p. 305The Summing-Up and the Verdict
His Lordship: Gentlemen of the Jury, you have been engaged, for a number of days, in giving a close and patient attention to the facts and arguments submitted to you by the gentlemen on both sides in this case—a case which, I think I may say, is the most important that ever came before the Court. I must ask your attention for a little longer, while I endeavour to bring to a focus the elements of the case, which are scattered in the statements of the witnesses asd arguments of Counsel.
The plaintiffs ask the Court to restrain the defendants from the promulgation of certain convictions which they entertain on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They make this application on the ground that injury is calculated to arise, and does, in fact, arise, to society from the promulgation of these convictions. The application in the abstract will strike you as a novel one. It is inconsistent with the public traditions of the British Empire that there should be any restraint of individual liberty, especially in the matter of ventilating private conviction. At the same time, if it can be shown that individual activity, in any form, is hurtful to the public weal, there is a ground of action in restraint thereof, on the part of anyone who chooses to move in the matter—not under any particular enactment to be found in the Statute Book, but in the general jurisdiction which, doubtless, appertains to the Court, as the guardian of the p. 306 public interests. If the plaintiffs, who in their corporate capacity have taken a special phase of those interests under their protection, have proved that the enterprise in which the defendants are engaged is detrimental to the public well-being, they have, doubtless, established a ground on which to apply to the Court to interfere. Mr. Alltruth was good enough, on behalf of the defendants, to waive any objection on the score of the competency of the Court to deal with the matter, electing to have the case decided on its merits. It is well, perhaps, he has taken this course. It will save us an amount of needless argument, for there can be no doubt of the power and duty of the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to interfere with the action of the defendants if that action be proved, as I have said, to be inconsistent with the public welfare.
The question, Gentlemen, which you are called upon to decide is, whether this has been proved or not, and to this question I must ask you to give your most earnest attention. It will be necessary for you to take many things into account before you come to a conclusion. You must not limit your view to any one particular phase of the case. You must allow due effect to all parts of the evidence, and the arguments, which have been addressed to you. It will not be sufficient to ask if the action of the defendants has been hurtful in a given instance, or in a particular direction; you must ask what are its effects on the whole, and in the long run. I need not remind you, Gentlemen, that many good matters appear in an unfavourable light in their initial stages. A town improvement, for example, may involve the pulling down of many houses and the obstruction of important thoroughfares; and if you were to consider the confusion and the obstruction merely, you would be liable to conclude that what will turn out a great boon in the end was really the opposite of a good thing. You have to take the whole matter—in its future as well as present bearings—into account before you can come to a just judgment. On the other hand, you must not confine your attention to any excellence that may have been shown to attach to p. 307 the defendants’ proceedings, if that excellence is limited and for the time being only, and if the general drift of their action is evidently for the ultimate hurt of themselves and their neighbours. It is not sufficient that their action may be a source of present enjoyment and improvement to them, or those who may come under their influence, if the upshot of the thing in its largest bearing is mischievous. A thing may seem advantageous in some limited way, that in the end may have calamitous results for all concerned. A man who helps himself and partners with borrowed money, may cause a certain amount of well-being which assumes another aspect when the day of reckoning finds them all unprepared. I place these considerations before you, to impress on you the need for exercising the utmost discrimination as to the bearing of the facts that have been brought before you.
