OBS. 9.—­The terms, solemn style, familiar style, modern style, ancient style, legal style, regal style, nautic style, common style, and the like, as used in grammar, imply no certain divisions of the language; but are designed merely to distinguish, in a general way, the occasions on which some particular forms of expression may be considered proper, or the times to which they belong.  For what is grammatical sometimes, may not be so always.  It would not be easy to tell, definitely, in what any one of these styles consists; because they all belong to one language, and the number or nature of the peculiarities of each is not precisely fixed.  But whatever is acknowledged to be peculiar to any one, is consequently understood to be improper for any other:  or, at least, the same phraseology cannot belong to styles of an opposite character; and words of general use belong to no particular style.[238] For example:  “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”—­Rom., ix, 16.  If the termination eth is not obsolete, as some say it is, all verbs to which this ending is added, are of the solemn style; for the common or familiar expression would here be this; “So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.”  Ben Jonson, in his grammar, endeavoured to arrest this change of eth to s; and, according to Lindley Murray, (Octavo Gram., p. 90,) Addison also injudiciously disapproved it.  In spite of all such objections, however, some future grammarian will probably have to say of the singular ending eth, as Lowth and Murray have already said of the plural en:  “It was laid aside as unnecessary.”

OBS. 10.—­Of the origin of the personal terminations of English verbs, that eminent etymologist Dr. Alexander Murray, gives the following account:  “The readers of our modern tongue may be reminded, that the terminations, est, eth, and s, in our verbs, as in layest, layeth, and laid’st, or laidest; are the faded remains of the pronouns which were formerly joined to the verb itself, and placed the language, in respect of concise expression, on a level with the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, its sister dialects.”—­History of European Languages, Vol. i, p. 52.  According to this, since other signs of the persons and numbers are now employed with the verb, it is not strange that there should appear a tendency to lay aside such of these endings as are least agreeable and least necessary.  Any change of this kind will of course occur first in the familiar style.  For example:  “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”—­Acts, xi, 3.  “These things write I unto thee, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.”—­1 Tim., iii, 15.  These forms, by universal