“In who obtain defence, or who defend;
    In him who is, or him who finds, a friend.”
        —­Essay on Man, Ep. iv, l. 60.

Dr. Lowth cites the last three examples, without suggesting any forms of correction; and says of them, “There seems to be an impropriety in these sentences, in which the same noun stands in a double capacity, performing at the same time the offices both of the nominative and objective case.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 73.  He should have said—­“of both the nominative and the objective case.”  Dr. Webster, citing the line, “In him who is, and him who finds, a friend,” adds, “Lowth condemns this use of the noun in the nominative and objective at the same time; but without reason, as the cases are not distinguished in English.”—­Improved Gram., p. 175.

OBS. 7.—­In Latin and Greek, the accusative before the infinitive, is often reckoned the subject of the latter verb; and is accordingly parsed by a sort of exception to the foregoing rule—­or rather, to that general rule of concord which the grammarians apply to the verb and its nominative.  This construction is translated into English, and other modern tongues, sometimes literally, or nearly so, but much oftener, by a nominative and a finite verb.  Example:  “[Greek:  Eipen auton phonaethaenai].”—­Mark, x, 49.  “Ait illum vocari.”—­Leusden.  “Jussit eum vocari.”—­Beza.  “Praecepit illum vocari.”—­Vulgate.  “He commanded him to be called.”—­English Bible.  “He commanded that he should be called.”—­Milnes’s Gr.  Gram., p. 143.  “Il dit qu’on l’appelat.”—­French Bible.  “He bid that somebody should call him.”  “Il commanda qu’on le fit venir.”—­Nouveau Test., Paris, 1812.  “He commanded that they should make him come;” that is, “lead him, or bring him.”  “Il commanda qu’on l’appelat.”—­De Sacy’s N. Test.

OBS. 8.—­In English, the objective case before the infinitive mood, although it may truly denote the agent of the infinitive action, or the subject of the infinitive passion, is nevertheless taken as the object of the preceding verb, participle, or preposition.  Accordingly our language does not admit a literal translation of the above-mentioned construction, except the preceding verb be such as can be interpreted transitively. “Gaudeo te val=ere,” “I am glad that thou art well,” cannot be translated more literally; because, “I am glad thee to be well,” would not be good English. “Aiunt regem advent=are,” “They say the king is coming,” may be otherwise rendered “They declare the king to be coming;” but neither version is entirely literal; the objective being retained only by a change of aiunt, say, into such a verb as will govern the noun.