II. Words of themselves are but as so many marks set and employed for necessary and intelligible mediums, or means, whereby men may understandingly express their minds and conceptions to each other: from whence comes conversation. Now, though the world be divided into many nations, each of which, for the most part, has a peculiar language, speech, or dialect, yet have they ever concurred in the same numbers and persons, as much of the ground of right speech. For instance; _I love_, _thou lovest_, _he loveth_, are of singular number, importing but one whether in the first, second, or third person: also _we love_, _ye love_, _they love_, are of the plural number, because in each is implied more than one. Which undeniable grammatical rule, might be enough to satisfy any, that have not forgotten their accidence, that we are not beside reason in our practice. For if _thou lovest_, be singular, and _you love_, be plural; and if _thou lovest_, signifies but one; and _you love_, many; is it not as proper to say, _thou lovest_, to ten men, as to say, _you love_, to _one_ man? Or, why not, _I love_, for _we love_; and _we love_, instead of _I love_? Doubtless it is the same, though most improper, and in speech ridiculous. III. Our next reason is; if it be improper or uncivil speech, as termed by this vain age, how comes it that the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman authors, used in schools and universities, have no other? Why should they not be a rule in that, as well as other things? And why, I pray then, are we so ridiculous for being thus far grammatical? Is it reasonable that children should be whipped at school for putting you for thou, as having made false Latin; and yet that we must be, though not whipped, reproached, and often abused, when we use the contrary propriety of speech?