"Then from thy lips poured forth a joyful song

To thy Redeemer!-yea, it poured along

In most melodious energy of praise,

To God, the Saviour, he of ancient days."-Arm Chair, p. 15.

RULE IV.-POSSESSIVES.

A Noun or a Pronoun in the possessive case, is governed by the name of the thing possessed: as, "God's mercy prolongs man's life."-Allen. "Theirs is the vanity, the learning thine;

Touch'd by thy hand, again Rome's glories shine.”—Pope.

OBSERVATIONS ON RULE IV.

OBS. 1.-Though the ordinary syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision, than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. That its usual construction is both clearly and properly stated in the foregoing rule, is what none will doubt or deny. But how many and what exceptions to this rule ought to be allowed, or whether any are justly demanded or not, are matters about which there may be much diversity of opinion. Having heretofore published the rule without any express exceptions, I am not now convinced that it is best to add any; yet are there three different modes of expression which might be plausibly exhibited in that character. Two of these would concern only the parser; and, for that reason, they seem not to be very important. The other involves the approval or reprehension of a great multitude of very common expressions, concerning which our ablest grammarians differ in opinion, and our most popular digest plainly contradicts itself. These points are; first, the apposition of possessives, and the supposed ellipses which may affect that construction; secondly, the government of the possessive case after is, was, &c., when the ownership of a thing is simply affirmed or denied; thirdly, the government of the possessive by a participle, as such-that is, while it retains the government and adjuncts of a participle.

OBS. 2.-The apposition of one possessive with an other, (as, "For David my servant's sake,") might doubtless be consistently made a formal exception to the direct government of the possessive by its controlling noun. But this apposition is only a sameness of construction, so that what governs the one, virtually governs the other. And if the case of any noun or pronoun is known and determined by the rule or relation of apposition, there can be no need of an exception to the foregoing rule for the purpose of parsing it, since that purpose is already answered by rule third. If the reader, by supposing an ellipsis which I should not, will resolve any given instance of this kind into something else than apposition, I have already shown him that some great grammarians have differed in the same way before. Useless ellipses, however, should never be supposed; and such perhaps is the following: "At Mr. Smith's [who is] the bookseller."-See Dr. Priestley's Gram., p. 71.

OBS. 3.-In all our Latin grammars, the verb sum, fui, esse, to be, is said (though not with strict propriety) sometimes to signify possession, property, or duty, and in that sense to govern the genitive case: as, "Est regis;"-"It is the king's."--" Hominis est errare;"—"It is man's to err."-" Pecus est Melibœi ;"-"The flock is Meliboeus's." And sometimes, with like import, this verb, expressed or understood, may govern the dative; as, "Ego [sum] dilecto meo, et dilectus meus [est] mihi."-Vulgate. "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."-Solomon's Song, vi, 3. Here, as both the genitivo and the dative are expressed in English by the possessive, if the former are governed by the verb, there seems to be precisely the same reason from the nature of the expression, and an additional one from analogy, for considering the latter to be so too. But all the annotators upon the Latin syntax suggest, that the genitive thus put after sum or est, is really governed, not by the verb, but by some noun understood; and with this idea, of an ellipsis in the construction, all our English grammarians appear to unite. They might not, however, find it very easy to tell by what noun the word beloved's or mine is governed, in the last example above; and so of many others, which are used in the same way: as, "There shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel."-Exod., ix, 4. The Latin here is, "Ut nihil omninò pereat ex his quæ pertinent ad filios Israel.”— Vulgate. That is,—" of all those which belong to the children of Israel."

"For thou art Freedom's now-and Fame's,

One of the few, the immortal names,

That were not born to die."-HALLECK: Marco Bozzaris.

OBS. 4.-Although the possessive case is always intrinsically an adjunct and therefore incapable of being used or comprehended in any sense that is positively abstract; yet we see that there are instances in which it is used with a certain degree of abstraction,-that is, with an actual separation from the name of the thing possessed; and that accordingly there are, in the simple personal pronouns, (where such a distinction is most needed,) two different forms of the case; the one adapted to the concrete, and the other to the abstract construction. That form of the pronoun, however, which is equivalent in sense to the concrete and the noun, is still the possessive case, and nothing more; as, "All mine are thine, and thine are mine."-John, xvii, 10. For

