The third contained a plan of the building of Ackworth-school. This was

hung up as a descriptive view of a public seminary, instituted and kept

up by the subscription and care of the society at large.

But though all the prints, that have been mentioned, were hung up in

frames on the motives severally assigned to them, no others were to be

seen as their companions. It is in short not the practice[38] of the

society to decorate their houses in this manner.

[Footnote 38: There are still individual exceptions. Some Quakers have

come accidentally into possession of printings and engravings in frame,

which, being innocent in their subject and their lesson, they would have

thought it superstitious to discard.]

Prints in frames, if hung up promiscuously in a room, would be

considered as ornamental furniture, or as furniture for shew. They would

therefore come under the denomination of superfluities; and the

admission of such, in the way that other people admit them would be

considered as an adoption of the empty customs or fashions of the world.

But though the Quakers are not in the practice of hanging up prints in

frames, yet there are amateurs among them, who have a number and variety

of prints in their possession. But these appear chiefly in collections,

bound together in books, or preserved in book covers, and not in frames

as ornamental furniture for their rooms. These amateurs, however, are

but few in number. The Quakers have in general only a plain and useful

education. They are not brought up to admire such things, and they have

therefore in general but little taste for the fine and masterly

productions of the painters' art.

Neither would a person, in going through the houses of the Quakers, find

any portraits either of themselves, or of any of their families, or

ancestors, except, to the latter case, they had been taken before they

became Quakers. The first Quakers never had their portraits taken with

their own knowledge and consent. Considering themselves as poor and

helpless creatures, and little better than dust and ashes, they had but

a mean idea of their own images. They were of opinion also, that pride

and self-conceit would be likely to arise to men from the view, and

ostentatious parade, of their own persons. They considered also, that it

became them, as the founders of the society, to bear their testimony

against the vain and superfluous fashions of the world. They believed

also, if there were those whom they loved, that the best method of

shewing their regard to these would be not by having their fleshly

images before their eyes, but by preserving their best actions in their

thoughts, as worthy of imitation; and that their own memory, in the same

manner, should be perpetuated rather in the loving hearts, and kept

alive in the edifying conversation of their descendants, than in the

perishing tablets of canvas, fixed upon the walls of their habitations.

Hence no portraits are to be seen of many of those great and eminent men

in the society, who are now mingled with the dust.

These ideas, which thus actuated the first Quakers on this subject, are

those of the Quakers as a body at the present day. There may be here and

there an individual, who has had a portrait of some of his family taken.

But such instances may be considered as rare exceptions from the general

rule. In no society is it possible to establish maxims, which shall

influence an universal practice.

CHAP. III.....SECT. I.

_Language--Quakers differ in their language from others--the first

alteration made by George Fox of thou for you--this change had been

suggested by Erasmus and Luther--sufferings of the Quakers in

consequence of adapting this change--a work published in their

defence--this presented to King Charles and others--other works on the

subject by Barclay and Penn--in these the word thou shewn to be proper

in all languages--you to be a mark of flattery--the latter idea

corroborated by Harwell, Maresius, Godeau, Erasmus._

As the Quakers are distinguishable from their fellow-citizens by their

dress, as was amply shewn in a former chapter, so they are no less

distinguishable from them by the peculiarities of their language.

George Fox seemed to look at every custom with the eye of a reformer.

The language of the country, as used in his own times, struck him as

having many censurable defects. Many of the expressions, then in use,

appeared to him to contain gross flattery, others to be idolatrous,

others to be false representatives of the ideas they were intended to

convey. Now he considered that christianity required truth, and he

believed therefore that he and his followers, who professed to be

christians in word and deed, and to follow the christian pattern in all

things, as far as it could be found, were called upon to depart from all

the censurable modes of speech, as much as they were from any of the

customs of the world, which Christianity had deemed objectionable. And

so weightily did these improprieties in his own language lie upon his

mind, that he conceived himself to have had an especial commission to

correct them.

The first alteration, which he adopted, was in the use of the pronoun

thou. The pronoun you, which grammarians had fixed to be of the plural

number, was then occasionally used, but less than it is now, in

addressing an individual. George Fox therefore adopted thou in its place

on this occasion, leaving the word you to be used only where two or more

individuals were addressed.

George Fox however was not the first of the religious writers, who had

noticed the improper use of the pronoun you. Erasmus employed a treatise

in shewing the propriety of thou when addressed to a single person, and

in ridiculing the use of you on the same occasion. Martin Luther also

took great pains to expunge the word you from the station which it

occupied, and to put thou in its place. In his Ludus, he ridicules the

use of the former by the, following invented sentence, "Magister,

Vosestis iratus?" This is as absurd, as if he had said in English

"gentlemen art thou angry"?

But though George Fox was not the first to recommend the substitution of

thou for you, he was the first to reduce this amended use of it to

practice. This he did in his own person, wherever he went, and in all

the works which he published. All his followers did the same. And, from

his time to the present, the pronoun thou has come down so prominent in

the speech of the society, that a Quaker is generally known by it at the

present day.

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.

One of the arguments, by which the use of the pronoun thou was defended,

was the same as that, on which it had been defended by Stubbs and

Furley, that is, its strict conformity with grammar. The translators of

the Bible had invariably used it. The liturgy had been compiled on the

same principle. All addresses made by English Christians in their

private prayers to the Supreme Being, were made in the language of thou,

and not of you. And this was done, because the rules of the English

grammar warranted the expression, and because any other mode of

expression would have been a violation of these rules.

But the great argument (to omit all others) which Penn and Barclay

insisted upon for the change of you, was that the pronoun thou, in

addressing an individual, had been anciently in use, but that it had

been deserted for you for no other purpose, than that of flattery to

men; and that this dereliction of it was growing greater and greater,

upon the same principle, in their own times. Hence as christians, who

were not to puff up the fleshly creature, it became them to return to

the ancient and grammatical use of the pronoun thou, and to reject this

growing fashion of the world. "The word you, says William Penn, was

first ascribed in the way of flattery, to proud Popes and Emperors,

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 by these appellations, they made their despotism, in their own

conceit, more tolerable to themselves. That one man should be lord ever

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 man, but to an

incarnate demon 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 expressions of language.

Howell, in his epistle to the nobility of England before his French and

English Dictionary, takes notice, "that both in France, and in other

nations, the word thou was used in speaking of 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 Æternitas, vestrum numen, vestra

serenitas, vestra Clementia, that is, your, and not thy eternity,

godhead, serenity, clemency. So that the word you in the plural number,

together with the other titles and compellations of honour, seem to have

taken 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 ancient 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, Caesars, queens, and

empresses. The use of the word you, when only 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 word, requires him to be honored 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

honor 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.

SECT. II.

_Other alterations in the language of the Quakers--they address one

another by the title of friends--and others by the title of friends and

neigbours, 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 honor--reasons of this abolition--example of Jesus Christ._

Another alteration, that took place in the language of the Quakers, was

the expunging of all expressions from their 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 fellow-man. 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 sir-name 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 appellations of friends or neighbours.

They rejected the words sir or madam, as then in use. This they did,

because they considered them like the word you, as remnants of ancient

flattery, derived from the papal and anti-christian ages; and because

these words still continued to be considered as tides of flattery, that

puffed up people in their own times. Howell, who was before quoted on

the pronoun thou, is usually quoted by the Quakers on this occasion

also. He states in his history, that "sir and madam were originally

names given to none, but the king, his brother, and their wives, both in

France and England. Yet now the ploughman in France is called sir and

his wife madam; and men of ordinary trades in England sir, and their

wives dame, which is the legal title of a lady, and is the same as madam

in French. So prevalent hath pride and flattery been in all ages, the

one to give, and the other to receive respect"

The Quakers banished also the word master, or mister as it is now

pronounced, from their language, either when they spoke concerning any

one, or addressed any one by letter. To have used the word master to a

person, who was no master over them, would have been, they considered,

to have indicated a needless servility, and to have given a false

picture of their own situation, as well as of those addressed.

Upon the same or similar principles they hesitated to subscribe

themselves as the humble or obedient servants of any one, as is now

usual, at the bottom of their letters. "Horrid apostacy, says Barclay,

for it is notorious that the use of these compliments implies not any

design of service." This expression in particular they reprobated for

another reason. It was one of those, which had followed the last degree

of impious services and expressions, which had poured in after the

statues of the emperors had been worshipped, after the titles of

eternity and divinity had been ushered in, and after thou had been

exchanged for you, and it had taken a certain station, and flourished

among these. Good christians, however, had endeavoured to keep

themselves clear of such inconsistencies Casaubon has preserved a letter

of Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, in which he rebukes Sulpicius Severus for

having subscribed himself "his humble servant." A part of the letter

runs thus.[39] "Take heed hereafter, how thou, being from a servant

called unto liberty, dost subscribe thyself servant to one, who is thy

brother and fellow servant: for it is a sinful flattery, not a testament

of humility, to pay those honours to a man and to a sinner, which are

due to the one Lord, one Master, and one God."

[Footnote 39: Paulinus flourished in the year 460. He is reported by

Paulus Diacenus to have been an exemplary christian. Among other acts he

is stated to have expended all his revenues in the redemption of

christian captives; and, at last, when he had nothing left in his purse,

to have pawned his own person in favour of a widow's son. The

barbarians, says the same author, struck with this act of unparralleled

devotion to the cause of the unfortunate, released him, and many

prisoners with him without ransom.]

