ter do the office of a whole word, in the possessive case of nouns, and represent the his and her of our forefathers. John's book,-for John, his book. By a similar transformation, en and ed are changed into t. The participle gotten has become got-bended, builded, creeped, gilded, have become bent, built, crept, gilt.

Though the labor of multitudes had proved incompetent to arrest the fluctuation of our orthography, the work has been nearly accomplished by one man. Since the publication of Johnson's Dictionary, it has been generally regarded as our best standard. Still, correct scholars differ in a few words. One omits, and another inserts the u, in honor, labor. One uses s, and another c, in expense, defence. One adds, and another rejects k, in public, politic. But the words are really few, in which there is not an established orthography.

I will suggest a few reasons why this subject deserves the attention of every literary man.

In the first place,-though correct spelling is commonly the result of early habit, and is rarely acquired to any considerable perfection, if not acquired in childhood; yet the want of it is supposed to indicate some defect in a man's mind; at least, it raises a suspicion as to the accuracy of his thoughts, in greater matters. Especially when he mingles in public life, if he cannot send a page to the press, nor write a letter of business, without blunders in orthography, it is with difficulty, we persuade ourselves that he is a scholar in any thing.*

In the second place,-Bad spelling often leads to bad enunciation. When you hear the first n in government, omitted in speaking, it is commonly because the speaker has been accustomed to omit that letter in writing the word. A young preacher of good sense, in writing the word foliage, habitually placed the i before the l. The consequence was that he mispronounced the word, and spoke of "the beautiful foil-age of the trees."

In the third place,-Bad spelling perverts the sense of words. Example:-eminent, imminent, immanent, are easily and often * See Witherspoon 3. p. 491.

confounded in writing. The second differs from the first only in two letters, and from the third, only in one; while the sense of the first is high; of the second impending; of the third inherent. Yet the preacher who never learned to spell, tells you of an imminent saint, of eminent danger &c.

I add one more example taken from the Christian Observer, which may be regarded as an extreme case. "A preacher, in discoursing on that text, WRITE, blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, made this observation, "There is a RIGHT blessedness, and a WRONG blessedness, and departed saints are RIGHT blessed, that is, truly blessed." A striking proof, subjoins the Christian Observer, how desirable it is, that public teachers should be able not only to read and write, but also to SPELL." To resume the main subject :—

It would be directly to my purpose, to show, how much an extensive knowledge of the language which we use, promotes facility and despatch in writing; and how important such a habit of despatch is to a minister, who from the variety and magnitude of his other duties, is often called to write much in a little time. It would be equally to my purpose, to trace on a higher scale than orthography, the principles of that connexion which confessedly exists, betwixt writing badly, and speaking badly; and to show how a nice perception of the grammatical structure of sentences, tends to produce a correct and energetic delivery. It must suffice just to hint these considerations here; but another point perhaps deserves a few more particular remarks.

4. There is a sort of literary patriotism, which good men, as well as others, may be supposed to feel on this subject. Consisently with the highest obligations of religion, we may desire to see the language of our country, and of our ancestors, rendered as perfect as possible. Strange as it may seem, this principle was much stronger in its influence among the ancients, than with us. Plato, who is called the father of Grammar, and Aristotle, who reduced it to a regular science, were succeeded by a long list of the first men in Greece, who labored with great industry, to perfect their native tongue. The case was the

same at Rome. The study of grammar was introduced into that city by Crates a Greek ambassador, who had always made this his principal occupation; having written nine books of criticism upon Homer. The purity and beauty of the Latin tongue, in the Augustan age, and the height to which elegance was carried at that period, have been the admiration of subsequent ages. But the rapid progress of that language towards perfection, in that short period, almost ceases to be a subject of wonder, when we see such men as Scipio, and Laelius and Cicero, and Caesar, the greatest men of their age, and the two last among the greatest men of any age, in the midst of their vast employments, still combining their efforts for the improvement of their own language, Take one fact from Cicero's Epistles to Atticus. These two men it seems had agreed to meet, and hear Tyrannion read a book which he had composed. Atticus, in his zeal, having heard the book, without waiting for his friend, was thus reproved by Cicero: "What, did I several times refuse to hear that book because you was absent; and would you not stay to share that pleasure with me? But I forgive you, because of the admiration you express of it." What was that book, which could give so much pleasure to such illustrious men? It was a treatise on grammar, particularly on prosody. "I admit, says Quinctilian, (with these great examples in his eye,) I admit that in grammatical researches, extreme and trivial minuteness, and that only, may injure genius. Was Tully less an orator, because he loved this art so greatly himself; or because, in his letters, he charged his son so strictly to perfect himself in the propriety of language? Did Caesar's books on analogy abate the vigor of his style? or was Messala less splendid, because he published whole volumes, not only on single words, but on letters? "We may add now, was Quinctilian himself less worthy of his great fame as a master of eloquence, because he occupied thirty five pages of his Institutes upon the orthography and accent of the Latin tongue?

Respectable examples, of the same sort, may be mentioned in modern times. Bishop Sprat, in his History of the English

Royal Society, says, "Of late, in many parts of Europe, gentlemen have formed themselves into academies, chiefly for the purpose of perfecting the language of their own country." Among these societies, so honorably alluded to by the prelate, the Academy at Paris became conspicuous by its efforts and success. And no man, surely, need feel himself degraded by attention to an object, which excited so deep an interest in the elegant minds, and claimed so great a share in the literary labors of such men as Fenelon, Addison, and Johnson.

The result of the whole is this; for a minute accuracy in speaking and writing his own language, a preacher deserves no honor; but for a want of it, he deserves reproach.

LECTURE II.

PRELIMINARY REMARK.

-GRAMMATICAL PURITY;-WHAT DOES IT IMPLY? WHAT IS THE LAW OF LANGUAGE?

As a preliminary remark, it may be proper here to say, that the whole plan of these Lectures rests on the broad canon, that the pen and the tongue are the grand instruments of oratory. Thought must employ language as its vehicle, and this vehicle is what we mean by style. This embraces two general branches; (1.) Words, which are the primary materials of style. (2.) The combination of words in sentences, including construction and arrangement, or what we mean by composition. The former is the province of Grammar; the latter, both of Grammar and Rhetoric.

To the FIRST of these branches, viz. WORDS, as the primary materials of style; I shall devote this and the following lecture. The observations to be made in this lecture, fall under the general head of grammatical purity.

Purity implies,

1. That the words and phrases used, belong to the language in which we speak or write. If our words convey no meaning, or a false one, to those whom we address, we speak to no good purpose. The man whom you would convince or move, must first understand you and to make him understand you, the words which you use, must be those to which he is accustomed.

You violate the principles of purity then, if you use words that are obsolete. Many words which are not so far obsolete as