OBS. 29.—­Murray’s rule for the punctuation of relatives, (a rule which he chiefly copied from Lowth,) recognizes virtually the distinction which I have made above; but, in assuming that relatives “generally” require a comma before them, it erroneously suggests that the resumptive sense is more common than the restrictive.  Churchill, on the contrary, as wrongly makes it an essential characteristic of all relatives, “to limit or explain the words to which they refer.”  See his New Gram., p. 74.  The fact is, that relatives are so generally restrictive, that not one half of them are thus pointed; though some that do restrict their antecedent, nevertheless admit the point.  This may be seen by the first example given us by Murray:  “Relative pronouns are connective words, and generally admit a comma before them:  as, ’He preaches sublimely, who lives a sober, righteous, and pious life.’  But when two members, or phrases, [say clauses,] are closely connected by a relative, restraining the general notion of the antecedent to a particular sense, the comma should be omitted:  as, ‘Self-denial is the sacrifice which virtue must make;’ ’A man who is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent words that can be put together.’  In the latter example, the assertion is not of ‘a man in general,’ but of ‘a man who is of a detracting spirit;’ and therefore they [say the pronoun and its antecedent] should not be separated.”—­Murray’s Gram., Octavo, p. 273; Ingersoll’s, 285; Comly’s, 152.  This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma before who in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not “closely” or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed, though it is not much needed.  Not so, when the sense is resumptive:  as, “The additions, which are very considerable, are chiefly such as are calculated to obviate objections.”  See Murray’s Gram., p. ix.  Here the comma is essential to the meaning.  Without it, which would be equivalent to that; with it, which is equivalent to and they.  But this latter meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative that.

OBS. 30.—­Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but because his rule requires it:  “Self-denial is the sacrifice,” &c.  The author of “a complete system of grammar,” might better contradict even Murray, than himself.  But why was this text admired? and why have Greene, Bullions, Hiley, Hart, and others, also copied it?  A sacrifice is something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, if Virtue sacrifice self-denial, what will she do, but run into indulgence?  The great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their self-love.