The Quakers also banished from the use of their society all those modes

of expression, which were considered as marks or designations of honour

among men. Hence, in addressing any peer of the realm, they never used

the common formula of "my lord," for though the peer in question might

justly be the lord over many possessions, and tenants, and servants, yet

he was no lord over their heritages or persons. Neither did they ever

use the terms excellency, or grace, or honour, upon similar occasions.

They considered that the bestowing of these titles might bring them

under the necessity of uttering what might be occasionally false. "For

the persons, says Barclay, obtaining these titles, either by election or

hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them

deserving them, or answering to them, as some, to whom it is said your

excellency may have nothing of excellency in them, and he, who is called

your grace, may be an enemy to grace, and he, who is called your honour,

may be base and ignoble." They considered also, that they might be

setting up the creature, by giving him the titles of the creator, so

that he might think more highly of himself than he ought, and more

degradingly than he ought, of the rest of the human race.

But, independently of these moral considerations, they rejected these

titles, because they believed, that Jesus Christ had set them an example

by his own declarations and conduct on a certain occasion. When a person

addressed him by the name of good master, he was rebuked as having done

an improper thing. [40] "Why, says our Saviour, callest thou me good?

There is none good but one, that is God." This censure they believe to

have been passed upon him, because Jesus Christ knew, that when he

addressed him by this title, he addressed him, not in his divine nature

or capacity, but only as a man.

[Footnote 40: Matt. xix. 17.]

But Jesus Christ not only refused to receive such titles of distinction

himself in his human nature, but on another occasion exhorted his

followers to shun them also. They were not to be like the Scribes and

Pharisees, who wished for high and eminent distinctions, that is, to be

called Rabbi Rabbi of men; but says he, "be[41] ye not called Rabbi, for

one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren;" and he makes

the desire which he discovered in the Jews, of seeking after worldly

instead of heavenly honours, to be one cause of their infidelity towards

Christ,[42] for that such could not believe, as received honour from one

another, and sought not the honour, which cometh from God only; that is,

that those persons, who courted earthly honours, could not have that

humility of mind, that spirit that was to be of no reputation in the

world, which was essential to those, who wished to become the followers

of Christ.

[Footnote 41: Matt xxiii. 8.]

[Footnote 42: John. v. 44.]

These considerations, both those of a moral nature, and those of the

example of Jesus Christ, weighed so much with the early Quakers, that

they made no exceptions even in favour of those of royal dignity, or of

the rulers of their own land. George Fox wrote several letters to great

men. He wrote twice to the king of Poland, three or four tunes to Oliver

Cromwell, and several times to Charles the second; but he addressed them

in no other manner man by their plain names, or by simple titles,

expressive of their situations as rulers or kings.[43]

[Footnote 43: The Quakers never refuse the legal titles in the

superscription or direction of their letter. They would direct to the

king, as king: to a peer according to his rank, either as a duke,

marquis, earl, viscount, or baron: to a clergyman, not as reverend, but

as clerk.]

These several alterations, which took place in the language of the early

Quakers, were adopted by their several successors, and are in force in

the society at the present day.

SECT. III.

_Other alterations in the language--the names of the days and months

altered--reasons for this change--the word saint disused--various new

phrases introduced_.

Another alteration, which took place in the language of the Quakers was

the disuse of the common names of the days of the week, and of those of

the months of the year.

The names of the days were considered to be of heathen origin. Sunday

had been so called by the Saxons, because it was the day, on which they

sacrificed to the sun. Monday on which they sacrificed to the moon.

Tuesday to the god Tuisco. Wednesday to the god Woden. Thursday to the

god Thor, and so on. Now when the Quakers considered that Jehovah had

forbidden the Israelites to make mention even of the names of other

gods, they thought it inconsistent in Christians to continue to use the

names of heathen idols for the common divisions of their time, so that

these names must be almost always in their mouths. They thought too,

that they were paying a homage, in continuing the use of them, that

bordered on idolatry. They considered also as neither Monday, nor

Tuesday, nor any other of these days, were days, in which these

sacrifices were now offered, they were using words, which conveyed false

notions of things. Hence they determined upon the disuse of these words,

and to put other names in their stead. The numerical way of naming the

days seemed to them to be the most rational, and the most innocent. They

called therefore Sunday the first day, Monday the second, Tuesday the

third, and soon to Saturday, which was of course the seventh. They used

no other names but these, either in their conversation, or in their

letters.

Upon the same principles they altered the names of the months also.

These, such as March and June, which had been so named by the ancient

Romans, because they were sacred to Mars and Juno, were exploded,

because they seemed in the use of them to be expressive of a kind of

idolatrous homage. Others again were exploded, because they were not the

representatives of the truth. September, for example, means the

[44]seventh month from the storms. It took this seventh station in the

kalendar of Romulus, and it designated there its own station as well as

the reason of its name. But when it[45] lost its place in the kalendar

by the alteration of the style in England, it lost its meaning. It

became no representative of its station, nor any representative of the

truth. For it still continues to signify the seventh month, whereas it

is made to represent, or to stand in the place of, the ninth. The

Quakers therefore banished from their language the ancient names of the

months, and as they thought they could not do better than they had done

in the case of the days, they placed numerical in their stead. They

called January the first month, February the second, March the third,

and so on to December, which they called the twelfth. Thus the Quaker

kalendar was made up by numerical distinctions, which have continued to

the present day.

[Footnote 44: Septem ab imbribus.]

[Footnote 45: This was in the year 1752, prior to this time the year

began on the 25th of March: and therefore September stood in the English

as in the Roman kalendar. The early Quakers, however, as we find by a

minute in 1697, had then made these alterations; but when the new style

was introduced, they published their reasons for having done so.]

Another alteration, which took place very generally in the language of

the Quakers, was the rejection of the word saint, when they spoke either

of the apostles, or of the primitive fathers. The papal authority had

canonized these. This they considered to be an act of idolatry, and they

thought they should be giving a sanction to superstition, if they

continued the use of such a title, either in their speech or writings.

After this various other alterations took place according as individuals

among them thought it right to expunge old expressions, and to

substitute new; and these alterations were adopted by the rest, as they

had an opinion of those who used them, or as they felt the propriety of

doing it. Hence new phrases came into use, different from those which

were used by the world on the same occasions; and these were gradually

spread, till they became incorporated into the language of the society.

Of these the following examples may suffice.

It is not usual with Quakers to use the words lucky or fortunate, in the

way in which many others do. If a Quaker had been out on a journey, and

had experienced a number of fine days, he would never say that he had

been lucky in his weather. In the same manner if a Quaker had recovered

from an indisposition, he would never say, in speaking of the

circumstance, that he had fortunately recovered, but he would say, that

he had recovered, and "that it was a favour." Luck, chance, or fortune,

are allowed by the Quakers to have no power in the settlement of human

affairs.

It is not usual with Quakers to beg ten thousand pardons, as some of the

world do, for any little mistake. A Quaker generally on such an occasion

asks a persons excuse.

The Quakers never make use of the expression "christian name." This name

is called christian by the world, because it is the name given to

children in baptism, or in other words, when they are christened, or

when they are initiated as christians. But the Quakers are never

baptised. They have no belief that water-baptism can make a christian,

or that it is any true mark of membership with the christian church.

Hence a man's christian name is called by them his first name, because

it is the first of the two, or of any other number of names, that may

belong to him.

The Quakers, on meeting a person, never say "good morrow," because all

days are equally good. Nor in parting with a person at night, do they

say "good evening," for a similar reason, but they make use of the

expression of "farewell."

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."

"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.

[Footnote 46: Luke x. 39.]

[Footnote 47: Matt, xxiii. 8.]

Another objection which has been raised against the Quakers on this

part of the subject, is levelled against their disuse of the titles of

honour of the world. St. Luke, it has been said, makes use of the terms

most excellent, when he addresses Theophilus, and St. Paul of the words

most noble, when he addresses Festus. Now the 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 compilation 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 not however been deemed quite

satisfactory by the world. It has been observed 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 therefore that they would never have bestowed titles

upon men, which should have been false in their application, or

productive of vanity and pride. St. Luke could not be otherwise than

aware of the answer of Jesus Christ, when he rebuked the person for

giving him the title of good, because he was one of the evangelists,

who[48] recorded it, and St. Paul could not have been otherwise than

aware of it also, on account of his intimacy with St. Luke, as well as

from other causes.

[Footnote 48: Luke xviii, 18.]

Neither has this answer been considered as satisfactory for another

reason. It has been presumed that the expressions of excellent and of

noble were established titles of rank, and if an evangelist and an

apostle used them, they could not be objectionable if used by others.

But let us admit for a moment, that they were titles of rank. How

happens it that St. Paul, when he was before Festus, and not in a

judicial capacity (for he had been reserved for Caesar's tribunal)

should have given him this epithet of noble; and that, when summoned

before Felix, and this in a judicial capacity, he should have omitted

it? This application of it to the one and not to the other, either

implies that it was no title, or, if it was a title as we have supposed,

that St. Paul had some reason for this partial use of it. And in this

case, no better reason can be given, than that suggested by Barclay. St.

Paul knew that Festus had done his duty. He knew, on the other hand, the

abandoned character of Felix. The latter was then living, as Josephus

relates, in open adultery with Drusilla, who had been married to Azis,

and brought away from her husband by the help of Simon a Magician; and

this circumstance probably gave occasion to Paul to dwell upon

temperance, or continence as the word might be rendered, among other

subjects, when he made Felix tremble. But, besides this, he must have

known the general character of a man, of whom Tacitus complained, that

"his government was distinguished by[49] servility and every species of

cruelty and lust."--

[Footnote 49: "Per omnem Saevitiam et Libidinem jus regium servili

ingenio exercuit."]

