New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-27
TRUTH OF THE RESURRECTION
CAPABLE OF THE MOST CONCLUSIVE
PROOF OF ANY BIBLE MIRACLE.

COMMUNICATIONS OF MR.. HopKIXss STATEMENTS
AND QUESTIONS FOR HIM TO CONSIDER
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Your publication Of Mr.. Archibald Hopkns's
essay Christ's Resurrection mas Drawn OUT III
reply a number Of letters and sermons. The fact
that The Tribune has devoted three ana hait col
umns of its valuable space TO such travesty OF
the most precious doctrines OF the Ihrisuah re-
| gion Is, to say the least. significant Inc tribune
| is read by hundreds Of thousands OF devoted '"''S
tans and to many Of them Mr. HOPKINS essay was
! painful reading. The assertions ana Assumptions
/ and oninions of Mr. Hopkins are In themselves. of
| little consequence but they have been lifted INTO
prominence by their publication III grea' journal
Having been for many years reader ana an au''''
or of The Tribune II has always been pleasure ior
me TO feel that whatever may have been the private
opinions of it's editor religious questions II mas
always been the steadfast friend Of Evangelical
| Christianity.
Mr. HOPKINS closes his essay with a rather coarse
attack upon the doctrine OF the Trinity ana upon
the dual nature of Christ. He treats doctrine OF
/ Revelation as If it a problem In mathematics
and he can see in the mystery OF the TRINITY anu
in the Christ of the Gospels nothing bur vulgar
fraction. This is very cheap Wit and moreover "
lacks what should characterize all discusso"s Oh
| high and sacred themes reverence ana good taste
II Mr. Hopkins were better acquainted with his
|
is to be hoped that he would hesitate to carica'nre
I doctrines which are dear the heart OF Chris
tendon.
THE CLERGY AS WITNESSES.
7, discussing the Resurrection OF Christ Mr.. Hop
kns paws his respects 10 the clergy lie does not
] ,erard them as either competent jurors or
competent witnesses. This Of course. excludes the
| Apostles for they clergymen of the highest
rank The very men who saw ana talked Win
Christ after His Resurrection Mr.. Hopkins VIII not
allow TO testify Indeed. he brushes away the tes'i-
,norv Of 81 Paul and St stephen as worthless
They were dciuded or deceived. he says. They were
| visionary men. whose Imagination ran away win
their reason. That Is n new idea certainly 'onrh-
ing St Paul for he ia regarded pretty generally as
a sober careful. clcar-headcd man. who knew what
ne believed AMI who could give good reasons FOR MS
| belief But when nc declares that he saw christ
and that he talked with Him. Mr.. Hopkins VIII not
receive his testimony because he Is clergyman
and therefore an incompetent witness Having eS-
clulel the twelve Apostles ana all other clergymen
| AS irccmpetent witnesses and jurors one Is curious
| 10 know lust what kind OF jury ana what KIND or
witnesses would be acceptable 20 Mr.. Hopkins
| How would this list doc David Hume David i.
| Strauss Bruno Bauer Thomas II. Huxley, W. X
| Greg X c. fnrcrsoll Lord Bolinghroke. Joseph
| Ernest Renan. Herbert Spencer. f. NJ Nol'arc
| Thomas Paine and Archibald Hopkins. foreman
| II will be seen that this list IL selected with som"
degree Of care. But would these jurors ana VIII
nessos b., more likely 20 give irncr testimony. or 10
render a trncr verdict according 20 the evidence.
| than the twelve Apostles for example. or than
twelve modern clcrsymcn Of high character ana Of
undoubtcl orthodoxy Mr. Hopkins viii probably
admit that the jurors Of which he has the honor %
being foreman are quite as strongly piclndc"1
against the truth OF miracles as the clcrgymen n"
rejects are prcjudicei in favor OF the truth OF mir
| aclcs Mr.. Hopkins may not admit IT, but II ~
nevertheless true that twelve candid Christian
scholars are quite as likely TO discover the truth
and tell the truth are twelve candid deistc or
inndel scholars Mr. Hopkins may hay" thought
that his attack upon the clergy was necessary III
order bolster up the cause ne under ook to advo-
cate: but a decent respect for the truth ought 10
| have restrained him from advocating a cause that
required such unfair and unseemly tactics
| The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ IL an essential
truth OF the Christian system by an essential tru'h
] OF Christianity Is meant truth without which
| Christianity would be impossible. II Christ had
not risen from the dead there never would have
| been Christian church. II Is no exaggeraiion 10
say that the Christian Church is built upon inc
Saviour's empty tomb. III Christ he not risen orr
| faith IS vain" II Mr.. Hopkins could prove what.
doubtless he beleves-hat the body OF Jesus Is SIN
| in the tomb Of Joseph or IN some other tomb. he
| would perform a miracle compared with which the
Resurrection OF Christ is mere incident ~ he can
prove that the body Of Christ IL still in tho grave.
| then he easily prove that all history IL n
falsohood and that Christianity. which has 50
blessed the world is. at best. gigantic fraud or
| magnificent deluson. But Mr.. Hopkins's essay does
not furnish with any proof that he is capable OF
| performing such a miracle. II is not at all likely
! that the world OF thought and the well-estabshcl
truths Of Christianity will be turned upside down
by Mr.. Hopkins's somewhat audacious performance.
NATURAL LAWS NOT APPLICABLE.
Mr.. Hopkins. like many other sceptics. fails to
grasp idea that Christ Is supernatural person.
! II he could grasp this truth. he would find in II
mir In
carnatlon well Of His miraculous Resurrec-
ton. A supernatural person is not 10 be Judged by
! natural laws. and the problem that Mr.. Hopkins
has before him Is 10 prove that Jesus Christ Is not
a supernatural person. II he could do this his de-
NAL OF the supernatural birth and Resurrection OF
Christ would be entitled 10 respectful consideration:
but until he does this he only fight las one
who beatcth the air"
Mr.. Hopkins is quite right In saying that the
search for truth should be made with "a dry light"
OF course II should but where is the use In holding
up 'dry light before blind eyes? II Is said that
Lord Nelson at the battle Of Copenhagen, looked
through his telescope with his blind eye. He ala
not wish TO see; and. In the battle between truth
and error II has often happened that the blind eye
OF error has not wished TO see the dry light OF
truth. II the light OF the sun were Increased
thousand-fold II would not help blind TO see:
and the same thing Is true In the moral and spirit
nal worlds THE natural man receiveth not the
things Of the Spirit OF God; they are fooshness
unto him. neither can he Know them because they
are spiritually discerncd." Mr.. Hopkins could quite
as easily ignore the evidence OF all the Apostles and
Of all the early Christians 'as he has ignored the
evidence Of st. Paul and 81 Stephen. II he
ject the testimony Of the four Evangclsts and Of
the Apostles, and OF Jesus Christ Himself then II
is more than probable that he would not be per-
suaded Though rose from the dead" man
who is deaf the voice OF history and blind TO tho
light OF history Is hardly a suitable person to be
the foreman Of a jury whose duty It is TO decide
historical fact II the Resurrection OF Christ be not
capable OF distinct historical proof II ought to be
capable OF distinct historical dsproof But Mr.
Hopkins should not complain II II be said that his
attempt 10 disprove the Resurrection OF Christ IL