« FöregåendeFortsätt »
ces that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the using,) after the commandments and doctrines of men ?”
PLAIN LANGUAGE, &c. In his seventh charge, page 35, he says i • The Quakers teach for doctrine the comcó mandments of men. Having rejected the - ordinances of Christ, calling them carnal " ordinances, classing them with the rudi“ments of the world ; and those that ob“ serve to worship God in the use of them, 66 they call blind, carnal, out of Christ, not yet “ in the true light, enemies and adversaries “to them. They take George Fox for their " oracle. He was the institutor of those s ordinances held sacred among the Quak" ers; such as wearing his hat in time of “ meeting, and while eating, his thee and " thou to a single person, his refusing to " say good morrow or good by, but how
Col. ii. 14, 20:
“ does thee do, farewell. His saying first 6 day, second day, first month, second “month. His never saying, yes sir, or no " sir ; but yes, no. His calling men by “their given names, as, Peter, John, Rich“ ard. His refusing to say Mr. Mrs. His “ plain dress, &c. Fox's Jour. 1st vol. - page 29. Where the reader may see “ from what authority he has those ordi"nances. He says from God, so did Ma“ homet; but who believes either. I dont “ however Barclay does, for he says in “his Apol. page 529, “ Now kneeling, “ bowing, and uncovering the head is the " alone outward signification of our adora" tion towards God, and therefore it is not “ lawful to give it unto man.” By this ye « are taught, that it is unlawful to take off of the hat (whether a flat or a high crown'd 66 one) on every occasion. To take off the “ hat in time of meeting is unlawful. To “ take off the hat while eating and drinking “ (and I don't know but while sleeping) is 66 unlawful. To take off the hat when in a u neighbour's house, or in any court; as “ the Congress or Assembly, or in the pre“sence of any person or beast, even dog or " cat is unlawful, unless we are preaching “ or praying.” Again, page 39, “Who, I. * ask, does not see spirit and life in thee " and thou, especially when it is spoken “ with the hat on?” And, page 54, in what he calls the Quaker's plea, at the bar of God, he has these words : « and have we not “honoured thee by saying, thee and thou “ to a single person, and by wearing our " hats,-We suffered many things for wear•sing our hats and saying thee and thou ; it “ was a great cross to deny ourselves.”
Can any one suppose, such ridicule as this was learned in the school of Christ ; whose servant he professes to be ; and also professes to speak and act according to the will of God ? In ridiculing the language of thee and thou, he ridicules not only us, but the language of all the inspired penmen of the Scriptures ; and even that of our Saviour himself ; seeing they use no other language to a single person.
He calls it an ordinance of George l'ox; but it is of much older standing, and from higher authority than George Fox. “ In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die ;»t was God's language to Adam ; and, immediately after his transgression, 66 Where art thou? Who told thee that
b Gen. ii. 17.
thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat.”. This was the origin of thee and thou to a single person ; which is the uniform language of Scripture from beginning to end.
In pages 107 and 108, he says, “ As for “ thee and thou, though as I said, it was “ proper according to latin grammar, yet “ the English grammar did allow you to be “ in the singular.; but that we had no com“ inand in Scripture to confine ourselves to " the one mode of thee and thou, in address. “ing a single person, any more than we “ were commanded to be good grammari"ans, or to speak good 'French, Dutch or 6. English.” From thence, he proceeds to ridicule us, in a light and trifling manner, for the observance thereof; he doubtless forgetting, that in so doing, he was also trifling with the Scriptures as an example, and alleging no better excuse for his neglect thereof, and inattention to the command therein given to Timothy; “ Hold fast the form of sound words," than that English grammar did allow you to be in the singular ; and even this, I conceive, to be noth
< Gen. iii. 9, 11.
ing but a corruption of grammar, which a few grammarians have introduced, in order to shelter themselves from so open 'an inconsistency in the violation of grammar rules, as the use of the plural number for the singular.
From the foregoing proof of the origini of thee and thou to a single person, I conclude, that every reader will see the fallacy of his assertion, that George Fox was our authority therein ; and our calling the days of the week and months by their proper (numerical names, as first, second, third, &c. is authorized by the example of the inspired penman. Moses, in writing the history of creation, tells us, that “ the evening and the 'morning were the first day ; and the evening and the morning were the second day,” &c. 'neither have I ever found in Scripture any other names for the days of the week, except the seventh day being called the sabbath'; and, generally so, respecting the names of the months. How then could this author, with so much assurance, assert, that George Fox was the institutor thereof? Certainly, this palpable mistake or error of his, leads me to doubt his duly esteeming that which he professes such a veneration for, as being an all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.