idiom of the tongue and the harmony of the sentence will permit the variation. The place where we should naturally expect to find it, when it connects two sentences, is doubtless the beginning of the second. But in most languages a little latitude is indulged on this article. In those cases, therefore, which admit this freedom, one, two, or more words may precede the conjunction, and serve as a cover to render it less observeable. In the beginning it stands by itself; whereas, placed in the manner now mentioned, it may be said to stand in a crowd. But no tongue whatever gives this indulgence in assigning a place to every connexive.

With us in particular, no monosyllabic conjunction, except the illative then, can be thus transposed*. Our language, however, hath been abundantly indulgent (where indulgence is of greater consequence) in the power it gives us in the disposal of those which consist of more than one syllable. Thus almost all the copulatives which come under this denomination †, the disjunctives, however and nevertheless, and the illative therefore, may be shifted to the second, the third, the fourth place, or even further.

It would be difficult to assign a satisfactory reason for the difference that hath been made in this respect, between conjunctions of one syllable, and those of more. Yet we have ground to believe, that it is not merely accidental, as some traces of the same distinction are to be found in most languages §. It will indeed appear,

• There is another monosyllabic conjunction, which, even when it connects sentences, is not placed in the beginning of the second. But this implies no transposition, as the first place could not be assigned to it without the violation of universal practice. The particle I mean is the conjunction too, when it signi fies also. Thus we say, "He too was included in the act of indemnity." To say, "Too he," would not be English.

The copulative again cannot conveniently be transposed, as it would scarcely fail to occasion an ambiguity, and be mistaken for the adverb signifying a second time.

The disjunctive whercas is never transposed.

§ In Latin, for example, the monosyllabic conjunctions et, sed, nam, when they connect two sentences, regularly maintain their place in the beginning of the second; whereas, to the dissyllables, quoque, autem, enim, more latitude is al lowed. In French too, the monosyllables et, mais, car, have invariably the same situation. It is otherwise with aussi, pourtant, pourquoi; though there is not so great freedom allowed in arranging them, as in the English dissyllabic conjunctions.

from what hath been illustrated above, that the monosyllabic conjunctions need not be managed with the same address as the others, there not being the same hazard that they would soon become tiresome. On the contrary, it may be said, that being of themselves so inconsiderable, it is necessary that their situation be ascertained, in order to give them that degree of influence, without which they could not answer the purpose even of conjunctions.

But it may be argued against the solution now given, and, indeed, against the whole of the precedent reasoning on this article, "How few, if any, have ever reflect"ed on the different effects of these different arrange"ments? Or how could a difference, not reflected on, give rise to a difference in the laws by which their respective places are assigned them?" To this I answer, that taste alone, whose general principles are the same in every people, and which, like every appetite, seeks its own gratification, produceth insensibly, as it improves, and even where there is no direct intention, an improvement in the language as well as in the arts. It is by gradual, and what may be termed implicit com pact, that the language, like the common law of every nation, hath obtained at first an establishment among them. It is to the same cause that the alterations to the better or to the worse, as knowledge and taste advance or decline among the people, are afterwards to be ascribed. That there should ever have been any formal or explicit convention or contrivance in this case, is an hypothesis in my opinion, not only unsupported by reason, but repugnant to it. It is the province of criticism and philosophy which appear much later than language, being of much slower growth, and to which close attention and reflection are not less requisite than taste, to investigate the latent causes in the principles of taste, by which the various changes have been actually, though in a manner imperceptibly, produced.

My fourth observation is, that though certain circumstances require, that one connexive be immediately followed by another, the accumulating of these without

necessity ought always to be avoided. There are some complex conjunctions, which appear to be two, because in writing custom hath not combined the parts into one word, but are properly one in import and effect. Such are, as if, so that, insomuch that, and a few others. Of these I am not now speaking.

As to those between which, though adjoined in situation, there is no coalition in sense, let it be observed, that-there are cases in which propriety requires the aid of more than one ;-there are cases in which the idiom of the language permits the use of more; that, on the contrary, there are cases in which propriety rejects the union altogether; and lastly,—there are cases in which idiom rejects it. Each of these four classes I shall consider severally.

