rors, 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 addressed to many, became first spoken to one. It seemed the word Thou looked like too lean and thin a respect: and therefore some, bigger than they should be, would have a style suitable to their own ambition."

It will be difficult for those, who now use the word you constantly to a single person, and who in such use of it never attach any idea of flattery to it, to conceive how it ever could have had the origin ascribed to it; or, what is more extraordinary, how men could believe themselves to be exalted, when others applied to them the word You instead of Thou. But history affords abundant evidence of the fact.

It is well known that Caligula ordered himself to be worshipped as a god. Domitian, after him, gave similar orders with respect to himself. In process of time the very statues of the emperors began to be worshipped. One blasphemous innovation prepared the way for another. The title of Pontifex Maximus gave way at length for those of Eternity, Divinity, and the like. Coeval with these appellations was the change of the word Thou for You, and upon the same principles. These changes, however, were not so disagreeable, as they might be expected to have been, to the proud Romans; for, while they gratified the pride of their emperors, they made their despotism in their own conceit more tolerable to themselves. That one man should

be lord over many thousand Romans, who were the masters of the world, was in itself a degrading thought. But they consoled themselves by the haughty consideration, that they were yielding obedience not to a man, but to an incarnate dæmon, or good genius, or especial envoy from Heaven. They considered, also, the emperor as an office, and as an office including and representing many other offices; and hence, considering him as a man in the plural number, they had less objection to address him in a plural manner.

The Quakers, in behalf of their assertions on this subject, quote the opinions of several learned men, and of those in particular, who, from the nature of their respective writings, had occasion to look into the origin and construction of the words and forms of language.

Howell, in his Epistle to the Nobility of England, placed before his French and English Dictionary, takes notice that both in France and in other nations the word Thou was used in speaking to one: but, by succession of time, when the Roman commonwealth grew into an empire, the courtiers began to magnify the emperor, as being furnished with power to confer dignities and offices, using the word You; yea, and deifying him with more remarkable titles; concerning which matter we read in the Epistles of Symmachus to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, where he useth these forms of speaking: "Vestra Eternitas, Vestrum Numen, Vestra Serenitas, Vestra Clementia ; that is, Your, and not Thy, Eternity, Godhead, Serenity, Clemency. So that the word You in the

in the plural number, together with the other titles and compellations of honour, seem to have had their rise from despotic government, which afterwards, by degrees, came to be derived to private persons. He says, also, in his History of France, that in añcient times the peasants addressed their kings by the appellation of Thou; but that pride and flattery first put inferiors upon paying a plural respect to the single person of every superior, and superiors upon receiving it.

John Maresius, of the French Academy, in the Preface to his Clovis, speaks much to the same effect:-"Let none wonder," says he, "that the word Thou is used in this work to princes and princesses, for we use the same to God. And of old the same was used to Alexanders, Cæsars, queens and empresses. The use of the word You, when only one person is spoken to, was only introduced by these base flatteries of men of later ages, to whom it seemed good to use the plural number to one person, that he may imagine himself alone to be equal to many others in dignity and worth; from whence it came at last to persons of lower quality."

Godeau, in his Preface to the Translation of the New Testament, makes an apology for differing from the customs of the times in the use of Thou, and intimates that You was substituted for it, as a word of superior respect. "I had rather," says he, "faithfully keep to the express words of Paul, than exactly follow the polished style of our tongue. Therefore I always use that form of calling God in the singular number, not in the plural, and therefore I say rather Thou than You. I confess, indeed,

that the civility and custom of this world require him to be honoured after that manner. But it is likewise, on the contrary, true, that the original tongue of the New Testament hath nothing common with such manners and civility; so that not one of these many old versions we have doth observe it. Let not men believe that we give not respect enough to God, in that we call him by the word Thou; which is nevertheless far otherwise. For I seem to myself (may be by the effect of custom) more to honour his Divine Majesty in calling him after this manner, than if I should call him after the manner of men, who are so delicate in their forms of speech."

Erasmus, also, in the Treatise, which he wrote on the Impropriety of substituting You for Thou, when a person addresses an individual, states that this strange substitution originated wholly in the flattery of men.

SECTION II.

Other alterations in the language of the Quakers— they addressed one another by the title of Friends --and others by the title of Friends or Neighbours, or by their common names— The use of Sir and Madam abolished-also, of Master, or Mister, and of Humble Servant—also, of titles of honour -Reasons of this abolition-Example of Jesus Christ.

ANOTHER alteration, that took place in the language of the Society, was the expunging of all expressions from the vocabulary, which were either superfluous, or of the same flattering tendency as the former.

In addressing one another, either personally or by letter, they made use of the word Friend, to signify the bond of their own union, and the character which man, under the Christian dispensation, was bound to exhibit in his dealings with his fellowman. They addressed each other, also, and spoke of each other, by their real names. If a man's name was John, they called him John; they talked to him as John; and added only his surname to distinguish him from others.

In their intercourse with the world, they adopted the same mode of speech; for they addressed individuals either by their plain names, or they made use of the appellation of Friends or Neighbours. They rejected the words Sir or Madam, as then