THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1905. THEOLOGICAL NICKNAMES

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 33, 17 August 1905, Page 17

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1905. THEOLOGICAL NICKNAMES

f HISTORY of nicknames would fill a void in the curiosities of literature. The subject offers a promising field for book-wormish students of what is termed the philosophy of history ; for, until the contrary is proved, we will stoutly maintain against all comers that there is as much of national character and of local manners and feeling locked up in the nicknames of an age or people as there is in its proverbs. Coarse nicknames are the shadows cast by coarse manners. They abound most in the lower depths of society— even among the wealthy lower orders— just as sediment falls to the bottom of a water-tank. Even the clarified ' upper circles ' (so-called) are never quite free from them. Beau Brmmmel had his. So has Chauncey Depew. So have we all. 'Zimmerman was wrong when he made the broad statement that nicknames stick for e\er. Very clever ones do. But the mass of nicknames, like the mass of men, are not clever. They come and go and alter their style and cut as fashions do. Take one class Only— ecclesiastical nicknames. Dip into Luther's ' Table-talk •* ('unexpurg&ted German edition, if your stomach is strong), and into the long procession of publications issaied by the Parker Society— there are over forty of these on our shelves— and then say, if you can, that the fierce temper and the coarse-grained manners and morals of t>he Reformation period did not find fitting expression in the vile and indecent terms which were then fliung at the Pope and the Ohurch of Rome, even from the sanctified heights of the pulpit, planners have altered mightily during the last two generations. Ecclesiastical nicknames have altered with them. Men who wear clean linen would not nowadays use some of the fierce terms that were to gaily flung at the Catholic Church tjjy learned divines three centuries ago. Many of those old-ttme terms of theological slang have long been obsolete in the English tongue. Others are fast becoming so'; they survive nowadays chiefly in the peculiar dialect affected ly organisations hl.e the Orange Society.

Among the last-mentioned class of survivals, that are rapidly becoming obsolescent, and are already obsolete in good society, are the terms ' Papist,' ' Popery,' ' Romanist,' and ' Romish.' These arc mere bruteforce epithets — ecclesiastical nulla-nullas, so to speak. Such verbal bludgeons are, happily, very rarely used

nowadays by Protestants of education and refinement. From such we are entitled to better courtesy* In &TeV cent issue of the Presbyteria/n-Methodist-Congieigation-alist organ of New Zealand the use of the~ ndcknameg " 1 Papist,' < Popish,' ' Pooery,' and"'* Romish ' was painful and frequent and free. It was a departure from that journal's better traditions ; for the offensiveness of these terms is written large over their history and application dawn to the present hour. The term 'Papist' was, it is supposed, an invention of that mastex-coineje-of fierce epithets, Dr. Martin" Luther". Many years ago' we pointed out that it was intended and used as an offensive nickname. As such it was, in 1550, -expressly forbidden by the fiftieth .Injunction of Queen Elizabeth as ona of the ' slanderous words and railings whereby charity, the knot of all Christian society, is loosed.' The Queen (says the Injunction) ' wills and ' straitly commands all manner of her subjects . . . not to use in despite or rebuke of any pesson these convicious words, Papist or Papistical heretic>, or any such-like words of reproach.' The words ' Papist,' • Popish,' ' Popery,' ' Romish ' are peppered like London sootspots or ' blacks ' all over the savage penal "codes -of William 111., Anne, and the Georges, with every accompaniment of biting epithet which could enhance their intended offensiveness s They'were flung out of the statute?, book on the repeal of the penal laws. During the' greater part of that long period &hey had all the sane- ■ tion that custom, law, the pulpit, and the press could give them. Yet Catholics have eyer regarded them as terms of studied offence, or as marks of ill-breeding. Among Protestant divines who have learned the lessons of history and of travel, they are to-day as obsolete as Walton's 'papistical" and Whitgift's • papistry, • ' Romery,' etc. Those who nowadays cling to those* ill-mannered old nicknames pin upon themselves tfterel&y" a social label which would he a social libel upon a man of cultivated intellect and refined manners in Our day*, * But it is not necessary to deive into history in order - to satisfy one's self as to the offensive nature of the' epithets to which reference is here made. An Irish ' writer in the ' Contemporary Review ' for August, t896, points to the well known current fact that the woM« ' Papist ' is the mest opprobrious epithet in the VocaTyulary of an Orangeman, and that it is used only when the deadliest insult is intended. This old nickname' of' the ponal c.ode is naturally a precious verbal heirloom" ' to an association whose ' accredited- organ ' editorially. laments the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act - as ' a fatal error.' The veriest schoolbtfy, by 'diji'pihgf' I',1 ', into the pages, of good dictionaries— which faithfully reflect the usage of our day— would readily "ascertain 1 the offensiveness of the terms of which we 'complain.The great ' Encyclopaedic Dictionary,' for instance (vol.V , part 1., p. 374), says that the term ' Papist ' 'is designed to be contemptuous.' Webster's ' InternationalDictionary ' (cd. 1894) describes it as 'an offensive' de-. , sigination applied to Roman Catholics by their opponents.' ' Stormonths Dictionary ' (9th cd.) and'others that we have oonsulted are, on this point, in full agreement with their more voluminous rivals. ' They all testify, with equal unanimity, as to the opprobrious character of the epithecs ' Popery,' ' Popish,' and ! Romish.We have merely used the dictionaries that happened to be nearest to our hand. The same tale is told by e-\ery standard lexicon that deals with what we may term Ihe social aspect of the words in question.

In this connection, we may state that such corresponding terms as exist in French (' papiste,' ' papisme'). ami in Italian and Spanish (' papista,' ' papismo .') are likewise used in a contemptuous and offensive sense, and by a certain class 'of Protestants only. As regards, the theological barbarism, ' Romish,' we commend to our Presbyterian-Methodist-Oongregational contemporary the' following words from the ' Westminster Review ' of "'(we think) March, 1895 : ' Why will Protestant divines in-

sistf on u.Bfng the iilly word " Rontish " ? It is neither EJriglfsh nor* polite ; it is merely a specimen" of ecclesiastical slang, and why should not theologians, as well a* ordinary men, write good English ? ' We rather ' think that a good deal of this theological slang arose, and still endures, because it is far easier to make' faces at opponents' and to pelt them with nicknames than to squarely meet and refute their arguments. As for our Cjhurch, its name is Catholic. We know no nobler or better. And we desire no other.