!

especially, to the unspeakable value and power of that word of God in the heart-that law of the Lord inwardly revealed-which it is so much our profession to follow, and which, as it is followed, will never fail to detect for us the peccant part in the vain customs of men, and to lead us into the pure and solid excellence of the Christian character.

Having again insisted upon this point, I may now proceed to discuss a subject, to which it will be desirable to allot the remainder of the present chapter; viz. plainness of speech, behaviour, and apparel. This -plainness is one of the most obvious of our characteristics. Wherever we bend our steps, and in whatever business we are engaged, it continually meets the eye or the ear of those among whom we dwell, and manifests itself in a variety of particulars, which, though little, are striking. But obvious and constantly perceptible as are these minor features of our conduct and conversation, there is reason to believe that the grounds on which we have adopted them are by no means generally understood: and, indeed, the laxity apparent in so many individuals of our own body, with respect to these peculiarities, affords a strong presumption, that the principles from which they spring have not been sufficiently considered even amongst ourselves. It is a prevalent notion in the world, and one which many young persons in the Society have, probably, been led to entertain, that the peculiarities in question are employed only because of their expediency; and that they are to be regarded in no other light than that of a sectarian badge, intended for the purpose of distinguishing and separa

ting us from the rest of mankind. In treating, then, on the peculiar plainness of Friends-a subject which, according to my view, is fraught with no little interest-I shall endeavour to show that our practice, in this respect, is by no means adopted merely because it is considered expedient; but that, on the contrary, it is truly grounded on the law of God;-that, in point of fact, it is one result (perfectly consistent with others already mentioned) of a complete view of Christian morality.

I. PLAINNESS OF SPEECH.

The phraseology which prevails in the modern world, and, with the exception of Friends, among Christians of all denominations, is replete with a variety of expressions, used either in addressing or describing persons, which are of a nature simply complimentary, and have no foundation in truth. The terms to which I allude are familiar to every one, but, for the sake of clearness, the principal of them may now be specified.

The word Sir, or Madam, is very generally employed, both in speech and in writing, as a form of address; and of written addresses, to any individual, one of these words mostly forms the commencement. He who makes use of such terms, professes that the person to whom he is speaking or writing is his lord or his lady. Such I conceive to be the generally acknowledged meaning of the expressions in question; for the word Sir is obviously a contraction of the

French term Seigneur, Lord;1 and Madam, also derived from the French, plainly signifies My lady. This verbal profession of subjection to the individual addressed is frequently completed by a declaration, very usual at the conclusion of letters, that the writer is the humble or obedient servant, or most humble or most obedient servant, of the person to whom he writes; and among foreigners, more particularly, expressions to the same effect are accumulated with a profuseness which renders the art of complimenting conspicuously ridiculous.

Precisely on a similar principle the man is called Mister, the boy, Master, the married woman, Mistress, and the unmarried woman Miss-being the same term contracted. These expressions severally denote that the persons to whom they are applied, are placed in a situation of authority or mastery over others, and, if I mistake not, more particularly over the individual by whom the terms in question are employed. They, therefore, represent that which is, by way of compliment supposed, but which, generally speaking, is nevertheless untrue.

Again, by a similar abuse of language, epithets expressive of a high degree of personal excellence are applied pro forma, and worthily or unworthily, (as it , may happen,) to a number of individuals who hold certain offices, or enjoy particular stations, in religious

1 Johnson derives Sir, from the French Sire, an expression denoting the rank and authority of a father; but, when we consider the use of the French word Monsieur, and the easy transition from Seigneur to Sieur, and from Sieur to Sir, little doubt can remain that the latter is the true origin of the English term.

or civil society. Thus, whatever be their real character-whatever their conduct or conversation, either in public or in private life—a king is his most gracious Majesty a duke, his Grace-a peer of another rank, and a member of the privy council, Right Honorable -a son of a peer and a judge, Honorable-an archbishop, Most Reverend—a bishop, Right Reverend— a dean, Very Reverend—an archdeacon, Venerable— a priest or deacon, Reverend. Similar terms are often applied in the loose extravagance of compliment, to other individuals who are destitute both of office and of high station. Those who are acquainted with the language and manners of the Italians, must be well aware, for example, how frequently and indiscriminately they employ their illustrissimo and eccellenza. In the common parlance of Spain, every gentleman is addressed as Your Worship: and in this country, persons of no peculiar virtue or eminence are often represented, at the conclusion of letters which they receive, as being so honorable, that it is an honor to be their most humble servants. Again, among modern Latin critics. a member of their own fraternity, however obscure, is seldom, if ever, mentioned without the passing declaration, that he is most celebrated. So common is become the celeberrimus, on such occasions, that it is now reduced into the particle cel., and is in this shape prefixed to the name of every writer of the description now mentioned, almost as regularly as is the English contraction, Mr., to those of other men. Not unfrequently, indeed, do these authors attach to the name of any brother critic whom they may happen to cite. a Greck term, which may be considered the highest

point of complimentary phraseology; for it denotes nothing less than that the writer cited is entirely excellent, or that he comprehends in his own person a universality of learning and talent.2

In Great Britain, as in other civilized states, there are a variety of legal dignities, corresponding with certain situations in the body politic, and constituting what is usually called rank. The lowest of these dignities is that of an Esquire, which legally appertains to many individuals, and especially to all those persons who hold any office or commission under the king. Now, the world appears to imagine that the possession of some title or other is indispensable to the character of a gentleman; and, therefore, by a falsification of speech, perfectly similar, in principle, to those already noticed, every person of gentlemanlike station in life, who is destitute of all legal dignity, is denominated an Esquire. The gentleman, to whom a letter is directed without the addition of that title, is considered, in the world, to be almost affronted by the omission.

But, among the various modes of expression, upon which it is my present object to treat, the most common and, at the same time, most absurd, is the application to individuals of pronouns and verbs in the plural number. The use of the plural form of the first personal pronoun, instead of the singular, is commonly adopted, in their public rescripts and other documents, by monarchs, and, sometimes, by other persons placed in a situation of high authority. The common style of a royal mandate or declaration is as

2 ὁ πάνυ.