We see that there are paradoxers in argument as well as in assertion of
fact: my plan does not bring me much into contact with these; but another
instance may be useful. Sects, whether religious or political, give
themselves names which, in meaning, are claimed also by their opponents;
loyal, liberal, conservative (of good), etc. have been severally
appropriated by parties. _Whig_ and _Tory_ are unobjectionable names: the
first--which occurs in English ballad as well as in Scotland--is sour
milk;[45] the second is a robber. In theology, the Greek Church is
_Orthodox_, the Roman is _Catholic_, the modern Puritan is _Evangelical_,
etc.
The word _Christian_ (Vol. I, p. 248[46]) is an instance. When words begin,
they carry their meanings. The Jews, who had their Messiah to come, and the
followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who took _Him_ for their Messiah, were both
_Christians_ (which means _Messianites_): the Jews would never have
invented the term to signify _Jesuans_, nor would the disciples have
invented such an ambiguous term for themselves; had they done so, the Jews
would have disputed it, as they would have done in later times if they had
had fair play. The Jews of our day, I see by their newspapers, speak of
Jesus Christ as the _Rabbi Joshua_. But the {23} heathens, who knew little
or nothing about the Jewish hope, would naturally apply the term
_Christians_ to the only followers of a _Messiah_ of whom they had heard.
For the _Jesuans_ invaded them in a missionary way; while the Jews did not
attempt, at least openly, to make proselytes.
All such words as Catholic, etc., are well enough as mere nomenclature; and
the world falls for the most part, into any names which parties choose to
give themselves. Silly people found inferences on this concession; and, as
usually happens, they can cite some of their betters. St. Augustine,[47] a
freakish arguer, or, to put it in the way of an old writer, _lectorem ne
multiloquii taedio fastidiat, Punicis quibusdam argutiis recreare
solet_,[48] asks, with triumph, to what chapel a stranger would be
directed, if he inquired the way to the _Catholic assembly_. But the best
exhibition of this kind in our own century is that made by the excellent
Dr. John Milner,[49] in a work (first published in 1801 or 1802) which I
suppose still circulates, "The End of Religious Controversy": a startling
title which, so far as its truth is concerned, might as well have been "The
floor of the bottomless pit." This writer, whom every one of his readers
will swear to have been a worthy soul, though many, even of his own sect,
will not admire some of his logic, speaks as follows:
"Letter xxv. _On the true Church being Catholic._ In treating of this third
mark of the true Church, as expressed in our common creed, I feel my
spirits sink within me, and I am almost tempted to throw away my pen in
despair. For what chance is there of opening the eyes of candid Protestants
to the other marks of the Church, if they are capable of keeping them shut
to this? Every time they address the {24} God of Truth, either in solemn
worship or in private devotion [stretch of rhetoric], they are forced, each
of them, to repeat: _I believe in_ THE CATHOLIC _Church_, and yet if I ask
any of them the question: _Are you a_ CATHOLIC? he is sure to answer me,
_No, I am a_ PROTESTANT! Was there ever a more glaring instance of
inconsistency and self-condemnation among rational beings!"
"John Milner, honest and true,
Did what honest people still may do,
If they write for the many and not for the few,
But what by and bye they must eschew."
He _shortened his clause_; and for a reason. If he had used the whole
epithet which he knew so well, any one might have given his argument a
half-turn. Had he written, as he ought, "the _Holy_ Catholic Church" and
then argued as above, some sly Protestant would have parodied him with "and
yet if I ask any of them the question: _Are you_ HOLY? he is sure to answer
me _No, I am a_ SINNER." To take the adjective from the Church, and apply
it to the individual partisan, is recognized slipslop, but not ground of
argument. If Dr. M. had asked his Protestant whether he belonged to the
Catholic _Church_, the answer would have been Yes, but not to the Roman
branch. When he put his question as he did, he was rightly answered and in
his own division. This leaving out words is a common practice, especially
when the omitter is in authority, and cannot be exposed. A year or two ago
a bishop wrote a snubbing letter to a poor parson, who had complained that
he was obliged, in burial, to send the worst of sinners to everlasting
happiness. The bishop sternly said, "_hope_[50] is not _assurance_." {25}
Could the clergyman have dared to answer, he would have said, "No, my Lord!
but '_sure and certain_ hope' is as like assurance as a _minikin_ man is
like a dwarf." Sad to say, a theologian must be illogical: I feel sure that
if you took the clearest headed writer on logic that ever lived, and made a
bishop of him, he would be shamed by his own books in a twelvemonth.
Milner's sophism is glaring: but why should Dr. Milner be wiser than St.
Augustine, one of his teachers? I am tempted to let out the true derivation
of the word _Catholic, as exclusively applied to the Church of Rome_. All
can find it who have access to the _Rituale_ of Bonaventura Piscator[51]
(lib. i. c. 12, _de nomine Sacrae Ecclesiae_, p. 87 of the Venice {26} folio
of 1537). I am told that there is a _Rituale_ in the Index Expurgatorius,
but I have not thought it worth while to examine whether this be the one: I
am rather inclined to think, as I have heard elsewhere, that the book was
held too dangerous for the faithful to know of it, even by a prohibition:
it would not surprise me at all if Roman Christians should deny its
existence.[52]
It amuses me to give, at a great distance of time, a small Rowland for a
small Oliver,[53] which I received, _de par l'Eglise_,[54] so far as lay in
the Oliver-carrier more than twenty years ago. The following contribution
of mine to _Notes and Queries_ (3d Ser. vi. p. 175, Aug. 27, 1864) will
explain what I say. There had been a complaint that a contributor had used
the term _Papist_, which a very excellent dignitary of the Papal system
pronounced an offensive term: