Chapter III: Part 3

6. _Now_, an Adverb; _when_, an Adverb; _all_, (b.) _the people_, a Subst. _were baptized_, a Verb Passive, made of the Auxiliary Verb _to be_ joined with the Participle Passive of the Verb _to baptize_, Indicative Mode, third Person plural, agreeing with the Nominative Case Sing. _people_, being a Noun of multitude; _it_, Pronoun, third Person Sing. Neuter Gender, Nominative Case; _came_, (b.) _to pass_, Verb Neuter, Infinitive Mode; _that_, a Conjunction; _Jesus_, a Proper Name; _also_, an Adverb; _being_, Present Participle of the Verb _to be_; _baptized_, Participle Passive of the Verb _to baptize_; _and_, (b.) _praying_, Present Participle of the Verb Neuter _to pray_; _Jesus being baptized and praying_ is the Case Absolute, as before; _the heaven_, Subst. _was opened_, Verb Passive, Indicative Mode, Past Time, third Person Sing. agreeing with the Nominative Case _heaven_, the Auxiliary Verb _to be_ being joined to the Participle Passive, as before; _and the Holy Ghost_, (b.) _descended_, Verb Neuter, Indicative Mode, Past Time, third Person Sing. agreeing with the Nominative Case _Ghost_; _in a_ (b.) _bodily_, an Adjective; _shape_, a Subst. _like_, an Adjective; _a dove_, a Subst. Objective Case, the Prep. _to_ being understood, that is, _like to a dove_; _upon_, Prep. _him_, Pronoun, third Person Sing. Objective Case governed by the Prep. _upon_; _and_, (b.) _lo!_ an Interjection; _a voice_, a Subst. Nominative Case, _there was_ being understood, that is, _there was a voice_; _from_, Prep. _heaven_, Subst. Objective Case, (b.) _saying_, (b.) _this_, a Pronominal Adjective, _person_ being understood; _is_, Indicative Mode, Present Time, of the Verb _to be_, third Person Sing. agreeing with the Nominative Case _this_; _my_, a Pronominal Adjective; _beloved_, an Adjective; _Son_, a Subst. Nominative Case after the Verb _is_; _in_, (b.) _whom_, Pronoun Relative, Objective Case governed by the Prep. _in_, the Substantive _Son_ being its Antecedent; _I am_, (b.) _well_, an Adverb; _pleased_, the Passive Participle of the Verb _to please_, making with the Auxiliary Verb _am_ a Passive Verb, in the Indicative Mode, Present Time, first Person Sing. agreeing with the Nominative Case _I_.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES

[1] “And I persecuted this way unto _the_ death.” _Acts_ xxii. 4. The Apostle does not mean any particular sort of death, but death in general: the Definite Article therefore is improperly used. It ought to be _unto death_, without any Article: agreeably to the Original, αχρι θανατου.

“When He the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into _all Truth_.” _John_ xvi. 13. That is, according to this Translation, into all Truth whatsoever, into Truth of all kinds: very different from the meaning of the Evangelist, and from the Original, εις πασαν την αληθειαν, into _all the Truth_; that is, into all Evangelical Truth.

“Truly this was _the_ Son of God.” _Matt._ xxvii. 54. and _Mark_ xv. 39. This Translation supposes, that the Roman Centurion had a proper and adequate notion of the character of Jesus, as the Son of God in a peculiar and incommunicable sense: whereas, it is probable, both from the circumstances of the History, and from the expression of the Original, (ὑιος Θεου, a Son of God, not ὁ υιος, _the_ Son) that he only meant to acknowledge him to be an extraordinary person, and more than a mere man; according to his own notion of Sons of Gods in the Pagan Theology. This is also more agreeable to St. Luke’s account of the same confession of the Centurion: “Certainly this was δικαιος, a righteous man;” not ὁ Δικαιος, the Just One. The same may be observed of Nebuchadnezzar’s words, _Dan._ iii. 25.—“And the form of the fourth is like _the_ Son of God:” it ought to be by the Indefinite Article, like _a_ Son of God: ὁμοια ὑιῳ Θεου, as Theodotion very properly renders it: that is, like an Angel; according to Nebuchadnezzar’s own account of it in the 28th verse: “Blessed be God, who hath sent his _Angel_, and delivered his servants.” See also _Luke_ xix. 9.

These Remarks may serve to shew the great importance of the proper use of the Article; the near affinity there is between the Greek Article, and the English Definite Article; and the excellence of the English Language in this respect, which by means of its two Articles does most precisely determine the extent of signification of Common Names: whereas the Greek has only one Article, and it has puzzled all the Grammarians to reduce the use of that to any clear and certain rules.

[2] “A good character should not be rested in as an end, but employed as _a means_ of doing still farther good.” ATTERBURY’S Sermons. Ought it not to be _a mean?_

[3] “About _an_ eight days:” that is, a space of eight days. _Luke_ ix. 28. But the expression is obsolete, or at least vulgar; and we may add likewise improper: for the number _eight_ has not been reduced by use and convenience into one collective and compact idea, like _a hundred_, and _a thousand_; each of which, like _a dozen_, or _a score_, we are accustomed equally to consider on certain occasions as a simple Unity.

[4] And antiently, _eyen_, _shoen_, _housen_, _hosen_; so likewise antiently _sowen_, _cowen_, now always pronounced and written _swine_, _kine_.

[5] In the German the vowels _a_, _o_, _u_, of monosyllable Nouns are generally in the Plural changed into diphthongs with an _e_: as der _hand_, the hand, die _hände_; der _hut_, the hat, die _hüte_; der _knopff_, the button, (or knop) die _knöpffe_; &c.

[6] These are directly from the Saxon: _mus_, _mys_; _lus_, _lys_; _toth_, _teth_; _fot_, _fet_; _gos_, _ges_.

[7] “Lingua Anglorum hodierna avitæ Saxonicæ formam in plerisque orationis partibus etiamnum retinet. Nam quoad particulas casuales, quorundam casuum terminationes, conjugationes verborum, verbum substantivum, formam passivæ vocis, pronomina, participia, conjunctiones, & præpositiones omnes; denique quoad idiomata, phrasiumque maximam partem, etiam nunc Saxonicus est Anglorum sermo.” Hickes. Thesaur. Lingg. Septent. Præf. p. vi. To which may be added the Degrees of comparison, the form of which is the very same in the English as in the Saxon.

