pronoun it and an other antecedent, should, I think, be that, and not who or which:  as, “It is not ye that speak.”—­Matt., x, 20.  “It is thou, Lord, who hast the hearts of all men in thy hands, that turnest the hearts of any to show me favour.”—­Jenks’s Prayers, p. 278.  Here who has reference to thou or Lord only; but that has some respect to the pronoun it, though it agrees in person and gender with thou.  A similar example is cited at the close of the preceding observation; and I submit it to the reader, whether the word that, as it there occurs, is not the only fit word for the place it occupies.  So in the following examples:  “There are Words, which are not Verbs, that signify actions and passions, and even things transient.”—­Brightland’s Gram., p. 100.  “It is the universal taste of mankind, which is subject to no such changing modes, that alone is entitled to possess any authority.”—­Blair’s Rhetoric, p. 286.

OBS. 34.—­Sometimes the broad import of an antecedent is doubly restricted, first by one relative clause, and then by an other; as, “And all that dwell upon the earth, shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life.”—­Rev., xiii, 8.  “And then, like true Thames-Watermen, they abuse every man that passes by, who is better dressed than themselves.”—­Brown’s Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 10.  Here and, or if he, would be as good as “who;” for the connective only serves to carry the restriction into narrower limits.  Sometimes the limit fixed by one clause is extended by an other; as, “There is no evil that you may suffer, or that you may expect to suffer, which prayer is not the appointed means to alleviate.”—­Bickersteth, on Prayer, p. 16.  Here which resumes the idea of “evil,” in the extent last determined; or rather, in that which is fixed by either clause, since the limits of both are embraced in the assertion.  And, in the two limiting clauses, the same pronoun was requisite, on account of their joint relation; but the clause which assumes a different relation, is rightly introduced by a different pronoun.  This is also the case in the following examples:  “For there is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”—­Barclay’s Works, Vol. i, p. 432.  “I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.”—­Rev., xvii, 7.  Here the restrictive sense is well expressed by one relative, and the resumptive by an other.  When neither of these senses is intended by the writer, any form of the relative must needs be improper:  as, “The greatest genius which runs through the arts and sciences, takes a kind of tincture from them, and falls unavoidably into imitation.”—­Addison, Spect., No. 160.  Here, as I suppose, which runs should be in running.  What else can the author have meant?