ment of the moods and tenses of verbs with respect to one another, so that they may be proper and consistent. The best rule that can be given is this very general one, "To observe what the sense necessarily requires." It may, however, be of use to give a few examples of irregular construction. "The last week I intended to have written," is a very common phrase; the infinitive being in the past time, as well as the verb which it follows. But it is certainly wrong: for how long soever it now is since I thought of writing, "to write" was then present to me, and must still be considered as present, when I bring back that time, and the thoughts of it. It ought, therefore, to be, "The last week I intended to write.' The following sentences are also erroneous: I cannot excuse the remissness of those whose business it should have been, as it certainly was their interest, to have interposed their good offices." "There were two circumstances which made it necessary for them to have lost no time." "History painters would have found it difficult to have invented such a species of beings." They ought to be," to interpose, to lose, to invent." "On the morrow, because he should have known the certainty, wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him." It ought to be, "because he would know," or rather, "being willing to know." "The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight." "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead;" may," in both places, would have been better. "From

“

his biblical knowledge, he appears to study the Scriptures with great attention;"" to have studied," &c. "I feared that I should have lost it, before I arrived at the city;" "should lose it.” “I had rather walk;" It should be, "I would rather walk." "It would have afforded me no satisfaction, if I could perform it:" it should be, “if I could have performed it;" or, "It would afford me no satisfaction, if I could perform it."

To preserve consistency in the time of verbs, we must recollect that, in the subjunctive mood, the present and imperfect tenses often carry with them a future sense; and that the auxiliaries should and would, in the imperfect

times, are used to express the present and future as well as the past: for which see page 83.

1. It is proper further to observe, that verbs of the infinitive mood in the following form; "to write," "to be writing," and "to be written," always denote something contemporary with the time of the governing verb, or subsequent to it: but when verbs of that mood are expressed as follows; "To have been writing," "to have written," and" to have been written,", they always denote something antecedent to the time of the governing verb. This remark is thought to be of importance; for if duly attended to, it will, in most cases, be sufficient to direct us in the relative application of these tenses."

The following sentence is properly and analogically expressed: "I found him better than I expected to find him." "Expected to have found him," is irreconcilable alike to grammar and to sense. Indeed, all verbs expressive of hope, desire, intention, or command, must invariably be followed by the present, and not the perfect of the infinitive. Every person would perceive an error in this expression; "It is long since I commanded him to have done it:" Yet "expected to have found," is no better. It is as clear that the finding must be posterior to the expectation, as that the obedience must be posterior to the command.

In the sentence which follows, the verb is with propriety put in the perfect tense of the infinitive mood; "It would have afforded me great pleasure, as often as I reflected upon it, to have been the messenger of such intelligence." As the message, in this instance, was antecedent to the pleasure, and not contemporary with it, the verb expressive of the message must denote that antecedence, by being in the perfect of the infinitive. If the message and the pleasure had been referred to as contemporary, the subsequent verb would, with equal propriety, have been put in the present of the infinitive: "It would have afforded me great pleasure, to be the messenger of such intelligence." In the former instance,

as,

Q

If

the phrase in question is equivalent to these words; I had been the messenger;" in the latter instance, to this expression; "Being the messenger."-For a further discussion of this subject, see the Tenth edition of the Key to the Exercises, RULE XIII. The Note.

It is proper to inform the learner, that, in order to express the past time with the defective verb ought, the perfect of the infinitive must always be used: as, "He ought to have done it." When we use this verb, this is the only possible way to distinguish the past from the present.