[8] “_Christ his_ sake,” in our Liturgy, is a mistake, either of the Printers, or of the Compilers.⸺“My paper is the _Ulysses his_ bow, in which every man of wit or learning may try his strength.” Addison, Guardian Nᵒ 98. This is no slip of Mr. Addison’s pen: he gives us his opinion upon this point very explicitly in another place. “The same single letter [_s_] on many occasions does the office of a whole word, and represents the _his_ and _her_ of our forefathers.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 135. The latter instance might have shewn him, how groundless this notion is: for it is not easy to conceive, how the letter _s_ added to a Feminine Noun should represent the word _her_; any more than it should the word _their_, added to a Plural Noun: as, “the _children’s_ bread.” But the direct derivation of this Case from the Saxon Genitive Case is sufficient of itself to decide this matter.

[9]

“At his command th’ uprooted hills retir’d
Each to _his_ place: they heard his voice and went
Obsequious: Heaven _his_ wonted face renew’d,
And with fresh flowrets hill and valley smil’d.”

Milton, P. L. B. vi.

“Was I deceiv’d, or did a sable Cloud
Turn forth _her_ silver lining on the Night?”

Milton, Comus.

“Go to your Natural Religion: lay before _her_ Mahomet and his disciples arrayed in armour and in blood:⸺shew _her_ the cities which he set in flames; the countries which he ravaged:⸺when _she_ has viewed him in this scene, carry _her_ into his retirements; shew _her_ the Prophet’s chamber, his concubines and his wives:⸺when _she_ is tired with this prospect, then shew _her_ the Blessed Jesus.—” See the whole passage in the conclusion of Bp Sherlock’s 9th Sermon, Vol. I.

In these beautiful passages, as in the English if you put _it_ and _its_ instead of _his_, _she_, _her_, you destroy the images, and reduce, what was before highly Poetical and Rhetorical, to mere prose and common discourse; so if you render them into another language, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, or German, in which Hill, Heaven, Cloud, Religion, are constantly Masculine, or Feminine, or Neuter, respectively, you make the images obscure and doubtful, and in proportion diminish their beauty.

This excellent remark is Mr. Harris’s, Hermes, p. 58.

[10] Some Writers have used _Ye_ as the Objective Case Plural of the Pronoun of the Second Person; very improperly and ungrammatically.

“But Tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree
Transfer the pow’r, and set the people free.”

Prior.

“His wrath, which one day will destroy _ye_ both.”

Milton, P. L. ii. 734.

Dr. Bently has corrected this mistake, which is probably an error of the Press, or of the Editor of whom he talks so much. But he has done it, without taking the least notice of the matter, or assuming any merit to himself from an emendation, which is one of the very few that are really such in his whole performance.

[11] The Neuter Pronoun of the Third Person had formerly no variation of Cases. Instead of the Possessive _its_ they used _his_, which is now appropriated to the Masculine. “Learning hath _his_ infancy, when _it_ is but beginning, and almost childish; then _his_ youth, when _it_ is luxuriant and juvenile; then _his_ strength of years, when _it_ is solid and reduced; and lastly _his_ old age, when _it_ waxeth dry and exhaust.” Bacon, Essay 58. In this example _his_ is evidently used as the Possessive Case of _it_: but what shall we say to the following, where _her_ is applied in the same manner, and seems to make a strange confusion of Gender? “He that pricketh the heart maketh _it_ to shew _her_ knowledge.” _Ecclus._ xxii. 19.

“Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale, and bloodless,
Being all descended to the lab’ring heart,
_Who_, in the conflict that _it_ holds with death,
Attracts the same for aidance ’gainst the enemy.”

Shakespear.

If the Poet had said _he_ instead of _it_, he would have avoided a confusion of Genders, and happily compleated the spirited and elegant Prosopopœia, begun by the Personal Relative _who_. The Neuter Relative _which_ would have made the sentence more strictly grammatical, but at the same time more prosaic.

[12] So the Saxon _Ic_ hath the Possessive Case _Min_; _Thu_, Possessive _Thin_; _He_, Possessive _His_: from which our Possessive Cases of the same Pronouns are taken without alteration. To the Saxon Possessive Cases _hire_, _ure_, _eower_, _hira_, (that is, _her’s_, _our’s_, _your’s_, _their’s_) we have added the _s_, the Characteristic of the Possessive Case of Nouns. Or _our’s_, _your’s_, are directly from the Saxon _ures_, _eoweres_; the Possessive Case of the Pronominal Adjectives _ure_, _eower_; that is, _our_, _your_.

[13] _Whose_ is by some authors made the Possessive Case of _which_, and applied to things as well as persons; I think, improperly.

“The _question_, _whose_ solution I require,
Is, what the sex of women most desire.”

Dryden.

“Is there any other _doctrine_, _whose_ followers are punished?” Addison.

[14] So the Saxon _hwa_ hath the Possessive Case _hwæs_. Note, that the Saxons rightly placed the Aspirate before the _w_: as we now pronounce it. This will be evident to any one that shall consider in what manner he pronounces the words _what_, _when_; that is, _hoo-àt_, _hoo-èn_.

[15] Adjectives are very improperly called _Nouns_; for they are not the _Names_ of things. The Adjectives _good_, _white_, are applied to the Nouns _man_, _snow_, to express the Qualities belonging to those Subjects; but the Names of those Qualities in the Abstract, (that is, considered in themselves, and without being attributed to any Subject) are _goodness_, _whiteness_; and these are Nouns, or Substantives.

[16] The Double Superlative _most highest_ is a Phrase peculiar to the Old Vulgar Translation of the Psalms, where it acquires a singular propriety from the Subject to which it is applied, the Supreme Being, who is _higher than the highest_.

[17] “_Lesser_, says Mr. Johnson, is a barbarous corruption of _Less_, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparisons in _er_.”

“Attend to what a _lesser_ Muse indites.”

Addis.

_Worser_ sounds much more barbarous, only because it has not been so frequently used:

“A dreadful quiet felt, and _worser_ far
Than arms, a sullen interval of war.”

Dryden.

[18] A greater variety of endings to distinguish the Persons in the Verb is not necessary; as the Verb is always attended with the Personal Pronoun, wherever an ambiguity would otherwise arise. For the same reason the Plural termination in _en_, _they loven_, _they weren_, which was formerly in use, hath been long obsolete.

