense
PRO-arb PRO with arbitrary (generic) interpretation
 progressive
 prospective aspect
 present
PRT particle
 , PST,  Phrase Structure Grammar past
PTCP.FUT future participle
 punctual
RC relative clause
 reduplication
 reflexive
 relativizer
REMP remote past
 reportative
RN Result Nominals, Referential Nominals, result nouns
RoN Remarks on Nominalization
    xiii

RootP Root Phrase

S sole argument of intransitive verb
S(E)A silent external argument, silent argument
s, sg, ,  singular
. subject nominalizer
S.REL subject relativizer
SASN Short Argument Structure Nominals (no logical subject)
SC small clause
Sdev, Sy substantiva deverbalia
SEN Simple Event Nominals
SFP sentence final particle
sfx suffix
SM sensory motor level
. qal/pa’al template (XaYaZ)
. nif ’al template (niXYaZ)
SOAs states-of-affairs
SPAT spatial location
SRPV Spanish reflexive psychological verb
SS same-subject construal
 status suffix
 stative
stc static
subj subject
sup supine
Sv substantiva verbalia
TAM tense, aspect, or mood
TG TH, THEME Transformations Grammar Theme
 topic
 transitive
UTAH Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis
 finite verbal form
VAI verb animate intransitive
/ verbalizer
VTA verb transitive animate
WF Word Formation
XSM Exo-skeletal model
ZD zero derivation
ZN zero-derived nominals (conversion)
 Notes on Contributors

Peter Ackema is Professor of Morphosyntax at the University of Edinburgh. He is a

graduate of Utrecht University, where he obtained his PhD in 1995. He specializes in
research on the interface between morphology and syntax, on which he has published
a wide variety of articles and three books (Issues in Morphosyntax, Benjamins, 1999,
Beyond Morphology, OUP, 2004, and Features of Person, MIT Press, 2018, the latter
two co-authored with Ad Neeleman).
Odelia Ahdout is a doctoral researcher at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Her
topics of interests include the interface between morpho-syntax, lexical semantics, and
pragmatics. Her upcoming doctoral dissertation presents an extensive survey of
deverbal nouns in Hebrew, focusing on the relevance of verbal (templatic)
morphology to the behavior of nominal derivatives. Her dissertation focuses on the
interaction of Voice marking and nominalization, and seeks to provide an account of
systematic gaps found between active and nonactive Voice marking in the domain of
nominalization.
Artemis Alexiadou is Professor of English Linguistics at the Humboldt University in
Berlin and Vice Director of Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS) in Berlin. She
obtained her PhD in 1994 from the University of Potsdam. Her research is concerned
with the syntax and morphology of noun phrases and argument alternations, on which
she has published several articles and books (e.g. Functional Structure in Nominals,
Benjamins 2001, External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations, OUP, 2015,
co-authored with Elena Anagnostopoulou and Florian Schäfer).
Hagit Borer is a Professor of Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. Her
research involves the division of labor between the lexicon and syntax, and touches on
morphosyntax as well as the syntax-semantics interface. She is the author of a three-
book series on these topics, titled ‘Structuring Sense’: In Name Only (OUP, 2005),
focusing on nominal structure; The Normal Course of Events (OUP, 2005), focusing on
event structure, and Taking Form (OUP, 2013) focusing on morphosyntax and word
formation.
Noam Chomsky is Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He is
an Institute Professor (emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where
he was Professor of Linguistics from 1955. He has made numerous groundbreaking
contributions which radically transformed the field of modern linguistics, including
his 1970 paper Remarks on Nominalization.
xvi   

Jessica Coon is Associate Professor of Linguistics at McGill University and Canada