if we suppose this equivalence to prove such a pronoun to be something more than the possessive case, as do some grammarians, we must suppose the same thing respecting the possessive case of a noun, whenever the relation of ownership or possession is simply affirmed or denied with such a noun put last: as, "For all things are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.-1 Cor., iii, 21. By the second example placed under the rule, I meant to suggest, that the possessive case, when placed before or after this verb, (be,) might be parsed as being governed by the nominative; as we may suppose "theirs" to be governed by "vanity," and "thine" by learning," these nouns being the names of the things possessed. But then we encounter a difficulty, whenever a pronoun happens to be the nominative; as, "Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."-1 Cor., vi, 20. Here the common resort would be to some ellipsis; and yet it must be confessed, that this mode of interpretation cannot but make some difference in the sense: as, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed."—Gal., iii, 29. Here some may think the meaning to be, "If ye be Christ's seed, or children." But a truer version of the text would be, "If yo are of Christ, then are ye Abraham's secd."-"Que si vous êtes à Christ, vous êtes donc la postérité d'Abraham."-French Bible.

OBS. 5.-Possession is the having of something, and if the possessive case is always an adjunct, referring either directly or indirectly to that which constitutes it a possessive, it would seem but reasonable, to limit the government of this case to that part of speech which is understood substantively—that is, to "the name of the thing possessed." Yet, in violation of this restriction, many grammarians admit, that a participle, with the regimen and adjuncts of a participle, may govern the possessive case; and some of them, at the same time, with astonishing inconsistency, aver, that the possessive case before a participle converts the latter into a noun, and necessarily deprives it of its regimen. Whether participles are worthy to form an exception to my rule or not, this palpable contradiction is one of the gravest faults of L. Murray's code of syntax. After copying from Lowth the doctrine that a participle with an article before it becomes a noun, and must drop the government and adjuncts of a participle, this author informs us, that the same principles are applicable to the pronoun and participle: as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule, and error will be the consequence of their neglecting of it;" in stead of, “their observing the rul," and "their neglecting it." And this doctrine he applies, with yet more positiveness, to the noun and participle; as if the error were still more glaring, to make an active participle govern a possessive noun: saying, "We shall perceive this more clearly, if we substitute a noun for the pronoun: as, 'Much depends upon Tyro's observing of the rule,' &c.; which is the same as, 'Much depends on Tyro's observance of the rule.' But, as this construction sounds rather harshly, it would, in general, bo better to express the sentiment in the following, or some other form : 'Much depends on the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected:' or on observing the rule; and—of neglecting it.”—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 193; Ingersoll's, 199; and others.

OBS. 6. Here it is assumed, that "their observing the rule," or "Tyro's observing the rule," is an ungrammatical phrase; and, several different methods being suggested for its correction, a preference is at length given to what is perhaps not less objectionable than the original phrase itself. The last form offered, "on observing the rule," &c., is indeed correct enough in itself; but, as a substitute for the other, it is both inaccurate and insufficient. It merely omits the possessive case, and leaves the action of the particple undetermined in respect to the agent. For the possessive case before a real participle, denotes not the possessor of something, as in other instances, but the agent of the action, or the subject of the being or passion; and the simple question here is, whether this extraordinary use of the possessive case is, or is not, such an idiom of our languago as ought to be justified. Participles may become nouns, if we choose to use them substantively; but can they govern the possessive case before them, while they govern also the objective after them, or while they have a participial meaning which is qualified by adverbs? If they can, Lowth, Murray, and others, are wrong in supposing the foregoing phrases to be ungrammatical, and in teaching that the possessive case before a participle converts it into a noun; and if they cannot, Priestley, Murray, Hiley, Wells, Weld, and others, are wrong in supposing that a participle, or a phrase beginning with a participle, may properly govern the possessive case. Compare Murray's seventh note under his Rule 10th, with the second under his Rule 14th. The same contradiction is taught by many other compilers. See Smith's New Grammar, pp. 152 and 162; Comly's Gram., 91 and 108; Ingersoll's, 180 and 199.

OBS. 7.—Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions. The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says: "There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks. 'Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper: Much depends upon the rule's being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected. For here is a noun and a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it: for being observed, and being neglected, are not nouns: nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition of before the noun or pronoun.' * For my part," continues Campbell, “notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that

For this quotation, Dr. Campbell gives, in his margin, the following reference: "Introduction, &c., Sentences, Note on the 6th Phrase." But in my edition of Dr. Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar, (a Philadelphia edition of 1799,) I do not find the passage. Perhaps it has been omitted in consequence of Campbell's criticism, of which I here cite but a part.-G. BroWN.

there is any fault in the phrases censured. They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to cir cumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression."—I hudsephy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.