[19] _Thou_, in the Polite, and even in the Familiar Style, is disused, and the Plural _You_ is employed instead of it: we say _You have_, not _Thou hast_. Tho’ in this case we apply _You_ to a single Person, yet the Verb too must agree with it in the Plural Number: it must necessarily be _You have_, not _You hast_. _You was_, the Second Person Plural of the Pronoun placed in agreement with the First or Third Person Singular of the Verb, is an enormous Solecism: and yet Authors of the first rank have inadvertently fallen into it. “Knowing that _you was_ my old master’s good friend.” Addison, Spect. No 517. “Would to God _you was_ within her reach.” Lord Bolingbroke to Swift, Letter 46. “If _you was_ here.” Ditto, Letter 47. “I am just now as well, as when _you was_ here.” Pope to Swift, P. S. to Letter 56. On the contrary the Solemn Style admits not of _You_ for a Single Person. This hath led Mr. Pope into a great impropriety in the beginning of his Messiah:

“O _Thou_ my voice inspire
Who _touch’d_ Isaiah’s hallow’d lips with fire!”

The Solemnity of the Style would not admit of _You_ for _Thou_ in the Pronoun; nor the measure of the Verse _touchedst_, or _didst touch_, in the Verb; as it indispensably ought to be, in the one, or the other of these two forms: _You_ who _touched_; or _Thou_ who _touchedst_, or _didst touch_. Again:

“Just of _thy_ word, in every thought sincere,
Who _knew_ no wish but what the world might hear.”

Pope, Epitaph.

It ought to be _your_ in the first line, or _knewest_ in the second.

[20] This Participle represents the action as complete and finished; and, being subjoined to the Auxiliary _to have_, constitutes the Perfect Time: I call it therefore the Perfect Participle. The same subjoined to the Auxiliary _to be_, constitutes the Passive Verb; and in that state, or when used without the Auxiliary in a passive sense, is called the Passive Participle.

[21]

“Before the sun,
Before the heav’ns thou _wert_.”

Milton.

“Remember what thou _wert_.”

Dryden.

“I knew thou _wert_ not slow to hear.”

Addison.

“Thou who of old _wert_ sent to Israel’s court.”

Prior.

“All this thou _wert_.”⸺

Pope.

Shall we in deference to these great authorities allow _wert_ to be the same with _wast_, and common to the Indicative and Subjunctive Mode? or rather abide by the practice of our best antient writers; the propriety of the language, which requires, as far as may be, distinct forms for different Modes; and the analogy of formation in each Mode; I _was_, Thou _wast_; I _were_, Thou _wert_? all which conspire to make _wert_ peculiar to the Subjunctive Mode.

[22] Note, that the Imperfect and Perfect Times are here put together. And it is to be observed, that in the Subjunctive Mode, the event being spoken of under a condition, or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore as doubtful and contingent, the Verb itself in the Present, and the Auxiliary both of the Present and Past Imperfect Times, often carry with them somewhat of a Future sense: as, “If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him:” ⸺ “If he should, or would, come to-morrow, I might, would, could, or should, speak to him.” Observe also, that the Auxiliary _should_ in the Imperfect Times is used to express the Present, as well as the Past; as, “It _is_ my desire, that he _should_ [now] come;” as well as, “It _was_ my desire that he _should_ [then] come.” So that in this Mode the precise Time of the Verb is very much determined by the nature and drift of the Sentence.

[23]

⸺“Perdition catch my soul
But I _do_ love thee!—”

⸺“This to me
In dreadful secrecy impart they _did_.”

Shakespear.

“Die he certainly _did_.”

Sherlock, Vol. 1. Disc. 7.

“Yes, I _did_ love her:” that is, at that time, or once; intimating a negation, or doubt, of present love.

“The Lord called Samuel: and he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou _calledst_ me.⸺And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou _didst_ call me.” 1 Sam. iii. 4-6.

[24] This distinction was not observed formerly as to the word _shall_, which was used in the Second and Third Persons to express simply the Event. So likewise _should_ was used, where we now make use of _would_. See the Vulgar Translation of the Bible.

[25] Bishop Wilkins gives the following elegant investigation of the Modes in his _Real Character_, Part iii. Chap. 5.

“To shew in what manner the Subject is to be joined with his Predicate, the Copula between them is affected with a Particle, which from the use of it is called _Modus_, the manner or _Mode_.

Now the Subject and Predicate may be joined together either _Simply_, or with some kind of _Limitation_; and accordingly these Modes are Primary or Secondary.

The Primary Modes are called by Grammarians Indicative and Imperative.

When the matter is declared to be so, or at least when it seems in the Speaker’s power to have it be so, as the bare union of Subject and Predicate would import, then the Copula is nakedly expressed without any variation: and this manner of expressing it is called the Indicative Mode.

When it is neither declared to be so, nor seems immediately in the Speaker’s power to have it so; then he can do no more in words but make out the expression of his will to him that hath the thing in his power; namely to

{ Superior } { Petition, }
his { Equal } by { Persuasion, }
{ Inferior } { Command. }

And the manner of these affecting the Copula, (Be it so, or, let it be so,) is called the Imperative Mode; of which there are these three varieties very fit to be distinctly provided for. As for that other use of the Imperative Mode, when it signifies _Permission_; this may be sufficiently expressed by the _Secondary Mode_ of _Liberty_; You _may_ do it.

The Secondary Modes are such, as, when the Copula is affected with any of them, make the Sentence to be (as the Logicians call it) a _Modal Proposition_.

This happens, when the matter in discourse, namely, the being, or doing, or suffering of a thing, is considered, not _simply by itself_, but _gradually in its causes_, from which it proceeds _contingently_, or _necessarily_.

Then a thing seems to be left _Contingent_, when the Speaker expresses only the _Possibility_ of it, or his own _Liberty_ to it.

1. The _Possibility_ of a thing depends upon the power of its cause; and may be expressed

when { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Can_,
{ _Conditional_ } { _Could_.

2. The _Liberty_ of a thing depends upon a freedom from all obstacles either within or without, and is usually expressed in our language

when { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _May_,
{ _Conditional_ } { _Might_.

