⚫nefit that probably will enfue to him that doth it, either in Refpect of Health, or for the more convenient Learning of fome Trade or Science. • Beneficial it would be to all Perfons, if they would habituate themselves to go without their • Hats in their own Houses; by fuch a Custom their Conftitution would be render'd more capable of defending it felf against the injuries of the Air, &c. and they would not be so subject on every Alteration of the Weather, to Defluxions, &c. as they now are. I judge it abfolutely neceffary for Boys to be obliged, on Ac'count of their Health, to be uncovered, when they are within Doors; and if Girls could be perfuaded to go in their Hair, as Boys generally do, it would be advantagious to their Health. Conveniency obliges moft young People to be without their Hats, when they are learning any Art or Science, because it would be an impediment to their Tutors. Schoolmasters ⚫ can inform any how inconvenient it would be to them, if their Scholars fhould wear their Hats, when they teach them to read, write, or caft Accounts. For thefe and the like Reasons, not for Honour or Refpect, it is, that our Children, Scholars, and Apprentices, go without their Hats, when they are at Home. And we deny, that it is our Practice to command our Servants or Inferiors to stand with Cap in Hand before us, as our Adversary falfely fuggefts .But if any of our Servants or Inferiors, that think taking off the Hat, rò dácopor, a thing indifferent, will give us that Respect which they imagine is their Duty to give our Equals, we do not require it of them nor juftify them therein. We hate Hypocrify, there<fore Countenance none in merely intimating our Actions or modes of Speech; neither is any Man's

.

Q4

• Man's Perfon the more acceptable to us, b ,because he doth, out of a fantastick humour, mimick our Language or Behaviour: We efteem thofe moft who appear what really they are.

THE Vicars next Query, p. 167. is, 'Is notthe command of honouring our Father and Mother meant onlyof the inward Honour of the Mind?? He answers, No. For then they make all the other Commands of God require only the inward acts of the Mind as well as this. And thus all outward acts of Piety and Reverence to God, might be laid afide as, well as outward 'Carks of honour to our Parents.'

THAT Perfon who inwardly (in Mind and Heart) honours his Parents, cannot fail of demonftrating it by outward Actions of real Obedience, when needful; Such outward A&ts. are the neceflary product of inward honour, and 'tis impoffible they can be laid afide where that remains.

BUT Bowings, Cringings, Kneelings, and other meer Ceremonial Forms of Addrefs, are fo far from being of the nature of real inward Obedienee or Honour, that they are frequently moft of all us'd where that is leaft intended.

Our Adverfary proceeds,

Quest. Is not a Chriftian exprefly enjoined, not to be conformed to the World or to its Fafhions and Customs.

Anf. YES. But it is to be understood only, of his not being conformed to the World as to it's Fafhions and Cuftoms in any Thing that is

• evil

.

.

evil and finful. And fo he is not to give flattering Titles, nor ufe lying Compliments, nor vain and coftly Apparel, unbecoming his Age ⚫ and Sex, or Ability, or his Rank and Condition in the World; nor to give Religious Worship to Men. But he is not to be too nice and fcrupulous in conforming himself to the Custom of the Place, in all innocent and indifferent Things, as in his Habit or Garb, in his manner of faluting and way of Address, and in his modes of Speech or Gefture, where there is nothing in these contrary to Decency and Gravity.

What

In all this we gainfay him not; only we claim the reasonable and rightful Liberty of judging for ourselves, what Fabions are evil and finful; what Titles are Flattering; What Compliments are lying; And what Apparel is unbecoming: Modes of Saluting, Speech and Gesture, are innocent and indifferent. A Confcientious ufe of this just and equal Liberty has led us to a Nonconformity to fuch Fashions, Customs, and Speeches, of the World, as we judge Evil; and which are not the lefs fo to us, for onr Adverfary's calling them innocent and indifferent.

WE affect not Singularity in Habit: Our Garb is like other Men's, only freed from their Superfluities. Which is more than the Vicar can say of his. 'Tis himself and his Brotherhood, the Clergy fo called, who practice that Singularity, (tho' not that Plainnefs) they would without caufe condemn in us: Their Singularity of Garb is fo contrary to the Practice of the primitive Chriftians, that it has not the leaft Countenance from any of the W'ritings of the New Testament. Their Defire to walk in long Robes, Luke xx. 46. favours too much of

Pride. And their affuming a peculiar Habit to distinguish them from others is in no wife ferviceable to Religion itself, but fets up wrong Notions of it, by placing it in things where God never plac'd it. Thefe Obfervations we were led to make by our Adverfary's objecting an Affectation of Singularity to us, which much more properly appertains to himself and his Brethren.

THUS much for Apparel, we come next to Speech; The Vicar tells us, p. 168. that, ‹ It is proper to fay you to a fingle Perfon, when Custom, which gives the Signification to Words, has made You in fpeaking to one fingle • Perfon to fignify the fame with thou and thee; whereas the Word Ye is only or mostly used in fpeaking to more than one.

6

6

THE Cuftom he fpeaks of is what Erafmus calls, Confuetudo infulfiffima, a most infipid or filly Custom, and as fuch he expofes it, in his Book De confcribendis Epiftolis.

AN improper Cuftom of fpeaking (with the Vicar's leave) is no Propriety of Speech. The Word you, doth ftill retain its proper Signification, which is only plural; and is therefore, when applied to a fingle Perfon, improperly wrefted from its true Senfe, in compliance with a Custom, whofe Original was Pride and Flattery, as Johannes Marefius of the French Academy (quoted by (f) Robert Barclay) in the Preface to his Clouis teftifies; Let none wonder, fays be, the Word Thou is ufed in this Work, to Princes and Princeffes; for we use the fame to God: And of Old the fame was used to Alexanders,

(1) Apol. p. 527.

lexanders, Cafars, Queens and Empresses. The ufe of the Word You when one Perfon is spoken to, was only introduced by these base Flatteries of Men of latter Ages, to whom it seemed good to use the Plural Number to one Person, that he may imagine himself to be equal to many others in Dignity and Worth; from whence at laft it came to Perfons of lower Quality.'

THE Quakers difufe then of an evil flattering Custom favours as little of Pride or Vanity, as the Clergy's ufual paffing from one to another the Title of Reverend Sir, and accepting it from other Men, as a diftinguishing Badge of their Order, does of Humility.

THE Vicar's thirteenth Section is chiefly a Recapitulation of feveral Points already spoken to; and most of the Queries propofed and anfwered by him are fuch as he does not pretend an Authority for from any of the Quakers Writings; we shall therefore be the more brief in our Examination of it.

His firft Query and Anfwer, p. 168, 169. plainly import, that what the Law of God ftill requires of us as a Duty is not the Measure of Obedience indifpenfibly required of us under the Gospel. This will feem ftrange to none, but such as think themselves bound to do their Duty. However, fince he does not cite any of us as concerned in

what