synonymous with the name of unity, or rather them. selves names of unity, emphasis only distinguishing, whether unity or the species were chiefly intended. Hence a and an cannot be joined with a plural noun.

Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every example where a or an occurs, the term one may be substituted in its stead, without in the least degree injuring the sense. As far as the primary idea denoted by these words is concerned, this opinion is doubtless incontrovertible, for they each express unity; but with regard to the secondary or implied ideas, which these terms convey, the difference is obvious. An example will illustrate this: If I say, "Will one man be able to carry this burden so far?" I evidently oppose one to more; and the answer might be, "No; but two men will." Let us substitute the term a, and say, "Will a man be able to carry this burden?" Is the idea nowise changed by this alteration? I apprehend it is; for the answer might naturally be, "No; but a horse will." I have here substituted a, for one; the converse will equally show that the terms are by no means mutually convertible, or strictly synonymous. If, instead of saying "A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse," I should say "One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one horse," the sentiment, I conceive, would not be strictly the same. In both expressions the species is named, and in both one of that species is demanded; but with this difference, that in the former the name of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes that species to every other; in the latter, unity of object seems the leading idea, "one kingdom for one horse." In this respect, our language appears to me to have a decided superiority over those languages, where one word performs the office of what we term an article, and at the same time denotes the idea of unity. Donnez moi un livre means either "give me one book," i. e. not two or more books; or "give me a book," that is, " a book, not something else; a book, not a pen," for example.

I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may serve to discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambiguity. But emphasis is addressed to the ear only, not to the eye; it can, therefore, be of no service in written language. It is true also, that by attending to the context error may often be avoided ; but let it be remembered, as Quintilian observes *,

* Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curandum.-Inst. lib. viii. cap. 4.

I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in this respect over the Greek itself. Εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσαλμενος παρα το Θες may signify either "man in the species, or an individual, was sent from God." The author of the article Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit. observes, "that the word ανθρωπος is here restricted to an individual by its concord with the verb and the participle." If he mean by this that the term must be significant of only one individual (and I can annex no other interpretation to his words), because a singular verb and participle singular are joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples might be produced to evince the contrary. Job, v. 7. ανθρωπος γεννᾶται κοπω, “man (mankind) is born unto trouble:" where the subject is joined to a verb singular, Psal. xlix. 12. ανθρωπος εν τιμη ων ο συνηκε, “man being in honour abideth not."

that language should be, not such as the reader may understand if he will take the trouble to examine it carefully, but such as he cannot even without effort fail to comprehend. When it is asserted, therefore, that one may in every case be substituted for a, without in the least degree injuring the expression, the position appears to me erroneous and false. Whatever creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the primary or secondary ideas annexed to words, in some degree, without question, violates the sense.

It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word a, termed the indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of unity, expressing either one of any species, as opposed to more of that species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one of that. Whether the distinction of its noting one or unity, with less emphasis than the appropriate name of unity, should entitle it to be referred to a different class of words from the numeral one, and called an article, it is unimportant to inquire. To me, however, I must acknowledge the distinctive name of article assigned to this word appears to be useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the principle of classification (and I see no other distinction between a and one), the parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number.

Besides the words a and an, termed indefinite

Here also man for mankind is joined with a participle and verb singular. And here it may be pertinently asked, would not the term one for a in the first example somewhat alter the meaning, and convey an idea different from that intended by the evangelist?

articles, as not defining which of the species is signified, we have also another word, the, named the definite article, because it is said to point out the individual object. This word, I doubt not, proceeded from the word this or that, much in the same manner as a and an from ae and ane. To what class of words this and that should be referred has been a subject of controversy *. That they are not pronouns, as some have asserted, seems abundantly evident; for they never represent a noun. By some they have been called definitives; and, though this designation be not strictly consonant with their import, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When opposed to each other, they appear to be reducible to that species of words termed adjectives of order; the only difference between them and ordinal numerals being this, that the former express the arrangement in relation to two objects, the latter in relation to a series. This means "the nearer," "the latter," or "the second;" that, "the more remote," " the former," or "the first." Their office, in general, seems to be emphatically to individuate some particular object, whose character was either previously known, or is then described; hence they have also been named demonstratives. Under which of the generally received parts of speech they should be comprehended it may be difficult to determine. As, like simple attributives, they accord with nouns, frequently denoting the accident of place, they may be grammatically referred to the class of adjectives. Their import will appear from a few examples:

"That kind being, who is a father to the fatherless, will recompense thee for this."

Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevolence. Of this species one individual is emphatically particularized: "That kind being." Who? his distinctive character follows, " is a father to the fatherless." The concluding word, this, points to something previously described.

'Twas idly done

To tell him of another world; for wits
Knew better; and the only good on earth
Was pleasure; not to follow that was sin."

Here the word that refers with emphasis to a thing previously specified, namely, pleasure.

"It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at every thing sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I would not be that man, were a crown to tempt me." Here one indefinitely of a species is mentioned, a man. The subject is after