If therefore the epithet of noble was an established title for those

Romans, who held the government of Judea, the giving of it to one, and

the omission of it to the other, would probably shew the discrimination

of St. Paul as a Christian, that he had no objection to give it, where

it could be applied with truth, but that he refused it, when it was not

applicable to the living character.

But that the expression of excellent or of noble was any title at all,

there is no evidence to shew. And first, let us examine the word, which

was used upon this occasion. The [50]original Greek word has no meaning

as a title in any Lexicon that I have seen. It relates both to personal

and civil power, and in a secondary sense, to the strength and

disposition of the mind. It occurs but in four places in the New

Testament. In two of these it is translated excellent and in the others

noble. But Gilbert Wakefield, one of our best scholars has expunged the

word noble, and substituted excellent throughout. Indeed of all the

meanings of this word noble is the least proper. No judgment therefore

can be pronounced in favour of a title by any analysis of the word.

[Footnote 50: [Greek: kralistos]]

Let us now examine it as used by St. Luke. And here almost every

consideration makes against it, as an established title. In the first

place, the wisest commentators do not know who Theophilus was. It has

been supposed by many learned fathers, such as Epephanius, Salvian, and

others, that St. Luke, in addressing his gospel to Theophilus, addressed

it as the words, "excellent Theophilus" import, to every "firm lover of

God," or, if St. Luke uses the style of [51]Athanasius, to "every good

Christian." But on a supposition that Theophilus had been a living

character, and a man in power, the use of the epithet is against it as a

title of rank; because St. Luke gives it to Theophilus in the beginning

of his gospel, and does not give it to him, when he addresses him in the

acts. If therefore he had addressed him in this manner, because

excellent was his proper title, on one occasion, it would have been a

kind of legal, and at any rate a disrespectful omission, not to have

given it to him on the other. With respect to the term noble as used by

St. Paul to Festus, the sense of it must be determined by general as

well as by particular considerations. There are two circumstances, which

at the first sight make in favour of it as a title,[52]Lysias addresses

his letter to the "most excellent Felix," and the orator [53]Tertullus

says, "we except it always and in all places most noble Felix!" But

there must be some drawback from the latter circumstance, as an argument

of weight. There is reason to suppose that this expression was used by

Tertullus, as a piece of flattery, to compass the death of Paul; for it

is of a piece with the other expressions which he used, when he talked

of the worthy deeds done by the providence of so detestable a wretch,

as Felix. And it will always be an objection to noble as a legal title,

that St. Paul gave it to one governor, and omitted it to another, except

he did it for the reasons, that have been before described. To this it

may be added, that legal titles of eminence were not then, as at this

time of day, in use. Agrippa had no other, or at least Paul gave him no

other title, than that of king. If Porcius Festus had been descended

from a Patrician, or had had the statues of his ancestors, he might, on

these accounts, be said to have been of a noble family. But we know,

that nobody on this account, would have addressed him as noble in those

days, either by speech or letter. The first Roman, who was ever honoured

with a legal title, as a title of distinction, was Octavius, upon whom

the senate, but a few years before the birth of Paul, had conferred the

name of Augustus. But no procurator of a province took this title.

Neither does it appear that the circumstance gave birth to inferior

titles to those in inferior offices in the government. And indeed on the

title "Augustus" it may be observed, that though it followed the

successors of Octavius, it was but sparingly used, being mostly used on

medals, monumental pillars, and in public acts of the state. Pliny, in

his letters to Trajan, though reputed an excellent prince, addressed him

as only sir or master, and he wrote many years after the death of Paul.

Athenagoras, in addressing his book, in times posterior to these, to the

emperors M. Aurelius Antoninus, and L. Aurelius Commodus, addresses

them only by the title of "great princes." In short titles were not in

use. They did not creep in, so as to be commonly used, till after the

statues of the emperors had begun to be worshipped by the military as a

legal and accustomary homage. The terms "eternity and divinity" with

others were then ushered in, but these were confined wholly to the

emperors themselves. In the time of Constantine we find the title of

illustrious. This was given to those princes, who had distinguished

themselves in war, but it was not continued to their descendants. In

process of time, however, it became more common, and the son of every

prince began to be called illustrious.

[Footnote 51: [Greek: makarios] and [Greek: philochrisos] are

substituted by Athanasius for the word christian.]

[Footnote 52: Acts, xxiii, 26.]

[Footnote 53: Acts, xxiv. 3.]

SECT. VI.

_Thirdly against the alteration of the names of the days and

months--people, it is said do not necessarily pay homage to Idols, who

continue in the use of the ancient names--if the Quaker principles also

were generally adopted on this subject, language would be thrown into

confusion--Quakers also, by attempting to steer clear of Idolatry, fall

into it--replies of the Quakers to these objections._

The next objections for consideration, which are made against the

language of the Quakers, are those which relate to their alteration of

the names of the days and the months. These objections are commonly

made, when the language of the Quakers becomes a subject of conversation

with the world.

"There is great absurdity, it is said, in supposing, that persons pay

any respect to heathen idols, who retain the use of the ancient names of

the divisions of time. How many thousands are there, who know nothing of

their origin? The common people of the country know none of the reasons,

why the months, and the days are called as they are. The middle classes

are mostly ignorant of the same. Those, who are well informed on the

subject, never once think, when they mention the months and days, on the

reason of the rise of their names. Indeed the almost hourly use of

those names secures the oblivion of their origin. Who, when he speaks of

Wednesday and Thursday, thinks that these were the days sacred to Woden

and Thor? but there can be no idolatry, where there is no intention to

idolize."

"Great weakness, it is said again, is manifested by the Quakers, in

quarrelling with a few words in the language, and in living at peace

with others, which are equally objectionable. Every reason, it is said,

must be a weak one, which is not universal. But if some of the reasons,

given by the Quakers, were universally applied, they would throw

language into as much confusion as the builders of Babel. The word Smith

for example, which is the common name of many families, ought to be

objected to by this rule, if the person, to whom it belongs, happens to

be a carpenter. And the word carpenter which is likewise a family-name,

ought to be objected to, if the person so called should happen to be a

smith. And, in this case, men would be obliged to draw lots for numbers,

and to be called by the numerical ticket, which they should draw."

"It is objected again to the Quakers, that, by attempting to steer clear

of idolatry, they fall into it. The Quakers are considered to be genuine

idolaters, in this case. The blind pagan imagined a moral being, either

heavenly or infernal, to inhere in a log of wood or a block of stone.

The Quakers, in like manner, imagine a moral being, truth or falsehood,

to exist in a lifeless word, and this independently of the sense in

which it is spoken, and in which it is known that it will be understood.

What is this, it is said, but a species of idolatry and a degrading

superstition?"

The Quakers would reply to these observations, first, that they do not

charge others with idolatry, in the use of these names, who know nothing

of their origin, or who feel no impropriety in their use.

Secondly, that if the principle, upon which they found their alterations

in language, cannot, on account of existing circumstances, be followed

in all cases, there is no reason, why it should not be followed, where

it can. In the names of men it would be impossible to adopt it. Old

people are going off, and young people are coming up, and people of all

descriptions are themselves changing, and a change of names to suit

every persons condition, and qualification, would be impossible.

Thirdly, that they pay no more homage or obeisance to words, than the

obeisance of truth. There is always a propriety in truth, and an

impropriety in falsehood. And in proportion as the names of things

accord with their essences, qualities, properties, character, and the

like, they are more or less proper. September, for example, is not an

appropriate name, if its meaning be enquired into, for the month which

it represents: but the ninth month is, and the latter appellation will

stand the test of the strictest enquiry.

They would say again that this, as well as the other alterations in

their language has had a moral influence on the society, and has been

productive of moral good. In the same manner as the dress, which they

received from their ancestors has operated as a guardian, or

preservative of virtue, so has the language which they received from

them also. The language has made the world overseers of the conduct of

the society. A Quaker is known by his language as much as by his dress.

It operates, by discovering him, as a check upon his actions. It keeps

him also, like the dress distinct from others. And the Quakers believe,

that they can never keep up their Christian discipline, except they keep

clear of the spirit of the world. Hence it has been considered as of

great importance to keep up the plain language; and this importance has

been further manifested by circumstances, that have taken place within

the pale of the society. For in the same manner as those, who begin to

depart from the simplicity of dress, are generally in the way to go off

among the world, so are those who depart from the simplicity of the

language. Each deviation is a sign of a temper for desertion. Each

deviation brings them in appearance nearer to the world. But the nearer

they resemble the world in this respect, the more they are found to mix

with it. They are of course the more likely to be seduced from the

wholesome prohibitions of the society. The language therefore of the

Quakers has grown up insensibly as a wall of partition, which could not

now, it is contended, be taken away without endangering the innocence of

their youth.

SECT. VII.

_Advantages and disadvantages of the system of the Quaker,

language--disadvantages are that it may lead to superstition--and

hypocrisy--advantages are that it excludes flattery--is founded upon

truth--promotes truth, and correctness in the expression of

ideas--observation of Hobbes--would be the most perfect model for a

universal calendar--the use or disuse of this system may either of them

be made useful to morality._

I have now given to the reader the objections, that are usually made to

the alterations, which the Quakers have introduced into the language of

the country, as well as the replies, which the Quakers would make to

these objections. I shall solicit the continuance of his patience a

little longer, or till I have made a few remarks of my own upon this

subject.