Then a thing seems to be of _Necessity_, when the Speaker expresseth the resolution of his own _will_, or some other _obligation_ upon him from without.

3. The _Inclination of the Will_ is expressed,

if { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Will_,
{ _Conditional_ } { _Would_.

4. The Necessity of a thing from some _external Obligation_, whether _Natural_, or _Moral_, which we call Duty, is expressed,

if { _Absolute_ } by the Particle { _Must_, _ought_, _shall_;
{ _Conditional_ } { _Must_, _ought_, _should_.”

See also HERMES, Book I. Chap. viii.

[26] I doubt much of the propriety of the following examples: “The rules of our holy Religion, from which we _are_ infinitely _swerved_.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27. “The whole obligation of that law and covenant, which God made with the Jews, _was_ also _ceased_.” Ib. Vol. II. Serm. 52. “Whose number _was_ now _amounted_ to three hundred.” Swift, Contests and Dissensions, Chap. 3. Neuter Verbs are sometimes employed very improperly as Actives: “I think, it by no means a fit and decent thing to _vie Charities_, and to erect the reputation of one upon the ruins of another.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 2.

[27] These two have also _beaten_ and _bursten_ in the Participle; and in that form they belong to the Third Class of Irregulars.

[28] The Verbs marked thus throughout the three Classes of Irregulars, have the Regular as well as the Irregular form in use.

[29] This Verb in the Past Time and Participle is pronounced short; _read_, _red_, _red_; like _lead_, _led_, _led_; and perhaps ought to be written in this manner: our antient writers spelt it _redde_.

[30] They follow the Saxon rule: “Verbs which in the Infinitive end in _dan_ and _tan_,” (that is, in English, _d_ and _t_; for an is only the Characteristic termination of the Saxon Infinitive;) “in the Preterit and Participle Preterit commonly for the sake of better sound throw away the final ed; as _beot_, _afed_, (both in the Preterit and Participle Preterit) for _beoted_, _afeded_; from _beotan_, _afedan_.” Hickes, Grammat. Saxon, cap. 9. So the same Verbs in English, _beat_, _fed_, instead of _beated_, _feeded_.

[31] When _en_ follows a Vowel or Liquid the _e_ is dropt: so _drawn_, _slayn_, (or _slain_,) are instead of _drawen_, _slayen_; so likewise _known_, _born_, are for _knowen_, _boren_, in the Saxon _cnawen_, _boren_: and so of the rest.

[32] This Verb is also formed like those of _i_ long into _i_ short; Write, writ, written; and by Contraction _writ_ in the Participle, but, I think, improperly.

[33] Frequent mistakes are made in the formation of the Participle of this Verb. The analogy plainly requires _sitten_; which was formerly in use: “The army having _sitten_ there so long:”⸺“Which was enough to make him stir, that would not have _sitten_ still, though Hanibal had been quiet.” Raleigh. “That no Parliament should be dissolved, till it had _sitten_ five months.” Hobbes, Hist. of Civil Wars, p. 257. But it is now almost wholly disused, the form of the Past Time _sat_, having taken its place. Dr. Middleton hath with great propriety restored the true Participle:⸺“To have _sitten_ on the heads of the Apostles:”⸺“to have _sitten_ upon each of them.” Works, Vol. II. p. 30. “Blessed is the man,⸺that hath not _sat_ in the seat of the scornful.” Ps. i. 1. The old Editions have _sit_; which may be perhaps allowed as a Contraction of _sitten_. “And when he was _set_, his disciples came unto him:” καθισαντος αυτου. Matt. v. 1.⸺“who is _set_ on the right hand;”⸺“and is _set_ down at the right hand of the throne of God:” in both places εκαθισεν. Heb. viii. 1. & xii. 2. _Set_ can be no part of the Verb _to sit_. If it belongs to the Verb _to set_, the Translation in these passages is wrong: for _to set_ signifies _to place_, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance expressed by the original.

[34] This Neuter Verb is frequently confounded with the Verb Active _to lay_, [that is, _to put_, or _place_;] which is Regular, and has in the Past Time and Participle _layed_, or _laid_.

[35] “Thus having _chosed_ each other.⸺” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. III. p. 797. 8ᵛᵒ. Improperly.

[36] That is, as a bird, _volare_; whereas _to flee_ signifies _fugere_, as from an enemy. This seems to be the proper distinction between _to fly_, and _to flee_; which in the Present Time are very often confounded. Our Translation of the Bible is not quite free from this mistake. It hath _flee_ for _volare_ in perhaps seven or eight places out of a great number; but never _fly_ for _fugere_.

[37] Essay xxix.

[38] The whole number of Verbs in the English language, Regular and Irregular, Simple and Compounded, taken together, is about 4300. See Dr. Ward’s Essays on the English Language; the Catalogue of English Verbs.

[39]

⸺“He would _have spoke_.”

Milton, P. L. x. 517.

“Words _interwove_ with sighs found out their way.”

P. L. i. 621.

“And to his faithful servant _hath_ in place
_Bore_ witness gloriously.”—Samson Ag. ℣. 1752.

“And envious darkness, ere they could return,
_Had stole_ them from me.”—Comus, ℣. 195.

Here it is observable, that the Author’s MS. and the First Edition have it _stolne_.

⸺“And in triumph _had rode_.”

P. R. iii. 36.

⸺“I _have chose_
This perfect man.”⸺

P. R. i. 165.

⸺“The fragrant brier _was wove_ between.”

Dryden, Fables.

“Then finish what you _have began_,
But scribble faster, if you can.”

Dryden, Poems, Vol. 2. p. 172.

“_Have sprang._”

Atterbury, Vol. 1. Serm. 4.

“_Had spake_”⸺“_had began_.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. Hist. p. 40, & 120. “The men _begun_ to embellish themselves.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 434.

“Rapt into future times the bard _begun_.”

Pope, Messiah.

And without the necessity of rhyme:

“A second deluge learning thus _o’er-run_,
And the Monks finish’d what the Goths _begun_.”

Essay on Criticism.

“Repeats you verses _wrote_ on glasses.”

Prior.

“Mr. Misson _has wrote_.”—Addison, Preface to his Travels. “He could only command his voice, _broke_ with sighs and sobbings, so far as to bid her proceed.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 164.

“No civil broils _have_ since his death _arose_.”

Dryden, on O. Cromwell.

