In the following extract the mind labors to conceive the representation in consequence of being unable to unite the incongruous features of the heterogeneous objects presented.

Though in their corrupt notions of divine worship, they are apt to multiply their gods, yet this earthly devotion is seldom paid to above one idol at a time, whose ear they please with less murmuring and much more skill than when they share the lading or even hold the helm.

The following are examples of an opposite character in this respect, in which the sensible representation is exact and congruous throughout:

For truth, I know not how, hath this unhappiness fatal to her, ere she can come to the trial and inspection of the understanding: being to pass through many little wards and limits of the several affections and desires, she cannot shift it, but must put on such colors and attire as those pathetic handmaids of the soul please to lead her in to their queen; and if she find so much favor with them, they let her pass in her own likeness; if not, they bring her into the presence habited and colored like a notorious falsehood. And contrary, when any falsehood comes that way, if they like the errand she brings, they are so artful to counterfeit the very shape and visage of truth, that the understanding, not being able to discern the fucus which these enchantresses with such cunning have laid upon the features sometimes of truth, sometimes of falsehood interchangeably, sentences for the most part one for the other at the first blush, according to the subtle imposture of these sensual mistresses that keep the ports and passages between her and the object.-Milton. So is the imperfect, unfinished spirit of a man. It lays the foundation of a holy resolution, and strengthens it with vows and arts of persecution; it raises up the walls,sacraments, and prayers, reading and holy ordinances. And holy actions begin with a slow motion, and the building stays, and the spirit is weary, and the soul is naked and exposed to temptation, and in the days of storm takes in every thing that can do it mischief; and it is faint and sick,

listless and tired, and it stands till its own weight wearies the foundation, and then declines to death and sad disorder. J. Taylor.

Nor in our prosperity, our affluence of good things, our possession of common, should we be unmindful of him who relieved us in our straits, who supplied our wants, sustained our adversity, who redeemed us from Egypt, and led us through the wilderness. A succession of new and fresh benefits should not, as among some savages the manner is for the young to make away the old, supplant and expunge ancient ones, but make them rather more dear and venerable to us. Time should not weaken or diminish, but rather confirm and radicate in us the remembrance of God's goodness; to render it, as it doth gold and silver, more precious and more strong.-Barrow's Sermons.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE GRAMMATICAL PROPERTIES OF STYLE.

$284. The grammatical properties of style may be distributed into three species, according as they respect the forms of words, their connection, or their meaning.

The departments of grammar which respectively treat of these several species are Etymology, Syntax, and Lexicography. Etymology presides over the words introduced into the language and the forms which they take; syntax, over the arrangement and relations of words; and lexicography assigns to them their meaning. The several species of the grammatical properties of style are founded, accordingly, on these departments of grammar, and derive from them their regulative principles.

Inasmuch as these grammatical principles are fixed and imperative, the observance of them in style is indispensable. Hence it is more convenient to consider these properties in their negative aspect; and to exhibit them not in the forms in which, as observed, they impart beauty to discourse, but in which, as they are disregarded, the discourse becomes thereby faulty.

Before illustrating the several faults against grammatical purity in style, it becomes necessary to ascertain the standard of purity. Numerous and weighty authorities determine this to be good use. The language of Horace is:

Usus

Quem penes arbitrium est et jus et norma loquendi. Quintilian only says use is the most certain rule: Cer tissima regula in consuetudine.

Dr. Campbell is earnest in maintaining that use is necessarily the sole criterion.

It has been before observed, § 246, that grammatical science is either abstract or historical. The laws of thought, on the one hand, and the laws of articulate sounds, on the other, impose certain necessary conditions on the formation of language. These laws being given, it may be determin ed beforehand, to a certain extent, what must be the properties of language, or, in other words, the principles of grammar. No use can be characterised as good that violates these universal principles of language.

But, again, there is such a thing as grammatical science, regarded as historical, and founded on inductive grounds. There are in every language certain general laws which control and regulate its development. There are general principles of etymology and syntax; violations of which must be regarded as faults. It is true that sometimes the different principles that preside over the formation o'

language come in collision with one another, and thus grammatical rules frequently have exceptions. The principles of euphony, thus, frequently, occasion deviations from the common laws of derivation. So, likewise, more purely rhetorical or logical principles modify the operation of proper grammatical rules. Such exceptions are not, however, properly violations of the laws of language. Now no "use" can be allowed to transgress these general principles. If grammatical monstrosities by any mishap exist, a correct taste will shun them, as it does physical deformities in the arts of design.

Back then of use we have both the abstract principles of universal language, and also the inductive principles of particular languages, as guides and criteria of grammatical purity. By these principles use itself must be tried.

Good use is, therefore, only a proximate and presumptive test of purity. While generally its decisions are authoritative, they admit, in their nature, of being questioned, and must themselves submit to higher authority. The expres sions" nowadays" and "had have gone "have all the prescribed characteristics of good use; "reputable, national, and present." No one can rationally deny, however, that in elevated discourse at least one is a barbarism and the other a solecism. We may accordingly lay down the principle which regulates this matter as it is expressed in the following section.

$ 285. THE STANDARD OF GRAMMATICAL PURITY is to be found proximately in good use; but ultimately in the fixed principles of grammatical science, that is, in the principles of etymology, syntax, and lexicography.

286. That use alone is to be regarded as good

which possesses the following characteristics, viz: that it is national, as opposed to provincial and technical; reputable, or sanctioned by the best authors; and present, as opposed to what is obsolete.

$287. Offenses against grammatical purity may be distributed in reference to their occasions into the following species, viz:

1. Archaism, or obsolete use;

2. Provincialism, or the use of what is not national, or confined to a district or province;

2. Idiotism, or the use which is confined to an individual;

4. Technicality, or use peculiar to a sect or trade; 5. Alienism, or use derived from a foreign language. It is to be remarked that each of these species includes ffenses against all the departments of grammar, whether etymology, syntax, or lexicography. An archaism, thus, may either be a barbarism, solecism, or impropriety.

$288. A fault in respect to the settled forms of words, that is, an offense against the etymology of a language, is denominated a BARbarism.

§ 289. A barbarism may lie in the use of a radical word not sanctioned by the etymology of a language; or in an unauthorized mode of deriving, inflecting, or compounding words.

The English language admits more freely the introduction of new radical words than most other languages. Words of Latin or Greek origin it receives without hesi tancy; and subjects them in the process of naturalizing to but trifling modifications. So common has this adulteration of the language been, that a barbarism of this species is