342, 
would, in like manner, hold it blafphe- 
mous to call the name of the months by 
a name expreflive of pagan feftivals? Yet 
fuch is the practice of chriftians. Ja- 
nuary is probably derived from Janus, 
am ancient king of Italy; March from 
Mars, the god of war; April, moit pre- 
bably, froma name of Venus; May from 
Maia, the mother of Mercury ; June from 
Juno, &c. 
Bood or Budha, or Buddas, was an In- 
dian impoftor, who aflerted his divine 
original, and after death was advanced to 
divine honours. The fifth day of the 
week 1s called by a Brahmin Buddas’ 
day. ‘The fame day of the week, by an 
ancient Greek, was called Epus nege 
by a Roman, Dies Mercuril, Mercury’s 
day. ‘The northern nations, worfhippers 
of Woden, called the fame day Woden’s 
day: all in perfect confiftency with their 
religious belief. But what fhall we fay 
to Chriftians, all of them worfhippers of 
Jehovah, moft of them of a Trinity— 
three perfons in one God—and all of 
them rejecting pagan idols: what, I afk, 
fhali we fay to their keeping a day con- 
fecrated to the northern idol Woden, 
Wodnefday, or Wednelday? The fame 
queftions may be put relative to Sunday, 
‘Monday, Tuefday, Thurfday, Friday, 
and Saturday. 
When Polycarp was called.on at his 
martyrdom to {wear by the Fortune or 
Genius of Czfar, he replied—‘* Freely 
hear me, I am ‘a Chriftian:”’ the ufual 
affirmation of the primitive Chriftians, 
when called on to fwear by the Genius of 
the Emperor; and confiftent Chriftians 
may ufe the fame language on rejecting a 
pagan calendar. 
But though the rejeftion of a pagan or 
popiih calendar may be right, it does 
not follow, that the introdu€tion of a 
Chriftian or Proteftant calendar would be 
unobjectionable. The introduction of a 
relicious caleridar, with civil fanétion, 
implies the magiftrates right to interfere 
In matters of religion; a principle the 
moft inimical to public utility, and the 
rights of conicience. Montefquieu’s 
\maxim, however, is founded on wifdom, 
#¢ that, when men’s opinions concerning 
the gods change, the laws alfo fhould 
change.” 
The practice of the Quakers, in this 
inftance, is liable to zo objection ; and is 
an honeft teftimony againft the incon- 
fiftency, the timidity of reformers, againtt 
the officioufnefs of legiflators. 
The next article, titles, is a fubject of 
more conlequance. 
Mr. Dyer on the Peculiarities of the Quakers, 
[ Nov. 
Blackftone’s comparifon of a particular 
form of government toa pyramid with a 
broad ftrong: bafe, ‘and terminating at 
length in a point, has been much ad- 
mired. It is elegant, but it is fophiftical 3. 
though the excellency of his form of go- 
vernment I neither deny, nor affirm. 
‘The fame comparifon has been applied 
to zzfles, where the fophifm is {till more 
tranfparent. The proper way to expofe 
it in both cafes, 1s to appeal to nations 
the moft enlightened, to focieties the beft 
regulated, to families the moft orderly 
and harmonious: to inquire into.the ori- 
gin of titles, and to trace their effets. 
Of the French I fay nothing. 
The fubjeét is of great compafs, the 
evil of confiderable magnitude. But the 
length of this epiftle forbids my en- 
tering onthe fubjeé&t for the prefent: 
I therefore wave entering on the dif- 
cuffion. But it may reafonably be fup- 
pofed, that as I am unconne&ed with 
any party either theological or political, 
and yet adopt a practice expofing me to 
fome inconvenience, that I think it a 
queftion of ferious concern, Indeed, I 
think titles a body of great evil: but 
of this in its proper place. 
In this ditcuflion I feel a fimple, im- 
paflioned regard for truth and public 
utility. Ifthe obfervations of prior cor- 
refpondents fhould not preclude the pre- 
fent hints, the treedom, [ hope, will not, 
as your repofitory is acceflible to alj 
partics. Refpectfully your’s, 
G. DYER. 
P. S.—In the above obfervations I have 
vindicated the confiftency of the Quakers — 
againft the inconfiftency of. politicians and 
reformers: if my limits allowed, i would 
expofe, in return, the inconfiftency of the 
Quakers themfelves. This, however, has 
been well done by one of their own fociety, 
in a letter juft communicated to me, figned 
PaciFricwus, printed fome years ago. 
By this letter I underftand, that though 
the Quakers, guided, as they fay, by the 
Spirit of Truth, are enemies to war; yet, 
guided by the love of money, they are fup- 
porters of it: in a more effe€tual way, too, 
than by fhouldering the muiket. ‘¢ It is 
within my knowledge,” fays this fenf&ible 
and refpectable friend, ‘* that you difowned 
‘a great number of your friends, about ten 
years ago, for carrying guns a-board their 
veflels, for the purpofe of DEFENCE ONLY 3 
an’, at the fame time, the moft active of 
your members; and the moft approyed by 
your body, lent money to government for 
the avowed purpofe of active operation againft 
the enemy!” 
The fame perfon, in his letter te me, 
fays—-‘* Tt is curious to fee the fociety in 
ig 