In support of the positions advanced under this rule, we can produce the sentiments of eminent grammarians; amongst whom are Lowth and Campbell. But there are some writers on grammar, who strenuously maintain, that the governed verb in the infinitive ought to be in the past tense, when the verb which governs it, is in the past time, Though this cannot be admitted, in the instances which we have already given under this rule, or in any instances of a similar nature, yet there can be no doubt that, in many cases, in which the thing referred to preceded the governing verb, it would be proper and allowable. We may say; "From a conversation I once had with him, he appeared to have studied Homer with great care and judgment;" It would be proper also to say, "From his conversation, he appears to have studied Homer with great care and judgment;" "That unhappy man is supposed to have died by violence." These examples are not only consistent with our rule, but they confirm and illustrate it. It is the tense of the governing verb only, that marks what is called the absolute time; the tense of the verb governed, marks solely its relative time with respect to the other.

To assert, as some writers do, that verbs in the infinitive mood have no tenses, no relative distinctions of present, past, and future, is inconsistent with just grammatical views of the subject. That these verbs associate with verbs in all the tenses, is no proof of their having no peculiar time of their own. Whatever period the governing verb assumes, whether present, past, or future, the governed verb in the infinitive always respects that period, and its time is calculated from it. Thus, the

time of the infinitive may be before, after, or the same as, the time of the governing verb, according as the thing signified by the infinitive is supposed to be before, after, or present with, the thing denoted by the governing verb. It is, therefore, with great propriety, that tenses are assigned to verbs of the infinitive mood. The point of time from which they are computed, is of no consequence; since present, past, and future, are completely applicable to them.

We shall conclude our observations under this rule, by remarking, that though it is often proper to use the perfect of the infinitive after the governing verb, yet there are particular cases, in which it would be better to give the expression a different form. Thus, instead of saying, “I wish to have written to him sooner," « I then wished to have written to him sooner," "He will one day wish to have written sooner;" it would be more perspicuous and forcible, as well as more agreeable to the practice of good writers, to say; "I wish that I had written to him sooner," "I then wished that I had written to him sooner, ," "He will one day wish that he had written sooner." Should the justness of these strictures be admitted, there would still be numerous occasions for the use of the past infinitive; as we may perceive by a few examples. "It would ever afterwards have been a source of pleasure, to have found him wise and virtuous." "To have deferred his repentance longer, would have disqualified him from repenting at all." "They will then see, that to have faithfully performed their duty, would have been their greatest consolation.'

RULE XIV.

Participles have the fame government as the

verbs have from which they are derived

: as,

am weary with hearing him :" "She is instructing

;

""The tutor is admonishing Charles."+

* See Key to the English Exercises, Tenth Edit. Rule xiii. The Note. +See "English Exercites." Eleventh Edit. p. 75.

1. Participles are sometimes governed by the article: for the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive, and must have the preposition of after it: as, "These are the rules of grammar, by the observing of which you may avoid mistakes." It would not be proper to say, "by the observing which;" nor, "by observing of which;" but the phrase, without either article or preposition, would be right: as, "by observing which." The article a or an has the same effect: as, "This was a betraying of the trust reposed in him."

This rule arises from the nature and idiom of our language, and from as plain a principle as any on which it is founded; namely, that a word which has the article before it, and the possessive preposition of after it, must be a noun: and, if a noun, it ought to follow the construction of a noun, and not to have the regimen of a verb. It is the participial termination of this sort of words that is apt to deceive us, and make us treat them as if they were of an amphibious species, partly nouns and partly verbs.

The following are a few examples of the violation of this rule. "He was sent to prepare the way by preaching of repentance;" it ought to be, "by the preaching of repentance;" or, "by preaching repentance." By the continual mortifying our corrupt affections;" it should be, "by the continual mortifying of," or, "by continually mortifying our corrupt affections." "They laid out themselves towards the advancing and promoting the good of it;"" towards advancing and promoting the good.""It is an overvaluing ourselves," to reduce every thing to the narrow measure of our capacities;" "it is overvaluing ourselves," or, "an overvaluing of ourselves." "Keeping of one day in seven," &c. it ought to be, "the keeping of one day;" or, "keeping one day."

A phrase in which the article precedes the present participle and the possessive preposition follows it, will not, in every instance, convey the same meaning, as would be conveyed by the participle without the article