Research Chair in Syntax and Indigenous Languages. She completed her PhD at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2010, with a dissertation focusing on split
ergativity. Much of her work is centered on the syntax and morphology of Mayan
languages, especially Ch’ol and Chuj, and she has published on topics relating to
ergativity, agreement, verb-initial word order, A’-extraction, and nominalization. Her
2013 OUP book, Aspects of Split Ergativity, examines split ergativity in Ch’ol and cross-
linguistically.
Éva Dékány is a post-doctoral researcher at the Research Institute for Linguistics,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She received her PhD in Theoretical Linguistics
from the University of Tromsø in 2012 and has published on the structure of
nominal and adpositional phrases as well as the history of Hungarian. She is
currently working on finite and nonfinite subordination in various Finno-Ugric
languages.
Ekaterina Georgieva is a post-doctoral researcher at the Research Institute for
Linguistics in Budapest. She received her PhD in Linguistics from the University of
Szeged in 2019. Her research focuses on the morphosyntax of Udmurt, and more
specifically, on nonfinite subordination.
Heidi Harley is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. She works on
syntax, morphology, and argument structure, as well as the grammar of the Uto-
Aztecan language Hiaki.
Gianina Iordăchioaia is a researcher at the Institute of English Linguistics, University
of Stuttgart. She graduated from the University of Bucharest and obtained her PhD
from the University of Tübingen in 2009. Her most recent research concerns the
interface between morphology, syntax, and (lexical) semantics with a focus on word
formation. She is currently the principal investigator of the DFG-funded project ‘Zero-
derived nouns and deverbal nominalization: an empirically-oriented perspective’.
Itamar Kastner is Lecturer in the Cognitive Science of Language at the University of
Edinburgh, which he joined after a post-doctoral position at the Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin and graduate studies at New York University. His research concerns various
aspects related to morphology, including morphosyntax, morphophonology, lexical
semantics, and lexical processing.
Keir Moulton is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Toronto. He is a
graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he obtained his PhD in
2009. His research centers on the interaction between syntax and semantics on topics
such as embedding, binding, quantification, and relativization, with publications on
these topics in journals such as Linguistic Inquiry and Language. He conducts
experiments on these and other topics as the director of the Toronto Experimental
Syntax-Semantics lab.
    xvii

Ad Neeleman is Professor of Linguistics at University College London. He obtained

his PhD at Utrecht University in 1994. His research focuses on syntax and its
interfaces, in particular morphology and information structure. Following his
doctoral dissertation on complex predicates, he published some seventy research
papers and co-authored three monographs: Flexible Syntax (Kluwer, 1999, with Fred
Weerman), Beyond Morphology (OUP, 2004, with Peter Ackema) and Features of
Person (MIT Press, 2018, with Peter Ackema).
Tom Roeper is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
He works primarily on language acquisition, derivational morphology, syntax-
semantics, and on applied issues in language disorders and second language
acquisition. He currently specializes in the study of how recursion is acquired in
many languages, with various collaborators working on coordinated experimentation.
He has written a book for parents and teachers called The Prism of Grammar (MIT
Press, 2009), and co-edited Recursion: Complexity in Cognition (Springer, 2014), and
Recursion Across Domains (Cambridge University Press, 2018). He is co-editor of
the series ‘Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics’, a former editor of Language
Acquisition, and Director of the Language Acquisition Research Center at the
University of Massachusetts.
Isabelle Roy is a Professor of Linguistics at Université de Nantes. She has previously
held a position at Université Paris VIII, as an Associate Professor, and at CASTL-
University of Tromsø. She graduated from the University of Southern California in
2006. Her main research interests are in linguistic theory, with a focus on the syntax-
semantics interface, in the areas of events, predication, copular constructions,
adjectives, categories and categorization, and in linguistic ontology. She is the author
of Nonverbal Predication:Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface (OUP,
2013).
Justin Royer is a PhD student in linguistics at McGill University. His research has
mainly focused on the syntax and semantics of nominals and the determiner phrase,
on free relatives, and on the syntax-prosody interface. He works primarily on Mayan
languages, and he has conducted original fieldwork on Chuj, an underdocumented
language spoken in Guatemala and Mexico.
Bożena Rozwadowska has been a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wrocław
since 1999. She studied at the University of Technology in Wrocław, at the University
of Wrocław and at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She obtained her PhD
in 1988 and her post-doctoral degree in 1998 for the Habilitationsschrift Towards a
Unified Theory of Nominalizations; External and Internal Eventualities. In 2019 she
received the title of Full Professor approved by the President of Poland. Her research
focuses on the syntax-semantics interface, in particular within the area of
psychological predicates.
Andrés Pablo Salanova has studied the language of the Mẽbêngôkre since 1996; in
addition, he has been involved in descriptive projects on other languages of lowland
xviii   

South America, and has carried out theoretical research in morphosyntax and in the
semantics of aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. He obtained his MA in Campinas
(Brazil) in 2001, and his PhD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007, and he
currently teaches linguistics at the University of Ottawa.
Elena Soare is an Associate Professor at the University of Paris 8 where she teaches
formal syntax and comparative linguistics. She is a graduate of the University of
Bucharest and of the University of Paris 7, where she completed her PhD in 2002.
She is currently working on nominalizations and the structure of nonfinite clauses
across languages. She is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals and
one of the editors of the ‘Sciences du Langage’ collection at Presses Universitaires de
Vincennes. She has participated in, and conducted research programs on Argument
Structure, Stative Predicates, and Nominalizations. Since 2014, she has been one of the
leaders of a project on multilingualism entitled ‘Langues and Grammaires en Ile-de-
France’.
Adam Tallman is a post-doctoral researcher at the Laboratoire Dynamique du
Langage of the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (Université Lumière Lyon
II). He obtained his PhD at the University of Texas at Austin and his dissertation was a
Grammar of Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon.
His research focuses on the description and documentation of the languages of the
Americas, linguistic typology, and quantative methods. His recent research focuses on
constituency structure and the morphology-syntax distinction. His papers appear in
journals such as Amerindia, Empirical Studies in Language, Studies in Language,
Language and Linguistics Compass, among others.
Jim Wood is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Yale University and associate editor
of the Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. His primary research interests lie
in syntax and its interfaces with morphology and semantics. He is the author of
Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure (Springer, 2015), and his research
has been published in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Inquiry,
Syntax, Glossa, Linguistic Variation, American Speech, and elsewhere. Since 2012, he
has been a leading member of the Yale Grammatical Diversity Project, investigating
micro-syntactic variation in North American English, and was a co-principal
investigator on the National Science Foundation grant funding its work.
 1
Introduction
Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer

1.1 The Remarks challenge

In 1967 (published 1970), in a move that was as controversial as it was

influential, Chomsky proposed that certain aspects of morphological related-
ness, e.g. those that hold between destroy and destruction, and erstwhile
presumed to be within the jurisdiction of the syntax, are to be moved to the
lexicon, a nongenerative component of the grammar, where their properties
were to be treated on a par with other listed properties such as subcategoriza-
tion, selectional restrictions, category specification, and phonological proper-
ties, already proposed to reside in the lexicon in Chomsky (1965). The primary
rationale for the move to the lexicon was twofold. First, it was heuristic.
Syntactically deriving deverbal nominals (DN), and complex words in general,
proved detrimental to attempts to formally constrain the syntax along more
universal lines, a disadvantage that was, in fact, to lead to the formal collapse of
syntactic models which rejected the Remarks move. Moving word-internal
structure to the lexicon, on the other hand, allowed the development of a more
constrained syntax, capable of dealing better with syntactic challenges of the
time (and see Chomsky, Chapter 2, for some relevant comments).
The second rationale for moving complex word-internal properties to the
lexicon was formal. Chomsky (1970) puts forth a series of arguments designed
to show that the formation of words, however achieved, is not a generative
device, but rather, must avail itself of lexically listed information. The lexicon,
thus extended, was specifically targeted as the locus not only of idiosyncratic
information associated with individual words, but also as the locus of rela-
tionship between pairs of related words, by assumption potentially arbitrary
and unpredictable.
Reasoning on the basis of a detailed comparison between complex nominals
arguably with a verbal source, and gerunds (and assuming both are derived
from a sentential structures), Chomsky constructs a typology of syntactic vs.

Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Introduction In: Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Edited by:
Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer, Oxford University Press (2020). © Artemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865544.003.0001
2     

lexical operations. Specifically, he points out that while gerunds are entirely
regular and predictably share just about all the properties of the verbs embed-
ded within them, that is not the case for DNs, where morphological, interpret-
ational, and syntactic idiosyncrasies are common, and where the systematic
inheritance of verbal properties cannot be taken for granted. Relevant examples
of idiosyncrasy include, e.g., the item-specific choice of nominalizer (form-
ation, but govern-ance or proof ). Others relate to the emergence of unpredict-
able meaning (proofs, transmission), and finally, derived nominals (but not
gerunds) can occur without what are otherwise obligatory arguments for the
verb, including both subject and object, e.g. the destruction was complete.
Importantly, no such effects emerge with gerunds such as destroying *(the
bridge), or transmitting (≠car gear). The appropriate integration of DNs into
syntactic structures, Chomsky reasoned, thus must avail itself of unpredictable
listed information, thereby necessitating their removal from the syntax and
their listing, thereby resulting in a formal enrichment of the lexicon.¹
Chomsky (1970) does note, however, that alongside potential idiosyncra-
sies, DNs are frequently systematically related to their verbal correlates, to wit,
destroy and destruction, defer and deferral, and so on, both in terms of the
emerging meaning, and in terms of the (optional) availability and interpret-
ation of complements. To capture these regularities, he introduces X’ theory,
within which a pair such as destroy/destruction is perceived as a single
category-less lexical entry with a fixed subcategorization frame. This entry,
in turn, is inserted under an X⁰, be it N⁰ or V⁰ and thus acquires its categorial
status. Finally, it is the categorial context of the insertion that determines the
phonologically appropriate form for the entry. When under N⁰, it would be
pronounced deferral or destruction, but when under V⁰, it would be pro-
nounced defer or destroy.² For both, and in accordance with the provisions
of the X’-scheme, a listed (direct) complement would be realized in a sister-
hood relationship with X⁰, in a parallel fashion for the nominal and the verbal
instantiations. The Remarks on Nominalization (RoN) representation of des-
troy vs. destruction can thus be represented as in (1) (irrelevant details

