so that a very small degree of force on the inside, much less than that afforded by highly compressed air, would have been abundantly sufficient to have expelled the cork, and have given free admission to the surrounding waters; but nothing of this being apparent, it is demonstrable the air could not have been highly compress-leathered, and sealed; and, besides ed, and therefore could not have passed through the pores of the glass; and, then it is equally clear, that the water could not have passed through those pores.

It is admitted that God is the author of conversion, that in this great work, he gives the will its right direction, and sustains the religion which he first produced; but all the consequences of CALVINISM are not involved unless" Neuter" can successfully controvert the following statements.

mated, that when drawn up a small successfully imposed upon superficial hole was observed, through which the minds; but let us examine the present, water was seen to burst forth; and if so, and see whether it will obtain in the undoubtedly there must have been a face of truth and reason. passage quite sufficient for the extrication of the internal air. Nor does it appear at all probable, that the air should have been compressed into one quarter of its bulk, without bursting a cracked bottle to atoms. The point of advantage obtained by the flaw in this bottle, appears to be this, that with all the assistance of this flaw, the water could not enter with sufficient velocity to fill the bottle, but when drawn up, was found to be one-fourth empty.

Should the substance of this paper be thought sufficiently interesting, for the readers of your Magazine, its insertion will be regarded with esteem, by, Sir, your obedient and obliged servant, N. R. Stoke Newington, Nov. 18, 1819.

On Perpetual Misery. MR. EDITOR, YOUR correspondent Tyro asks, col. 762, "What equitable proportion there is between finite offence, and infinite punishment? Certainly none. But there is the same proportion in the reward as in the punishment; namely, betwixt finite good works, and infinite or eternal happiness, in joys inconceivable. The justice of God is therefore made manifest, as well as the detestable nature of sin, unrepented of, which can draw down punishment so tremendous as everlasting misery.

REPLY TO A QUERY ON THE WESLEYAN
DOCTRINES.

[Inserted col. 763.]

London, Nov. 2, 1819.

MR. EDITOR, IN your Magazine for October, col. 763, the following QUERY is proposed by NEUTER. "As Mr. Wesley professed to admit that God was the author of conversion, that he gave the will its right direction, and sustained the religion which he first produced; when this admission is pursued to all its consequences, I would beg leave to ask, whether this does not prove all that Calvinism requires?" Undoubtedly not: similar representations to the one before us, have been too

God sustains the religion which he first produces, in various degrees. It is acknowledged by all judicious Calvinists, that the AVOIDABLE neglect of the means of grace, especially that of prayer, will supersede to the extent that it is indulged in, the active energy of Divine communications. If a Christian, on the contrary, lives up to the careful observance of all the minutia of duty, and does not err at the same time, in his understanding respecting the various relations he sustains to God, upon the score of humility, knowledge, or experience, one may conclude, his felicity will comprehend sical condition will admit of: the saevery portion of good which his phytisfaction of every believer is the WILL of GOD. Now if it be inquired, whether all this depends upon the diligence of the individual? I simply reply, Viewing things as they actually exist, and as they are represented in the word of God, that in regard to the sovereignty of the Divine character, it does not depend upon the conduct of the believer; but in regard to the economy which God has instituted in the comprehensive exercise of his compassion and condescension, it certainly does; otherwise the scripture is a sealed book, even to believers.

I will presume that in the course of one fortnight, in a proper degree of diligence to the duty of prayer, I am preserved from a variety of evils of a spiritual nature, some of which I should probably have experienced in a partial use of my privilege: although my praying has secured me from many evils, these acts have not merited that security; the security itself partook of that common act of sovereign goodness, from which all the blessings of the gospel have proceeded. It is certainly not myself, but God, who has kept me. We do not sufficiently bear in mind the harmony of that character which God sustains in his gospel

and the harmony of that which he sustains apart from the gospel. As His creatures, we shall in every condition and under all circumstances eternally sustain a relation to the Divine Being, in each of these views of his characters. Respecting the principles admitted by judicious Calvinists, that the volitions of believers influence Divine communications, the scriptures represent to us that the evil incident to this principle may go so far, that the remains of piety may be ready to die, and that the exertion of the individual, independent of all merit, is necessary to prevent that apostatical lapse which lies exposed to the eternal wrath of God. I have examined, Sir, the reply to the Query in the most obvious and tangible mode which it is capable of assuming.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Z.

Review of " A Grammar of the Eng, lish Language, by the Rev. Joseph Sutcliffe." London, 1815.

