tained, which at present it is very far from possessing. We shall see that, however unnecessary and unwise their determination to thee' and 'thou the whole world was, yet this had a significance; it was not, as now to us it seems, and, through the silent changes which language has undergone, as now it indeed is, a gratuitous departure from the ordinary usage of society. Right or wrong, it meant something, and had an ethical motive; being indeed a testimony upon their parts, however misplaced, that they would not have high, or great, or rich men's persons in estimation; nor give the observance to some which they withheld from others. And it was a testimony which cost them something. At present we can very little understand the amount of courage which this 'thou-ing' and 'thee-ing' of all men must have demanded on their parts, nor yet the amount of indignation and offence which it stirred up in them who were not aware of, or would not allow for, the scruples which induced them to it."-(Trench's English Past and Present, Lecture iii., pp. 165, 166.)

So long as thou was in use, applied to a class, a section of the community, its indiscriminate application to persons of every class was a testimony. But now that it has dropped entirely out of the common speech of the nation, the use of it by the Quaker is an unmeaning peculiarity. George Fox says, in his Journal, "I was required to 'thee' and 'thou' all men and women, without any respect to rich or poor, great or small," vol. i., p. 72. He used these expressions to shew that he refused to acknowledge the distinction between rich and poor, great and small. In the mouths of Friends now they convey no such meaning, but appear simply as a tradition of the elders.

2. Is the Quaker practice borne out by Scripture? To adduce, in answer to this question, the passages which enjoin upon us a regard to truth generally, and to say that these decide it against the ordinary practice, is to assume the point in hand, and not to prove it. And if it could be shewn that Scripture usage was uniformly

against the use of we and you for a single individual, and in favour of I and thou, even this could hardly be regarded as conclusive. For, although a practice found no precedent in Hebrew or Greek, it would not follow that it must be inadmissible in English. But, turning to the Bible, what are the facts of the case? First of all, it must be admitted that both forms of expression, the singular and the plural, occur in the epistles of Paul. The word we is equally familiar to the reader of these epistles with the I. "We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus,"- "We then, as workers together with Him, beseech you," &c. &c. The reply to this is easy; that in many of these epistles another name is associated with that of Paul, or sometimes more than one; and the we may therefore be understood as referring not to himself alone, but to all those whose names stand at the beginning of the epistle. Still it is obvious, from the frequent use of the singular pronoun I in the same epistles, that the subject matter is to be regarded as the work of one individual. When, therefore, such expressions occur as, "We beseech you,' ""We do you to wit [or give you to know] of the grace of God," &c., it might be a question whether they are to be regarded as implying more than, I beseech you,-I Paul, the writer of this epistle, inform you.

One passage may be more particularly adduced as favouring this view. In 1 Thes. ii. 18, we read: "Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us." A plain reader would understand the apostle to mean that the "we" used in the first clause, was equivalent to the "I Paul" of the second, that the apostle was here explaining what he intended by the word, and that on his authority it included himself, and himself alone. There is, we are aware, another version which is sometimes adopted of this passage, by which it is made to mean, "We would have come to you (and I Paul once and again), but Satan hindered us," but we are not aware that it rests on any good authority. And it seems much more natural to regard

even I

the "once and again" as applying to the whole of the subject, "we would have come once and again," the " Paul" as defining the extent of that subject, the one individual writer of this epistle.

This is borne out by what follows, three verses further down: "Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone." There can be little doubt that the stay at Athens referred to is that mentioned in Acts xvii. Observe then the circumstances in which this visit was paid. Paul, after leaving Thessalonica, had been followed to Berea by the persecuting Jews, and these having set the people against him, he acted upon the instruction, "When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another," and accordingly permitted himself to be sent away and conducted to Athens. Silas and Timotheus had probably come less prominently forward, and were thus less obnoxious to the Jews, for we read, "Silas and Timotheus abode there [at Berea] still," Acts xvii. 14. They had, however, a commandment from Paul to come to him with all speed. His anxiety on account of the Thessalonians led him to send Timothy to see them either at once from Berea, or after meeting himself at Athens. When Timothy was at Thessalonica, Silas either accompanied him, or was engaged in some similar mission in Macedonia, for of both we learn (Acts xviii. 5) that they came from Macedonia, and joined Paul, not at Athens, but after he had left Athens, at Corinth. One thing is plain that the words "left at Athens alone" apply to Paul himself, that neither Silas nor Timotheus shared his solitude in the Grecian capital. And yet the expression which he uses in the epistle is, "we thought it good to be left at Athens alone,” εὐδοκήσαμεν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν ̓Αθήναις μόνοι, 1 Thes. iii. 1. The names of Silvanus (Silas) and Timotheus are associated with Paul's at the beginning of this epistle. But the "we" of this verse includes neither of these, but only Paul, the writer of the epistle. Obviously he saw no impropriety in speaking of himself and his own circumstances in the plural. And this being the case, we see no necessity for binding our

I

selves to the Quaker phraseology, and using I and thou in every case for the singular, when others use we and you.

The practice of other apostles is at least consistent with the above view. Peter does not associate any other with himself in his epistles. And yet he begins his second with these words:"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us;" and so again (ver. 17, 18) he says:-" For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." The only others who had heard this voice with Peter were the sons of Zebedee. Of these James had already suffered martyrdom, so that John was the only living fellow-witness with Peter of the transfiguration. But no mention has been made of John, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that he is associated with Peter in the authorship of this epistle. While using the word "we," therefore, Peter must be regarded simply as detailing his own experience, telling what he had heard when he was with Jesus on the holy mount.

Passing from Peter to John, the epistles of this latter apostle are always supposed to be from himself alone, and the very frequent use of the word I confirms this belief. And yet observe in what manner the first epistle opens :"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of Him, and declare unto you," &c. &c., 1 John i. 1-5. If

the date commonly assigned to this epistle be correct, it was written far on in the century. There must have been at the time few, if any, survivors, who had been eyewitnesses with John of the doings of the Lord Jesus in the flesh. Probably no other apostle was in life when he wrote. No one, at any rate, is represented as a jointauthor with John. The "we," therefore, must be regarded as equivalent to I; and, taking Scripture as our rule, there can be no impropriety in adopting the style-"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,"-even when the author is a single individual. A pronoun originally plural, may legitimately be used of a single individual.

It is curious to observe how Friends, with all their testimonies on this point, are yet found sliding into the common practice. The Friend is a monthly journal devoted to the interests of this Society. It would be difficult to say whether the editor or the editors of the Friend should be regarded as the more correct form of speech, for both are found in the same number of this journal. But the editorial articles have uniformly the editorial "we." So have the reviews, and yet each of these is probably written by a single individual. Letters in this periodical generally conclude with "thine respectfully," or "thy Friend." And yet they are referred to as coming from "our correspondent." For instance, in the editorial columns of the number for the fourth month of this year (1858), we read "The letter of our correspondent G.,' which will be found in another part of our columns." And, turning to the correspondence, we find a letter addressed "To the. Editor of the Friend," and signed, "Thy Friend, G." So, in the number for the sixth month, a letter appears "To the Editor of the Friend," beginning, "Respected Friend," and ending, "Thine sincerely, T. H." And immediately after the letter is referred to in the following words,"We feel greatly obliged to Dr. H. for the corrections he has made in our report of his interesting lecture, especially as we have reason to believe others of his audience fell into the same errors as we did.-Ed. F."

If Friends will advocate the use of a peculiar phraseology,