The reader would hardly believe, if historical facts did not prove it, how much noise the introduction or rather the amended use of this little particle, as reduced to practice by George Fox, made in the world, and how much ill usage it occasioned the early Quakers.  Many magistrates, before whom they were carried in the early times of their institution occasioned their sufferings to be greater merely on this account.  They were often abused and beaten by others, and sometimes put in danger of their lives.  It was a common question put to a Quaker in those days, who addressed a great man in this new and simple manner, “why you ill bred clown do you thou me?” The rich and mighty of those times thought themselves degraded by this mode of address, as reducing them from a plural magnitude to a singular, or individual, or simple station in life.  “The use of thou, says George Fox, was a sore cut to proud flesh, and those who sought self-honour.”

George Fox, finding that both he and his followers were thus subject to much persecution on this account, thought it right the world should know, that, in using this little particle which had given so much offence, the Quakers were only doing what every grammarian ought to do, if he followed his own rules.  Accordingly a Quaker-work was produced, which was written to shew that in all languages thou was the proper and usual form of speech to a single person, and you to more than one.  This was exemplified by instances, taken out of the scriptures, and out of books of teaching in about thirty languages.  Two Quakers of the names of John Stubbs and Benjamin Furley, took great pains in compiling it:  and some additions were made to it by George Fox himself, who was then a prisoner in Lancaster castle.

This work, as soon as it was published, was presented to King Charles the second, and to his council.  Copies of it were also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and to each of the universities.  The King delivered his sentiments upon it so far as to say, that thou was undoubtedly the proper language of all nations.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, when he was asked what he thought of it, is described to have been so much at a stand, that he could not tell what to say.  The book was afterwards bought by many.  It is said to have spread conviction, wherever it went.  Hence it had the effect of lessening the prejudices of some, so that the Quakers were never afterwards treated, on this account, in the same rugged manner as they had been before.

But though this book procured the Quakers an amelioration of treatment on the amended use of the expression thou, there were individuals in the society, who thought they ought to put their defence on a better foundation, by stating all the reasons, for there were many besides those in this book, which had induced them to differ from their fellow citizens on this subject.  This was done both by Robert Barclay and William Penn in works, which defended other principles of the Quakers, and other peculiarities in their language.