First, as to the cases wherein propriety requires the aid of more than one connexive, it was remarked formerly, that some conjunctions are limited to the use of connecting words and members, whilst others are employed indiscriminately for the connection of words, members, or sentences. When one of each kind meets in the beginning of a sentence, the intention of the first is generally to express the relation which the sentence bears to that immediately preceding; and the intention of the second, to express the dependence of the one clause on the other, in the sentence so introduced. Take the following passage of scripture for an example: "I go to

prepare a place for your. AND if I go to prepare a "place for you; I will come again, and receive you to

myself." The copulative AND connects the two sentences. The hypothetical conjunction if serves only to mark the first member of the last sentence, as the condition or limitation of the promise contained in the second member. The reader will observe, that I have distinguished the different applications of the two conjunctions in this example by a difference in the character in which they are printed. I intend, for the sake of perspicuity, to adopt the same method in the other ex

• John xiv. 2, 3.

amples which are to be produced. But it is not copulatives only that may be thus combined with conditional particles. The causal, illative, and adversative, may all be employed in the same way. The first of these is exemplified in the following quotation: " Let us not say we keep the commandments of the one, when we break "the commandments of the other. FOR unless we observe both, we obey neither *." The above instances will serve to illustrate the observation in all other combinations with connectives of the same order. For an example of the like construction in the conjunction that, these words of the poet will suffice;

If there's a power above us;

AND that there is, all Nature cries aloud

Thro' all her works; he must delight in virtue +.

It is not material that the whole is here comprised in one sentence. The first conjunction serves to unite the member that precedes with that which follows; the second to exhibit the connection that subsists between the succeeding clauses. And what relation two connected complex sentences bear to the members of each, that relation bear the members of a complicated sentence, to the clauses of which they consist. It was said, that the first of two conjunctions so placed, is generally the connexive of the sentences, and that the second marks the relation subsisting between the members of the sentence which ensues. This holds generally, but not always. If the connective of the sentences be one of those particles, which agreeably to the third observation, the idiom of the language permits us to transpose, it may properly possess the second place, and the other the first, as in the example following: "It is of "the utmost importance to us, that we associate prin"cipally with the wise and virtuous. When, THEREFORE, we choose our companions, we ought to be ex"tremely careful in regard to the choice we make." The second conjunction THEREFORE is that which connects the sentences. The first conjunction when hath

1

no relation to any thing beyond the second sentence. The only examples I have yet produced, are those wherein one of the conjunctions is by its nature always appropriated to the subordinate use of connecting the parts of a sentence. But even where the two connectives are alike susceptible of both uses, the structure of the expression may sufficiently evince, that the one is employed solely to connect the sentence to what precedes in the discourse, and the other solely to conjoin the members, as in the following example: "Such is "the probable consequence of the measure I now re"commend. BUT however this may succeed, our duty "is the same." Of the different applications of the two conjunctions in this passage, there cannot be the smallest doubt. Sometimes a decompound sentence may be ushered by no fewer than three successive conjunctions; the first being the connexive of the sentences; the second that which ascertains the relation of the members of the sentence thus introduced; the third that which indicates the connection of the clauses of the first member of that sentence, as in the subsequent example, "To "those who do not love God, the enjoyment of him is "unattainable. NOW AS that we may love God, || it "is necessary to know him; so that we may know "God, it is necessary to study his works." The conjunction now connects this period with the preceding sentence; As is expressive of the relation which the first member bears to the second, beginning with so; that indicates the dependence of the first clause of the first member, "we may love God," on the second clause, "it is necessary to know him ;" and corresponds to the conjunction that, which follows the so, in the beginning of the second member, and which, in like manner, indicates the dependence of the first clause of the second member, "we may know God," on the last clause, “it " is necessary to study his works." But though the introduction of two conjunctions having different references in the manner above explained, is perfectly compatible with the rules of good writing, and often inevitable; I cannot say so much for the admission of three,