[81] The substance of a paragraph which precedes this has
been transferred to the Prologue.
[82] I confess that, long ago, I once or twice made this
mistake; even to the waste of a capital 'U.' 1893.
[83] "Let us maintain, before we have proved. This seeming
paradox is the secret of happiness" (Dr. Newman: Tract
85, p. 85).
[84] Dr. Newman, _Essay on Development_, p. 357.
[85] It is by no means to be assumed that "spiritual" and
"corporeal" are exact equivalents of "immaterial" and
"material" in the minds of ancient speculators on
these topics. The "spiritual body" of the risen dead
(1 Cor. xv.) is not the "natural" "flesh and blood"
body. Paul does not teach the resurrection of the body
in the ordinary sense of the word "body"; a fact,
often overlooked, but pregnant with many consequences.
[86] Tertullian (_Apolog. Adv. Gentes_, cap. xxiii) thus
challenges the Roman authorities: let them bring a
possessed person into the presence of a Christian
before their tribunal, and if the demon does not
confess himself to be such, on the order of the
Christian, let the Christian be executed out of hand.
[87] See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the
"accommodation" subterfuge already cited above, p. 217.
[88] I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition
appeared in 1870. Tract 85 of the _Tracts for the
Times_ should be read with this _Essay_. If I were
called upon to compile a Primer of "Infidelity," I
think I should save myself trouble by making a
selection from these works, and from the _Essay on
Development_ by the same author.
[89] Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the Introduction
to the _Essay on Development_, Dr. Newman can demand
strict evidence in religious questions as sharply as
any "infidel author;" and he can even profess to yield
to its force (_Essay on Miracles_, 1870; note, p. 391).
[90] Compare Tract 85, p. 110; "I am persuaded that were men
but consistent who oppose the Church doctrines as being
unscriptural, they would vindicate the Jews for
rejecting the Gospel."
[91] According to Dr. Newman, "This prayer [that of Bishop
Alexander, who begged God to 'take Arius away'] is said
to have been offered about 3 P.M. on the Saturday; that
same evening Arius was in the great square of
Constantine, when he was suddenly seized with
indisposition" (p. clxx). The "infidel" Gibbon seems to
have dared to suggest that "an option between poison
and miracle" is presented by this case; and it must be
admitted, that, if the Bishop had been within the reach
of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone
hardly with him. Modern "Infidels," possessed of a
slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with
no less audacity, to suggest an "option between
fire-damp and miracle" in seeking for the cause of the
fiery outburst at Jerusalem.
[92] A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me roundly
to task for venturing to doubt the historical and
literal truth of the Gadarene story. The following
passage in his letter is worth quotation: "Now to the
materialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated
in spiritual verities, certainly this story of the
Gadarene or Gergesene swine presents insurmountable
difficulties; it seems grotesque and nonsensical. To
the experienced, trained, and cultivated Spiritualist
this miracle is, as I am prepared to show, one of the
most instructive, the most profoundly useful, and the
most beneficent which Jesus ever wrought in the whole
course of His pilgrimage of redemption on earth." Just
so. And the first page of this same journal presents
the following advertisement, among others of the same
kidney:
"To WEALTHY SPIRITUALISTS--A Lady Medium of tried power
wishes to meet with an elderly gentleman who would be
willing to give her a comfortable home and maintenance
in Exchange for her Spiritualistic services, as her
guides consider her health is too delicate for public
sittings: London preferred.--Address 'Mary,' Office of
_Light_."
Are we going back to the days of the Judges, when
wealthy Micah set up his private ephod, teraphim, and
Levite?
[93] Consider Tertullian's "sister" ("hodie apud nos"),
who conversed with angels, saw and heard mysteries,
knew men's thoughts, and prescribed medicine for their
bodies (_De Anima_, cap. 9). Tertullian tells us that
this woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its
colour and shape. The "infidel" will probably be unable
to refrain from insulting the memory of the ecstatic
saint by the remark, that Tertullian's known views
about the corporeality of the soul may have had
something to do with the remarkable perceptive powers
of the Montanist medium, in whose revelations of the
spiritual world he took such profound interest.
[94] See the New York _World_ for Sunday, 21st October,
1888; and the _Report of the Seybert Commission_,
Philadelphia, 1887.
[95] Dr. Newman's observation that the miraculous
multiplication of the pieces of the true cross (with
which "the whole world is filled," according to Cyril
of Jerusalem; and of which some say there are enough
extant to build a man-of-war) is no more wonderful
than that of the loaves and fishes, is one that I do
not see my way to contradict. See _Essay on Miracles_.
2d ed. p. 163.
[96] _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_,
by J.H. Newman, D.D., pp. 7 and 8. (1878.)
[97] Dr. Newman faces this question with his customary
ability. "Now, I own, I am not at all solicitous to
deny that this doctrine of an apostate Angel and his
hosts was gained from Babylon: it might still be
Divine nevertheless. God who made the prophet's ass
speak, and thereby instructed the prophet, might
instruct His Church by means of heathen Babylon"
(Tract 85, p. 83). There seems to be no end to the
apologetic burden that Balaam's ass may carry.
[98] _Nineteenth Century_, May 1889 (p. 701).
[99] I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M.
Renan's labours, or intended to speak slightingly of
them.
[100] To-day's _Times_ contains a report of a remarkable
speech by Prince Bismarck, in which he tells the
Reichstag that he has long given up investing in
foreign stock, lest so doing should mislead his
judgment in his transactions with foreign states. Does
this declaration prove that the Chancellor accuses
himself of being "sordid" and "selfish"; or does it not
rather show that, even in dealing with himself, he
remains the man of realities?