The term _papist_ should be stripped of all except its etymological
meaning, and applied to those who give the higher and final authority to
the declaration _ex cathedra_[55] of the Pope. See Dr. Wiseman's[56]
article, _Catholic Church_, in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_.
What is one to do about these names? First, it is clear that offence
should, when possible, be avoided: secondly, no one must be required to
give a name which favors _any_ assumption made by those to whom it is
given, and not {27} granted by those who give it. Thus the subdivision
which calls itself distinctly _Evangelical_ has no right to expect others
to concede the title. Now the word _Catholic_, of course, falls under this
rule; and even _Roman Catholic_ may be refused to those who would restrict
the word _Catholic_ to themselves. _Roman Christian_ is unobjectionable,
since the Roman Church does not deny the name of Christian to those whom
she calls heretics. No one is bound in this matter by Acts of Parliament.
In many cases, no doubt, names which have offensive association are used
merely by habit, sometimes by hereditary transmission. Boswell records of
Johnson that he always used the words "dissenting teacher," refusing
_minister_ and _clergyman_ to all but the recipients of episcopal
ordination.
This distinctive phrase has been widely adopted: it occurs in the Index of
3d S. iv. [_Notes and Queries_]. Here we find "Platts (Rev. John),
Unitarian teacher, 412;" the article indexed has "Unitarian minister."
This, of course is habit: an intentional refusal of the word _minister_
would never occur in an index. I remember that, when I first read about Sam
Johnson's little bit of exclusiveness, I said to myself: "Teacher? Teacher?
surely I remember One who is often called _teacher_, but never _minister_
or _clergyman_: have not the dissenters got the best of it?"
When I said that the Roman Church concedes the epithet Christians to
Protestants, I did not mean that all its adherents do the same. There is,
or was, a Roman newspaper, the _Tablet_, which, seven or eight years ago,
was one of the most virulent of the party journals. In it I read, referring
to some complaint of grievance about mixed marriages, that if _Christians_
would marry _Protestants_ they must take the consequences. My memory notes
this well; because I recollected, when I saw it, that there was in the
stable a horse fit to run in the curricle with this one. About seventeen
years ago an Oxford M. A., who hated {28} mathematics like a genuine
Oxonian of the last century, was writing on education, and was compelled to
give some countenance to the nasty subject. He got out cleverly; for he
gave as his reason for the permission, that man is an arithmetical,
geometrical, and mechanical _animal_, as well as a rational _soul_.
The _Tablet_ was founded by an old pupil of mine, Mr. Frederic Lucas,[57]
who availed himself of his knowledge of me to write some severe
articles--even abusive, I was told, but I never saw them--against me, for
contributing to the _Dublin Review_, and poking my heretic nose into
orthodox places. Dr. Wiseman, the editor, came in for his share, and ought
to have got all. Who ever blamed the pig for intruding himself into the
cabin when the door was left open? When Mr. Lucas was my pupil, he was of
the Society of Friends--in any article but this I should say _Quaker_--and
was quiet and gentlemanly, as members of that Church--in any article but
this I should, from mere habit, say _sect_--usually are. This is due to his
memory; for, by all I heard, when he changed his religion he ceased to be
Lucas couchant, and became Lucas rampant, fanged and langued gules. (I
looked into Guillim[58] to see if my terms were right: I could not find
them; but to prove I have been there, I notice that he calls a violin a
_violent_. How comes the word to take this form?) I met with several Roman
Christians, born and bred, who were very much annoyed at Mr. Lucas and his
doings; and said some severe things about new converts needing
kicking-straps.
{29}
The mention of Dr. Wiseman reminds me of another word, appropriated by
Christians to themselves: _fides_;[59] the Roman faith is _fides_, and
nothing else; and the adherents are _fideles_.[60] Hereby hangs a retort.
When Dr. Wiseman was first in England, he gave a course of lectures in
defence of his creed, which were thought very convincing by those who were
already convinced. They determined to give him a medal, and there was a
very serious discussion about the legend. Dr. Wiseman told me himself that
he had answered to his subscribers that he would not have the medal at all
unless--(naming some Italian authority, whom I forget) approved of the
legend. At last _pro fide vindicata_[61] was chosen: this may be read
either in a Popish or heretical sense. The feminine substantive _fides_
means confidence, trust, (it is made to mean _belief_), but _fidis_, with
the same ablative, _fide_, and also feminine, is a _fiddle-string_.[62] If
a Latin writer had had to make a legend signifying "For the defence of the
fiddle-string," he could not have done it otherwise, in the terseness of a
legend, than by writing _pro fide vindicata_. Accordingly, when a Roman
Christian talks to you of the _faith_, as a thing which is his and not
yours, you may say _fiddle_. I have searched Bonaventura Piscator in vain
for notice of this ambiguity. But the Greeks said fiddle; according to
Suidas,[63] [Greek: skindapsos][64]--a word meaning a four stringed
instrument played with a quill--was an exclamation of contemptuous dissent.
How the wits of different races jump!
{30}
I am reminded of a case of _fides vindicata_, which, being in a public
letter, responding to a public invitation, was not meant to be
confidential. Some of the pupils of University College, in which all
subdivisions of religion are (1866; _were_, 1867) on a level, have of
course changed their views in after life, and become adherents of various
high churches. On the occasion of a dinner of old students of the College,
convened by circular, one of these students, whether then Roman or
Tractarian Christian I do not remember, not content with simply giving
negative answer, or none at all, concocted a jorum of theological rebuke,
and sent it to the Dinner Committee. Heyday! said one of them, this man got
out of bed backwards! How is that? said the rest. Why, read his name
backwards, and you will see. As thus read it was--_No grub_![65]