OBS. 7.—­An imperfect or a preperfect participle, preceded by an article, an adjective, or a noun or pronoun of the possessive case, becomes a verbal or participial noun; and, as such, it cannot with strict propriety, govern an object after it.  A word which may be the object of the participle in its proper construction, requires the preposition of, to connect it with the verbal noun; as, 1.  THE PARTICIPLE:  “Worshiping idols, the Jews sinned.”—­“Thus worshiping idols,—­In worshiping idols,—­or, By worshiping idols, they sinned.” 2.  THE VERBAL NOUN:  “The worshiping of idols,—­Such worshiping of idols,—­or, Their worshiping of idols, was sinful.”—­“In the worshiping of idols, there is sin.”

OBS. 8.—­It is commonly supposed that these two modes of expression are, in very many instances, equivalent to each other in meaning, and consequently interchangeable.  How far they really are so, is a question to be considered.  Example:  “But if candour be a confounding of the distinctions between sin and holiness, a depreciating of the excellence of the latter, and at the same time a diminishing of the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation.”—­The Friend, iv, 108.  Here the nouns, distinctions, excellence, and evil, though governed by of, represent the objects of the forenamed actions; and therefore they might well be governed by confounding, depreciating, and diminishing, if these were participles.  But if, to make them such, we remove the article and the preposition, the construction forsakes our meaning; for be confounding, (be) depreciating, and (be) diminishing, seem rather to be verbs of the compound form; and our uncertain nominatives after be, thus disappear in the shadow of a false sense.  But some sensible critics tell us, that this preposition of should refer rather to the agent of the preceding action, than to its passive object; so that such a phrase as, “the teaching of boys,” should signify rather the instruction which boys give, than that which they receive.  If, for the sake of this principle, or for any other reason, we wish to avoid the foregoing phraseology, the meaning may be expressed thus:  “But if your candour confound the distinctions between sin and holiness; if it depreciate the excellence of the latter, and at the same time diminish the evil of the former; then it must be something openly at variance with the letter and the spirit of revelation.”