OBS. 8.-Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming "one compound noun." I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case. I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove. In view of the two examples, "Much depends upon the rule's being observed," and, "Much depends upon their observing of the rule," he says: "Now, although I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second." Then, denying all faults, he proceeds: "Let us consider whether the former be liable to any objections, which do not equally affect the latter." But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes. Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded. In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is absurd. Secondly, a compound noun formed of two or three words without any hyphen, is at best such an anomaly, as we ought rather to avoid than to prefer. If these considerations do not positively condemn the former construction, they ought at least to prevent it from displacing the latter; and seldom is either to be preferred to the regular noun, which we can limit by the article or the possessive at pleasure: as, "Much depends on an observance of the rule."-"Much depends on their observance of the rule." Now these two sentences are equivalent to the two former, but not to each other; and, vice versa: that is, the two former are equivalent to these, but not to each other.*

OBS. 9.-From Dr. Campbell's commendation of Lowth, as having "given some excellent directions for preserving a proper distinction between the noun and the gerund,"-that is, between the participial noun and the participle,—it is fair to infer that he meant to preserve it himself; and yet, in the argument above mentioned, he appears to have carelessly framed one ambiguous or very erroneous sentence, from which, as I magine, his views of this matter have been misconceived, and by which Murray and all his modifiers have been furnished with an example wherewith to confound this distinction, and also to contradict themselves. The sentence is this: "Much will depend on your pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently."-Philos. of Rhet., p. 235. Volumes innumerable have gone abroad, into our schools and elsewhere, which pronounce this sentence to be "correct and proper." But after all, what does it mean? Does the adverb "frequently" qualify the verb "will depend," expressed in the sentence? or "will depend," understood after more? or both? or neither? Or does this adverb qualify the action of “reading ?" or the action of "composing?" or both? or neither? But composing and reading, if they are mere nouns, cannot properly be qualified by any adverb; and, they are called participles, the question recurs respecting the possessives. Besides, composing, as a participle, is commonly transitive; nor is it very fit for a noun, without some adjunct. And, when participles become nouns, their government (it is said) falls upon of, and their adverbs are usually converted into adjectives; as, "Much will depend on your pupil's composing of th mes; but more, on his frequent reading." This may not be the author's meaning, for the example was originally composed as a mere mock sentence, or by way of "experiment;" and one may doubt whether its meaning was ever at all thought of by the philosopher. But, to make it a respectable example, some correction there must be; for, surely, no man can have any clear idea to communicate, which he cannot better express, than by imitating this loose phraseology. It is scarcely more correct, than to say, "Much will depend on an author's using, but more on his learning frequently." Yet is it commended as a model, either entire or in part, by Murray, Ingersoll, Fisk, R. C. Smith, Cooper, Lennie, Hiley, Bullions, C. Adams, A. H. Weld, and I know not how many other school critics. OBS. 10. That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form "one name," or "substantive phrase," and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author. For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley. In his grammar it stands thus: "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun

By some grammarians it is presumed to be consistent with the nature of participles to govern the possessive case; and Hiley, if he is to be understood literally, assumes it as an "established principle," that they all do so! "Participles govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case, and at the same time, if derived from transitive verbs, require the noun or pronoun following to be in the objective case, without the intervention of the preposition of; as, Much depends on William's observing the rule, and error will be the consequence of his neglecting it; or, Much will depend on the rule's being observed by William, and error will be the consequence of its being neglected."—Hiley's Gram., p. 94. These sentences, without doubt, are nearly equiv alent to each other in meaning. To make them exactly so, "depends" or "will depend" must be changed in tense, and its being neglected" must be "its being neglected by him." But who that has looked at the facts in the case, or informed himself on the points here in dispute, will maintain that either the awkward phraseology of the latter example, or the mixed and questionable construction of the former, or the extensive rule under which they are here presented, is among the established principles and best usages of the English language?"-Ib., p. 1.

on which it depends may be put in the genitive case. Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady's holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady's dress, &c. So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c."-Priestley's Gram., p. 69. Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly. Yet, coming from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition. Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction. His only note on this point,-a note about the "horse running to-day," and the "horse's running to-day,”—I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.