¹ An intermediate status, for Chomsky (1970) is that of mixed nominalizations, i.e. cases such as the
growing of the tomato, which are morpho-phonologically regular, but where arguments may nonethe-
less be missing (the growing phase ended), and where idiosyncratic meaning does occasionally emerge
(e.g. reading in the sense of ‘interpretation’; see Borer, 2013, for discussion).
² For a strict Bare Phrase Structure approach, note, this execution is impossible as a head projects its
categorial properties, if any, and is not inserted under a preconstructed categorial node.
  3

omitted), where  is an entry associated with meaning and with

subcategorization, but not a syntactic category:

(1) N’ V’

N [of NP] V NP

DESTROY destruction DESTROY destroy

Crucially, whatever operation relates destroy, as the verbal instantiation of

the relevant entry, and destruction, its nominal instantiation, it is not syntactic
and is not represented syntactically. In fact, within that approach, it is not clear
that the relationship is derivational in nature, as opposed to constituting a
salient statistical correlation, an approach explicitly put forth by Jackendoff
(1975).
A number of crucial properties of (1) are worth highlighting. First, note that
the complement of the noun here is optional, but that of the verb is obligatory.
Chomsky (1970) assumes, explicitly, that this is a structural difference between
nouns and verbs, which spans both the object and the subject, the latter
optional for nouns and obligatory for verbs as well. In fact, the correlation
between the optionality of complements in DNs and the optionality of com-
plements in non-DN nominals serves for Chomsky as an additional argument
for the lexical rather than (syntactically-)derived nature of DNs. To wit, if DNs
have a verb embedded under them, indeed, a sentence, one expects the
obligatoriness of both complement and subject, typical of verbs/sentences
and clearly attested in gerunds. That such obligatoriness is not found in
DNs therefore serves as an argument that fundamentally, they are inserted
into an exclusively nominal slot, and are not syntactically composed of a verb
plus some nominal affix.³
A second important observation concerning the structure in (1) is that
syntactically, destroy, a verbal head, and destruction, a nominal noun, are
equally complex—both are terminals. That one of them is morphologically
complex and includes within it a stem that is largely identical to the verbal
realization is most certainly not a syntactic fact and, in fact, for Chomsky

³ Additional arguments in favor of the view that DNs are not verb-derived come from the absence of
Tough movement, Raising, and ECM for DNs; these operations are possible with gerunds suggesting
that these have a verb embedded under them. Recently, however, Lieber (2016) and Bruening (2018)
presented evidence suggesting that DNs do behave similarly to gerunds in this respect, after all.
4     

(1970), it is not clear that it reflects any systematic derivational relationship

altogether.
Finally, note that albeit not explicitly acknowledged, the entry for 
must contain some phonological information. Were that not the case, the
phonological overlap between destruction and destroy and similar pairs
would become an inexplicable and repeated coincidence.
The case for the idiosyncrasy of complex words, and hence their listed
nature, was considerably enhanced with Halle (1973)’s Prolegomena for Word
Formation. Halle highlighted the phonologically unpredictable nature of mor-
phological operations, primarily within the domain of inflection. Observing,
among other phenomena, lexically specified stem alternations under affixation,
incomplete paradigms, impoverishment, the occasionally idiosyncratic interpret-
ation of some inflectional morphemes (e.g. Russian instrumental case), and the
unpredictable fusion of distinct inflectional markers, Halle argues that the erratic
nature of the phonological output of word formation clearly necessitates the
consultation of listed information, and hence supports the case for the transfer of
WF away from the more phonologically well-behaved parts of the grammar, i.e.
syntax. Halle does, however, propose a semiformal WF component, albeit
independent from the syntax, and structured so as to allow its output to consult
idiosyncratically listed information.
Ironically, in the direct aftermath of RoN and Prolegomena for Word
Formation, and with the notable exception of Jackendoff (1975), a burgeoning
community of scholars eschewed, collectively, the notion that WF is nonge-
nerative, applying considerable talent to the attempt to systematize and for-
malize accounts of word structure and word formation. The systems that
emerged were largely not only generative, but also suspiciously syntax-like.
Especially beginning with Aronoff ’s (1976) influential distinction between
analytic and productive morphology, we see the introduction of rewrite rules
and phrase structure (cf. Selkirk, 1982); of heads for words (cf. Williams, 1981);
and of subcategorization and constituent structure for affixes (cf. Lieber, 1980).
In fact, the formal devices used in constructing complex words became grad-
ually so syntax-like, that a special condition had to be introduced for the sole
purpose of preventing the syntax from interacting with word-internal struc-
ture, and formulated, specifically, as the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (Lapointe,
1980) or the Atomicity Thesis (DiSciullo & Williams, 1987).
Alongside the attempt to build a hierarchical structure for words, we also
see a systematic attempt to introduce some order into the chaos by separating
those affixes in which a high degree of regularity—morphological, syntactic,
and phonological—is observed, from those affixes where such regularity is less
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The works of the
Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 10 (of 32)
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 10 (of 32)

Author: John Wesley

Release date: May 2, 2024 [eBook #73519]

Language: English

Original publication: Bristol: William Pine, 1771

Credits: Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading

Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced
from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WORKS

OF THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, VOL. 10 (OF 32) ***
 The Works of the
Rev. John Wesley, M.A.

