THE WORD CHURCH.
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":
"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 Hæreticus, which I cannot vouch for, has often taken place in spirit, if not in letter: E. The word Church (ἐκκλησια)[[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.
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 ἐκκλησια 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 ἐκκλησια (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 ἐννομος ἐκκλησια,[[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 æternum 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
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.