“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 custom has always been found powerful enough to give authority for a change.”

With respect to these objections, it may be observed, that the word you has certainly so far lost its meaning, as to be no longer a mark of flattery.  The Quakers also are occasionally found in the use of the ungrammatical expressions, that have been brought against them.  And unquestionably, except they mean to give up the grammatical part of the defence by Penn and Barclay, these ought to be done away.  That you, however, is of the singular number, is not quite so clear.  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 mutilated dominion of you.

SECT.  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, that comes next in order, will be that of the objections, that are usually made against certain terms used by the Quakers, and against their 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 a 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 to one 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[46] history of the Samaritan, who fell among thieves; from which he suggested on 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[47] brethren.  That is, they were thus scripturally related to one another.