Transcriber’s Notes
The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed
in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in

printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form
for easier reading.

The author has used an asterisk (*) to indicate passages he

considers most worthy of attention.

The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off by
similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been
changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.

This book was written in a period when many words had not
become standardized in their spelling. Words may have
multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in
the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated
with a Transcriber’s Note.

The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has

been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there is
no caption or if the caption does not describe the image
adequately.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number

and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which
they appear.
Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the
text or to provide additional information for the modern
reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the
text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in
which they appear.

THE

WORKS
OF THE

Rev. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.

Late Fellow of Lincoln-College, Oxford.

Volume X.

B R I S T O L:
Printed by WILLIAM PINE, in Wine-Street.

MDCCLXXII.
 THE

CONTENTS
Of the Tenth Volume.

Serious thoughts occasioned by the late Earthquake at Lisbon.

A Collection of Forms of Prayer for every Day in the week.

A Collection of Prayers for Families.

An Address to the Clergy.

A short Account of the Death of Thomas Hitchens.

A short Account of the Death of Samuel Hitchens.

A short Account of the Life and Death of Nathanael Othen.

Some Account of the Life and Death of Matthew Lee.

Extract of the Life and Death of Mr. John Janeway.

Extract of the Life and Death of Mr. Thomas Haliburton.

 SERIOUS THOUGHTS

Occasioned by the late

Earthquake at L I S B O N.

Tua res agitur, paries quum proximus ardet.

T HINKING men generally allow that the greater part of modern

Christians are not more virtuous than the antient Heathens:
perhaps less so; since public spirit, love of our country, generous
honesty and simple truth, are scarce any where to be found. On the
contrary, covetousness, ambition, various injustice, luxury and
falshood in every kind, have infected every rank and denomination of
people, the clergy themselves not excepted. Now they who believe
there is a God are apt to believe, he is not well pleased with this.
Nay, they think, he has intimated it very plainly, in many parts of the
Christian world. How many hundred thousand men have been swept
away by war, in Europe only, within half a century? How many
thousands, within little more than this, hath the earth opened her
mouth and swallowed up? Numbers sunk at Port-Royal, and rose no
more. Many thousands went quick into the pit at Lima. The whole
city of Catanea in Sicily, and every inhabitant of it perished together.
Nothing but heaps of ashes and cinders shew where it stood. Not so
much as one Lot escaped out of Sodom!
 And what shall we say of the late accounts from Portugal? That
some thousand houses, and many thousand persons are no more!
That a fair city is now in ruinous heaps. Is there indeed a God that
judges the world? And is he now making inquisition for blood? If so,
it is not surprizing, he should begin there, where so much blood has
been poured on the ground like water? Where so many brave men
have been murdered, in the most base and cowardly, as well as
barbarous manner, almost every day, as well as every night, while
none regarded or laid it to the heart. “Let them hunt and destroy the
precious life, so we may secure our stores ¹ of gold and precious
stones.” How long has their blood been crying from the earth? Yea,
how long has that bloody house of mercy ², the scandal not only of all
religion, but even of human nature, stood to insult both heaven and
earth? And shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? Shall not
my soul be avenged of such a city as this?

¹ Merchants who have lived in Portugal inform us, that the

king had a large building filled with diamonds: and more
gold stored up, coined and uncoined, than all the other
princes of Europe together.

² The title which the Inquisition of Portugal (if not in other

countries also) takes to itself.

It has been the opinion of many, that even this nation has not
been without some marks of God’s displeasure. Has not war been let
loose even within our own land, so that London itself felt the alarm?
Has not a pestilential sickness broken in upon our cattle, and in
many parts, left not one of them alive? And although the earth does
not yet open in England or Ireland, has it not shook, and reeled to
and fro like a drunken man? And that not in one or two places only,
but almost from one end of the kingdom to the other?
 Perhaps one might ask, Was there nothing uncommon, nothing
more than is usual at this season of the year, in the rains, the hail,
the winds, the thunder and lightning, which we have lately heard and
seen? Particularly, in the storm which was the same day and hour,
that they were playing off Macbeth’s thunder and lightning at the
theatre. One would almost think they designed this (inasmuch as the
entertainment continued, notwithstanding all the artillery of heaven)
as a formal answer to that question, “Canst thou thunder with an arm
like him?”

