was the most ancient, as it is the most plain, simple, and rational. As the idolatrous Romans thus gave names to several of the months, in honour of their pretended deities; so, the like idolatry prevailing among our Saxon ancestors, induced them to call the days of the week by the name of the idol, which, on that day, they peculiarly worshiped. Hence The First day of the week was by them called Sunday, from their customary adoration of the Sun, upon that day. The Second day of the week they called Monday, from their usual custom of worshiping the Moon on that day. The Third day of the week they named Tuesday, in honour of one of their idols, called Tuisco. The Fourth day of the week was called Wednesday, from the appellation of Woden, another of their idols. The Fifth day of the week was called Thursday, from the name of an idol called Thor, to whom they paid their devotions upon that day. The Sixth day of the week was termed Friday, from the name of Friga, an imaginary goddess by them worshiped. The Seventh day they styled Saturday, as is supposed from Saturn, or Seater, by them then worshiped.* In the ages of popish superstition, not only the use of such heathenish names and customs was indulged, but also other unsound and unscriptural practices in religion were invented and introduced. For, when the profession of the Christian religion became national, multitudes of the heathen priests, whose interest lay in the performance of rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices, embraced prevailing Christianity with selfish views; and laboured early, with too much success, to find employment for themselves, by imposing on the people a new set of ceremonies and sacrifices, bearing some resemblance to those, which, in their former state * See Verstegan, and Sheringham. of heathenism, they had been accustomed to. From this corrupt source sprang the popish sacrifice of the mass, the celebration of which, at particular times, and on particular occasions, gave rise to the vulgar names of Michaelmas, Martinmas, Christmas, and the like. Seeing therefore that these appellations and names of days, months, and times, are of an idolatrous or superstitious original, contrary to the Divine command, the prac tice of good and holy men in former ages, and repugnant to the Christian testimony borne by our faithful friends and predecessors in the truth, for the sake of which they patiently endured many revilings; let neither the reproach of singularity, nor the specious reasonings of such as would evade the cross of Christ, turn you aside from the simplicity of the gospel; nor discourage you from keeping to the language of the truth, in denominating the months and days according to the plain and scriptural way of expression: thereby following the example of our worthy elders, and coming up in a noble and honourable testimony against these, and all other remains of idolatry and superstition." "From the Meeting for Sufferings in London, the CHAPTER XIV. OF SALUTATIONS AND RECREATIONS. From the first rise of the Society to the present time, one uniform sentiment has prevailed in relation to salutations and recreations. About the commencement of the Christian era, pride and presumption seem to have attained their very summit at Rome, then the mistress of the world, and the pattern of what the world denominated fashionable, elegant, or great: sunk too in the depth of pagan darkness, they did not hesitate to ascribe Divine honours to those individuals who attained to the pinnacle of power— inferior orders imitated the example, and followed behind, as near as they could venture to approach the highest characters. Only a few centuries passed over the Christian church, before Constantine adopted the profession of Christianity, when, of course, the profession became fashionable among the higher orders of society. As many embraced it for the sake of fashion, as well as for other motives even worse, so fashion pervaded the manners of professed Christians. The injunction of the apostle was now but little regarded: "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds." On the contrary, that great empire, with all its grandeur, power, and policy, now asked admission into the visible church-which, cheated by the smiles of power, stooped to the low degradation of admitting the applicant. A degradation indeed it was: for she ceased to be "the Bride, the Lamb's wife." She 1 ceased to appear in that transcendant glory, described as, "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." Cant. vi. 10. And instead of this gloryshe took on herself the paltry trappings of an earthly empire, and added to these the pollutions of pagan super stition. Extravagant honours, from being paid to emperors and other usurpers of power, by the prevalence of pride, became grateful to every inferior rank, and were freely bestowed on all. Hence the fashionable appellation of you, to a single person: it being thought, by minds inflated with pride, to be too little to be regarded as a single individual-the idea of plurality must be conveyed. Bowing, which had been practised in earlier times, was still recognized, and had the uncovering of the head (another act of worship) connected with it. From these corrupt sources, proceeded those salutations, which make up the complimental intercourse of fashionable life. And as they originated in pride, and other depraved passions of the human heart, so, the Society of Friends believe they have a powerful tendency to become, reciprocally, both causes and effects; and have consequently laid them aside. They believe there is no propriety in bowing the body, and uncovering the head, to any created beings; for worship belongs to God only. But if we are told, that in fashionable life, these actions have no such intention, we reply, that if they have become unmeaning, men of correct feelings ought neither to offer nor receive them. If they are intended only to express civility and ordinary respect, we say, that these can be expressed in a more appropriate manner, than by degrading the outward acts of Divine worship, down to a mere expression of common civility, or > even nothing at all. Every thing which relates to Divine worship, or that homage we pay to the Almighty, should be carefully guarded from being introduced into the familiar intercourse between man and man; lest, by the association of ideas, our worship itself become adulterated and offensive. We believe that, under the gospel, we are bound to speak every man truth to his neighbour. The expressions, mister, or master, and your most obedient, &c. your humble servant, &c. being in the common application untrue, we decline to use. The love and charity which the gospel inspires, are above all complimental expressions, and need neither flattery nor falsehood to set them off to advantage. However the censorious may charge the Society with singularity, and with attaching unreal consequence to little things, the history of early times affords abundant evidence that these compliments were not understood, at that day, as empty sounds. Often have men of high standing, and even some of an opposite class, been so enraged at not receiving these pitiful compliments, as to set no bounds to their resentment. Even the simple expression of thou, to one person, was considered an indignity not to be borne: and many a man of fair and elevated character, has had his blood shed in profusion, for no higher offence, than the use of this simple and correct language. The plain language, as we term it, or the use of the singular pronouns to a single person, has much to recommend it. In the first place, it is consonant to truth: for the plural pronoun does express a plurality of persons to whom it relates; hence we consider it a departure from truth, to address a single individual with a word that conveys an idea of more than one. We consider the plain language, too, as the language of the greatest and best of men that have ever lived, to one another and to God. And we think this authority ought to possess great weight. The rules of the |