“Illustrious virtues, who by turns _have rose_.”

Prior.

⸺“_Had_ not _arose_.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. and Battle of Books: and Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 233.⸺“This nimble operator will _have stole_ it.” Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. “Some philosophers _have mistook_.” Ibid. Sect. ix.

⸺“Silence
_Was took_ ere she was ware.”

Milton, Comus.

“Into these common places look,
Which from great authors I _have took_.”

Prior, Alma.

“A free Constitution, when it has _been shook_ by the iniquity of former administrations.” Lord Bolingbroke, Patriot King, p. 111.⸺“Too strong to _be shook_ by his enemies.” Atterbury. “But there _was_ now an accident _fell_ out.”⸺Clarendon, Contin. p. 292.

⸺“Ev’n there he should _have fell_.”

Prior, Solomon.

“Sure some disaster _has befell_:
Speak, Nurse; I hope the Boy is well.”

Gay, Fables.

[40] “Was the _easilier_ persuaded.”—Raleigh. “The things _highliest_ important to the growing age.” Lord Shaftesbury, Letter to Lord Molesworth. Improperly, for _more easily_, _most highly_.

[41] The Conjunction _because_ used to express the motive or end, is either improper or obsolete: as, “The multitude rebuked them, _because_ they should hold their peace.” Matt. xx. 31. “It is the case of some, to contrive false periods of business, _because_ they may seem men of dispatch.” Bacon, Essay xxv. We should now make use of _that_.

[42] “He caused all persons, _whom_ he knew had, or he thought might have, spoken to him, to be apprehended.” Clarendon, Vol. III. p. 618. 8ᵛᵒ. It ought to be _who_, the Nominative Case to _had_; not _whom_, as if it were the Objective Case governed by _knew_.

“Scotland and _Thee_ did each in other live.”

Dryden, Poems, Vol. II. p. 220.

It ought to be _Thou_.

[43]

“But _Thou_ false Arcite never _shall_ obtain
Thy bad pretence.”⸺

Dryden, Fables.

“That _Thou might_ fortune to thy side engage.”

Prior.

It ought to be _shalt_, _mightest_. The mistake seems to be owing to the confounding of _Thou_ and _You_ as equivalent in every respect; whereas one is Singular, the other Plural. See above, p. 48. “Great _pains has_ [have] been taken.” Pope, P. S. to the Odyssey. “I have considered, _what have_ [hath] been said on both sides in this controversy.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 27.

[44]

“Tell who _loves who_; what favours some partake,
And who is jilted for another’s sake.”

Dryden, Juvenal, Sat. vi.

“Those, _who_ he _thought_ true to his party.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 667. 8ᵛᵒ. “_Who_ should I _meet_ the other night, but my old friend?” Spect. Nᵒ 32. “_Who_ should I _see_ in the lid of it, but the Doctor?” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 57. “He knows, _who_ it is proper to _expose_ foremost.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Conclusion. It ought in all these places to be _whom_.

[45] “And restores to his _Island_ that tranquillity and repose, to which they had been _strangers_ during his absence.” Pope, Dissertation prefixed to the Odyssey. _Island_ is not a Noun of Multitude: it ought to be, his _people_; or, _it_ had been _a stranger_. “What reason _have the Church_ of Rome to talk of modesty in this case?” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 49. “All the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few fingers, but _his_ follies and vices are innumerable.” Swift, Preface to Tale of a Tub. Is not _mankind_ in this place a Noun of Multitude, and such as requires the Pronoun refering to it to be in the Plural Number, _their_?

[46] “_Whom_ do men say, that _I am_?⸺But _whom_ say ye, that _I am_?” Matt. xvi. 13, 15. So likewise Mark viii. 27, 29. Luke ix. 18, 20. “Whom think ye, that _I am_?” Acts xiii. 25. It ought in all these places to be _who_; which is not governed by the Verb _say_ or _think_, but by the Verb _am_: or agrees in Case with the Pronoun _I_. If the Verb were in the Infinitive Mode, it would require the Objective Case of the Relative, agreeing with the Pronoun _me_: “_Whom_ think ye, or do ye think, _me to be_?”

⸺“To that, _which_ once _was thee_.”

Prior.

It ought to be, _which was thou_; or, _which thou wast_.

[47] On which place says Dr. Bentley, “The Context demands that it be,⸺_Him_ descending, Illo descendente.” But _him_ is not the Ablative Case, for the English knows no such Case; nor does _him_ without a Preposition on any occasion answer to the Latin Ablative _illo_. I might with better reason contend, that it ought to be “_his_ descending,” because it is in Greek αυτου καταβαινοντος in the Genitive; and it would be as good Grammar, and as proper English. This comes of forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language, with which it has little concern: and this _ugly and deformed fault_, to use his own expression, Bentley has endeavoured to impose upon Milton in several places: see P. L. vii. 15. ix. 829, 883, 1147. x. 267, 1001. On the other hand, where Milton has been really guilty of this fault, he, very inconsistently with himself, corrects him, and sets him right. His Latin Grammar Rules were happily out of his head, and by a kind of _vernacular instinct_ (so, I imagine, he would call it) he perceived that his Author was wrong.

“For only in destroying I find ease
To my relentless thoughts; and, _him destroy’d_,
Or won to what may work his utter loss,
For whom all this was made, all this will soon
Follow, as to him link’d in weal or woe.”

P. L. ix. 129.

It ought to be, “_he_ destroy’d,” that is, “_he being_ destroy’d.” Bentley corrects it, “and _man_ destroy’d.”

Archbishop Tillotson has fallen into the same mistake: “Solomon was of this mind; and I make no doubt, but he made as wise and true Proverbs as any body has done since: _Him_ only _excepted_, who was a much greater and wiser man than Solomon.” Vol. I. Ser. 53.

[48] “To _see_ so many _to make so_ little conscience of so great a sin.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 22. “It cannot but be a delightful spectacle to God and Angels to _see_ a young person, besieged by powerful temptations on either side, _to acquit_ himself gloriously, and resolutely _to hold_ out against the most violent assaults: to _behold_ one in the prime and flower of his age, that is courted by pleasures and honours, by the devil and all the bewitching vanities of the world, _to reject_ all these, and _to cleave_ stedfastly unto God.” Ib. Serm. 54. The impropriety of the Phrases distinguished by Italic Characters is evident.