What are those facts? The first witness called was Police-constable Steeple, 666. Little light was thrown upon the case by his evidence. He seemed to have an eager animus against the defendants, which of itself would detract from the weight of what he might have had to say; but he seemed incapacitated for the witness box altogether, by the intoxication under which he was evidently labouring, and, on the suggestion of the Court, Mr. Unbelief withdrew him. Then Mr. Town Gossip was called. This witness seemed to have a strong opinion that the defendants had hurt themselves at all events, but he was evidently somewhat hazy in his ideas on the subject. He had known several of them. Paul Christman was the first I think he spoke of. He had known him as an active and sociable good fellow—a breezy, cheery, roystering young man, who took a leading part in all kinds of sport, and in politics of a certain sort at election times; but he had observed a great change. He had become quiet and retiring; he had taken to stopping at home reading, varied only by walks out to attend meetings, or visit those who were unwell. He could not exactly say what the cause of the change was. Paul Christman was not sociable as he used to be. He attributed it to the acceptance of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection and the belief that he p. 308 was coming again. He could not agree with those who put it down to softening of the brain; he explained it by the “notions,” as he termed them; but as to what the “notions” were, or what ground they had, he did not trouble himself about such matters. He had known, also, Joseph Arimathea, another of the defendants. He knew him as a pleasant young man, welcome everywhere in a large circle of admiring friends; but there had been a change. He had become serious—too serious by half. He did not go into company, as he used to do, and had taken to consorting with a class of people far below him. The change had been produced by “the notions.” He considered him quite spoiled. The witness next spoke of Luke Physicus in the same way, who had been diverted from a rising career in the medical profession by the adoption of the faith of the defendants. In cross-examination, the witness would not say the defendants were unsociable among themselves, or that they had become bad in any evil sense. He admitted they bore very good characters. His principal complaint was, that they had given up keeping company with the frequenters of theatres, and pleasure-seeking people in general, and had taken to moping about Christ, as he phrased it. He considered them quite spoiled for all purposes of good-fellowship and sociality.
The next witness called was Mr. Shrewd Observer. He was called to speak to the spoiling effects of the doctrine of the defendants. He was very decided in his views on this point, but seemed to lean somewhat tenderly towards the defendants in a personal sense. He discriminated between the opinions of the defendants and the defendants themselves. He had no regard for their opinions, but he esteemed the men. Their opinions had had an evil effect upon them in his estimation. Their opinions had led them to regard the world as an evil thing, and, as the result of that, they had virtually forsaken the world. The world was damaged by this, in as far as the world was deprived of the value of their good offices, and the comfort of their friendship. He illustrated this in detail. He had known Persis Muchlabour.
p. 309 He was a young man of great business talent, and much prospects—of handsome and agreeable manners—with a fund of humour and information on all subjects—sought after for his pleasant company. To all this, there had been a great change. He had practically retired from society. He was no longer to be met at the theatre, or at pleasure parties. He had moderated his ideas of business, and had thrown himself away on an obscure lot of people. The cause of the change was the same as in the other cases—the acceptance of the doctrines of Paul Christman. Apart from these, he would be as useful a man as ever. The witness then spoke to the defendant Faithson. He did not so much instance him as a case of a man being spoiled, as of a man prevented from being useful by the operation of the Christman doctrine. He was over head and ears in these doctrines; apart from which, the witness considered him, from his personal qualities, calculated to be a useful member of society in every way. Heber Holdfast-the-Hope was a tradesman of rare capacity and a politician. He used to take an active part in elections, and in the political affairs of the borough generally; but he had imbided the doctrines of the defendants, since which time he had fallen off as a politician, and gone over heart and soul to Christmanism. He considered him a spoiled man, though thinking as highly of him as ever as regards clearness of mind and truthfulness of life. The witness next spoke of Titus Workfellow. He spoke of him in pretty much the same sense, except perhaps with more feeling. He spoke of him as an unblemished man who had been described as an angelic man. The witness had been one of an admiring circle of friends to whom Titus Workfellow ministered intellectual discourses; and he bemoaned the change of mind that had taken him from their midst, and led him to consort with a people whom Counsel suggested to be low and worthless, but of whom the witness said he did not know much. He considered Titus Workfellow’s case the case of a good man being spoiled—not in a moral sense, he was careful to indicate, but spoiled for the present world in every sense. He next spoke of p. 310 Urbane Helpful whom also the adoption of the faith of the defendants had arrested in a career of advancement, and turned him into a morose and unsociable man. He mentioned Gaius Hospitable in the same sense.
