To return to _Notes and Queries_. The substitution in the (editorial) index
of "Unitarian teacher," for the contributor's "Unitarian minister," struck
me very much. I have seldom found such things unmeaning. But as the journal
had always been free from editorial sectarianisms,--and very apt to check
the contributorial,--I could not be sure in this case. True it was, that
the editor and publisher had been changed more than a year before; but this
was not of much force. Though one swallow does not make a summer, I have
generally found it show that summer is coming. However, thought I to
myself, if this be Little Shibboleth, we shall have Big Shibboleth
by-and-bye. At last it came. About a twelvemonth afterwards, (3d S. vii. p.
36) the following was the _editorial_ answer to the question when the
establishment was first called the "Church of England and Ireland":
{31}
"That unmeaning clause, 'The United Church of England and Ireland,' which
occurs on the title-page of _The Book of Common Prayer_, was first used at
the commencement of the present century. The authority for this phrase is
the fifth article of the Union of 1800: 'That the Churches of England and
Ireland be united into one _Protestant_ (!) episcopal Church, to be called
"The United Church of England and Ireland."' Of course, churchmen are not
responsible for the theology of Acts of Parliament, especially those passed
during the dark ages of the Georgian era."
That is to say, the journal gives its adhesion to the party which--under
the assumed title of _the_ Church of England--claims for the endowed
corporation for the support of religion rights which Parliament cannot
control, and makes it, in fact, a power above the State. The State has
given an inch: it calls this corporation by the name of the "United
_Church_ of England and Ireland," as if neither England nor Ireland had any
other Church. The corporation, accordingly aspires to an ell. But this the
nation will only give with the aspiration prefixed. To illustrate my
allusion in a delicate way to polite ears, I will relate what happened in a
Johnian lecture-room at Cambridge, some fifty years ago, my informant being
present. A youth of undue aspirations was giving a proposition, and at last
said, "Let E F be produced to 'L':" "Not quite so far, Mr. ----," said the
lecturer, quietly, to the great amusement of the class, and the utter
astonishment of the aspirant, who knew no more than a Tractarian the
tendency of his construction.
This word _Church_ is made to have a very mystical meaning. The following
dialogue between Ecclesiastes and Haereticus, which I cannot vouch for, has
often taken place in spirit, if not in letter: E. The word _Church_
([Greek: ekklesia])[66] is never used in the New Testament except generally
or locally for that holy and mystical body to which the sacraments and the
ordinances of Christianity are entrusted. {32} H. Indeed! E. It is beyond a
doubt (here he quoted half a dozen texts in support). H. Do you mean that
any doctrine or ordinance which was solemnly practised by the [Greek:
ekklesia] is binding upon you and me? E. Certainly, unless we should be cut
off from the congregation of the faithful. H. Have you a couple of hours to
spare? E. What for? H. If you have, I propose we spend them in crying,
Great is Diana of the Ephesians! E. What do you mean? H. You ought to know
the solemn service of the [Greek: ekklesia] (Acts xix. 32, 41), at Ephesus;
which any one might take to be true Church, by the more part not knowing
wherefore they were come together, and which was dismissed, after one of
the most sensible sermons ever preached, by the Recorder. E. I see your
meaning: it is true, there is that one exception! H. Why, the Recorder's
sermon itself contains another, the [Greek: ennomos ekklesia],[67]
legislative assembly. E. Ah! the New Testament can only be interpreted by
the Church! H. I see! the Church interprets itself into existence out of
the New Testament, and then interprets the New Testament out of existence
into itself!
I look upon all the Churches as fair game which declare of me that _absque
dubio in aeternum peribo_;[68] not for their presumption towards God, but
for their personal insolence towards myself. I find that their sectaries
stare when I say this. Why! they do not speak of you in _particular_! These
poor reasoners seem to think that there could be no meaning, as against me,
unless it should be propounded that "without doubt he shall perish
everlastingly, especially A. De Morgan." But I hold, with the schoolmen,
that "_Omnis_ homo est animal" in conjunction with "Sortes est homo"
amounts to "_Sortes_ est animal."[69] But they do not mean it _personally_!
Every universal proposition is {33} personal to every instance of the
subject. If this be not conceded, then I retort, in their own sense and
manner, "Whosoever would serve God, before all things he must not pronounce
God's decision upon his neighbor. Which decision, except every one leave to
God himself, without doubt he is a bigoted noodle."
The reasoning habit of the educated community, in four cases out of five,
permits universal propositions to be stated at one time, and denied, _pro
re nata_,[70] at another. "Before we proceed to consider any question
involving physical principles, we should set out with _clear ideas_ of the
naturally possible and impossible." The eminent man who said this, when
wanting it for his views of mental education (!) never meant it for more
than what was in hand, never assumed it in the researches which will give
him to posterity! I have heard half-a-dozen defences of his having said
this, not one of which affirmed the truth of what was said. A worthy
clergyman wrote that if A. B. had said a certain thing the point in
question would have been established. It was shown to him that A. B. _had_
said it, to which the reply was a refusal to admit the point because A. B.
said it in a second pamphlet and in answer to objections. And I might give
fifty such instances with very little search. Always assume more than you
want; because you cannot tell how much you may want: put what is over into
the didn't-mean-that basket, or the extreme case what-not.