OBS. 10.—­It is a very common error among grammarians, and the source of innumerable discrepancies in doctrine, as well as one of the chief means of maintaining their interminable disputes, that they suppose ellipses at their own pleasure, and supply in every given instance just what words their fancies may suggest.  In this work, I adopt for myself, and also recommend to others, the contrary course of avoiding on all occasions the supposition of any needless ellipses.  Not only may the same preposition govern more than one object, but there may also be more than one antecedent word, bearing a joint relation to that which is governed by the preposition. (1.) Examples of joint objects:  “There is an inseparable connection BETWEEN piety and virtue.”—­Murray’s Key, 8vo, p. 171.  “In the conduct of Parmenio, a mixture OF wisdom and folly was very conspicuous.”—­Ib., p. 178.  “True happiness is an enemy TO pomp and noise”—­Ib., p. 171. (2.) Examples of joint antecedents:  “In unity consist the welfare and security OF every society.”—­Ib., p. 182.  “It is our duty to be just and kind TO our fellow—­creatures, and to be pious and faithful TO Him that made us.”—­Ib., p. 181.  If the author did not mean to speak of being pious to God as well as faithful to Him, he has written incorrectly:  a comma after pious, would alter both the sense and the construction.  So the text, “For I am meek, and lowly in heart,” is commonly perverted in our Bibles, for want of a comma after meek.  The Saviour did not say, he was meek in heart:  the Greek may be very literally rendered thus:  “For gentle am I, and humble in heart.”

OBS. 11.—­Many writers seem to suppose, that no preposition can govern more than one object.  Thus L. Murray, and his followers:  “The ellipsis of the preposition, as well as of the verb, is seen in the following instances:  ‘He went into the abbeys, halls, and public buildings;’ that is, ’He went into the abbeys, he went into the halls, and he went into the public buildings.’—­’He also went through all the streets, and lanes of the city;’ that is, ‘Through all the streets, and through all the lanes,’ &c.”—­Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 219.  See the same interpretations in Ingersoll’s Gram., p. 155; Merchant’s, 100; Picket’s, 211; Alger’s, 73; Fish’s, 147; Guy’s, 91; Adams’s, 82; R.  C. Smith’s, 183; Hamlin’s, 105; Putnam’s, 139; Weld’s, 292.  Now it is plain, that in neither of these examples is there any such ellipsis at all.  Of the three prepositions, the first governs three nouns; the second, two; and the third, one only.  But the last, (which is of,) has two antecedents, streets and lanes, the comma after streets being wrong; for the author does not speak of all the streets in the world,