What shall we say to the affair of ♦Whitson Cliffs? Of which were

it not for the unparalleled stupidity of the English, all England would
have rang long ago, from one sea to another. And yet seven miles
from the place, they knew little more of it in May last, than if it had
happened in China or Japan.

♦ “Whiston” replaced with “Whitson” per Errata

The fact (of the truth of which any who will be at the pains of
enquiring, may soon be satisfied) is this. On Tuesday, March 25th
last, being the week before Easter, many persons heard a great
noise near a ridge of mountains called Black Hamilton in Yorkshire. It
was observed chiefly on the south west side of the mountain, about
a mile from the course where the Hamilton races are run, near a
ledge of rocks, commonly called ♦ Whitson Cliffs, two miles from
Sutton, and about five from Thirsk.
 The same noise was heard on Wednesday by all who went that
way. On Thursday, about seven in the morning, Edward Abbot,
weaver, and Adam Bosomworth, bleacher, both of Sutton, riding
under ♦Whitson Cliffs, heard a roaring (so they termed it) like many
cannons, or loud and rolling thunder. It seemed to come from the
cliffs: looking up to which, they saw a large body of stone, four or five
yards broad, split and fly off from the very top of the rock. They
thought it strange, but rode on. Between ten and eleven, a larger
piece of the rock, about fifteen yards thick, thirty high, and between
sixty and seventy broad, was torn off and thrown into the valley.

About seven in the evening, one who was riding by, observed the
ground to shake exceedingly, and soon after several large stones or
rocks of some tons weight each, rose out of the ground. Others were
thrown on one side, others turned upside down, and many rolled
over and over. Being a little surprized, and not very curious, he
hasted on his way.

On Friday and Saturday the ground continued to shake, and the

rocks to roll over one another. The earth also clave asunder in very
many places, and continued so to do till Sunday morning.

Being at Osmotherly, seven miles from the cliffs, on Monday,

June 1, and finding Edward Abbot there, I desired him the next
morning to shew me the way thither. I walked, crept and climbed
round and over great part of the ruins. I could not perceive by any
sign, that there was ever any cavity in the rock at all; but one part of
the solid stone is cleft from the rest, in a perpendicular line, and as
smooth as if cut with instruments. Nor is it barely thrown down, but
split into many hundred pieces, some of which lie four or five
hundred yards from the main rock.
 The ground nearest the cliff, is not raised, but sunk considerably
beneath the level. But at some distance it is raised in a ridge of eight
or ten yards high, twelve or fifteen broad, and near an hundred long.
Adjoining to this lies an oval piece of ground thirty or forty yards in
diameter, which has been removed whole as it is, from beneath the
cliff, without the least fissure, with all its load of rocks, some of which
were as large as the hull of a small ship. At a little distance is a
second piece of ground, forty or fifty yards across, which has been
also transplanted intire, with rocks of various sizes upon it, and a
tree growing out of one of them. By the removal of one or both of
these, I suppose the hollow near the cliff was made.

All round them lay stones and rocks, great and small, some on
the surface of the earth, some half sunk into it, some almost
covered, in variety of positions. Between these the ground was cleft
asunder, in a thousand places. Some of the apertures were nearly
closed again, some gaping as at first. Between thirty and forty acres
of land, as is commonly supposed, (tho’ some reckon above sixty)
are in this condition.

On the skirts of these, I observed in abundance of places, the

green turf (for it was pasture land) as it were pared off, two or three
inches thick, and wrapt round like sheets of lead. A little farther it
was not cleft or broken at all, but raised in ridges, five or six foot
long, exactly resembling the graves in a church-yard. Of these there
is a vast number.

That part of the cliff from which the rest is torn, lies so high and is
now of so bright a colour, that it is plainly visible to all the country
round, even at the distance of several miles. We saw it distinctly not
only from the street in Thirsk, but for five or six miles after, as we
rode toward York. So we did likewise, in the great North road,
between Sandhutton and Northallerton.
 But how may we account for this phenomenon? Was it effected
by a merely natural cause? If so, that cause must either have been
fire, water, or air. It could not be fire; for then some mark of it must
have appeared, either at the time, or after it. But no such mark does
appear, nor ever did: not so much as the least smoke, either when
the first or second rock was removed, or in the whole space between
Tuesday and Sunday.

It could not be water; for no water issued out, when the one or
the other rock was torn off. Nor had there been any rains for some
time before. It was in that part of the country a remarkable dry
season. Neither was there any cavity in that part of the rock, wherein
a sufficient quantity of water might have lodged. On the contrary, it
was one, single, solid mass, which was evenly and smoothly cleft in
sunder.

