rarely, “the Author;” generally, “We:”  as, “We have distributed these parts of grammar, in the mode which we think most correct and intelligible.”—­Octavo Gram., p. 58. “We shall not pursue this subject any further.”—­Ib., p. 62. “We shall close these remarks on the tenses.”—­Ib., p. 76. “We presume no solid objection can be made.”—­Ib., p. 78.  “The observations which we have made.”—­Ib., p. 100. “We shall produce a remarkable example of this beauty from Milton.”—­Ib., p. 331. “We have now given sufficient openings into this subject.”—­Ib., p. 334.  This usage has authority enough; for it was not uncommon even among the old Latin grammarians; but he must be a slender scholar, who thinks the pronoun we thereby becomes singular. What advantage or fitness there is in thus putting we for I, the reader may judge.  Dr. Blair did not hesitate to use I, as often as ho had occasion; neither did Lowth, or Johnson, or Walker, or Webster:  as, “I shall produce a remarkable example of this beauty from Milton.”—­Blair’s Rhet., p. 129. “I have now given sufficient openings into this subject.”—­Ib., p. 131.  So in Lowth’s Preface:  “I believe,”—­“I am persuaded,”—­“I am sure,”—­“I think,”—­“I am afraid,”—­“I will not take upon me to say.”

OBS. 32.—­Intending to be critical without hostility, and explicit without partiality, I write not for or against any sect, or any man; but to teach all who desire to know the grammar of our tongue.  The student must distinctly understand, that it is necessary to speak and write differently, according to the different circumstances or occasions of writing.  Who is he that will pretend that the solemn style of the Bible may be used in familiar discourse, without a mouthing affectation?  In preaching, or in praying, the ancient terminations of est for the second person singular and eth for the third, as well as ed pronounced as a separate syllable for the preterit, are admitted to be generally in better taste than the smoother forms of the familiar style:  because the latter, though now frequently heard in religious assemblies, are not so well suited to the dignity and gravity of a sermon or a prayer.  In grave poetry also, especially when it treats of scriptural subjects, to which you put for thou is obviously unsuitable, the personal terminations of the verb, though from the earliest times to the present day they have usually been contracted and often omitted by the poets, ought still perhaps to be considered grammatically necessary, whenever they can be uttered, agreeably to the notion of our tuneless critics.  The critical objection to their elision, however, can have no very firm foundation while it is admitted by some of the objectors themselves, that,