Oas. 11. Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray's code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun. "When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, 'What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?' that is, 'What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?' we may say, and perhaps ought to say, 'What is the reason of this person's dismissing of his servant so hastily? Just as we say, 'What is the reason of this person's hasty dismission of his servant?' So also, we say, 'I remember it being reckoned a great exploit;' or more properly, 'I remember its being reckoned,' &c. The following sentence is correct and proper: Much will depend on the pupil's composing, but more on his reading frequently.' It would not be accurate to say, 'Much will depend on the pupil composing,' &c. We also properly say; 'This will be the effect of the pupil's composing frequently;' instead of, Of the pupil composing frequently.' The participle, in such constructions, does the office of a substantive; and it should therefore have a CORRESPONDENT REGIMEN."-Murray's Gram., Rule 10th, Note 7; Ingersoll's, p. 180; Fisk's, 108; R. C. Smith's, 152; Alger's, 61; Merchant's, 84. See also Weld's Gram., 2d Ed., p. 150; "Abridged Ed.," 117.*

OBS. 12.-Now, if it were as easy to prove that a participle, as such, or (what amounts to the same thing) a phrase beginning with a participle, ought never to govern the possessive case, as it is to show that every part and parcel of the foregoing citations from Priestley, Murray, and others, is both weakly conceived and badly written, I should neither have detained the reader so long on this topic, nor ever have placed it among the most puzzling points of grammar. Let it be observed, that what these writers absurdly call "an entire CLAUSE of a sentence," is found on examination to be some short PHRASE, the participle with its adjuncts, or even the participle alone, or with a single adverb only; as, "holding up her train,"-" dismissing his servant so hastily," composing,"-" reading frequently,"-" composing frequently." And each of these, with an opposite error as great, they will have to bo "one name," and to convey but "one idea;" supposing that by virtue of this imaginary oneness, it may govern the possessive case, and signify something which a "lady," or a "person," or a "pupil," may consistently possess. And then, to be wrong in every thing, they suggest that any noun on which such a participle, with its adjuncts, "depends, may be put in the genitive case;" whereas, such a change is seldom, if ever, admissible,

What, in Weld's "Abridged Edition," is improperly called a "participial noun," was, in his "original work," still more erroneously termed "a participial cluse." This gentleman, who has lately amended his general rule for possessives by wrongfully copying or imitating mine, has also as widely varied his conception of the participial—“object possessed;" but, in my judgement, a change still greater might not be amiss. The possessive is often governed by a participial clause; as, much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupila is governed by the clause, composing frequently NOTE.-The sign (s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participiul clause following it."-Weld's Gram., 2d Edition, p. 150. Again: "The posBessive is often governed by a participial noun; as, Much will depend on the pupil's composing frequently. Pupil's is governed by the participial noun composing. NOTE-The sign ('s) should be annexed to the word governed by the participial noun following it."—Weld's Gram., Abridged, p. 117. Choosing the possessive case, where, both by analogy and by authority, the objective would be quite as grammatical, if not more so; destroying, as far as possible, all syntactical distinction between the participle and the participial noun, by confounding them purposely, even in name; this author, like Wells, whom he too often imitates, takes no notice of the question here discussed, and seems quite unconscious that participles partly made nouns can produce false syntax. To the foregoing instructions, he subjoins the following comment, as a marginal note: “ The participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties, and may govern the objective case, or be modified by an adverb or adjunct, like the verb from which it is derived."-Ibid. When one part of speech is said to be used as an other, the learner may be greatly puzzled to understand to which class the given word belongs. If "the participle used as a noun, still retains its verbal properties," it is, manifestly, not a noun, but a participle still; not a participial noun, but a nounal participle, whether the thing be allowable or not. Hence the teachings just cited are inconsistent. Wells says, "Participles are often used in the sense of nouns; as, "There was again the smacking of whips, the clattering of hoofs, and the glittering of harness.-IRVING."-School Gram., p. 154. This is not well stated; because these are participial nouns, and not "participles." What Wells calls "participial nouns," differ from these, and are all spurious, all mongrels, all participles rather than nouns. regard to possessives before participles, no instructions appear to be more defective than those of this gentleman. His sole rule supposes the pupil always to know when and why the possessive is proper, and only instructs him not to form it without the sign! It is this: "When a noun or a pronoun, preceding a participle used as a noun, is properly in the possessive case, the sign of possession should not be omitted."-School Gram., p. 121. All the examples put under this rule, are inappropriate: each will mislead the learner. Those which are called "Correct," are, I think erroneous; and those which are called "False Syntax," the adding of the possessive sign will not amend.

