I might proceed, till I made a little vocabulary of Quaker-expressions; but this is not necessary, and it is not at all consistent with my design.  I shall therefore only observe, that it is expected of Quakers, that they should use the language of the society; that they should substitute thou for you; that they should discard all flattering titles and expressions; and that they should adopt the numerical, instead of the heathen names, of the days and months.  George Fox gave the example himself in all these instances.  Those of the society, who depart from this usage, are said by the Quakers to depart from “the plain language.”

SECT.  IV.

Great objections by the world against the preceding alterations by the Quakers—­first against the use of thou for you—­you said to be no longer a mark of flattery—­the use of it is said to be connected often with false Grammar—­Custom said to give it, like a noun of number, a singular as well as plural Meaning—­Consideration of these objections.

There will be no difficulty in imagining, if the Quakers have found fault with the words and expressions adopted by others, and these the great majority of the world, that the world will scrutinize, and find fault with, those of the Quakers in return.  This in fact has turned out to be the case.—­And I know of no subject, except that of dress, where the world have been more lavish of their censures, than in that before us.

When the Quakers first appeared as a religious community, many objections were thrown but against the peculiarities of their language.  These were noticed by Robert Barclay and William Penn.  But, since that time, other objections have been started.  But as these have not been published (for they remain where they have usually been, in the mouths of living persons) Quaker writers have not felt themselves called upon to attempt to answer them.  These objections, however, of both descriptions, I shall notice in the present place.

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 Quakers, 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 Quakers 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 synonime.”

“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 Quaker mouths.  Now the Quakers, though they defended the word 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,’ and others of a similar kind, must recoil upon themselves as incorrect, and as censurable, even upon their own ground.”