learn, that the pronoun they, which our translators inserted, was meant for “Elias with Moses;” but the Greek verb for “appeared,” as used by Mark, is singular, and agrees only with Elias. “[Greek:  Kai ophthae autois Aelias sun Mosei, kai haesan syllalountes to Iaesoy.]”—­“Et apparuit illis Elias cum Mose, et erant colloquentes Jesu.”—­Montanus.  “Et visus est eis Elias cum Mose, qui colloquebantur cum Jesu.”—­Beza.  This is as discrepant as our version, though not so ambiguous.  The French Bible avoids the incongruity:  “Et iis virent paroitre Moyse et Elie, qui s’entretenoient avec Jesus.”  That is, “And there appeared to them Moses and Elias, who were talking with Jesus.”  Perhaps the closest and best version of the Greek would be, “And there appeared to them Elias, with Moses;[397] and these two were talking with Jesus.”  There is, in our Bible, an other instance of the construction now in question; but it has no support from the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or the French:  to wit, “The second [lot came forth] to Gedaliah, who with his brethren and sons were twelve.”—­1 Chron., xxv, 9.  Better:  “and he, his brethren, and his sons, were twelve.”

OBS. 20.—­Cobbett, who, though he wrote several grammars, was but a very superficial grammarian, seems never to have doubted the propriety of putting with for and; and yet he was confessedly not a little puzzled to find out when to use a singular, and when a plural verb, after a nominative with such “a sort of addition made to it.”  The 246th paragraph of his English Grammar is a long and fruitless attempt to fix a rule for the guidance of the learner in this matter.  After dashing off a culpable example, “Sidmouth, with Oliver the spye, have brought Brandreth to the block;” or, as his late editions have it, “The Tyrant, with the Spy, have brought Peter to the block.”  He adds:  “We hesitate which to employ, the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, has or have.  The meaning must be our guide.  If we mean, that the act has been done by the Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural verb.”  Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use and, and not with?  After some further illustrations, he says:  “When with means along with, together with, in Company with, and the like, it is nearly the same as and; and then the plural verb must be used:  [as,] ’He, with his brothers, are able to do much.’  Not, ‘is able to do much.’  If the pronoun be used instead of brothers, it will be in the objective case:  ‘He, with them, are able to do much.’  But this is no impediment to the including