196 THEORT of the 



Yet the thought exprefTed by the infinitive is clearly appre- 

 hended, and plainly fhews that the word denoting it is a verb- 



Non eft vivere fed VALERE vita. 



Sape etiamfteriles incendere profuit agros, 



At que levem ftipalam crepitantibus urere flammis, 



Pudet hac opprobria nobis 



Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.. 



Reading (fays Bacon) makes a full man, fpeaking a ready 

 man, and writing an exact man. 



(These Englifh words in ing, will be called participles, or per- 

 haps verbal nouns ; they have the form of participles and verbal 

 nouns, but the meaning of infinitives ; and may be translated 

 into Greek and Latin by infinitives. But it is of no confe- 

 quence whether they be called participles or ififinitives j the 

 meaning of them is obvious, and is the fame with that of the 

 Latin infinitives. J 



The meaning or thoughts exprefTed by thefe infinitives, are 

 as plainly characleriftic of verbs as thofe denoted by Vivo fed 

 non valeo. Incendite Jleriles agros — urite levem ftipulam. Oppro- 

 bria dicuntur nobis. Yet in the latter there is mood, while in the 

 former there is not. Whence it follows that mood, properly fo 

 called, is not effential to a verb. It is only the capacity or 

 fufceptibility of mood, that can with propriety be faid to be 

 effential to a verb. This distinction, which I think of fome 

 importance, may be fufficiently explained and illuftrated by the 

 following examples. It is not divifion, but divifibility, that 

 is effential to a geometrical line ; it is not fluidity, but fufibi- 

 lity, that is effential to lead ; not motion, but mobility, nor 

 reft, but the capacity of being at reft, that is effential to body. 

 But reft is effential to fpace, and, for aught I know, motion may 

 be fo to light. 



1 