[49] Το γαρ θελειν παρακειται μοι, το δε κατεργαζεσθαι το καλον ουχ ευρισχω. Rom. vii. 18.

[50] Προς το θεαθηναι τοις ανθρωποις. Matt. xxiii. 5. The following sentences seem defective either in the construction, or the order of the words: “Why do ye that, _which is not lawful to do_ on the sabbath days?⸺The shew bread, _which is not lawful to eat_, but for the priests alone.” Luke vi. 2, 4. The Construction may be rectified by supplying _it_; “which _it_ is not lawful to do; which _it_ is not lawful to eat:” or the order of the words in this manner; “_to do which_, _to eat which_, is not lawful:” where the Infinitive _to do_, _to eat_, does the office of the Nominative Case, and the Relative _which_ is in the Objective Case.

[51] “I am not like other men, _to envy_ the talents I cannot reach.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. An improper use of the Infinitive.

[52] This Rule arises from the nature and idiom of our Language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded: namely, that a word which has the Article before it, and a Noun, with the Possessive Preposition _of_, after it, must be a Noun; and if a Noun, it ought to follow the Construction of a Noun, and not have the Regimen of a Verb. It is the Participial Termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly Nouns, and partly Verbs. I believe there are hardly any of our Writers, who have not fallen into this inaccuracy. That it is such, will perhaps more clearly appear, if we examine and resolve one or two examples in this kind.

“God, who didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by _the sending_ to them _the light_ of thy Holy Spirit:⸺” Collect, Whitsunday. _Sending_ is in this place a Noun; for it is accompanied with the Article: nevertheless it is also a Transitive Verb, for it governs the Noun _light_ in the Objective Case: but this is inconsistent; let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its proper Construction. That these Participial Words are sometimes real Nouns is undeniable; for they have a Plural Number as such: as, “the _outgoings_ of the morning.” _The Sending_ is the same with _the Mission_; which necessarily requires the Preposition _of_ after it, to mark the relation between it and _the light_; _the mission of the light_; and so, _the sending of the light_. The Phrase would be proper either way, by keeping to the Construction of the Noun, _by the sending of the light_; or of the Participle, or Gerund, _by sending the light_.

Again:⸺“Sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, _by preaching of Repentance_:⸺” Collect, St. John Baptist. Here the Participle, or Gerund, hath as improperly the Preposition _of_ after it; and so is deprived of its Verbal Regimen, by which as a Transitive it would govern the Noun _Repentance_ in the Objective Case. Besides, the Phrase is rendered obscure and ambiguous: for the obvious meaning of it in its present form is, “by preaching concerning or on the Subject of Repentance;” whereas the sense intended is, “by publishing the Covenant of Repentance, and declaring Repentance to be a condition of acceptance with God.” The Phrase would have been perfectly right and determinate to this sense either way; by the Noun, _by the preaching of repentance_; or by the Participle, _by preaching repentance_.

[53] These are the three Primary Modes, or manners of expressing our thoughts concerning the being, doing, or suffering of a thing. If it comes within our knowledge, we explain it, or make a declaration of it; if we are ignorant or doubtful of it, we make an inquiry about it; if it is not immediately in our power, we express our desire or will concerning it. In Theory therefore the Interrogative form seems to have as good a Title to a Mode of its own, as either of the other two; but Practice has determined it otherwise; and has in all the Languages, with which we are most acquainted, supplied the place of an Interrogative Mode, either by Particles of Interrogation, or by a peculiar order of the words in the sentence. If it be true, as I have somewhere read, that the Modes of the Verbs are more numerous in the Lapland Tongue than in any other, possibly the Laplanders may be provided with an Interrogative Mode.

[54]

“The burning lever _not deludes_ his pains.”

Dryden, Ovid. Metam. B. xii.

“I hope, my Lord, said he, I _not offend_.”

Dryden, Fables.

These examples make the impropriety of placing the Adverb _not_ before the Verb very evident.

[55] “_Did_ he _not fear_ the Lord, and _besought_ the Lord, and the Lord _repented_ him of the evil, which he had pronounced against them?” Jer. xxvi. 19. Here the Interrogative and Explicative forms are confounded. It ought to be, “Did he not _fear_ the Lord, and _beseech_ the Lord? and _did not_ the Lord _repent_ him of the evil,⸺?” See likewise Matt. xviii. 12.

[56]

“For ever in this humble cell
_Let Thee_ and _I_, my fair one, dwell.”

Prior.

It ought to be _Me_.

[57] It is not easy to give particular rules for the management of the Modes and Times of Verbs with respect to one another, so that they may be proper and consistent: nor would it be of much use; for the best rule that can be given is this very general one, To observe what the sense necessarily requires. But it may be of use to consider one or two examples, that seem faulty in these respects, and to examine where the fault lies.

“Some who the depths of eloquence _have found_,
In that unnavigable Stream _were drown’d_.”

Dryden, Juv. Sat. x.

The event mentioned in the first line is plainly prior in time to that mentioned in the second; this is subsequent to that, and a consequence of it. The first event is mentioned in the Present Perfect Time; it is present and compleated; “they _have_ [now] _found_ the depths of eloquence.” The second event is expressed in the Past Indefinite Time; it is past and gone, but, when it happened, uncertain: “they _were drown’d_.” We observed, that the last mentioned event is subsequent to the first: but how can the Past Time be subsequent to the Present? It therefore ought to be in the second line _are drown’d_, in the Present Perfect, which is consistent with the same Time in the first line: or in the first line _had found_ in the Past Perfect, which would be consistent with the Past Indefinite in the second line.⸺There seems to be a fault of the like nature in the following passage:

“But oh! _’twas_ little that her life
O’er earth and waters _bears_ thy fame:”⸺

Prior.

It ought to be _bore_ in the second line.

Again;

“Him portion’d maids, apprentic’d orphans _blest_,
The young who _labour_, and the old who _rest_.”

Pope, Moral Ep. iii. 267.

The Verb in the first line ought to be in the same Time with those in the last.

“Had their records been delivered down in the vulgar tongue,⸺they could not now be understood, unless by Antiquaries, who _made_ it their study to expound them.” Swift, Letter, on the English Tongue. Here the latter part of the sentence depends intirely on the _Supposition_ expressed in the former, “of their records being delivered down in the vulgar tongue:” therefore _made_ in the Indicative Mode, which implies no supposition, and in the Past Indefinite Time, is improper: it would be much better in the Past Definite, _had made_; but indeed ought to be in the Subjunctive Mode, Present or Past Time, _should make_, or _should have made_.