There remains no other natural cause assignable, but imprisoned

air. I say, imprisoned: for as to the fashionable opinion, that the
exterior air is the grand agent in earthquakes, it is so senseless,
unmechanical, unphilosophical a dream, as deserves not to be
named, but to be exploded. But it is hard to conceive, how even
imprisoned air could produce such an effect. It might indeed shake,
tear, raise or sink the earth, but how could it cleave a solid rock?
Here was not room for a quantity of it, sufficient to do any thing of
this nature; at least, unless it had been suddenly and violently
expanded by fire, which was not the case. Could a small quantity of
air, without that violent expansion, have torn so large a body of rock
from the rest, to which it adhered in one solid mass? Could it have
shivered this into pieces, and scattered several of those pieces,
some hundred yards round? Could it have transported those
promontories of earth, with their incumbent load, and set them down
unbroken, unchanged at a distance? Truly I am not so great a
volunteer in faith, as to be able to believe this. He that supposes this,
must suppose air to be not only very strong, (which we allow) but a
very wise agent; while it bore its charge with so great caution, as not
to hurt or dislocate any part of it.
 What then could be the cause? What indeed, but God, who arose
to shake terribly the earth: who purposely chose such a place, where
there is so great a concourse of nobility and gentry every year; and
wrought in such a manner, that many might see it and fear, that all
who travel one of the most frequented roads in England, might see it,
almost whether they would or no, for many miles together. It must
likewise for many years, maugre all the art of man, be a visible
monument of his power. All that ground being now so incumbered
with rocks and stones, that it cannot be either ploughed or grazed.
Nor can it well serve any use, but to tell all that see it, Who can stand
before this great God?

Who can account for the late motion in the waters? Not only that
of the sea, and rivers communicating therewith, but even that in
canals, fishponds, cisterns, and all either large or small bodies of
water? It was particularly observed, that while the water itself was so
violently agitated, neither did the earth shake at all, nor any of the
vessels which contained that water. Was such a thing ever known or
heard of before! I know not, but it was spoken of once, near eighteen
hundred years ago, in those remarkable words, “There shall be
σεισμοί (not only earthquakes, but various concussions or shakings)
in divers places.” And so there have been in Spain, in Portugal, in
Italy, in Holland, in England, in Ireland; and not improbably in many
other places too, which we are not yet informed of. Yet it does not
seem, that a concussion of this kind, has ever been known before,
since either the same, or some other comet revolved so near the
earth. For we know of no other natural cause in the universe, which
is adequate to such an effect. And that this is the real cause, we may
very possibly be convinced in a short time.
 But alas! why should we not be convinced sooner, while that
conviction may avail, that it is not chance which governs the world?
Why should we not now, before London is as Lisbon, Lima, or
Catanea, acknowledge the hand of the Almighty, arising to maintain
his own cause? Why, we have a general answer always ready, to
screen us from any such conviction: “All these things are purely
natural and accidental; the result of natural causes.” But there are
two objections to this answer: first, it is untrue; secondly, it is
uncomfortable.

First, If by affirming, “All this is purely natural,” you mean, it is not

providential, or that God has nothing to do with it, this is not true, that
is, supposing the bible to be true. For supposing this, you may
discant ever so long on the natural causes of murrain, winds,
thunder, lightning, and yet you are altogether wide of the mark, you
prove nothing at all, unless you can prove, that God never works in
or by natural causes. But this you cannot prove, nay none can doubt
of his so working, who allows the scripture to be of God. For this
asserts in the clearest and strongest terms, that all things (in nature)
serve him: that (by or without a train of natural causes) he sendeth
his rain on the earth, that he bringeth the winds out of his treasures,
and maketh a way for the lightning and the thunder: in general, that
fire and hail, snow and vapour, wind and storm fulfil his word.
Therefore allowing there are natural causes of all these, they are still
under the direction of the Lord of nature. Nay, what is nature itself
but the art of God? Or God’s method of acting in the material world?
True philosophy therefore ascribes all to God, and says in the
beautiful language of the wise and good man,

Here, like a trumpet, loud and strong,

Thy thunder shakes our coast;

While the red lightnings wave along,

The banners of thy host.

 A second objection to your answer is, it is extremely
uncomfortable. For if things really be as you affirm, if all these
afflictive incidents, entirely depend on the fortuitous concourse and
agency of blind, material causes; what hope, what help, what
resource is left, for the poor sufferers by them? Should the murrain
among the cattle continue a few years longer, and consequently
produce scarcity or famine; what will there be left for many of the
poor to do, but to lie down and die? If tainted air spread a pestilence
over our land, where shall they fly for succour? They cannot resist
either the one or other. They cannot escape from them. And can they
hope to appease

Illacrymabilem Plutona?
“Inexorable Pluto, king of shades?”

