OBS. 44.—­Of that particular distinction between the participle and the participial noun, which depends on the insertion or omission of the article and the preposition of, a recent grammarian of considerable merit adopts the following views:  “This double nature of the participle has led to much irregularity in its use.  Thus we find, ‘indulging which,’ ’indulging of which,’ ‘the indulging which,’ and ‘the indulging of which,’ used indiscriminately.  Lowth very properly instructs us, either to use both the article and the preposition with the participle; as, ’the indulging of which:’  or to reject both; as, ‘indulging which:’  thus keeping the verbal and substantive forms distinct.  But he is wrong, as Dr. Crombie justly remarks, in considering these two modes of expression as perfectly similar.  Suppose I am told, ’Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in hearing Fawcet:’  I understand at once, that the eloquence of Fawcet gave Bloomfield great pleasure.  But were it said, ’Bloomfield spoke warmly of the pleasure he had in the hearing of Fawcet:’  I should be led to conclude merely that the orator was within hearing, when the poet spoke of the pleasure he felt from something, about which I have no information.  Accordingly Dr. Crombie suggests as a general rule, conducive at least to perspicuity, and perhaps to elegance; that, when the noun connected with the participle is active, or doing something, the article should be inserted before the participle, and the preposition after it; and, when the noun is passive, or represents the object of an action, both the article and the preposition should be omitted:[425] agreeably to the examples just adduced.  It is true, that when the noun following the participle denotes something incapable of the action the participle expresses, no mistake can arise from using either form:  as, ’The middle condition seems to be the most advantageously situate for the gaining of wisdom.  Poverty turns our thoughts too much upon the supplying of our wants; and riches, upon enjoying our superfluities.’ Addison, Spect., 464.  Yet I cannot think it by any means a commendable practice, thus to jumble together different forms; and indeed it is certainly better, as the two modes of expression have different significations, to confine each to its distinct and proper use, agreeably to Dr. Crombie’s rule, even when no mistake could arise from interchanging them.”—­Churchill’s Gram., p. 319.

OBS. 45.—­The two modes of expression which these grammarians would thus apply constantly to different uses, on the supposition that they have always different significations, are the same that Lindley Murray and his copyists suppose to be generally equivalent, and concerning which it is merely admitted by the latter, that they do “not in every instance convey the same meaning.” (See Obs. 27th above.)