In

and in our language, no participle ever can depend on any other than the nominative or the objective case. Every participle so depending is an adjunct to the noun; and every possessive, in its turn, is an adjunct to the word which governs it. In respect to construction, no terms differ more than a participle which governs the possessive case, and a participle which does not. These different constructions the contrivers of the foregoing rule, here take to be equivalent in meaning; whereas they elsewhere pretend to find in them quite different significations. The meaning is sometimes very different, and sometimes very similar; but seldom, if ever, are the terms convertible. And even if they were so, and the difference were nothing, would it not be better to adhere, where we can, to the analogy of General Grammar? In Greek and Latin, a participle may agree with a noun in the genitive case; but, if we regard analogy, that genitive must be Englished, not by the possessive case, but by of and the objective; as, "Emel dоkipiv Syteite tov Ev čuoì haĥovvros Xpiorov."—" Quandoquidem experimentum quæritis in me loquentis Christi."— Beza. "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me."-2 Cor., xiii, 3. We might here, perhaps, say, "of Christ's speaking in me," but is not the other form better? The French version is, 'Puisque vous cherchez une preuve que Christ parle par moi;" and this, too, might be imitated in English: "Since ye seek a proof that Christ speaks by me.'

OBS. 13.-As prepositions very naturally govern any of our participles except the simple perfect, it undoubtedly seems agreeable to our idiom not to disturb this government, when we would express the subject or agent of the being, action, or passion, between the preposition and the participle. Hence we find that the doer or the sufferer of the action is usually made its possessor, whenever the sense does not positively demand a different reading. Against this construction there is seldom any objection, if the participle be taken entirely as a noun, so that it may be called a participial noun; as, "Much depends on their observing of the rule."-Lowth, Campbell, and L. Murray. On the other hand, the participle after the objective is unobjectionable, if the noun or pronoun be the leading word in sense; as, "It would be idle to profess an apprehension of serious evil resulting in any respect from the utmost publicity being given to its contents."London Eclectic Review, 1816. "The following is a beautiful instance of the sound of words corresponding to motion."-Murray's Gram., i, p. 333. "We shall discover many things partaking of both those characters."-West's Letters, p. 182. "To a person following the vulgar mode of omitting the comma."-Churchill's Gram., p. 365. But, in comparing the different constructions above noticed, writers are frequently puzzled to determine, and frequently too do they err in determining, which word shall be made the adjunct, and which the leading term. Now, wherever there is much doubt which of the two forms ought to be preferred, I think we may well conclude that both are wrong; especially, if there can easily be found for the idea an other expression that is undoubtedly clear and correct. Examples: "These appear to be instances of the present participle being used passively."-Murray's Gram., p. 64. "These are examples of the past participle being applied in an active sense."—Ib., 64. "We have some examples of adverbs being used for substantives."-Priestley's Gram., p. 134; Murray's, 198; Ingersolls, 206; Fisk's, 140; Smith's, 165. "By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive." -Murray's Gram., p. 39; also Ingersoll's, Fisk's, Alger's, Maltby's, Merchant's, Bacon's, and others. Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word being, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, "Much depends on the rule being observed."—" Much will depend on the pupil composing frequently." Again: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians coming to attack him."—Rollin, ii, 86. Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians' coming to attack him." That is-" for their coming," and not, "for them coming;" but much better than either: "Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians to come and attack him." Again: "To prevent his army's being enclosed and hemmed in."-Rollin, ii, 89. "To prevent his army being enclosed and hemmed in." are wrong. Say, "To prevent his army from being enclosed and hemmed in." Again: sign of God's fulfilling the promise."-Rollin, ii, 23. "As a sign of God fulfilling the promise." Both are objectionable. Say, "As a sign that God would fulfill the promise." Again: is affirmative evidence for Moses's being the author of these books."-Bp. Watson's Apology, p. 28. "The first argument you produce against Moses being the author of these books."-Ib., p. 29. Both are bad. Say,-"for Moses as being the author,"-"against Moses as being the author," &c. OBS. 14.-Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is actually governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be better expressed in some other way. There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule. They are all of them unreal or feigned sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly-made up after some ungrammatical model. If a gentleman could possibly demand a lady's meaning in such an act as the holding-up of her train, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, § 481; but would probably say, "Madam, what do you mean by holding up your train?" It was folly for the doctor to ask an other person, as if an other could guess her meaning better than he. The text with the possessive is therefore not

Both As a

"There