It certainly becomes people, who introduce great peculiarities into

their system, to be careful, that they are well founded, and to consider

how far they may bring their minds into bondage, or what moral effects

they may produce on their diameter in a course of time.

On the reformed language of the Quakers it may be observed, that both

advantages and disadvantages may follow according to the due or undue

estimation in which individuals may hold it.

If individuals should lay too great a stress upon language, that is, if

they should carry their prejudices so far against outward and lifeless

words, that they should not dare to pronounce them, and this as a matter

of religion, they are certainly in the way of becoming superstitious,

and of losing the dignified independence of their minds.

If again they should put an undue estimate upon language, so as to

consider it as a criterion of religious purity, they may be encouraging

the growth of hypocrisy within their own precincts. For if the use of

this reformed language be considered as an essential of religion, that

is, if men are highly thought of in proportion as they conform to it

rigidly, it may be a covering to many to neglect the weightier matters

of righteousness; at least the fulfilling of such minor duties may

shield them from the suspicion of neglecting the greater: and if they

should be reported as erring in the latter case, their crime would be

less credited under their observance of these minutiae of the law.

These effects are likely to result to the society, if the peculiarities

of their language be insisted on beyond their due bounds. But, on the

other hand, it must be confessed, that advantages are likely to follow

from the same system, which are of great importance in themselves, and

which may be set off as a counterbalance to the disadvantages described.

The Quakers may say, and this with the greatest truth, "we have never

cringed or stooped below the dignity of men. We have never been guilty

of base flattery; we have never been instrumental in raising the

creature, with whom we have conversed, above his condition, so that in

the imagination of his own consequence, he should lose sight of his

dependence on the Supreme Being, or treat his fellow-men, because they

should happen to be below him, as worms or reptiles of the earth."

They may say also that the system of their language originated in the

purest motives, and that it is founded on the sacred basis of truth.

It may be said also, that the habits of caution which the different

peculiarities in their language have introduced and interwoven into

their constitution, have taught them particularly to respect the truth,

and to aim at it in all their expressions whether in speech or letters,

and that it has given them a peculiar correctness in the expression of

their ideas, which they would scarcely have had by means of the ordinary

education of the world. Hobbes says[54] "animadverte, quam sit ab

improprietate verborum pronum hominibus prolabi in errores circa res,"

or "how prone men are to fall into errors about things, when they use

improper expressions." The converse of this proposition may be observed

to be true with respect to the Quakers, or it may be observed, that the

study of proper expressions has given them correct conceptions of

things, and has had an influence in favor of truth. There are no people,

though the common notion may be otherwise, who speak so accurately as

the Quakers, or whose letters, if examined on any subject, would be so

free from any double meaning, so little liable to be mistaken, and so

easy to be understood.

[Footnote 54: Hobbesii Examen. et Emend. Hod. Math. P. 55. Edit.

Amstel.]

It may be observed also on the language of the Quakers, that is, on that

part of it, which relates to the alteration of the names of the months

and days, that this alteration would form the most perfect model for an

universal calendar of any that has yet appeared in the world. The French

nation chose to alter their calendar, and, to make it useful to

husbandry, they designated their months, so that they should be

representatives of the different seasons of the year. They called them

snowy, and windy, and harvest, and vintage-months, and the like. But in

so large a territory, as that of France, these new designations were not

the representatives of the truth. The northern and southern parts were

not alike in their climate. Much less could these designations speak

the truth for other parts of the world: whereas numerical appellations

might be adopted with truth, and be attended with usefulness to all the

nations of the world, who divided their time in the same manner.

On the latter subject of the names of the days and months, the

alteration of which is considered as the most objectionable by the

world, I shall only observe, that, if the Quakers have religious

scruples concerning them, it is their duty to persevere in the disuse of

them. Those of the world, on the other hand, who have no such scruples,

are under no obligation to follow their example. And in the same manner

as the Quakers convert the disuse of these ancient terms to the

improvement of their moral character, so those of the world may convert

the use of them to a moral purpose. Man is a reasonable, and moral

being, and capable of moral improvement; and this improvement may be

made to proceed from apparently worthless causes. If we were to find

crosses or other Roman-Catholic relics fixed in the walls of our places

of worship, why should we displace them? Why should we not rather suffer

them to remain, to put us in mind of the necessity of thankfulness for

the reformation in our religion? If again we were to find an altar,

which had been sacred to Moloc, but which had been turned into a

stepping stone, to help the aged and infirm upon their horses, why

should we destroy it? Might it not be made useful to our morality, as

far as it could be made to excite sorrow for the past and gratitude for

the present? And in the same manner might it not be edifying to retain

the use of the ancient names of the days and months? Might not thankful

feelings be excited in our hearts, that the crime of idolatry had ceased

among us, and that the only remnant of it was a useful signature of the

times? In fact, if it be the tendency of the corrupt part of our nature

to render innocent things vicious, it is, on the other hand, in the

essence of our nature, to render vicious things in process of time

innocent; so that the remnants of idolatry and superstition may be made

subservient to the moral improvement of mankind.

CHAP. IV.

_Address--all nations have used ceremonies of address--George Fox bears

his testimony against those in use in his own times--sufferings of the

Quakers on this account--makes no exception in favor of royalty--his

dispute with Judge Glynn--modern Quakers follow his example--use no

ceremonies even to majesty--various reasons for their disuse of them._

All nations have been in the habit of using outward gestures or

ceremonies, as marks of affection, obeisance or respect. And these

outward ceremonies have been different from one another, so much so,

that those, which have been adjudged to be suitable emblems of certain

affections or dispositions of the mind among one people, would have been

considered as very improper emblems of the same, and would have been

even thought ridiculous by another, yet all nations have supposed, that

they employed the most rational modes for these purposes. And indeed,

there were probably none of these outward gestures and ceremonies,

which, in their beginning, would not have admitted of a reasonable

defence while they continued to convey to the minds of those, who

adopted them, the objects, for which they were intended, or while those,

who used them, persevered with sincerity in their use, little or no

objection could be made to them by the moralist. But as soon as the ends

of their institution were lost, or they were used without any

appropriate feeling of the heart, they became empty civilities, and

little better than mockery or grimace.

The customs of this sort, which obtained in the time of George Fox, were

similar to those, which are now in use on similar occasions. People

pulled off their hats, and bowed, and scraped with their feet. And these

things they did, as marks of civility, friendship, or respect to one

another.

George Fox was greatly grieved about these idle ceremonies. He lamented

that men should degrade themselves by the use of them, and that they

should encourage habits, that were abhorrent of the truth. His feelings

were so strong upon this subject, that he felt himself called upon to

bear his testimony against them. Accordingly he never submitted to them

himself, and those, who received his religious doctrines, followed his

example.

The omission of these ceremonies, however, procured both for him and his

followers, as had been the case in the change of thou for you, much

ill-will, and harsh treatment. The Quakers were derided and abused.

Their hats were taken forcibly from their heads, and thrown away. They

were beaten and imprisoned on this sole account. And so far did the

world carry their resentment towards them for the omission of these

little ceremonies, that they refused for some time to deal with them as

tradesmen, or to buy things at their shops, so that some Quakers could

hardly get money enough to buy themselves bread.

George Fox, however, and his associates, persevered, notwithstanding

this ill usage, in the disuse of all honours, either by the moving of

the hat, or the usual bendings of the body; and as that, which was a

right custom for one, was a right one for another, they made no

exception even in favour of the chief magistrate of the land. George

Fox, when he visited Oliver Cromwell as protector, never pulled off his

hat; and it is remarkable that the protector was not angry with him for

it.

Neither did he pull off his hat to the judges at any time,

notwithstanding he was so often brought before them. Controversies

sometimes took place between him and them in the public court, upon

these occasions, one of which I shall notice, as it marks the manner of

conducting the jurisprudence of those times.

When George Fox, and two other friends, were brought out of Launceston

gaol, to be tried before judge Glynn, who was then chief justice of

England, they came into court with their hats on. The judge asked them

the reason of this, but they said nothing. He then told them, that the

court commanded them to pull off their hats. Upon this George Fox

addressed them in the following manner. "Where, says he, did ever any

magistrate, king or judge, from Moses to Daniel, command any to put off

their hats, when they came before them in their courts, either amongst

the Jews, who were God's people, or among the heathen? And if the law of

England doth command any such thing, shew me that law, either written or

printed." Judge Glynn upon this grew angry, and replied, that "he did

not carry his law-books upon his back." But says George Fox, "tell me

where it is printed in any statute-book, that I may read it" The judge,

in a vulgar manner, ordered him away, and he was accordingly taken away,

and put among thieves. The judge, however, in a short time afterwards

ordered him up again, and, on his return put to him the following

question, "Come, says he, where had they hats from Moses to Daniel?

Come, answer me. I have you fast now." George. Fox replied, that "he

might read in the third chapter of Daniel, that the three children were

cast into the fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar's command, with their

coats, their hose, and their hats on." The repetition of this apposite

text stopped the judge from any farther comments on the custom, and he

ordered him and his companions to be taken away again. And they were

accordingly taken away and they were thrust again among thieves. In

process of time, however, this custom of the Quakers began to be known

among the judges, who so far respected their scruples, as to take care

that their hats should be taken off in future in the courts.