[Concluded from col. 949.] Page 132. "The participle to be mended or repaired." To be mended is not a participle; but the present infinitive passive, of the verb to mend.

Page 141. " Adverbs which denote qualities, and degrees of comparison, govern the same cases as the adjectives from which they are derived; as, He conducted himself agreeably to his instructions; and behaved more prudently than all his opponents.' Here the adverb agreeably governs the whole phrase to his instructions; and the adverb prudently governs the whole phrase, than all his opponents, by causing them to be in the accusative case.' How it can be said that a whole phrase is in the accusative case, we know not; it is an expression not conveying any clear or distinct ideas. Instructions is the objective case, governed not by the adverb agreeably, but by the preposition to. Than all his opponents, Mr. S. says, is in the accusative case; now opponents is not the accusative case, but the nominative, being joined to the former nominative he by the conjunction than, and being nominative to the verb behaved understood; as evidently appears, when the ellipsis is supplied, thus, he behaved more prudently than all his opponents (behaved).

66

Page 133. "The auxiliary in the third person singular of the present and perfect tense of the indicative mood, governs the principal verb, by requiring it to be of the plural number; as Henry did excel;' Virtue does exalt a character.' Whereas were the Mr. Murray does not say absolutely auxiliary removed, the verb would be (as Mr. Sutcliffe represents) that “adsingular; as 'Henry excelled;' 'Vir-verbs have no government." His words tue exalts," &c. are: (Rule XV.) Adverbs, though they have no government of case, tense, &c., require an appropriate situation in the sentence." Whatever government adverbs may have, we are fully persuaded with Mr. M. that they have no government of case, tense, &c. and we think Mr. S. has completely failed in his attempts to prove the reverse. All that the subsequent paragraphs of Mr. S.'s rule, quoted above, tend to prove, is just what Mr. M. asserts, viz. that adverbs-require an appropriate situation in the sentence."

This Rule, we must confess, appears to us not only useless, but altogether ridiculous. In the sentence Henry did excel, Mr. S. tells us the auxiliary did is third person singular, and the verb excel is plural; so that here is a singular nominative connected with a plural verb, in direct violation of the first rule of Syntax. Virtue does exalt; here also we are told, does is singular, and exalt plural, where the same breach of rule recurs. But is it not absurd thus to separate the auxiliary from its principal, to give them different constructions, and those of such a nature as to overturn the established laws of Grammar? The only end which this Rule can answer, is to prevent learners from using such expressions as, Henry

Page 142." Instead of saying, “I would have come, but bad weather hindered me," we must say, "" I would have come, but hindered me bad weather."

We cannot see the smallest con

nection between this example, and the point which Mr. S. had been treating. He had been speaking of the government of adverbs; now in the sentence adduced, there is no adverb at all: consequently the impropriety of the expression, I would have come, but hindered me bad weather, cannot be owing to any error in regard to the position or government of adverbs, but solely to this circumstance; bad weather is the nominative to the verb hindered, and therefore ought to precede it.

Page 145. "It might be asked, Who else docs it expose?"

tion from the Greek-" ita ut non posse ipsos neque panem manducare.” Beza, whose language is correct, gives only one negative. Though a few rare examples of a double negative may be found in old Latin authors, they are to be regarded, not as the standard of grammatical accuracy, but as anomalies, being deviations from the constant practice of all the best writers. Mr. S. tells us, that "one of the double negatives employed by our Fathers" is sometimes superseded" by the auxiliary do." Of this however he has not produced, and we apprehend cannot produce, a single instance. The only cases that seem to illustrate this supposition, are in the French sentence" Je ne sais pas,"I do not know; and in the Latin," aisne"-say you not, or do you say. But in neither of these, does the auxiliary do stand in the place of a negative: in the former sentence, the two French negatives ne and pas are rendered in English by the single ne

66

If we had met with this expression in the works of any other respectable author, we should immediately have concluded that it was an error of the press. But as Mr. S. would vindicate it according to the principles laid down (page 123,) we must notice it, as a glaring and unpardonable breach of the rules of grammar. The relative in this sentence, who else does it expose, not being nominative to the verb ex-gative not; and in the latter, ne is not pose, is governed by it, and ought a negative, and requires no corremost certainly to be the objective, spondent word in English. But whom. (says Mr. S.) we cannot alter the phrases of the common people. They still use two or three negatives in every county and in every dialect." We are truly surprised, that Mr. S. should adduce this by way of argument. If the practice of the common people be to decide what is right and what wrong, we may at once discard all the rules that grammarians have laid down; for there is not one of them but what is constantly violated by the common people. And to what a state would this reduce our language!