This in substance is what has been given in evidence touching the hurtfulness of the doctrines agitated by the defendants. The suggestion of Counsel is that what has been hurtful to the defendants will be hurtful to everyone else embracing the same tenets; and that, therefore, the duty of the Court is to forbid the dissemination of those tenets, so that society may be protected from harm. Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, the question for you to consider is, assuming these facts to be proved by the evidence, and adopting the theory of the plaintiffs as to the nature of the facts, do they amount to such a form of injury as would justify the Court in putting forth the power, which it undoubtedly possesses, in restraint of the proceedings of the defendants? In the consideration of this question, the Jury must have fully in view the plea urged by the defendants in justification of their proceedings. The Jury will not be able to come to a reliable decision without the fullest consideration of this plea. What the defendants say is that, even admitting to the utmost the allegations of injury made by the plaintiffs concerning their proceedings, they, the defendants, are more than justified in incurring and producing these so-called injurious effects, on the ground of the obligation they are under to persevere in the proceedings that causes them. This obligation they allege to arise from the fact (which they believe to be a fact) that Christ rose from the dead, and now lives, and has given commandment that they should do as they are doing, and is coming again, at a certain time, to judge his servants, as to whether they have done, while he has been away, what he has commanded them to do. It was to this plea in defence that the cross-examination was mainly directed: and to this plea, Gentlemen of the Jury, I call your most earnest attention. It must be evident, to every man of sense, that if this plea can be maintained, there is the fullest answer to the action of the plaintiffs. If Christ really rose from the dead, and lives for evermore, p. 311 then it would follow that his declaration is true that God has given him jurisdiction in the affairs of men, and that he will exercise that jurisdiction at the time appointed. I need not remind you, Gentlemen, that that jurisdiction, if a fact, extends to matters of most solemn moment for every man to consider, not only for the defendants, but for all of us. We think with pride, sometimes, that the power of life and death vests in the Crown, and on the Court, in so far as the Court is the instrument of the Crown; but what comparison can be made between that power and the power that God has given to Christ in heaven and earth, if it be true, as the defence contends, that Christ has risen from the dead? Who has power to do what Christ in that case will do—to make men immortal—to give them life—and perfect life for evermore? And what Court upon earth can give men over to eternal perdition as Christ can, if the contention of the defendants be correct?
What have Counsel for the defence to advance in support of their momentous plea? They have not called many witnesses themselves—only two I think. Their policy has been to elicit evidence out of the mouths of hostile witnesses—a masterly policy, we must allow, if successful. It is for you to consider what degree of success has attended that policy. I must recall your attention to the features of the evidence thus elicited. Mr. Shrewd Observer was the first witness subjected to this process. He admitted he would have no objections to raise against the defendants, or their proceedings, if Christ rose from the dead. He even went so far as to say that very likely, if he could satisfy himself on that head, he would himself join the defendants. He was candid enough to say he could not so satisfy himself. He had studied the subject somewhat. He had read a good deal on both sides. He thought the evidence in favour of Christ’s having risen was very pithy; but he found a difficulty in the way of receiving it, in what he called “the unbridgable contradiction between common experience and what we are asked to believe about Christ.” Asked wherein the unbridgable difference lay, he at once fixed p. 312 on the miraculous element of the life of Christ as furnishing the chief obstacle. Mr. Alltruth, I think it was, pressed him to define the nature of the difficulty connected with the reception of the miraculous element. The witness said that miracles were so out of the way of ordinary experience, that he could not conceive of their possibility. By ordinary experience he did not mean his own experience in particular, but the experience of men in general. While standing thus on experience, he would not refuse to receive the credibly testified experience of other men. He did this in matters of which he lacked personal knowledge, such as matters of history or astronomy. At the same time, he found it easy to accept the testimony of other men on such points because they were not inconsistent