Shall they intreat the famine or the pestilence to shew mercy? Alas,
they are as senseless as you suppose God to be.

However, you who are men of fortune can shift tolerably well, in
spite of these difficulties. Your money will undoubtedly procure you
food as long as there is any in the kingdom. And if your physicians
cannot secure you from the epidemic disease, your coaches can
carry you from the place of infection. Be it so: but you are not out of
all danger yet; unless you can drive faster than the wind. Are you
sure of this? And are your horses literally swifter than the lightning?
Can they leave the panting storm behind? If not, what will you do
when it overtakes you? Try your eloquence on the whirlwind? Will it
hear your voice? Will it regard either your money, or prayers, or
tears? Call upon the lightning. Cry aloud. See whether your voice will
divide the flames of fire? O no! It hath no ears to hear. It devoureth
and sheweth no pity.
 But this is not all. Here is a nearer enemy. The earth threatens to
swallow you up. Where is your protection now? What defence do
you find from thousands of gold and silver? You cannot fly; for you
cannot quit the earth, unless you will leave your dear body behind
you. And while you are on the earth, you know not where to flee to,
neither where to flee from. You may buy intelligence, where the
shock was yesterday, but not where it will be to-morrow—to-day. It
comes! The roof trembles! The beams crack. The ground rocks to
and fro. Hoarse thunder resounds from the bowels of the earth. And
all these are but the beginning of sorrows. Now what help? What
wisdom can prevent? What strength resist the blow? What money
can purchase, I will not say, deliverance, but an hour’s reprieve?
Poor honourable fool, where are now thy titles? Wealthy fool, where
is now thy golden god? If any thing can help, it must be prayer. But
what wilt thou pray to? Not to the God of heaven: you suppose him
to have nothing to do with earthquakes. No: they proceed in a meerly
natural way, either from the earth itself, or from included air, or from
subterraneous fires on waters. If thou prayest then (which perhaps
you never did before) it must be to some of these. Begin. “O earth,
earth, earth, hear the voice of thy children. Hear, O air, water, fire!”
And will they hear? You know, it cannot be. How deplorable then is
his condition, who in such an hour has none else to flee to? How
uncomfortable the supposition, which implies this, by direct
necessary consequence, namely, that all these things are the pure
result of meerly natural causes!
 But supposing the earthquake which made such havock at
Lisbon, should never travel so far as London, is there nothing else
which can reach us? What think you of a comet? Are we absolutely
out of the reach of this? You cannot say we are; seeing these move
in all directions, and through every region of the universe. And would
the approach of one of these amazing spheres, be of no importance
to us? Especially in its return from the sun? When that immense
body is (according to Sir Isaac Newton’s calculation) heated two
thousand times hotter than a red-hot cannon ball. The late ingenious
and accurate Dr. Halley (never yet suspected of enthusiasm) fixes
the return of the great comet in the year one thousand seven
hundred and fifty eight: and he observes that the last time it
revolved, it moved in the very same line which the earth describes in
her annual course round the sun: but the earth was on the other side
of her orbit. Whereas in this revolution it will move not only in the
same line, but in the same part of that line wherein the earth moves.
And “who can tell (says that great man) what the consequences of
such a contact may be?”

“Who can tell?” Any man of common understanding, who knows

the very first elements of astronomy. The immediate consequence of
such a body of solid fire touching the earth must necessarily be, that
it will set the earth on fire, and burn it to a coal, if it do not likewise
strike it out of its course; in which case (so far as we can judge) it
must drop down directly into the sun.

But what if this vast body is already on its way? If it is nearer than
we are aware of? What if these unusual, unprecedented motions of
the waters, be one effect of its near approach? We cannot be
certain, that it will be visible to the inhabitants of our globe, till it has
imbibed the solar fire. But possibly we may see it sooner than we
desire. We may see it, not as Milton speaks,

From its horrid hair

Shake pestilence and war:

But ushering in far other calamities than these, and of more
extensive influence. Probably it will be seen first, drawing nearer and
nearer, till it appears as another moon in magnitude, though not in
colour, being of a deep firey red: then scorching and burning up all
the produce of the earth, drying away all clouds, and so cutting off
the hope or possibility of any rain or dew; drying up every fountain,
stream and river, causing all faces to gather blackness, and all men’s
hearts to fail. Then executing its grand commission on the globe
itself, and causing the stars to fall from heaven. ¹ O who may abide
when this ♦is done? Who will then be able to stand?

¹ What security is there against all this, upon the Infidel

hypothesis? But upon the Christian, there is abundant
security: for the scripture prophecies are not yet fulfilled.

♦ “it” replaced with “is”

Quum mare, quum tellus, ♦excelsaque regia cœli

Ardeat, & mundi moles operosa laboret?

♦ “operosa” replaced with “excelsaque” per Errata