[58] “By _this means_ thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.” Ezra, iv. 16. “It renders us careless of approving ourselves to God by religious duties, and by _that means_ securing the continuance of his goodness.” Atterbury, Sermons. Ought it not to be, by _these means_, by _those means_? or by _this mean_, by _that mean_, in the singular number? as it is used by Hooker, Sidney, Shakespear, &c. “I have not wept _this_ forty _years_.” Dryden. “I am not recommending _these kind_ of sufferings to your liking.” Bishop Sherlock, Disc. Vol. II. p. 267. So the Pronoun must agree with its Noun: in which respect let the following example be considered. “_It is_ an unanswerable argument of a very refined age, the wonderful _Civilities_ that have passed between the nation of authors and those of readers.” Swift, Tale of a Tub, Sect. x. As to these wonderful _Civilities_, one might say, that “_they are_ an unanswerable argument, &c.” but as the Sentence stands at present it is not easy to reconcile it to any grammatical propriety. “_A person whom_ all the world allows to be so much your _betters_.” Swift, Battle of Books. And the Phrase which occurs in the following examples, tho’ pretty common and authorised by Custom, yet seems to be somewhat defective in the same way:

“_’Tis these_ that early taint the female soul.”

Pope.

“_’Tis they_ that give the great Atrides’ spoils;
_’Tis they_ that still renew Ulysses’ toils.”

Prior.

[59] “Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his goodness to give you safe deliverance, and _hath preserved_ you in the great danger of Childbirth:”⸺Liturgy. The Verb _hath preserved_ hath here no Nominative Case; for it cannot be properly supplied by the preceding word _God_, which is in the Objective Case. It ought to be, “_and He hath preserved_ you;” or rather, “_and to preserve_ you.” Some of our best Writers have frequently fallen into this, which I take to be no small inaccuracy: I shall therefore add some more examples of it, by way of admonition; inferring in each within Crotchets, the Nominative Case that is deficient, and that must necessarily be supplied to support the proper Construction of the Sentence. “If the calm, in which he was born, and [which] lasted so long, had continued.” Clarendon, Life, p. 43. “The Remonstrance he had lately received from the House of Commons, and [which] was dispersed throughout the Kingdom.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. I. p. 366. 8ᵛᵒ. “These we have extracted from an Historian of undoubted credit, a reverend bishop, the learned Paulus Jovius; and [they] are the same that were practised under the pontificate of Leo X.” Pope, Works, Vol. VI. p. 301. “A cloud gathering in the North; which we have helped to raise, and [which] may quickly break in a storm upon our heads.” Swift, Conduct of the Allies. “A man, whose inclinations led him to be corrupt, and [who] had great abilities to manage and multiply and defend his corruptions.” Gulliver, Part I. Chap. vi. “My Master likewise mentioned another quality, which his servants had discovered in many Yahoos, and [which] to him was wholly unaccountable.” Gulliver, Part IV. Chap. vii. “This I filled with the feathers of several birds I had taken with springes made of Yahoos hairs, and [which] were excellent food.” Ibid. Chap. x. “Osyris, whom the Grecians call Dionysius, and [who] is the same with Bacchus.” Swift, Mechan. Oper. of the Spirit, Sect. ii.

[60] “_Which rule_, if it had been observed, a neighbouring Prince would have wanted a great deal of that incense, which hath been offered up to him by his adorers.” Atterbury, Vol. I. Serm. 1. The Pronoun _it_ is here the Nominative Case to the Verb _observed_; and _which rule_ is left by itself, a Nominative Case without any Verb following it. This manner of expression, however improper, is very common. It ought to be, “If _this rule_ had been observed, &c.”

[61] Adjectives are sometimes employed as Adverbs; improperly, and not agreeably to the Genius of the English Language. As, “_extreme_ elaborate:” Dryden, Essay on Dram. Poet. “_marvellous_ graceful:” Clarendon, Life, p. 18. “_extreme_ unwilling;” “_extreme_ subject:” Swift, Tale of a Tub, and Battle of Books. “I shall endeavour to live hereafter _suitable_ to a man in my station.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 530. “Homer describes this river _agreeable_ to the vulgar reading.” Pope, Note on Iliad, ii. v. 1032. So _exceeding_, for _exceedingly_, however improper, occurs frequently in the Vulgar Translation of the Bible, and has obtained in common discourse. “We should live soberly, righteously, and _godly_ in this present world.” Tit. ii. 12.

“O Liberty, Thou Goddess _heavenly_ bright.”

Addison.

On the other hand an Adverb is improperly used as an Adjective in the following passage: “We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge most likely to take _soonest_ and deepest root.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 52.

[62] “_How much soever_ the Reformation of this corrupt and degenerate Age is _almost utterly_ to be despaired of, we may yet have a more comfortable prospect of future times.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Pref. to Serm. 49. The first part of this Sentence abounds with Adverbs, and those such as are hardly consistent with one another.

[63] “We are still much at a loss, _who_ civil power belongs _to_.” Locke. It ought to be _whom_.

[64] Pope, Preface to his Poems.

[65] _With_ in composition retains the signification, which it hath among others in the Saxon, of _from_ and _against_: as to _withhold_, to _withstand_. So also for has a negative signification from the Saxon: as, to _forbid_, _forbeodan_; to _forget_, _forgitan_.

