New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-06-10
TIE RESURRECTION.
THE QUESTION OF LEGAL EVIDENCE
AZ OPPONENT OF COLONEL HOPKINS ACCUSES
HIM OF Nr-sTINEss IN HIS METAPHYSICS.


HIM OF MUsTINESS IN HIS METAPHYSICS.
| To the Editor Of The Tribune
! Sir in the discussion between Mr.. Hopkins anu
! his opponents there has been tendency to wan
der from the Joint Setting aside his disparageneh'
OF ministers Mr.. Hopknss main argument Is tn'S.
! that the Resurrection Is contrary 10 Inc laws u
nature and. therefore. requires an overwhelming
| evidence 70 prove IT, Now. Mr.. Hopkins ought to
know that this * an exploded idea. Modern scien-
tinc books take a different position. frotesso,
! Langley in his New Astronomy, pages 10 ana
17C abiding 10 the stories OF falling meteoFs' sayS'
"Phlosophers Of the last century treated these ac
| counts much as they might treat certain a.iesed
! mental rhrnomena IL they were alive to-day. Al
first they refused TO take any notice OF these soes
| When induced give the matter consli'''''o"'
they observed that al the conditions lot s''"'"''
observation were violated by these bodies, since
the wonder always happened at some faroh pace
or at some pas; time and suspicious circumstance
the stones ONLY fell IN the presence OF ignorant anu
unscicnt,Gc witnesses. and never when scenthc
men were at hand to examine the facts; that th''c
were many worthy. II Ignorant men VINO ASSURE
that they had seen such stones fa-seeh thc'h WI"
their very eyes and he'd them In their own han'S-
was accounted for by the general love OF the mar
voIl,us and bv the Ignorance of the common mind'
unlcarncd in the conditions Of scentiic oDse'NH''o
and unsu!lel 10y the great principe or the "'''o'"
itv of the laws Of nature Such tore. OF courS''
| ,a,,o, 10 hoard among us who never hastily pro-
/ ANYTHING departure rum VIC INV
turc while uncertain that these can he separ''''
from the laws OF the fallibe human mind, IN which
alone nature Is seen. But In the last centur! PM
osophers had not yet become humble or sc'e"'''o
! men dii!ilent OF the absolueness or the'r o""
kuow.edce" II appears from this that MT. mop
kus is a philosopher Of the last century, DOL" III
roror,ls science and METAPHYSICS But an argument
founded on las;-csntury science can hardy De ao-
ceptcd as valid AT the present day NOT oh'' 81
but this quotation shows how a genuine iac' ''"c
the falling OF neteoric stones. which Is no" u'''ei
sally accented may be made to appear absurd "hi'e
rath in Il may be made 10 appear SHY creh"'''S ny
| Mr. Uopkins's kind OF argument, for his methoa OF
dealing with the Resurrection Is Identical WIN mat
pursued by the last-century philosophers.
/ I, Is all based on the pure assumption that We
know what the uniformity or nature ~
venture to say that profound philosopher or
scientist Of the present day would assent 10 sue"
nm assumption There IL no such inherent impropa-
hlitv in the Resurrection or In any other riirace'
II all consisted In Mr. Hopkins's old-faShioheu way
OF viewing n law OF nature; others equa'iy Sc'"-
tinc-nay even lifelong sccntlsts-Nie" INC az
| ~ nature very differently. That knocks the Dot
! con, on, ~ his whole argument: all his talk about
tho necessity for an unusual amount or historic
o,,dence TO outweigh the testimony OF nature iaHS
! 20 the ground Nature has never gwen any "s'-
| rony against the Resurrection Bmt ms Is nos ,nc
only example OF MIR. IIopkinss ancient ph''oSop"''
In his original article and In his repy he decia'es
tho Immortality Of the SOUL he says As he scorns
| tho nation of a physical material immortality.