These omissions of the ceremonies of the world, as begun by the

primitive Quakers, are continued by the modern. They neither bow nor

scrape, nor pull off their hats to any, by way of civility or respect,

and they carry their principles, like their predecessors, so far, that

they observe none of these exterior parts of politeness even in the

presence of royalty. The Quakers are in the habit on particular

occasions of sending deputies to the king. And it is remarkable that his

present majesty always sees them himself, if he be well, and not by

proxy. Notwithstanding this, no one in the deputation ever pulls off his

hat. Those, however, who are in waiting in the anti-chamber, knowing

this custom of the Quakers, take their hats from their heads, before

they enter the room, where the king is. On entering the room, they

neither bow nor scrape, nor kneel, and as this ceremony cannot be

performed for them by others, they go into the royal presence in a less

servile, or more dignified manner, than either the representatives of

sovereigns, or those, who have humbled nations by the achievement of

great victories.

The ground, upon which the Quakers decline the use of the ordinary

ceremonies just mentioned, is, the honours are the honours of the world.

Now, as that these of the world, they consider them as objectionable on

several accounts.

First, they are no more the criterions of obeisance and respect, than

mourning garments are the criterions of sorrow. But Christianity is

never satisfied but with the truth. It forbids all false appearances. It

allows no image to be held out, that is not a faithful picture of its

original, or no action to be resorted to, that is not correspondent with

the feelings of the heart.

In the second place the Quakers presume, that, as honours of the world,

all such ceremonies are generally of a complimentary nature. No one bows

to a poor man. But almost every one to the rich, and the rich to one

another. Hence bowing is as much a species of flattery through the

medium of the body, as the giving of undeserved titles through the

medium of the tongue.

As honours of the world again the Quakers think them censurable, because

all such honours were censured by Jesus Christ. On the occasion, on

which he exhorted his followers not to be like the Scribes and

Pharisees, and to seek flattering titles, so as to be called Rabbi Rabbi

of man, he exhorted them to avoid all ceremonious salutations, such as

greetings in the market-places. He couples the two different customs of

flattering titles and salutations in the same sentence, and mentions

them in the same breath. And though the word "greetings" does not

perhaps precisely mean those bowings and scrapings, which are used at

the present day, yet it means, both according to its derivation and the

nature of the Jewish customs, those outward personal actions or

gestures, which were used as complimentary to the Jewish world.

With respect to the pulling off the hat the Quakers have an additional

objection to this custom, quite distinct from the objections, that have

been mentioned above. Every minister in the Quaker society takes off his

hat, either when he preaches, or when he prays. St Paul[55] enjoins this

custom. But if they take off their hats, that is, uncover their heads,

as an outward act enjoined in the service of God, they cannot with any

propriety take them off, or uncover their heads to men, because they

would be giving to the creature the same outward honour which they give

to the creator. And in this custom they conceive the world to be

peculiarly inconsistent. For men go into their churches, and into their

meetings, and pull off their hats, or uncover their heads, for the same

reason as the Quaker-ministers when they pray (for no other reason can

be assigned) and, when they come out of their respective places of

worship, they uncover them again on every trivial occasion, to those

whom they meet, using to man the same outward mark of homage, as they

had just given to God.

[Footnote 55: 1 Cor. Chap. xi.]

CHAP. V.

_Manners and conversation--Quakers esteemed reserved--this an

appearance owing to their education--their hospitality in their own

houses--the freedom allowed and taken--their conversation

limited--politics generally excluded--subjects of conversation examined

in our towns--also in the metropolis--no such subjects among the

Quakers--their conversation more dignified--extraordinary circumstance

that takes place occasionally in the company of the Quakers._

The Quakers are generally supposed to be a stiff and reserved people,

and to be a people of severe and uncourteous manners. I confess there is

something in their appearance that will justify the supposition in the

eyes of strangers, and of such as do not know them: I mean of such, as

just see them occasionally out of doors, but do not mix with them in

their own houses.

It cannot be expected that persons, educated like the Quakers, should

assimilate much in their manners to other people. The very dress they

wear, which is so different from that of others, would give them a stiff

appearance in the eyes of the world, if nothing else could be found to

contribute towards it. Excluded also from much intercourse with the

world, and separated at a vast distance from it by the singularity of

many of their customs, they would naturally appear to others to be close

and reserved. Neither is it to be expected that those, whose spirits

are never animated by music, or enlivened by the exhibitions of the

theatre, or the diversions which others follow, would have other than

countenances that were grave. Their discipline also, which calls them so

frequently to important duties, and the dispatch of serious business,

would produce the same feature. I may observe also, that a peculiarity

of gait, which might be mistaken for awkwardness, might not unreasonably

be expected in those, who had neither learned to walk under the guidance

of a dancing, master, nor to bow under the direction of the dominion of

fashion. If those and those only are to be esteemed really polished and

courteous, who bow and scrape, and salute each other by certain

prescribed gestures, then the Quakers will appear to have contracted

much rust, and to have an indisputable right to the title of a clownish

and inflexible people.

I must observe however that these appearances, though they may be

substantial in the estimation of those who do not know them, gradually

vanish with those, who do. Their hospitality in their own houses, and

their great attention and kindness, soon force out of sight all ideas of

uncourteousness. Their freedom also soon annihilates those of stiffness

and reserve. Their manners, though they have not the polished surface of

those which are usually attached to fashionable life, are agreeable,

when known.

There is one trait in the Quaker-manners, which runs through the whole

society, as far as I have seen in their houses, and which is worthy of

mention. The Quakers appear to be particularly gratified, when those,

who visit them, ask for what they want. Instead of considering this as

rudeness or intrusion, they esteem it as a favour done them. The

circumstance of asking, on such an occasion, is to them a proof, that

there visitors feel themselves at home. Indeed they almost always desire

a stranger who has been introduced to them "to be free." This is their

usual expression. And if he assures them that he will, and if they find

him asking for what he wishes to have, you may perceive in their

countenances the pleasure, which his conduct has given them. They

consider him, when he has used this freedom, to have acted as they

express it "kindly." Nothing can be more truly polite than that conduct

to another, by which he shall be induced to feel himself as comfortably

situated, as if he were in his own house.

As the Quakers desire their visitors to be free, and to do as they

please, so they do not fail to do the same themselves, never regarding

such visitors as impediments in the way of their concerns. If they have

any business or engagement out of doors, they say so and go, using no

ceremony, and but few words as an apology. Their visitors, I mean such

as stay for a time in their houses, are left in the interim to amuse

themselves as they please. This is peculiarly agreeable, because their

friends know, when they visit them, that they neither restrain, nor

shackle, nor put them to inconvenience. In fact it may be truly said

that if satisfaction in visiting depends upon a man's own freedom to do

as he likes, to ask and to call for what he wants, to go out and come in

as he pleases; and if it depends also on the knowledge he has, that, in

doing all these things, he puts no person out of his way, there are no

houses, where people will be better pleased with their treatment, than

in those of the Quakers.

This trait in the character of the Quakers is very general. I would not

pretend, however, to call it universal. But it is quite general enough

to be pronounced a feature in their domestic character. I do not mean by

the mention of it, to apologize, in any manner for the ruggedness of

manners of some Quakers. There are undoubtedly solitary families, which

having lived in places, where there have been scarcely any of their own

society with whom to associate, and which, having scarcely mixed with

others of other denominations except in the way of trade, have an

uncourteousness, ingrafted in them as it were by these circumstances,

which no change of situation afterwards has been able to obliterate.

The subjects of conversation among the Quakers differ, like those of

others, but they are not so numerous, neither are they of the same kind,

as those of other people.

The Quaker conversation is cramped or fettered for two reasons, first by

the caution, that prevails among the members of the society relative to

the use of idle words, and secondly by the caution, that prevails among

them, relative to the adapting of their expressions to the truth. Hence

the primitive Quakers were persons of few words.

The subjects also of the Quaker conversation are limited for several

reasons. The Quakers have not the same classical or philosophical

education, as those of other denominations in an equal situation in

life. This circumstance will of course exclude many topics from their

discourse.

Religious considerations also exclude others. Politics, which generally

engross a good deal of attention, and which afford an inexhaustible fund

of matter for conversation to a great part of the inhabitants of the

island, are seldom introduced, and, if introduced, very tenderly

handled in general among the Quaker-society. I have seen aged Quakers

gently reprove others of tenderer years, with whom they happened to be

in company, for having started them. It is not that the Quakers have not

the same feelings as other men, or that they are not equally interested

about humanity, or that they are incapable of opinions on the changeable

political events, that are passing over the face of the globe, that this

subject is so little agitated among them. They are usually silent upon

it for particular reasons. They consider first, that, as they are not

allowed to have any direction, and in many cases could not

conscientiously interfere, in government-matters, it would be folly to

disquiet their minds with vain and fruitless speculations. They consider

again, that political subjects frequently irritate people, and make them

warm. Now this is a temper, which they consider to be peculiarly

detrimental to their religion. They consider themselves also in this

life as but upon a journey to another, and that they should get through

it as quietly and as inoffensively as they can. They believe again with

George Fox, that, "in these lower regions, or in this airy life, all

news is uncertain. There is nothing stable. But in the higher regions,

or in the kingdom of Christ, all things are stable: and the news is

always good and certain." [56]

[Footnote 56: There is always an exception in favour of conversation on

politics, which is, when the government are agitating any question,

their interests or their religious freedom is involved.]

As politics do not afford matter for much conversation in the

Quaker-society, so neither do some other subjects, that may be

mentioned.

