is the _sacrifice which_ virtue must make;' 'A
_man who_ is of a detracting spirit, will misconstrue the most innocent
_words that_ can be put together.' In the latter example, the assertion is
not of 'a man in general,' but of 'a man who is of a detracting spirit;'
and therefore _they_ [say _the pronoun and its antecedent_] should not be
separated."--_Murray's Gram., Octavo_, p. 273; _Ingersoll's_, 285;
_Comly's_, 152. This reasoning, strictly applied, would exclude the comma
before _who_ in the first example above; but, as the pronoun does not
"closely" or immediately follow its antecedent, the comma is allowed,
though it is not much needed. Not so, when the sense is resumptive: as,
"The _additions, which_ are very considerable, are chiefly _such as_ are
calculated to obviate objections." See _Murray's Gram._, p. ix. Here the
comma is essential to the meaning. Without it, _which_ would be equivalent
to _that_; with it, which is equivalent to _and they_. But this latter
meaning, as I imagine, cannot be expressed by the relative _that_.

OBS. 30.--Into the unfortunate example which Sanborn took from Murray, I
have inserted the comma for him; not because it is necessary or right, but
because his rule requires it: "_Self-denial_ is the _sacrifice_," &c. The
author of "a complete system of grammar," might better contradict even
Murray, than himself. But why was this text admired? and why have _Greene,
Bullions, Hiley, Hart_, and others, also copied it? A _sacrifice_ is
something devoted and lost, for the sake of a greater good; and, _if Virtue
sacrifice self-denial_, what will she do, but run into indulgence? The
great sacrifice which she demands of men, is rather that of their
_self-love_. Wm. E. Russell has it, "_Self defence_ is the sacrifice which
virtue must make!"--_Russell's Abridgement of Murray's Gram._, p. 116.
Bishop Butler tells us, "It is indeed _ridiculous_ to assert, that
_self-denial is essential to virtue and piety_; but it would have been
nearer the truth, though not strictly the truth itself, to have said, that
it is essential to discipline and improvement."--_Analogy of Religion_, p.
123.

OBS. 31.--The relative _that_, though usually reckoned equivalent to _who_
or _which_, evidently differs from both, in being more generally, and
perhaps more appropriately, taken in the restrictive sense. It ought
therefore, for distinction's sake, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_,
whenever an antecedent not other