II IL fair 10 assume that he means an iiniha'cr'''
| Immortality a sort Of ghost or phah'as' ''o''
which all the physical and material ior"S VI W
| istence are absent. but when did Mr.. Hopkins GET
| this idea Of an inmaterlal human existence ios-
eibv from the old theologians perhaps from i'a'o
| can Mr. Hopkins prove II? VIII not say as ~
docs OF the Resurrection. that II Is contrary 10 "
law OF nature will only say that II IL contrary
70 the uniformity Of nature. 80 Tar NJ we ""''
been able TO observe f. Human HE. 50 far ms We
| can ascertain Is an organic force. always "SSo-
| cl,,ed with matter and producing notifications III
| n.,ter II does undoubtedly have qualities tha'
| We call spiritual. but no one has ever seen " eN
| listing apart from matter and even III inc '"o''
spiritual persOnaliies t. sun look a, TO-
day and never heard OF any oas S's,.nceH Has
served Of purely mmatcria human nan uaa he any
shred OF testimony ofrer in behalf OF H. u no,
ian thurch has never believed thing - bssel-Ss
| as that Paul. who Is far authoil'y o." IN,
,ha ~ be human lie survived by organizing new
| body-one more adapted to the sp't""a' "'''''
The writer's o. the Gospels believed that the or,
~ 10 ~; fceus terminated His body 80 that II
Gas al nrst the same and then gradually meta
morphosed into subtor physical orsarAs :, ,'o"
Lha al ,ers :,orv into phosophc English Hut
| no book OF the New Testament asks IN to believe
h hp sa 90 q"i ooFEn% i "a Who'll:
| III. here is that 81 an organic force becomes al
II IS true he oil Greeks believed It. and II drove
them almost to despair, as one may soc ~ sns.,
or ,hc,r hs,oyei ones in the realm OF shades and
capng only 'mty AIR. ch1s' aa n ,Ss "g the or
| ganic human NE was OF INFINITE Fhiu" ~ sn"",'
rs krship with the divine. He revealed The inter
peneirabiliiy OF spirit and matter Ihronsn hhys'a
cal touch He radiaied the love OF COZ ana ihe
pcrson who sacrinScd he physical Ne absolutely
t. the service Of the divine spirit should nnd nat
norencies IN were Mr. Hopkins believes in the
ceptona greatness and goodness OF Jesus; ne &C.,
Holmes: he would therefore, doubtless. accep, tho
Autocrars poem concerning Jesus.
. Love divine, that stopped 10 share
| our sharpest pang. our bitierest tear.
| He AYERS he believes in immortality-he believes
therefore in the Immortality Of Jssus; put ~ lie
was the Love divine and did enter INTO minor,
| tally. what Is there unr"asonable IN me IDEA oi
| HIS appearing His dsciples2 There IL surely
an Inherent probability in this idea. And again
Jesus did survive death. In what other way couii
| 10 other view IL compatible with modern science.
| On the whole considering Mr Hopkins's tendency
would seem he should be more sympathetic with
those who are entangled with the views OF the
There one Other PG. Ts %Gs' S SsnTa ck IhsI
| 70 think divinity il kind Of external thing 10 be
proved by argument. on the contrary. 1t Is Ike
| beauty or majesty a quality of The personal NE
that must be- discerned by the sensiblity This Mr.
| Hopkins cannot discern In the Christ Of the New
Testament and 50 appears irrtaed at those who do
discern 1t: ne only account for their view on the
ground that they To II or that II IL money
| In their pocket he thinks he can cure them by n
dose OF Grecnieaf and modern science This lack In
| himself gives him also the idea that II he could
smash the crccds. the supcrstitlous effects OF the
| Gospels would be broken up; but II would be pos
| sble to cite many cases where persons who knew
nothing II the cre"ds had been Overwhelmingly
affected by the story Of Christ The fact Is that the
Gospels themselves produce large class Of
| minds the impression Of a divine personality whose
traits all stand together In u rational unity. Just
| 80 Il Is that the different sounds In Of lee
hoven's symphonies produce In large class Of people
| he nf harm
| which to person with no musical ear Is entirely
| without meaning. This OF values constitutes
| an Internal evidence Mr.. Hopkins rejects this
inferior TO legal evidence THIS Is popular Illusion
| under which he suffers Most OF Va have some
| friend whose name ~ sacred to us. because with
highest feelings discern In him the nOblcst quail
| ties. II such should be convicted by over
whelmng legal evidence " degrading crime. we
should sti have a perfectly rational faith In his
| innocence on the basis OF this internal evidence
| Reason IL Just as positive In It's verdict this