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*. "Why," says our Saviour, "callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." This censure they believed to have been passed upon him, because Jesus Christ knew that, when the person addressed him by this title, he addressed him not in his divine nature or capacity, but only as a man.

But Jesus Christ not only refused to receive 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

Matt. xix. 17.

of

of men; "but," says he, "be 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; 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.

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 times to Oliver Cromwell, and several times to Charles the Se

Matt. xxiii, S.

John v. 44,

cond;

cond; but he addressed them in no other manner than by their plain names, or by simple titles expressive of their situations as rulers or as kings*.

These several alteratious, which took place in the language of the early Quakers, were adopted by their successors, and are in force in the Society at the present day.

SECTION 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 Society, was the disuse of the common names of the days of the week, and of those of the months of the year.

* The Quakers never refuse the legal titles in the superscription or direction of their letters. 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.

The

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

They called, therefore, Sunday, the First day; Monday, the Second; Tuesday, the Third; and so on 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. Those, such as March and June, which had been so named by the antient 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 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 lost its place in the kalendar by the alteration of the Style in England, it lost its meaning. It became no representative'

*Septem ab imbribus.

of

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 kälendar.

The