V.
_Secondly against the words friend and neighbour, as used by the Quakers--Quakers also said to be wrong in their disuse of titles--for the use of these is sanctioned by St.Luke and St.Paul--answer of Barclay to the latter assertion--this answer not generally deemed satisfactory--observations upon the subject in dispute._ The subject, that comes next in order, will be that of the objections, that are usually made against certain terms used by the Quakers, and against their disuse of titles of honour, as sanctioned by the world.
On the use of the words "friend, and neighbour," it is usually observed, that these are too limited in their meaning, to be always, if used promiscuously, representatives of the truth.

If the Quakers are so nice, that they will use no expression, that is not precisely true, they should invent additional terms, which should express the relative condition of those, with whom they converse.

The word "friend" denotes esteem, and the word "neighbour" proximity of dwelling.

But all the persons, to whom the Quakers address themselves, are not persons, whom they love and respect, or who are the inhabitants of the same neighbourhood with themselves.

There is, it is said, as much untruth in calling a man friend, or neighbour, who is not so, as excellency, in whom there may be nothing that is excellent.
The Quakers, in reply to this, would observe, that they use the word friend, as significative of their own union, and, when they speak to others, as significative of their Christian relation to one another.