Again, as in all interrogatories, the noun or pronoun which answers the question must be in the same case as that which asks it; if it be right to say Who else does it expose, it must be equally right to answer in the nominative, and say, I, thou, or she; that is, supplying the ellipsis, it exposes I, it exposes thou, it exposes she, &c.

Pages 146, 147. We cannot accord with Mr. S. in the opinions here laid down respecting negatives. The English language is in many respects essentially different from the Greek, Latin, and French; and particularly differs from the Greek and French, in the use of negatives. In this particular, the Latin and English must resemble each other. That two negatives in the same clause are very common in French and Greek, and in the latter language sometimes three or four, which strengthen each other, and add emphasis to the negation, is readily allowed; but in Latin and English, the doctrine of Lowth and Murray is, we think, perfectly accurate; viz. that two negatives, in the same clause, destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative. The Latin example quoted from Montanus's version proves nothing, because it is not pure classical Latin, but only a literal transla

"I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." This language is correct and emphatic, but it does not affect the point; for though there are three negatives, they are in three different clauses; there being a comma after faith, and another after no; by which commas the sentence is divided into three clauses.

66

said, it is nominative to the verb came, the preposition against is then left without any noun or pronoun which it can govern, and stands wholly unconnected in the sentence. If it be said, that prince is the objective, governed by the preposition against, then the verb came is left without a nominative; which is another anomaly. The sentence thereThe two examples-" For merchants fore cannot be analyzed and accounted to consult their interest is no uncom- for, unless it be granted that prince is mon thing,"-" The veteran is not un- at one and the same time both nomiacquainted with the hardships of life," native and objective case. The same which Mr. S. says are not excep- observations apply to the other sentionable," certainly are exceptionable tence quoted by Mr. S. "Supper according to his own hypothesis, ready against the reapers return;" which admits two or more negatives where the noun reapers stands in a into one clause, with the intent of similar predicament. To speak gramstrengthening the expression. For if matically, the mode of expression must these expressions be used according be altered. If the preposition against to his system, the first means, For mer- be retained, we should say, against the chants to consult their interests is ex- coming of the prince; against the return tremely uncommon, or is by no means com- of the reapers. Otherwise, for this mon; and the latter, The veteran is ut- preposition should be substituted when, terly unacquainted, or not in the least ac- as soon as, by the time that, or the like: quainted with hardships, &c. Whereas thus, that all things might be ready when according to the correct and true sys- the prince came thither; supper being tem of Lowth and Murray, those ex-ready as soon as the reapers return. Mr. pressions are allowable, and the two negatives in each sentence destroy each other, and are equivalent to an affirmative; so that the first means, For merchants to consult their interest is a common thing; and the latter, The veteran is acquainted with the hardships of life.

Page 147. "No one, among all the friends I conversed with yesterday, never dropped any hint of my brother's arrival." Mr. Sutcliffe's attempt to vindicate this expression is quite unsuccessful; one of the negatives must he omitted.

Page 148. Prepositions govern nouns and pronouns in the accusative case; as, He loves us; we believed him,' &c. How strangely and unpardonably remiss must Mr. S. have been, in selecting examples, the first two of which contain no preposition at all, and therefore cannot exemplify the rule!

Page 149. "I doubt the propriety of Lowth's stricture on Clarendon in the following example; That all things might be ready against the prince came thither." We cordially agree with Lowth on this point, and are sorry that Mr. S. should endeavour to justify the expression. In regard to the above sentence, we would inquire, What case is the substantive prince? If it be

S. may object, that this is "to use four words, when one would do better." That one word would do better, has not been proved; and at all events, brevity of expression can never atone for a plain breach of grammatical rules. (See Mr. S.'s Gram. page 167. Rule XXIV.) The saying of Frederic the Great to the Austrian General, I would rather have you on my right hand than over against me, is quite foreign to the point in dispute, for in it the preposition against is immediately followed by the pronoun me, which it governs in the objective case.

Page 150. The conjunctions if, though, whether, unless, except, &c. govern a plural verb in the third person singular; as, If this part of our trade were well cultivated. Though accuracy apply to works of this kind. If this argument need confirmation. It must be always the preacher's own fault, if he transgress in unity," &c.

In the above sentences, according to Mr. S. the verbs were, apply, need, transgress, are plural, while their nominative cases, part, accuracy, argument, he, are singular. If this be granted, what becomes of the First Rule of Syntax? A verb may be plural, though its nominative case is singular.

The difference between were, apply, need, transgress, and was, applies, needs,