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]
