page 16

Party Names.

A few weeks ago the Christchurch Church News objected to the common practice of writing of Church of England people under the title of « Episcopalians, » the episcopal form of government being common to several denominations. It recommended the use of the term « Anglican »; suggesting, somewhat ungenerously, that the use of « Episcopalian » in the limited sense is due to narrowness on the part of writers and speakers. There is really no more difficult problem for a writer, in referring to most sects, religious or secular, than to use a title which shall be both true and inoffensive. It is too much the practice of voluntary associations to appropriate to themselves exclusive titles to which they have no claim. Such names as « Christadelphians, » « Latterday Saints, » and « Freethinkers, » show that the weakness is not confined to any school of belief or unbelief; while, on the other hand, names honestly descriptive, like « Congregationalists » or « Presbyterians, » prove that it is not universal. The very title of The Church News is obviously open to criticism. Its suggestion that the word « Anglican » should be used will not commend itself generally to members of its own church, some of whom dislike the term.

« Catholic » is another exclusive title which has been the cause of much confusion. Applied to any specified section of Christendom it is plainly a misnomer; and as the word admits of no qualification, the addition of a limiting adjective only emphasises its incorrectness. Besides the self-chosen title of a denomination, which it can scarcely expect outsiders to recognize, there is sometimes a nickname. This, as in the cases of « Quaker » and « Methodist, » may in time become an honorable title; but it does not on that account become a correct descriptive. « Three-fourths of Christendom, » says the Church News, « is episcopalian »—yet it objects to the term as too narrow for its own church. Among the Maoris, the term Episcopalian (pikopo) is applied only to Romanists. All Christendom, save the Society of Friends, is baptist, yet the name is assumed as distinctive by a special group of churches.

The subject is one of real difficulty to conscientious writers. If it were commonly recognized that the use of sectarian and political party names did not commit the writer or speaker to all that those names literally implied, the matter would be simple enough. But those who are the most punctilious in insisting upon the acceptance of their chosen title, are the first to assume that the use of the name by outsiders, though only from a mistaken idea of courtesy, implies full assent to their claims. The same question arose centuries ago. The late Professor DeMorgan, who wrote learnedly and well on many subjects, touched upon this one in his Budget of Paradoxes. He says: « Sects, whether religious or political, give themselves names which are claimed also by their opponents; loyal, liberal, conservative, &c, have been severally appropriated by parties. . In theology, the Greek Church is Orthodox, the Roman is Catholic, the modern Puritan is Evangelical, &c.… All such words as Catholic, &c., are well enough as mere nomenclature; and the world falls for the most part into any names which people choose to give themselves. Silly people found inferences on this concession, and as usually happens, they can cite some of their betters. St. Augustine, a freakish arguer or to put it in the way of an old writer, lectorem ne multiloquii tædio fastidiat, Punicis quibusdam argutiis recreare solet, asks with triumph, to what chapel a stranger would be directed, if he inquired his way to the Catholic assembly… 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 (lib. i c. 12, de nomine Sacra Ecclesiæ, p. 87 of the Venice folio of 1537.) »

The only safe rule is to avoid the use of such names as far as possible. In this country the political field is full of parties whose names are altogether misleading. The terms liberal, labor party, moderate, &c., are used for convenience sake by people who wholly repudiate the meaning the terms imply, but who unwittingly make surrender to their opponents. Many never look beyond the name, and in time of contest, the so-called Liberal or Moderate has a great advantage over his rival, who may really possess a better claim to the title. As « the grand old name of gentleman » has been abused, so have some of the finest words in the language. Dragged in the mire of factions, they become hopelessly stained, and are debased for all time. It is needless to adduce examples. The appropriation by sects and parties of such titles is like the private annexation of a common, and the offence is more serious. To accept unquestioned the misleading names may be simple and convenient, but it amounts in the end to moral wrong.

Of course, any one who takes this ground may expect to be charged with pedantry or want of charity. We had a recent experience of this kind, when we referred to a portrait of « the Romanist bishop » of a certain district. A contemporary, whose own language is pretty free, accused us of making an insulting reference. Our critic knew right well that more than one bishop bore the title in question, and that, outside of the sectarian press, some mark of distinction was necessary. It has perhaps never occurred to our contemporary that its own mildest word for heretical outsiders—« Non-catholics »—is decidedly offensive. It is the height of impudence to distinguish an opponent by a negative appellation. With an accuracy and courtesy equal to his own, the Dunedin editor might be described as a Non-buddhist, Non-mormon, or Non-atheist.

An easy-going press is partly responsible for the misapplication of the titles « his lordship » and « his grace » to ecclesiastical dignitaries in this country. One bishop has protested, but in vain. The clergy have adopted the bad habit; obsequious clerks of synods enter the bogus titles in their records; but there is no excuse for the press setting up a fictitious peerage. A childish love of high-sounding titles appears to be a characteristic of advanced democracy.