thou for you, and that without difference or refpect to perfons: a thing that to fome looks fo rude, it cannot well go down without derifion or wrath. But as we have the fame original reason for declining this, as the foregoing customs, fo I shall add, what to me looks reasonable in our defence; though it is very probable, height of mind, in fome of thofe that blame us, will very hardly allow them to believe, that the word reasonable is reconcileable with fo filly a practice as this is esteemed.

f. II. Words of themselves are but as fo many marks fet and employed for neceffary and intelligible mediums, or means, whereby men may understandingly exprefs their minds and conceptions to each other: from whence comes converfation. Now, though the world be divided into many nations, each of which, for the most part, has a peculiar language, fpeech, or dialect, yet have they never concurred in the fame numbers and perfons, as much of the ground of right speech. For inftance; I love, thou lovest, he loveth, are of the fingular number, importing but one, whether in the firft, fecond, or third perfon: also, we love, ye love, they love, are of the plural number, because in each is implied more than one. Which undeniable grammatical rule, might be enough to fatisfy any, that have not forgot their accidence, that we are not befide reason in our practice. For if thou lovest, be fingular, and you love, be plural; and if thou loveft, fignifies but one; and you love, many; is it not as proper to fay, thou lovest, to ten men,

as to fay, you love, to one man? Or, why not, I love, for we love; and we love, inftead of I love? Doubtlefs it is the fame, though most improper, and in fpeech ridiculous.

III. Our next reafon is; if it be improper or uncivil speech, as termed by this vain age, how comes it that the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman authors, ufed in fchools and univerfities, have no other? Why should they not be a rule in that, as well as other things? And why, I pray, then are we so ridiculous for being thus far grammatical? Is it reasonable that children fhould be whipped at school for putting you for thou, as having made falfe Latin; and yet that we must be, though not whipped, reproached, and often abufed, when we ufe the contrary propriety of fpeech.

§. IV. But in the third place, it is neither improper nor uncivil, but much otherwife; because it is used in all languages, speeches, and dialects, and that through all ages. This is very plain as for example; it was God's language when he firft fpake to Adam, viz. Hebrew: alfo it is the Affyrian, Chaldean, Grecian, and Latin fpeech. And now among the Turks, Tartars, Mufcovites, Indians, Perfians, Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Germans, Polonians, Swedes, Danes, Irish, Scottish, Welch, as well as English, there is a distinction preferved; and the word thou is not loft in the word which goes for you. And though fome of the modern tongues have done as we do, yet upon the fame error. But by this it is plain, that thou is no upftart, nor yet improper

but the only proper word to be used in all Janguages to a fingle perfon; because otherwife all fentences, fpeeches, and difcourfes, may be very ambiguous, uncertain, and equivocal. If a jury pronounce a verdict, or a judge a fentence, three being at the bar, upon three occafions, very differently culpable, and fhould fay, You are here guilty and to die; or innocent, and discharged: who knows who is guilty or innocent? May be but one, perhaps two; or it may be, all three: therefore our indictments run in the fingular number, as, Hold up thy hand: thou art indicted by the name of, &c. for that thou, not having the fear of God, &c. And it holds the fame in all converfation. Nor can this be avoided but by many unneceffary circumlocutions. And as the preventing of fuch length and obfcurity was doubtless the first reason for the diftinction, fo cannot that be justly disused, till the reason be first removed; which can never be whilst two are in the world.

§. V. But this is not all; it was firft afcribed in way of flattery to proud popes and emperors, imitating the Heathens vain homage to their gods; thereby afcribing a plural honour to a fingle perfon: as if one pope had been made up of many gods, and one emperor of many men; for which reafon, you, only to be used to many, became firft spoken to one. It seems the word thou, looked like too lean and thin a refpect; and therefore, fome bigger than they fhould be, would have a ftile fuitable to their own ambition: a ground we cannot

build our practice on; for what begun it,. only loves it ftill But fuppofing you to be proper to a prince, it will not follow it is to a common perfon. For his edi&t runs, We will and require, becaufe, perhaps in conjunction with his council; and therefore you to a private perfon, is an abufe of the word. But as pride first gave it birth, fo hath fhe only promoted it. Monfieur, fir, and madame,* were eriginally, names given to none but the king, his brother, and their wives, both in France and England; yet now the plowman in France is called monfieur, and his wife madame: and men of ordinary trades in England, fir, and their wives, dame; which is the legal title of a lady, or elfe miftrefs, which is the fame with madame in French. So prevalent hath pride and flattery been in all ages, the one to give, and the other to receive respects, as they term it.

S. VI. But fome will tell us, custom should rule us; and that is against us. But it is eafily answered, and more truly, that though in things reasonable or indifferent, cuftom is obliging or harmless, yet in things unreafonable or unlawful, fhe has no authority. For cuftom can no more change numbers than genders, nor yoke one and you together, than make a man into woman; or one a thousand. But if custom be to conclude us, it is for us; for as cuftom is nothing more than ancient ufage, I appeal to the practice of mankind, from the beginning of the world, through all nations, against the novelty of this confufion,

ry of France.

viz. you to one perfon. Let custom, which is ancient practice and fact, iffue this question. Miftake me not: I know words are nothing, but as men give them a value or force by use; but then, if you will dicharge thou, and that you must fucceed in its place, let us have a diftinguishing word in the room of you, to be ufed in fpeech to many: but to ufe the fame word for one and many, when there are two, and that only to please a proud and haughty humour in man, is not reasonable in our sense; which we hope is Christian, though not modifh. §. VII. But if thou to a fingle perfon be improper or uncivil, God himself, all the holy fathers and prophets, Chrift Jefus, and his apostles, the primitive faints, all languages throughout the world, and our own law-proceedings are guilty; which, with fubmiffion, were great prefumption to imagine. Befides, we all know, it is familiar with the most of authors, to preface their difcourfes to the reader in the fame language of thee and thou: as, Reader, thou art defired, &c. Or, Reader, this is writ to inform thee of the occafion, &c. And it cannot be denied, that the most famous poems, dedicated to love or majefty, are writ in this ftyle. Read of each in Chaucer, Spencer, Waller, Cowley, Dryden, &c. Why then should it be fo homely, ill-bred, and infufferable in us? This, I conceive, can never be answered.

§. VIII. I doubt not at all, but that fomething altogether as fingular, attended the fpeech of Chrift and his difciples: for I remember it as urged upon Peter in the high priest's pa