[66] Examples of impropriety in the use of the Preposition in Phrases of this kind: “Your character, which I, or any other writer, may now value ourselves _by_ [upon] drawing.” Swift, Letter on the English Tongue. “You have bestowed your favours _to_ [upon] the most deserving persons.” Ibid. “Upon such occasions as fell _into_ [under] their cognisance,” Swift, Contests and Dissensions &c. Chap. 3. “That variety of factions _into_ [in] which we are still engaged.” Ibid. Chap. 5. “The utmost extent of power pretended [to] by the Commons.” Ibid. Chap. 3.⸺“Accused the ministers _for_ [of] betraying the Dutch.” Swift, Four last years of the Queen, Book ii. “Ovid, whom you accuse _for_ [of] luxuriancy of verse.” Dryden, on Dram. Poesy. “Neither the one nor the other shall make me swerve _out of_ [from] the path, which I have traced to myself.” Bolingbroke, Letter to Wyndham, p. 252. “They are now reconciled by a zeal for their cause to what they could not be prompted [to] by a concern for their beauty.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 81. “If policy can prevail _upon_ [over] force.” Addison, Travels, p. 62. “Ye blind guides, which strain _at_ a gnat, and swallow a camel.” Matt. xxiii. 24. διυλιζοντες, “which strain _out_, or take a gnat _out_ of the liquor by straining it:” the impropriety of the Preposition has wholly destroyed the meaning of the Phrase. Observe also, that the Noun generally requires after it the same Preposition as the Verb from which it is formed: “It was perfectly in compliance _to_ [with] some persons, for whose opinion I have great deference.” Swift, Pref. to Temple’s Memoirs. “Not from any personal hatred to them, but in justification _to_ [of] the best of Queens.” Swift, Examiner, Nᵒ 23. In the last example, the Verb being Transitive and requiring the Objective Case, the Noun formed from it seems to require the Possessive Case, or its Preposition, after it. Or perhaps he meant to say, “in _justice_ to the best of Queens.” “No discouragement for the authors to proceed.” Tale of a Tub, Preface. “A strict observance _after_ times and fashions.” Ibid. Sect. ii. So the Noun _Aversion_, (that is, a turning away,) requires the Preposition _from_ after it; and does not properly admit of _to_, _for_, or _towards_, which are often used with it.

[67] These are much disused in common discourse, and are retained only in the Solemn, or Formulary Style. “They [our Authors] have of late, ’tis true, reformed in some measure the gouty joints and darning-work of _whereunto’s_, _whereby’s_, _thereof’s_, _therewith’s_, and the rest of this kind; by which complicated periods are so curiously strung, or hook’d on, one to another, after the long-spun manner of the bar or pulpit.” Lord Shaftesbury, Miscel. V.

[68] Or in these and the like Phrases, may not _me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _us_, which in Saxon are the Dative Cases of their respective Pronouns, be considered as still continuing such in the English, and including in their very form the force of the Prepositions _to_ and _for_? There are certainly some other Phrases, which are to be resolved in this manner: “Wo is _me_!” The Phrase is pure Saxon; “wa is me:” _me_ is the Dative Case; in English, with the Preposition _to me_. So, “_methinks_;” Saxon, “_me thincth_,” εμοι δοκει. “O well is _thee_!” Psal. cxxviii. 2. “Wel is _him_ that ther mai be.” Anglo-Saxon Poem in Hickes’s Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 231. “Well is _him_, that dwelleth with a wife of understanding.”⸺“Well is _him_, that hath found prudence.” Ecclus. xxv. 8, 9. The Translator thought to correct his phrase afterward, and so hath made it neither Saxon nor English: “Well is _he_, that is defended from it.” Ecclus. xxviii. 19. “Wo worth the day!” Ezek. xxx. 2. that is, Wo be _to_ the day. The word _worth_ is not the Adjective, but the Saxon Verb _weorthan_, or _worthan_, _fieri_, _to be_, _to become_; which is often used by Chaucer, and is still retained as an Auxiliary Verb in the German Language.

[69] _That_ has been used in the same manner, as including the Relative _which_; but it is either improper, or obsolete: as, “To consider advisedly of _that_ is moved.” Bacon, Essay xxii. “She appeared not to wish _that_ without doubt she would have been very glad of.” Clarendon, Hist. Vol. II. p. 363. 8ᵛᵒ. “We speak _that_ we do know, and testify _that_ we have seen.” John iii. 11.

[70] “_Who_, instead of going about doing good, _they_ are perpetually intent upon doing mischief.” Tillotson, Vol. I. Serm. 18. The Nominative Case _they_ in this sentence is superfluous; it was expressed before in the Relative _who_.

[71] “I am _the Lord, that maketh_ all things; _that stretcheth_ forth the heavens alone:”⸺Isaiah xliv. 24. Thus far is right: _the Lord_ in the third Person is the Antecedent, and the Verb agrees with the Relative in the third Person: “I am the Lord, _which Lord_, or _He that, maketh_ all things.” It would have been equally right, if _I_ had been made the Antecedent, and the Relative and the Verb had agreed with it in the First Person: “_I_ am the Lord, _that make_ all things.” But when it follows, “_that spreadeth_ abroad the heavens by _myself_;” there arises a confusion of Persons, and a manifest Solecism.

“_Thou_ great first Cause, least understood!
_Who_ all my sense _confin’d_
To know but this, that _Thou art_ good,
And that myself am blind:
Yet _gave_ me in this dark estate,” &c.

Pope, Universal Prayer.

It ought to be _confinedst_, or _didst confine_; _gavest_, or _didst give_; &c. in the second Person. See above, p. 48. Note.

[72]

“Abuse on all he lov’d, or lov’d him, spread.”

Pope, Epist. to Arbuthnot.

That is, “all _whom_ he lov’d, or _who_ lov’d him:” or to make it more easy by supplying a Relative that has no variation of Cases, “all _that_ he lov’d, or _that_ lov’d him.” The Construction is hazardous, and hardly justifiable, even in Poetry. “In the temper of mind he was then.” Addison, Spect. Nᵒ 549. “In the posture I lay.” Swift, Gulliver, Part 1. Chap. 1. In these and the like Phrases, which are very common, there is an Ellipsis both of the Relative and the Preposition; which were much better supplied: “In the temper of mind _in which_ he was then:” “In the posture _in which_ I lay.” In general, the omission of the Relative seems to be too much indulged in the familiar style; it is ungraceful in the serious; and of whatever kind the style be, it is apt to be attended with obscurity and ambiguity.

[73] The Connective parts of Sentences are of all others the most important, and require the most care and attention: for it is by these chiefly that the train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the mind in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open; and on the right use of these the perspicuity, that is, the first and greatest beauty, of style principally depends. Relatives and Conjunctions are the instruments of Connection in discourse: it may be of use to point out some of the most common inaccuracies, that writers are apt to fall into with respect to them; and a few examples of faults may perhaps be more instructive, than any rules of propriety that can be given. Here therefore shall be added some further examples of inaccuracies in the use of Relatives.