In a country town, where people daily visit, it is not uncommon to

observe, whether at the card, or at the tea-table, that what is usually

called scandal forms a part of the pleasures of conversation. The

hatching up of suspicions on the accidental occurrence of trivial

circumstances, the blowing up of these suspicions into substances and

forms, animadversions on character, these, and such like themes, wear

out a great part of the time of an afternoon or an evening visit. Such

subjects, however, cannot enter where Quakers converse with one another.

To avoid tale-bearing and detraction is a lesson inculcated into them in

early youth. The maxim is incorporated into their religion, and of

course follows them through life. It is contained in one of their

queries. This query is read to them in their meetings, and the subject

of it is therefore repeatedly brought to their notice and recollection.

Add to which, that, if a Quaker were to repeat any unfounded scandal,

that operated to the injury of another's character, and were not to give

up the author, or make satisfaction for the same, he would be liable,

by the rules of the society, to be disowned.

I do not mean to assert here, that a Quaker never says a harsh thing of

another man. All, who profess to be, are not Quakers. Subjects of a

scandalous nature may be in introduced by others of another

denomination, in which, if Quakers are present, they may unguardedly

join. But it is certainly true, that Quakers are more upon their guard,

with respect to scandalizing others, than many other people. Nor is this

unlikely to be the case, when we consider that caution in this

particular is required of them by the laws of their religion. It is

certainly true also, that such subjects are never introduced by them,

like those at country tea-tables, for the sole purpose of producing

conversation. And I believe I may add with truth, that it would even be

deemed extraordinary by the society, if such subjects were introduced by

them at all.

In companies also in the metropolis, as well as in country towns, a

variety of subjects affords food for conversation which never enter into

the discourse of the Quakers.

If we were to go into the company of persons of a certain class in the

metropolis, we should find them deriving the enjoyments of conversation

from some such subjects as the following. One of the company would

probably talk of the exquisitely fine manner, in which an actress

performed her part on a certain night. This, would immediately give

birth to a variety of remarks. The name of one actress would bring up

that of another, and the name of one play that of another, till at

length the stage would become the source of supplying a subject for a

considerable time. Another would probably ask, as soon as this

theatrical discussion was over, the opinion of the company on the

subject of the duel, which the morning papers had reported to have taken

place. This new subject would give new fuel to the fire, and new

discussions would take place, and new observations fly about from all

quarters. Some would applaud the courage of the person, who had been

killed. Others would pity his hard fate. But none would censure his

wickedness for having resorted to such dreadful means for the

determination of his dispute. From this time the laws of honour would be

canvassed, and disquisitions about punctilio, and etiquette, and honour,

would arrest the attention of the company, and supply them with

materials for a time. These subjects would be followed by observations

on fashionable head-dresses, by the relation of elopements, by the

reports of affairs of gallantry. Each subject would occupy its own

portion of time. Thus each would help to swell up the measure of

conversation, and to make up the enjoyment of the visit.

If we were to go among persons of another class in the metropolis, we

should probably find them collecting their entertainment from other

topics. One would talk on the subject of some splendid route. He would

expatiate on the number of rooms that were opened, on the superb manner,

in which they were fitted up, and on the sum of money that was expended

in procuring every delicacy that was out of season. A second would

probably ask, if it were really known, how much one of their female

acquaintance had lost at faro. A third would make observations on the

dresses at the last drawing room. A fourth would particularize the

liveries brought out by individuals on the birth-day. A fifth would ask,

who was to have the vacant red ribbon. Another would tell, how the

minister had given a certain place to a certain nobleman's third son,

and would observe, that the whole family were now provided for by

government. Each of these topics would be enlarged upon, as successively

started, and thus conversation would be kept going during the time of

the visit.

These and other subjects generally constitute the pleasures of

conversation among certain classes of persons. But among the Quakers,

they can hardly ever intrude themselves at all. Places and pensions they

neither do, nor can, hold. Levees and drawing rooms they neither do, nor

would consent to, attend, on pleasure. Red ribbons they would not wear

if given to them. Indeed, very few of the society know what these

insignia mean. As to splendid liveries, these would never occupy their

attention. Liveries for servants, though not expressly forbidden, are

not congenial with the Quaker-system; and as to gaming, plays, or

fashionable amusements, these are forbidden, as I have amply stated

before, by the laws of the society.

It is obvious then, that these topics cannot easily enter into

conversation, where Quakers are. Indeed, nothing so trifling,

ridiculous, or disgusting, occupies their minds. The subjects, that

take up their attention, are of a more solid and useful kind. There is a

dignity, in general, in the Quaker-conversation, arising from the nature

of these subjects, and from the gravity and decorum with which it is

always conducted. It is not to be inferred from hence, that their

conversation is dull and gloomy. There is often no want of

sprightliness, wit, and humour. But then this sprightliness, never

borders upon folly, for all foolish jesting is to be avoided, and it is

always decorous. When vivacity makes its appearance among the Quakers;

it is sensible, and it is uniformly in an innocent and decent dress.

In the company of the Quakers a circumstance sometimes occurs, of so

peculiar a nature, that it cannot be well omitted in this place. It

sometimes happens, that you observe a pause in the conversation. This

pause continues. Surprized at the universal silence now prevailing, you

look round, and find all the Quakers in the room apparently thoughtful.

The history of the circumstance is this. In the course of the

conversation the mind of some one of the persons present has been so

overcome with the weight or importance of it, or so overcome by inward

suggestions or other subjects, as to have given himself up to

meditation, or to passive obedience to the impressions upon his mind.

This person is soon discovered by the rest on account of his particular

silence and gravity. From this moment the Quakers in company cease to

converse. They become habitually silent, and continue so, both old and

young, to give the apparently meditating person an opportunity of

pursuing uninterruptedly the train of his own thoughts. Perhaps, in the

course of his meditations, the subject, that impressed his mind,

gradually dies away, and expires in silence. In this case you find him

resuming his natural position, and returning to conversation with the

company as before. It sometimes happens, however, that, in the midst of

his meditations, he feels an impulse to communicate to those present the

subject of his thoughts, and breaks forth, seriously explaining,

exhorting, and advising, as the nature of it permits and suggests. When

he has finished his observations, the company remain silent for a short

time, after which they converse again as before.

Such a pause, whenever it occurs in the company of the Quakers, may be

considered as a devotional act. For the subject, which occasions it, is

always of a serious or religious nature. The workings in the mind of the

meditating person are considered either as the offspring of a solemn

reflection upon that subject, suddenly and almost involuntarily as it

were produced by duty, or as the immediate offspring of the agency of

the spirit. And an habitual silence is as much the consequence, as if

the person present had been at a place of worship.

It may be observed, however, that such pauses seldom or never occur in

ordinary companies, or where Quakers ordinarily visit one another. When

they take place, it is mostly when a minister is present, and when such

a minister is upon a religious visit to families of a certain district.

In such a case such religious pauses and exhortations are not

unfrequent. A man however may be a hundred times in the company of the

Quakers, and never be present at one of them, and never know indeed that

they exist at all.

CHAP. VI.

_Custom before meals--ancients formerly made an oblation to Vesta before

their meals--Christians have substituted grace--Quakers agree with

others in the necessity of grace or thankfulness-but do not adopt it as

a devotional act, unless it comes from the heart--allow a silent pause

for religious impressions on these occasions--observations on a Scotch

grace._

There was a time in the early ages of Greece, when men apparently little

better than beasts of prey, could not meet at entertainments, without

quarrelling about the victuals before them. The memory of this

circumstance is well preserved in the expressions of early writers. In

process of time however, regulations began to be introduced, and

quarrels to be prevented, by the institution of the office of a divider

or distributer of the feast, who should carve the food into equal

portions, and help every individual to his proper share. Hence the terms

[Greek: Aatfrn] or equal feast, which so frequently occur in Homer, and

which were in use in consequence of the division just mentioned, were

made use of to shew, that the feasts, then spoken of by him, were

different from those of former times. When Homer wishes to describe

persons as more civilized than others, he describes them as having this

equal feast. That is, men did not appear at these feasts, like dogs and

wolves, and instantly devour whatever they could come at, and tear each

other to pieces in the end; but they waited till their different

portions of meat had been assigned them, and then ate them in amity and

peace.

At the time when we find the custom of one man carving for all his

guests to have been in use, we find also that another had been

introduced among the same people. The Greeks, in the heroic ages,

thought it unlawful to eat, till they had first offered a part of their

provision to the gods. Hence oblations to Vesta, and afterwards to

others, whom their superstition had defied, came into general use, so

that these were always made, before the victuals on the table were

allowed to be tasted by any of the guests.

These two customs, since that time, have come regularly down to the

present day. Every person helps his family and his friends at his own

table. But as Christians can make no sacrifices to heathen deities, we

usually find them substituting thanksgiving for oblation, and giving to

the Creator of the universe instead of an offering of the first fruits

from their tables, an offering of gratitude from their hearts.

This oblation, which is now usually denominated grace, consists of a

form of words, which, being expressive either of praise or thankfulness

to God for the blessings of food, with which he continues to supply

them, is repeated by the master of the family, or by a minister of the

gospel if present, before any one partakes of the victuals, that are set

before him. These forms, however, differ, as used by Christians. They

differ in length, in ideas, in expression. One Christian uses one form,

another uses another. It may however be observed, that the same

Christian generally uses the same form of words, or the same grace, on

the same occasion.

