As the change of the pronoun Thou for You was the first article, that I brought forward on the subject of the language of the Society, I shall begin with the objections that are usually started against it.

"Singularity, it is said, should always be avoided, if it can be done with a clear conscience. The members of this Society might have had honest scruples against You for Thou, when You was a mark of flattery. But they can have no reasonable scruples now, and therefore they should cease to be singular. For the word You is clearly no mark of flattery at the present day. However improper it might once have been, it is now an innocent synonym.

"The use, again, of the word Thou for You, as insisted upon by the Quakers, leads them frequently into false grammar. "Thee knowest,' and terms like these, are not unusual in their mouths. Now the Quakers, though they defended the use of Thou for You on the notion, that they ought not to accustom their lips to flattery, defended it also strenuously on the notion, that they were strictly adhering to grammar rules. But all such terms as 'Thee knowest' must recoil upon themselves as incorrect, and as censurable, even upon their own. ground."

"The word You, again, may be considered as a singular as well as a plural expression. The world use it in this manner. And who are the makers of language but the world? Words change their meaning, as the leaves their colour in autumn and cus

tom has always been found powerful enough to give authority for a change."

With respect to these objections, it must be confessed that the word You has certainly so far lost its meaning, as to be no longer a mark of flattery, and therefore the Quakers have lost one of their reasons for its disuse. It must be confessed also, that the members of this Society frequently adopt the ungrammatical expressions, that have been brought against them. But surely all such lose another of their reasons for their disuse of this pronoun. They should either endeavour to speak more correctly, or give up the grammatical part of the defence by Penn and Barclay, and conform to the practice of the world. That You, however, is of the singular number, is not quite so clear. You and Thou have certainly a concurrent jurisdiction, but they have it only by custom through a length of time. For while Thou is used in the singular number in the Bible, and in the Liturgy, and in the prayers of individuals; and while it is the language, as it is, of a great portion of the inhabitants of the northern part of the kingdom, it will be a standing monument against the usurpation and dominion of You.

SECTION V.

Secondly, against the words Friend and Neighbour, as used by the Quakers-Quakers also said to be wrong in their disuse of titles-for the use of these is sanctioned by St. Luke and St. Paul-Answer of Barclay to the latter assertion—this answer not generally deemed satisfactory-Observations upon the subject in dispute.

THE subject, which comes next in order, will be that of the Objections that are usually made against certain Terms used by the Society, and against its Disuse of Titles of Honour, as sanctioned by the world.

On the use of the words "Friend," and " Neighbour," it is usually observed, that these are too limited in their meaning, to be always, if used promiscuously, representatives of the truth. If the Quakers are so nice, that they will use no expression that is not precisely true, they should invent additional terms, which should express the relative condition of those, with whom they converse. The word "Friend" denotes esteem; and the word "Neighbour," proximity of dwelling. But all the persons, to whom the Quakers address themselves, are not persons whom they love and respect, or who are the inhabitants of the same neighbourhood with themselves. There is, it is said, as much untruth in calling à man Friend, or Neighbour, who is not

so, as Excellency, in whom there may be nothing that is excellent.

The Quakers, in reply to this, would observe, that they use the word Friend as significative of their own union, and, when they speak to others, as significative of their Christian relation one to another. In the same sense they use the word Neighbour. Jesus Christ, when the lawyer asked him who was his neighbour, gave him a short history of the Samaritan,* who fell among thieves; from which he suggested an inference, that the term Neighbour was not confined to those, who lived near one another, or belonged to the same sect, but that it might extend to those, who lived at a distance, and to the Samaritan equally with the Jew. In the same manner he considered all men as brethren: that is, they were thus scripturally related to one another.

Another objection, which has been raised against the Society on this part of the subject, is levelled against its disuse of the titles of honour of the world. St. Luke, it has been said, makes use of the term Most Excellent, when he addresses Theophilus and St. Paul, of the words Most Noble, when he addresses Festus. Now these teachers and promulgators of Christianity would never have given these titles, if they had not been allowable by the Gospel.

As this last argument was used in the time of Barclay, he has noticed it in his celebrated Apology:"Since Luke," says he, "wrote by the dictates of

the infallible Spirit of God, I think it will not be doubted but Theophilus did deserve it, as being really endued with that virtue; in which case we shall not condemn those, who do it by the same rule. But it is not proved that Luke gave Theophilus this title, as that which was inherent to him either by his father, or by any patent Theophilus had obtained from any of the princes of the earth, or that he would have given it to him in case he had not been truly Excellent; and without this be proved, which never can, there can nothing hence be deduced against us. The like may be said of that of Paul to Festus, whom he would not have called such, if he had not been truly Noble; as indeed he was, in that he suffered him to be heard in his own cause, and would not give way to the fury of the Jews against him. It was not because of any outward title bestowed upon Festus that he so called him, else he would have given the same compellation to his predecessor Felix, who had the same office; but, being a covetous man, we find he gives him no such title."

This is the answer of Barclay. It has, however, not been deemed quite satisfactory by the world. It has been observed against it, that one good action will never give a man a right to a general title. This is undoubtedly an observation of some weight. But it must be contended, on the other hand, that both Luke and Paul must have been apprised that the religion, they were so strenuous in propagating, required every man to speak the truth. They must have been apprised, also, that it inculcated humility of mind. And it is probable, there