V. But this is not all; it was first ascribed in way of flattery to proud popes and emperors, imitating the heathens' vain homage to their gods; thereby ascribing a plural honour to a single person: as if one pope had been made up of many gods, and one emperor of many men; for which reason, _you_ only to be used to many, became first spoken to one. It seems the word _thou_ looked like too lean and thin a respect; and therefore, some bigger than they should be, would have a style suitable to their own ambition: a ground we cannot build our practice on; for what began it only loves it still. But supposing _you_ to be proper to a prince, it will not follow it is to a common person. For his edict runs, _We will and require_, because, perhaps, in conjunction with his council: and therefore _you_ to a private person is an abuse of the word. But as pride first gave it birth, so hath she only promoted it. Monsieur, sir, and madam, were originally names given to none but the king, his brother, and their wives, both in France and England; yet now the ploughman in France is called monsieur, and his wife madame: and men of ordinary trades in England, sir, and their wives, dame; which is the legal title of a lady, or else mistress, which is the same 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.
VI. But some will tell us, custom should rule us; and that is against us. But it is easily answered, and more truly, that though in things reasonable or indifferent, custom is obliging or harmless, yet in things unreasonable or unlawful, she has no authority. For custom can no more change numbers than genders, nor yoke _one_ and _you_ together, than make a man into a woman, or one into a thousand. But if custom be to conclude us, it is for us; for as custom is nothing more than ancient usage, I appeal to the practice of mankind, from the beginning of the world, through all nations, against the novelty of this confusion, viz. _you_ to one person. Let custom, which is ancient practice and fact, issue this question. Mistake me not: I know words are nothing, but as men give them a value or force by use; but then, if you will discharge _thou_, and that _you_ must succeed in its place, let us have a distinguishing word instead of _you_ to be used in speech to many: but to use the same 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 modish.