The Quakers, as a religious body, agree in the propriety of grace before

their meals, that is in the propriety of giving thanks to the author of

every good gift for this particular bounty of his providence as to the

articles of their daily subsistence, but they differ as to the manner

and seasonableness of it on such occasions. They think that people who

are in the habit of repeating a determined form of words, may cease to

feel, as they pronounce them, in which case the grace becomes an

oblation from the tongue, but not from the heart. They think also that,

if grace is to be repeated regularly, just as the victuals come, or as

regularly and as often as they come upon the table, it may be repeated

unseasonably, that is unseasonably with the state of the heart of him,

who is to pronounce it; that the heart of man is not to-day as it was

yesterday, nor at this hour what it was at a former, nor on any given

hour alike disposed; and that if this grace is to be said when the heart

is gay, or light, or volatile, it ceases to be a devotional act, and

becomes at least a superflous and unmeaning, if not a censurable form.

The Quakers then to avoid the unprofitableness of such artificial

graces on the one hand, and, on the other, to give an opportunity to the

heart to accord with the tongue, whenever it is used in praise of the

Creator, observe the following custom. When they are all seated at

table, they sit in solemn silence, and in a thoughtful position, for

some time. If the master of the family, during this silence, should feel

any religious impression on his mind, whether of praise or thankfulness

on the occasion, he gives utterance to his feelings. Such praise or

thanksgiving in him is considered as a devotional act, and as the Quaker

grace. But if, after having waited in silence for some time, he feels no

such religious disposition, he utters no religious expression. The

Quakers hold it better to say no grace, than to say that, which is not

accompanied by the devotion of the heart. In this case he resumes his

natural position, breaks the silence by means of natural discourse, and

begins to carve for his family or his friends.

This is the ordinary way of proceeding in Quaker families, when alone,

or in ordinary company. But if a minister happens to be at the table,

the master of the family, conceiving such a man to be more in the habit

of religious impressions than himself, or any ordinary person, looks up

as it were to him, as to a channel, from whence it is possible, that

such religious exercise may come. If the minister, during the solemn,

silent pause, is impressed, he gives utterance as before: if not, he

relieves himself from his grave and thoughtful position, and breaks the

silence of the company by engaging in natural discourse. After this the

company proceed to their meals.

If I were to be asked whether the graces of the Quakers were frequent, I

should reply in the negative. I never heard any delivered, but when a

minister was present. The ordinary grace therefore of private families

consists in a solemn, silent, pause, between the time of sitting down to

the table and the note of carving the victuals, during which an

opportunity is given for the excitement of religious feelings. A person

may dine fifty times at the tables of the Quakers, and see no other

substitution for grace than this temporary silent pause.

Indeed no other grace than this can be consistent with

Quaker-principles. It was coeval with the institution of the society,

and must continue while it lasts. For thanksgiving is an act of

devotion. Now no act, in the opinion of the Quakers, can be devotional

or spiritual, except it originate from above. Men, in religious matters

can do nothing of themselves, or without the divine aid. And they must

therefore wait in silence for this spiritual help, as well in the case

of grace, as in the case of any other kind of devotion, if they mean

their praise or thanksgiving on such occasions to be an act of religion.

There is in the Quaker-grace, and its accompaniments, whenever it is

uttered, an apparent beauty and an apparent solemnity, which are seldom

conspicuous in those of others. How few are there, who repeat the common

artificial graces feelingly, and with minds intent upon the subject!

Grace is usually said as a mere ceremony or custom. The Supreme Being is

just thanked in so many words, while the thoughts are often rambling to

other subjects. The Quaker-grace, on the other hand, whenever it is

uttered; does not come out in any mechanical form of words which men

have used before, but in expressions adapted to the feelings. It comes

forth also warm from the heart. It comes after a solemn, silent, pause,

and it becomes therefore, under all these circumstances, an act of real

solemnity and genuine devotion.

It is astonishing how little even men of acknowledged piety seem to have

their minds fixed upon the ideas contained in the mechanical graces they

repeat. I was one afternoon at a friends house, where there happened to

be a clergyman of the Scottish church. He was a man deservedly esteemed

for his piety. The company was large. Politics had been discussed some

time, when the tea-things were introduced. While the bread and butter

were bringing in, the clergyman, who had taken an active part in the

discussion, put a question to a gentleman, who was sitting in a corner

of the room. The gentleman began to reply, and was proceeding in his

answer, when of a sudden I heard a solemn voice. Being surprised, I

looked round, and found it was the clergyman, who had suddenly started

up, and was saying grace. The solemnity, with which he spoke, occasioned

his voice to differ so much from its ordinary tone, that I did not, till

I had looked about me, discover who the speaker was. I think he might be

engaged from three or four minutes in the delivery of this grace. I

could not help thinking, during the delivery of it, that I never knew

any person say grace like this man. Nor was I ever so much moved with

any grace, or thought I ever saw so dearly the propriety of saying

grace, as on this occasion. But when I found that on the very instant

the grace was over politics were resumed; when I found that, no sooner

had the last word in the grace been pronounced, than the next, which

came from the clergyman himself, began by desiring the gentleman before

mentioned to go on with his reply to his own political question, I was

so struck with the inconsistency of the thing, that the beauty and

solemnity of his grace all vanished. This sudden transition from

politics to grace, and from grace to politics, afforded a proof that

artificial sentences might be so frequently repeated, as to fail to

re-excite their first impressions, or that certain expressions, which

might have constituted devotional acts under devotional feeling, might

relapse into heartless forms.

I should not wish, by the relation of this anecdote, to be understood as

reflecting in the slightest manner on the practice of the Scottish

church. I know well the general sobriety, diligence, piety and religious

example of its ministers. I mentioned it merely to shew, that even where

the religious character of a person was high, his mind, by the frequent

repetition of the same forms of expression on the same occasions, might

frequently lose sight of the meaning and force of the words as they were

uttered, so that he might pronounce them without that spiritual feeling,

which can alone constitute a religious exercise.

CHAP. VII.

_Customs at and after meals--Quakers never drink healths at dinner--nor

toasts after dinner--the drinking of toasts a heathen custom--interrupts

often the innocence--and leads to the intoxication of the company--anecdote

of Judge Hale--Quakers sometimes in embarrassing situations on account of

this omission--Quaker-women seldom retire after dinner, and leave the men

drinking--Quakers a sober people._

The Quakers though they are occasionally found in the custom of saying

grace, do not, as I have stated, either use it as regularly, or in the

same manner as other christians.

Neither do they at their meals, or after their meals, use the same

ceremonies as others. They have exploded the unmeaning and troublesome

custom of drinking healths at their dinners.

This custom the Quakers have rejected upon the principle, that it has no

connection with true civility. They consider it as officious,

troublesome, and even embarrassing, on some occasions. To drink to a

man, when he is lifting his victuals to his mouth, and by calling off

his attention, to make him drop them, or to interrupt two people, who

are eating and talking together, and to break the thread of their

discourse, seems to be an action, as rude in its principle, as

disagreeable in its effects, nor is the custom often less troublesome to

the person drinking the health, than to the person whose health is

drank. If a man finds two people engaged in conversation he must wait

till he catches their eyes, before he can drink himself. A man may also

often be put into a delicate and difficult situation, to know whom to

drink to first, and whom second, and may be troubled, lest, by drinking

improperly to one before another, he may either be reputed awkward, or

may become the occasion of offence. They consider also the custom of

drinking healths at dinner as unnecessary, and as tending to no useful

end. It must be obvious that a man may wish another his health, full as

much without drinking it, as by drinking it with his glass in his hand.

And it must be equally obvious that wishes, expressed in this manner,

can have no medicinal effect.

With respect to the custom of drinking healths at dinner, I may observe

that the innovation, which the Quakers seem to have been the first to

have made upon the practice of it, has been adopted by many, not out of

compliance with their example, but on account of the trouble and

inconveniences attending it; that the custom is not now so general as it

was; that in the higher and more fashionable circles it has nearly been

exploded; and that, among some of the other classes of society, it is

gradually declining.

With respect to the custom of drinking toasts after dinner, the Quakers

have rejected it for various reasons.

They have rejected it first, because, however desirable it may be that

Christians should follow the best customs of the heathens, it would be a

reproach to them to follow the worst. Or, in other words, it would be

improper for men, whose religion required spirituality of thought and

feeling, to imitate the heathens in the manner of their enjoyment of

sensual pleasures. The laws and customs of drinking, the Quakers

observe, are all of heathen origin. The similitude between these and

those of modern tunes is too remarkable to be overlooked; and too

striking not to warrant them in concluding, that christens have taken

their model on this subject from Pagan practice.

In every Grecian family, where company was invited, the master of it was

considered to be the king or president of the feast, in his own house.

He was usually denominated the eye of the company. It was one of his

offices to look about and to see that his guests drank their proper

portions of the wine. It was another to keep peace and harmony among

them. For these purposes his word was law. At entertainments at the

public expence the same office existed, but the person, then appointed

to it, was nominated either by lot, or by the votes of the persons

present.--This custom obtains among the moderns. The master of every

family at the present day presides at his own table for the same

purposes. And at great and public dinners at taverns, a similar officer

is appointed, who is generally chosen by the committee, who first meet

for the proposal of the feast.

One of the first toasts, that were usually drank among the ancient

Greeks, was to the "gods." This entirely corresponds with the modern

idea of church; and if the government had been only coupled with the

gods in these ancient times, it would have precisely answered to the

modern toast of church and state.

It was also usual at the entertainments, given by Grecian families, to

drink the prosperity of those persons, for whom they entertained a

friendship, but who happened to be absent. No toast can better coincide

than this, with that, which is so frequently given, of our absent

friends.

