The Quakers banished also the word master, or mister as it is now pronounced, from their language, either when they spoke concerning any one, or addressed any one by letter.  To have used the word master to a person, who was no master over them, would have been, they considered, to have indicated a needless servility, and to have given a false picture of their own situation, as well as of those addressed.

Upon the same or similar principles they hesitated to subscribe themselves as the humble or obedient servants of any one, as is now usual, at the bottom of their letters.  “Horrid apostacy, says Barclay, for it is notorious that the use of these compliments implies not any design of service.”  This expression in particular they reprobated for another reason.  It was one of those, which had followed the last degree of impious services and expressions, which had poured in after the statues of the emperors had been worshipped, after the titles of eternity and divinity had been ushered in, and after thou had been exchanged for you, and it had taken a certain station, and flourished among these.  Good christians, however, had endeavoured to keep themselves clear of such inconsistencies Casaubon has preserved a letter of Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, in which he rebukes Sulpicius Severus for having subscribed himself “his humble servant.”  A part of the letter runs thus.[39] “Take heed hereafter, how thou, being from a servant called unto liberty, dost subscribe thyself servant to one, who is thy brother and fellow servant:  for it is a sinful flattery, not a testament of humility, to pay those honours to a man and to a sinner, which are due to the one Lord, one Master, and one God.”

[Footnote 39:  Paulinus flourished in the year 460.  He is reported by Paulus Diacenus to have been an exemplary christian.  Among other acts he is stated to have expended all his revenues in the redemption of christian captives; and, at last, when he had nothing left in his purse, to have pawned his own person in favour of a widow’s son.  The barbarians, says the same author, struck with this act of unparralleled devotion to the cause of the unfortunate, released him, and many prisoners with him without ransom.]

The Quakers also banished from the use of their society all those modes of expression, which were considered as marks or designations of honour among men.  Hence, in addressing any peer of the realm, they never used the common formula of “my lord,” for though the peer in question might justly be the lord over many possessions, and tenants, and servants, yet he was no lord over their heritages or persons.  Neither did they ever use the terms excellency, or grace, or honour, upon similar occasions.  They considered that the bestowing of these titles might bring them under the necessity of uttering what might be occasionally false.  “For the persons, says Barclay, obtaining these titles, either by election or hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing