Pope alludes to the same opinion in these lines:

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole.
Whose body nature is, and God the soul."

[12] [Page 41].

[13] Exodus, iii. 2, 3.

[14] Cardell's grammar.

[15] The Jews long preserved this name in Samaritan letters to keep it from being known to strangers. The modern Jews affirm that by this mysterious name, engraven on his rod, Moses performed the wonders recorded of him; that Jesus stole the name from the temple and put it into his thigh between the flesh and skin, and by its power accomplished the miracles attributed to him. They think if they could pronounce the word correctly, the very heavens and earth would tremble, and angels be filled with terror.

[16] Plutarch says, "This title is not only proper but peculiar to God, because He alone is being; for mortals have no participation of true being, because that which begins and ends, and is constantly changing, is never one nor the same, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word was inscribed was called Apollo, Apollon, from a negative and pollus, many, because God is one, his nature simple, and uncompounded."—Vide, Clark's Com.

[17] The same fact may be observed in other languages, for all people form language alike, in a way to correspond with their ideas. The following hasty examples will illustrate this point.

Agent.Verb.Object.
EnglishSingersSingSongs
FrenchLes chanteursChantentLes chansons
SpanishLos cantoresCantanLas cantinelas
ItalianI cantoriCantanoI canti
LatinCantoresCanuntCantus
EnglishGiversGiveGifts
FrenchLes donneursDonnentLes dons
SpanishLos donadoresDan o donanLos dones
ItalianI danatoriDano o dananoI doni
LatinDatoresDonantDona
EnglishFishersFishFishes
FrenchLes pecheursPechentLes poissons
SpanishLos pescadoresPescanLos peces
ItalianI pescatoriPescanI pesci
LatinPiscatoresPiscanturPisces
EnglishStudentsStudyStudies
FrenchLes etudiensEtudientLes etudes
SpanishLos estudiantesEstudianLos estudios
ItalianI studientiStudianoI studii
LatinStudiosiStudentStudia

[18] Mr. Murray says, "These compounds," have, shall, will, may, can, must, had, might, could, would, and should, which he uses as auxiliaries to help conjugate other verbs, "are, however, to be considered as different forms of the same verb." I should like to know, if these words have any thing to do with the principal verbs; if they only alter the form of the verb which follows them. I may, can, must, shall, will, or do love. Are these only different forms of love? or rather, are they not distinct, important, and original verbs, pure and perfect in and of themselves? Ask for their etymons and meaning, and then decide.