It was also a Grecian practice for each of the guests to name his

particular friend, and sometimes also his particular mistress. The

moderns have also a parallel for this. Every person gives (to use the

common phrase) his gentleman, and his lady, in his turn.

It is well known to have been the usage of the ancient Greeks, at their

entertainments, either to fill or to have had their cups filled for them

to the brim. The moderns do precisely the same thing. Glasses so

filled, have the particular name of bumpers: and however vigilantly an

ancient Greek might have looked after his guests, and made them drink

their glasses filled in this manner, the presidents of modern times are

equally vigilant in enforcing adherence to the same custom.

It was an ancient practice also with the same people to drink three

glasses when the graces, and nine when the muses were named: and three

and three times three were drank on particular occasions. This barbarous

practice has fortunately not come down to the moderns to its full

extent, but they have retained the remembrance of it, and celebrated it

in part, by following up their toasts, on any extraordinary occasion,

not with three or nine glasses of wine, but with three or nine cheers.

Among the ancients beforementioned, if any of the persons present were

found deficient in drinking their proper portions, they were ordered by

the president either to drink them or to leave the room. This usage has

been a little altered by the moderns. They do not order those persons to

leave the company, who do not comply with the same rules of drinking as

the rest, but they subject them to be fined, as it is termed, that is,

they oblige them to drink double portions for their deficiency, or

punish them in some other manner.

From hence it will be obvious that the laws of drinking are of heathen

origin; that is, the custom of drinking toasts originated, as the

Quakers contend, with men of heathen minds and affections for a sensual

purpose; and it is therefore a custom, they believe; which men of

christian minds and affections should never follow.

The Quakers have rejected the custom again, because they consider it to

be inconsistent with their christian character in other respects. They

consider it as morally injurious; for toasts frequently excite and

promote indelicate ideas, and thus sometimes interrupt the innocence of

conversation.

They consider it as morally injurious again, because the drinking of

toasts has a direct tendency to promote drunkenness.

They, who have been much in company, must have had repeated

opportunities of witnessing, that this idea of the Quakers is founded in

truth, men are undoubtedly stimulated to drink more than they like, and

to become intoxicated in consequence of the use of toasts. If a man has

no objection to drink toasts at all, he must drink that which the master

of the house proposes, and it is usual in this case to fill a bumper.

Respect to his host is considered as demanding this. Thus one full glass

is secured to him at the outset. He must also drink a bumper to the

king, another to church and state, and another to the army and navy. He

would, in many companies, be thought hostile to government, if, in the

habit of drinking toasts, he were to refuse to drink these, or to honour

these in the same manner. Thus three additional glasses are entailed

upon him. He must also drink a bumper to his own toast. He would be

thought to dishonour the person, whose health he had given, if he were

to fail in this. Thus a fifth glass is added to his share. He must fill

a little besides to every other toast, or he is considered as deficient

in respect to the person, who has proposed it. Thus many additional

glasses are forced upon him. By this time the wine begins to act, when

new toasts, of a new nature assail his ear, and he is stimulated to new

potions. There are many toasts of so patriotic, and others of so

generous and convivial a nature that a man is looked upon as

disaffected, or as devoid of sentiment, who refuses them. Add to this,

that there is a sort of shame, which the young and generous in

particular feel in being outdone, and in not keeping pace with the rest,

on such occasions. Thus toast being urged after toast, and shame acting

upon shame, a variety of causes conspires at the same moment to drive

him on, till the liquor at length overcomes him and he falls eventually

a victim to its power.

It will be manifest from this account that the laws of drinking, by

which the necessity of drinking a certain number of toasts is enjoined,

by which bumpers are attached to certain classes of toasts, by which a

stigma is affixed to a non-compliance with the terms, by which in fact a

regular system of etiquette is established, cannot but lead, except a

man is uncommonly resolute or particularly on his guard, to

intoxication. We see indeed instances of men drinking glass after glass,

because stimulated in this manner, even against their own inclination,

nay even against the determination they had made before they went into

company, till they have made themselves quite drunk. But had there been

no laws of drinking, or no toasts, we cannot see any reason why the same

persons should not have returned sober to their respective homes.

It is recorded of the great Sir Matthew Hale, who is deservedly placed

among the great men of our country, that in his early youth he had been

in company, where the party had drunk to such excess, that one of them

fell down apparently dead. Quitting the room, he implored forgiveness of

the Almighty for this excessive intemperance in himself and his

companions, and made a vow, that he would never drink another health

while he lived. This vow he kept to his dying day. It is hardly

necessary for me to remark that he would never have come to such a

resolution, if he had not believed, either that the drinking of toasts

had produced the excesses of that day, or that the custom led so

naturally to intoxication, that it became his duty to suppress it.

The Quakers having rejected the use of toasts upon the principles

assigned, are sometimes placed in a difficult situation, in which there

is an occasion for the trial of their courage, in consequence of mixing

with others, by whom the custom is still followed.

In companies, to which they are invited in regular families, they are

seldom put to any disagreeable dilemma in this respect. The master of

the house, if in the habit of giving toasts, generally knowing the

custom of the Quakers in this instance, passes over any Quaker who may

be present, and calls upon his next neighbour for a toast. Good breeding

and hospitality demand that such indulgence and exception should be

given.

There are situations, however, in which their courage is often tried.

One of the worst in which a a Quaker can be placed, and in which he is

frequently placed, is that of being at a common room in an inn, where a

number of other travellers dine and sup together. In such companies

things are seldom conducted so much to his satisfaction in this respect,

as in those described. In general as the bottle passes, some jocose hint

is conveyed to him about the toast; and though this is perhaps done with

good humour, his feelings are wounded by it. At other times when the

company are of a less liberal complexion, there is a determination, soon

understood among one another, to hunt him down, as if he were fair game.

A toast is pressed upon him, though all know that it is not his custom

to drink it. On refusing, they begin to teaze him. One jokes with him.

Another banters him. Toasts both illiberal and indelicate, are at length

introduced; and he has no alternative but that of bearing the banter, or

quitting the room. I have seen a Quaker in such a company (and at such a

distance from home, that the transaction in all probability never could

have been known, had he, in order to free himself from their attacks,

conformed to their custom) bearing all their raillery with astonishing

firmness, and courageously struggling against the stream. It is

certainly an awkward thing for a solitary Quaker to fall in such

companies, and it requires considerable courage to preserve singularity

in the midst of the prejudices of ignorant and illiberal men.

This custom, however, of drinking toasts after dinner, is, like the

former of drinking healths at dinner, happily declining. It is much to

the credit of those, who move in the higher circles, that they have

generally exploded both. It may be probably owing to this circumstance,

that though we find persons of this description labouring under the

imputation of levity and dissipation, we yet find them respectable for

the sobriety of their lives. Drunkenness indeed forms no part of their

character, nor, generally speaking, is it a vice of the present age as

it has been of former ages; and there seems to be little doubt, that in

proportion as the custom of drinking healths and toasts, but more

particularly the latter, is suppressed, this vice will become less a

trait in the national character.

There are one or two customs of the Quakers, which I shall notice before

I conclude this chapter.

It is one of the fashions of the world, where people meet in company,

for men and women, when the dinner is over, to drink their wine

together, and for the women, having done this for a short time, to

retire. This custom of the females withdrawing after dinner was probably

first insisted upon from an idea, that their presence would be a

restraint upon the circulation of the bottle, as well as upon the

conversation of the men. The Quakers, however, seldom submit to this

practice. Men and women generally sit together and converse as before

dinner. I do not mean by this that women may not retire if they please,

because there is no restraint upon any one in the company of the

Quakers; nor do I mean to say, that women do not occasionally retire,

and leave the men at their wine. There are a few rich families, which,

having mixed more than usual with the world, allow of this separation.

But where one allows it, there are ninety-nine, who give wine to their

company after dinner, who do not. It is not a Quaker-custom, that in a

given time after dinner, the one should be separated from the other sex.

It is a pity that the practice of the Quakers should not have been

adopted by others of our own country in this particular. Many advantages

would result to those, who were to follow the example. For if women were

allowed to remain, chastity of expression and decorum of behaviour would

be more likely to be insured. There presence also would operate as a

check upon drunkenness. Nor can there be a doubt, that women would

enliven and give a variety to conversation; and, as they have had a

different education from men, that an opportunity of mutual improvement

might be afforded by the continuance of the two in the society of one

another.

It is also usual with the world in such companies, that the men, when

the females have retired, should continue drinking till tea-time. This

custom is unknown to the Quakers, even to those few Quakers, who allow

of a separation of the sexes. It is not unusual with them to propose a

walk before tea, if the weather permit. But even in the case where they

remain at the table, their time is spent rather in conversing than in

drinking. They have no toasts, as I have observed, which should induce

them to put the bottle round in a given time, or which should oblige

them to take a certain number of glasses. The bottle, however, is

usually put round, and each helps himself as he pleases. At length one

of the guests, having had sufficient, declines filling his glass.

Another, in a little time, declines also for the same cause. A third,

after having taken what he thinks sufficient, follows the example. The

wine is soon afterwards taken away, and this mostly long before the hour

of drinking tea. Neither drunkenness, nor any situation approaching to

drunkenness, is known in the Quaker companies. Excess in drinking is

strictly forbidden by the laws of the society. It is a subject of one of

their queries. It is of course a subject that is often brought to their

recollection. Whatever may be the faults of the Quakers, they must be

acknowledged to be a SOBER PEOPLE.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.