The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-06-08

| ''ph NaS NV. NtWlOU
rejection Of the doctrine OF a physical
resurrection. The New York Tribune
lately contained letter from Archl-
bald Hopkins 'nerce!y attaching the
accepted belief as to Christs return 10
life. and this letter in turn drew from
one OF the pastors OF this city. believed
| TO be Rev. DR.. Mcleod. the following
emphatic rcJoinder;
In discussing the resurrection OF Christ
| Mr, Hopkins pays his respects to the cier-
| sy. lie does not regard them as elthet
competent jurors Or competent witnesses.
| THIS OF course, excludes the apostles for
| they were clergyman OF the highest rank
| The very men who saw and talked with
| Christ after His resurrection Nj. Hopkins
VIII not allow to testify. Indeed, he
| brushes away the testimony OF st. Paul
| anh 81. Stephen AS worthless. They were
| deIuded ahd deceived, he says. They were
visionary men. whose ina gina ton ran
away with thei, reason That Is a new
| idea. certainly touching S. Paul. for he is
regarded pretty generally as a sober, care
inl cleai- -he~ ded man. who knew what he
believed and VINO could give good reasons
Iof his belief. But when he declares that
ne saw Christ ana that he talked with
Him. Nj Hopkihs VIII not receive his
testimony because he Is a clergyman and
therefore AN ihcompeieht wiiL.ss. Hav-
inb excluded he twelve apostles ana all
other clergymen as iu.ompetent witnesses
and 1liors. one Is curious to KNOW wnat
| Kind OF a jury and what kl.,ti Of witnesses
wonid be a''ep' able to Mr Hopkins.
How would this Inst 40? David Hume,
David i. Strauss, Brun. Bauer, Thomas
ii. huxley. w K. Greg. X ii. lngersoll,
kp l..
Herbert Spencer, f.. NJ. Vol'aiie, Thomas
Paine and Archibaln Hopkins. foreman.
1t we'll he seen that this list is seiectea
| win some degree OF care. But would
| these 1nturs and Witnesses be more nkely
To give tfuer testimony or TO renuet q
| tr"er verdict according t. the evidence,
than he tweiv. APOSTLES. for example, OF
| than twelve modern clergymen of high
| character and OF indoubted orthodoxy
MI. Hopkins VIII probably admit tnat the
Jurors of which he has the honor of being
foreman are quite as strongly prejudived
against the truth of miracles as the cIer.
gyDleh he rejects are prejudIced in favor
of the truth OF mraces. Mr. Hopkins
| may not admit 1t, but 1t 's nevertheless
true that twelve candid Christian scholars
are quite as nkely TO discover the truth
| and to tell the truth as are twelve candid
nelstiC OF nndel scholars. Mr.. Hopkins
may have thought that his attack upon
the clergy was necessary in order TO bols>
| ter up the cause he undertook to advocate;
but a decent respect for the truth ought
to have restrained him from advocating a
cause that required such unfair and un-
seemly tactics.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an
essential truth of the Christian system.
BY an essential truth 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. 1t is no ex-
aegtrdtion TO Say that the Christian
church is built upon the SaVior's empty
tomb. IF Christ be not risen our faith is
vain" II Mr.. HOPKINS could prove-what
doubtless he beieves-that the bouy of
iesns Is still IN the tomb OF Joseph, or IN
some othe. tomb. he would perform
| miracle com oareu with ohlch the resur-
rec tion OF CHRIST is a mere incident. II he
| can prov o that the body OF Chris, is ;till
| IN the grave, tben he ran as easily prove
| thai all history Is talsehood, and that
Christianity, which h.a 50 blessed the
| WOrtd. Is, t.t best, gigantic fraud vr q
| maghiilcent nelusioi,. But Mr. Hopkins
| essay dues not rurmsn US with any proof
| that he Is capable Of performing such q
| miracle. 1t Is not at all likeIy that the
| world OF thought aud the well-established
truths OF Christia"lty will be turned upside
down by Mr.. hopkins somewhat auGt-
cious performance.
| Natural Laws not applicable.
Mr.. Hopkins, Ike many other sceptics,
tails TO gasp the idea that Chi,st is a
| supernatural person. Ii he could GRASP
| this trui.. he " ould find Ia II a satisfactory
explanation OF Christ's miraculous incar-
| nation as well as of Hts miraculous resur-
,ertivr. A supernatural person is not to
be Judged by natural laws, and the prob
lem That MIR. Hopkins has before him is
to prove that Jesus Christ Is not u super
Natural person. If he could 10 this his
DENIAL OF the supernatural birth and resur-
rection of Christ would be entitled TO re-
| spectfui consideration; but until he does
tins he can only night "as one who beateth
the air.
Mr. Hopkins Is quite right In saying that
the search for truth should be made with
"a dry light" or course 1t should; but
where is the use of holding up dry light"
before bllhu eyes! 1t Is said that Lord
Nelson, at the battle of Copenhagen,
looked through his telescope with his
bind eye. He did not wish to see; and,
In the battle between truth and error, it
has often happened that the blind eye
| of error has not wished to see the dry
light OF truth. If the light of the sun
were increased n thousand-fold 1t would
| moi help a bind man TO see; and the same
thing is true in the moral and spiritual
worlds. 1.-THE natural man receiveth not
the things of the spirit of God; they are
| foolishness unto him; neither can he know
them because they are spiritually dis
oerned." Mr.. Hopkins could quite as
easily ignore the evidence of all the apos-
| ties and of all the early Christians as he
| has ignored the evidence of st. Paul and
St. Stephen. If he can reject the testi-
mony of the four evangelists, and of the
APOSTLES, and of Jesus Christ Himself,
| then II Is more than probable that he
would not be persuaded though one rose
fr6NlE tlDQ dead" A man who is deaf TO
the *oied of history is hardly suitable
| person to be the foreman Of jury whose
| duty 1t Is to decide historical fact If
the resurrection of Christ be not capable
| of distinct historical proof 1t ought to be
capable of distinct historical disproof. But
Mr.. Hopkins should not complain If 1t be
said that his attempt to disprove the
| resurrection of Christ is a fiat failure.
! His essay has not even the merit of In
| genuty, and 1t would be libellous to say
| that 1t has the merit of novelty.
The Citadel of Christianity.
| 1t Is becoming more and more evident
| to the friends of true religion as well as
| to its foes that Christ Hmself-in His
person and works. the citadel of Chris
tianity. Hitherto sceptics and critics have,
for the most part, confined their criticism
| to questions touching the Bible and the
| church, and Christianity In general. They
have raised and they have discussed many
questions historical, philosophical and
literary-in connection with the Christian
religion; but the occasion is rare when
any one Of them has been bold enough to
question the veracity or to attack the
character of Jesus Christ. 1t has always
been an easy thing to pick flaws in trans
| Ia tions of the Bible and Il never was q