[418] Dr. Blair, to whom Murray ought to have acknowledged himself indebted for this sentence, introduced a noun, to which, in his work, this infinitive and these participles refer:  thus, “It is disagreeable for the mind to be left pausing on a word which does not, by itself, produce any idea.”—­Blair’s Rhetoric, p. 118.  See Obs. 10th and 11th on Rule 14th.

[419] The perfect contrast between from and to, when the former governs the participle and the latter the infinitive, is an other proof that this to is the common preposition to.  For example, “These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.”—­Zech., vi, 5.  Now if this were rendered “which go forth to stand,” &c., it is plain that these prepositions would express quite opposite relations.  Yet, probably from some obscurity in the original, the Greek version has been made to mean, “going forth to stand;” and the Latin, “which go forth, that they may stand;” while the French text conveys nearly the same sense as ours,—­“which go forth from the place where they stood.”

[420] Cannot, with a verb of avoiding, or with the negative but, is equivalent to must.  Such examples may therefore be varied thus:  “I cannot but mention:”  i.e., “I must mention.”—­“I cannot help exhorting him to assume courage.”—­Knox.  That is, “I cannot but exhort him.”

[421] See the same thing in Kirkham’s Gram. p. 189; in Ingersoll’s, p. 200; in Smith’s New Grammar, p. 162; and in other modifications and mutilations of Murray’s work.  Kirkham, in an other place, adopts the doctrine, that, “Participles frequently govern nouns and pronouns in the possessive case; as, ’In case of his majesty’s dying without issue, &c.; Upon God’s having ended all his works, &c.; I remember its being reckoned a great exploit; At my coming in he said, &c.”—­Kirkham’s Gram., p. 181.  None of these examples are written according to my notion of elegance, or of accuracy.  Better:  “In case his Majesty die without issue.”—­“God having ended all his works.”—­“I remember it was reckoned a great exploit.”—­“At my entrance, he said,” &c.

[422] We have seen that Priestley’s doctrine, as well as Lowth’s, is, that when a participle is taken substantively, “it ought not to govern another word;” and, for the same reason, it ought not to have an adverb relating to it.  But many of our modern grammarians disregard these principles, and do not restrict their “participial nouns” to the construction of nouns, in either of these respects.  For example:  Because one may say, “To read superficially, is useless,” Barnard supposes it right to say, “Reading superficially is useless.”