part of the word polyfyllables. This is quite ungrammatical. The expreffion is likewife exceptionable on the score of propriety, but of this afterwards.

THERE is an error of the fame kind in the following paffage from Addifon, " My chriftian " and firname begin and end with the fame let"ters." The word chriftian is here, an ad"jective, which hath for its fubftantive the laft fyllable of the word firname. The expreffion is also exceptionable on the fcore of perfpicuity, of which afterwards.

SOMETIMES the poffeffive pronoun does not fuit the antecedent. "Each of the fexes," fays · Addison, "fhould keep within its particular "bounds, and content themfelves to exult with"in their respective districts." Themfelves and their cannot grammatically refer to each, a fingular. Befides the trefpafs here is the more glaring, that these pronouns are coupled with its, referring to the fame noun.

IN no part of fpeech do good writers more frequently fall into mistakes than in the verbs. Spectator, N°. 505. O. + Freeholder, No. 38. Of

Of thefe I fhall give fome fpecimens out of a much greater number which might be collected. The first shall be of a wrong tenfe," Ye will not "come unto me that ye might have life *." In two claufes thus connected, when the firft verb is in the prefent or the future, the second which is dependent on it, cannot be in the paft. The words, therefore, ought to have been tranflated, "that ye may have life." On the contrary, had the first verb been in the preterit, the second ought to have been fo too. Thus, "Ye would "not come to me," or, "Ye did not come to 66 me, that ye might have life," is entirely grammatical. In either of these inftances, to use the prefent tenfe would be erroneous. When the firft verb is in the preter perfect, or the present perfect, as fome call it, because it hath a reference both to the paft and to the prefent, the fecond, I imagine, may be in either tenfe. Thus, "Ye have not come to me that ye might,”—or, "that ye may have life," feem equally unexceptionable.

LET it be observed, that, in expreffing abftract or univerfal truths, the prefent tenfe of the verb ought, according to the idiom of our language,

and perhaps of every language, always to be employed. In fuch cafes, the verb in that form has no relation to time, but ferves merely as a copula to the two terms of the propofition. The cafe is different with the paft and the future, in which the notion of time is always comprehended. Yet this peculiarity in the present hath fometimes been overlooked, even by good authors, who, when speaking of a past event which occafions the mention of fome general truth, are led to use the fame tenfe in enunciating the general truth, with that which had been employed in the preceding part of the fentence. Of this we have the following example from Swift, which fhall ferve for the fecond inftance of inac

curacy in the verbs. "It is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of real hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who, upon a thorough examination of causes and

66

effects, and by the mere force of natural abi

lities, without the leaft tincture of learning, "have made a difcovery, that there was no

66

God, and generously communicating their

thoughts for the good of the Public, were "fome time ago, by an unparalleled feverity, "and upon I know not what obfolete law, broke " for

"for blafphemy." Properly-" have made

66

a discovery that there is no God."

THE third example shall be of a wrong mood,

If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there "remembereft that thy brother hath ought against "thee "The conftruction of the two verbs bring and remembereft ought to be the fame, as they are both under the regimen of the fame conjunction if. Yet the one is in the fubjunctive mood, the other in the indicative.

THE fourth inftance fhall be the omiffion of an effential part of one of the complex tenfes, the writer apparently referring to a part of the verb occurring in a former claufe of the fentence, although the part referred to will not supply the defect, but fome other part not produced. Of this the following is an example: "I fhall do all "I can to perfuade others to take the fame mea"fures for their cure which I have ‡." Here we have a reference in the end to the preceding verb take. Yet it is not the word take which will fupply the fenfe, but taken. This participle, therefore, ought to have been added.

• An Argument against abolishing Chriflianity.

THE fifth fpecimen in the verbs fhall be of a faulty reference to a part to be mentioned. "This dedication may ferve for almost any

book, that has, is, or fhall be, published." Has in this place being merely a part of a complex tenfe, means nothing without the reft of the tenfe. Yet the reft of the tense is not to be found

in the fentence. We cannot fay, any book “that has published," no more can we say, “ that "has be published." Corrected it would run thus, "that has been, or fhall be published." The word is ought to be expunged, as adding nothing to the fenfe.

I SHALL next produce a few inftances of inaccuracy, which refult from coupling words together, and affigning to them a common regimen, when use will not admit that they be conftrued in the fame manner. The following is an example in the conftruction of adjectives: "Will it be urged, that the four gofpels are as "old, or even older than tradition?" The words as old and older cannot have a common regimen; the one requires to be followed by the conjunction as, the other by than. If he had said, “as old as tradition, and even older;" there • Bolingb. Phil. Ef. iv. S. 19.

would