master, and one God." This bishop was, (as it seems) of Christ's mind, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one." By this we may see the sense of some of the more apostolical bishops about the civilities and fashions, so much reputed with people that call themselves Christians and Bishops, and who would be thought their successors. It was then a sin, it is now an accomplishment; it was then a flattery, it is now respect; it is was then fit to be severely reproved; and now, alas! it is to deserve severe reproof not to use it. O monstrous vanity! how much, how deeply, have those who are called Christians revolted from the plainness of the primitive days, and practice of holy men and women in former ages! How are they become degenerated into the loose, proud, and wanton customs of the world, which knows not God; to whom use hath made these things, condemned by scripture, reason and example, almost natural! And so insensible are they of both their cause and bad effects, that they not only continue to practise them, but plead for them, and unchristianly make a very mock of those who cannot imitate them. But I shall proceed to what remains yet farther to be said in our defence for declining another custom, which helps to make us so much the stumbling-block of this light, vain, and inconsiderate age.

CHAP. X.

SECT. 1. Another piece of non-conformity to the world, which is our simple and plain speech, Thou for You. 2. Justified from the use of words and numbers, singular and plural. 3. It was, and is, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin speech, in schools and universities. 4. It is the language of all nations. 5. The original of the present custom defends our disuse of it. 6. If custom should prevail, in a sense it would be on our side. 7. It cannot be uncivil, or improper; for God himself, the fathers, prophets, Christ and his apostles used it. 8. An instance given in the case of Peter, in the palace of the high priest. 9. It is the practice of men to God in their prayers: the pride of man to expect better to himself. 10. Testimonies of several writers in vindication of us. 11. The author's convictions, and his exhortation to his reader.

SECT. 1. THERE is another piece of our nonconformity to the world, that renders us very clownish to the breeding of it, and that is, Thou for You, and that without difference or respect to persons: a thing that to some looks so rude, it cannot well go down without derision or wrath. But as we have the same original reason for declining this, as the foregoing customs, so I shall add what to me looks reasonable in our defence; though, it is very probable, height of mind, in some of those that blame us, will very hardly allow them to believe that the word reasonable is reconcileable with so silly a practice as this is esteemed.

Sect. 2. Words, of themselves, are but as so many marks set and employed for necessary and intelligible

R

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 the 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 forgot 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.

Sect. 3. 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 whipt at school for putting You for Thou, as having made false Latin; and yet that we must be, though not whipt, reproached, and often abused, when we use the contrary propriety of speech?

Sect. 4. But in the third place, it is neither improper nor uncivil, but much otherwise; because it is used in all languages, speeches, and dialects, and that through all ages. This is very plain as for example, it was God's language when he first spake to Adam, viz. Hebrew also it is the Assyrian, Chaldean, Grecian, and

Latin speech. And now amongst the Turks, Tartars, Muscovites, Indians, Persians, Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Germans, Polonians, Swedes, Danes, Irish, Scottish, Welch, as well as English, there is a distinction preserved; and the word Thou, is not lost in the word which goes for You. And though some of the modern tongues have done as we do, yet upon the same error. But by this it is plain, that Thou is no upstart, nor yet improper; but the only proper word to be used in all languages to a single person; because otherwise all sentences, speeches, and discourses may be very ambiguous, uncertain, and equivocal. If a ju ry pronounce a verdict, or a judge a sentence, (Three being at the bar upon three occasions, very differently culpable) and should say, You are here guilty, and to die, or innocent, and discharged; who knows who is guilty or innocent? May be but One, perhaps Two ; or it may be all Three. Therefore our indictments run in the singular number, as Hold up Thy hand: Thou art indicted by the name of, &c. for that Thou, "not having the fear of God, &c." and it holds the same in all conversation. Nor can this be avoided, but by many unnecessary circumlocutions. And as the preventing of such length and obscurity was doubtless the first reason for the distinction, so cannot that be justly disused, till the reason be first removed; which can never be, whilst Two are in the world.

Sect. 5. But this is not all: it was first ascribed in way of flattery to proud popes and emperors; imitating the Heathens vain homage to their gods; thereby ascribing a plural honour to a single person; as if One Pope had been made up of Many Gods, and One Emperor of many Men. For which reason, You, only to be used to Many, became first spoken to One. It seems the word Thou looked like too lean and thin a respect; and therefore some, bigger than they should be, would have a stile suitable to their own ambition: a ground we cannot build our practice on; for what begun it, only loves it still. But supposing You to be proper to a

prince, it will not follow it is to a common person. For his edict runs, "We will and require," because perhaps in conjunction with his council; and therefore You to a private person, is an abuse of the word. But as pride first gave it birth, so hath she only promoted it. * Monsieur, sir, and madam, were, originally, names given to none but the king, his brother, and their wives, both in France and England; yet now the plowman in France is called Monsieur, and his wife madam: and men of ordinary trades in England, sir, and their wives, dame; (which is the legal title of a lady) or else mistress, which is the same with madam in French. prevalent hath pride and flattery been in all ages, the one to give, and the other to receive respect, as they term it.

So

Sect. 6, But some will tell us, custom should rule us; and that is against us. But it is easily answered, and more truly, that though in things reasonable or indifferent, custom is obliging or harmless, yet in things unreasonable or unlawful, she has no authority. For custom can no more change numbers than genders, nor yoke One and You together, than make a man into a woman, or one a thousand. But if custom be to conclude us, it is for us for as custom is nothing else but ancient usage, I appeal to the practice of mankind, from the beginning of the world, through all nations, against the novelty of this confusion, viz. You to one person. Let custom, which is ancient practice and fact, issue this question, Mistake me not: I know words are nothing, but as men give them a value or force by use: but then, if you will discharge Thou, and that You must succeed in its place, let us have a distinguishing word in the room of You, to be used in speech to Many. But to use the same word for One and Many, when there are two, and that only to please a proud and haughty humour in man, is not reasonable in our sense; which, we hope, is Christian, though not modish.

Howel's History of France.