[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.