of 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 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. Lysiast addresses his letter to the "most Excellent Felix," and the orator Tertullus‡ says, "We accept 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

* Μακάριος and Φιλόχρισος are substituted by Athanasius for the word Christian.

Acts, xxiii. 26. .

Acts xxiv. 3.

this

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 these observations we may add another, which will be of considerable importance in this dispute, namely, that legal titles of eminence were not then, as at this 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

conferred the name of Augustus. But no procurator of a province took this title. Neither does it appear that this circumstance gave birth to inferior titles to those in infe rior 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 only as 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 of 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

VOL. I.

Z

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.

SECTION 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 antient 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 Society, 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

"There is great absurdity, it is said, in supposing that persons pay any respect to Heathen idols, who retain the use of the antient 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 days are called as they are. The middle classes are mostly ignorant of the same. They, 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.

Z 2