with what he himself experienced. His difficulty in accepting testimony as to miracles, lay in the fact that miracles were inconsistent with his experience. It was contrary to his experience that a few loaves of bread could be so divided as to feed thousands of people. He did not like to make his experience an absolute standard by which to measure what was possible; at the same time, if he found a thing impossible in his experience, he could not help feeling that it established a strong presumption against its possibility in the case of others. Here Mr. Alltruth introduced various illustrations of unusual mode of controlling Nature, and got Mr. Observer to admit that there might be modes of control that he knew nothing of, and that Christ, as the power of God incarnate, might have possession of such modes of control, by means of which he could counterwork without arresting the laws of Nature. Mr. Observer said the idea was new to him, as he had conceived of miracle as a violation of Nature. If miracles were merely a higher form of the work we saw performed every day before our eyes in Nature, it would reduce the difficulty he felt in conceiving the possibility of miracle, and, therefore, the difficulty he found in receiving the resurrection of Christ. Still, he did not see what miracles had to do with religion. This led to the discussion of a question which is very interesting, but which I need not trouble the Jury particularly to p. 313 follow, viz., the function ostensibly fulfilled by miracle in the original promulgation of the Christian religion, also as to what religion is in itself, and how it originated. The question of the evidence of Christ’s resurrection is not really affected by these interesting topics. And, therefore, I must pass on to what the witness had to say to Mr. Alltruth’s questions on the alleged incompatibility of science with the Bible. This has a bearing undoubtedly on the main question which you will have to decide: because, as the Bible is the principal source of the evidence of Christ’s resurrection, any successful attempt at showing the Bible is not to be relied upon, would detract from the weight of its evidence on the question in hand. Mr. Observer alleged, as the first descrepancy between the Bible and science, that the Bible taught that the world began 6,000 years ago, while science had established, beyond all contradiction, that the earth had been in existence for incalculable ages. Asked as to whether the Bible really taught that the earth had come into existence 6,000 years ago, Mr. Observer said it appeared so to him. The Bible generally, he thought, agreed with that idea. He had not noticed the statement in Gen. i. 2, that before what was called the work of creation began, “the earth was without form (or order) and void (or empty), and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” He admitted that this statement showed the existence of the earth before the work of creation began. The earth could not be empty if there was no earth to be empty: there could be no darkness on the face of the deep if there was no deep. He had not thought of that. If the earth existed chaotically at the epoch of the Mosaic creation, it modified the scientific difficulty considerably: because in that case, there was no Scriptural limit to the pre-existence of the earth. There was room enough for any length of time science might claim. He thought, however, the way was really stopped against this explanation, by the statement that God created the earth at the epoch in question. By create, he understood, to make out of nothing. He did not know any other meaning than this. Mr. Alltruth asked, with considerable force, how the witness (if that p. 314 was the proper meaning of create) understood the statement that “God created man out of the dust.” To make man of nothing out of the dust naturally struck the witness as an odd performance. He admitted the word must have some other meaning than the conventional one. Having asked what it was, Mr. Alltruth informed him that Bara, the word translated create, strictly meant to arrange or put in order, and that the re-arranging or putting in order of the earth 6,000 years ago, was not inconsistent with the scientific view; science could not show anything contrary to such a process having taken place. Mr. Observer was inclined to acquiesce in the suggestion, but could not see how the fossil indications were to be reconciled with it. There were fossil remains of extinct animals, which, from their position in the strata, must have existed ages before the Adamic era; and the Bible account was that these animals were made 6,000 years ago. Mr. Alltruth interjected—“not these animals,” or something to that effect. The Bible taught that certain species of animals were made 6,000 years ago; but not the fossil animals, which must have belonged to a previous age. Mr. Observer thought this a speculation to suit the facts, but Mr. Alltruth rejoined that it could not be a speculation, in view of the fossil proof of the existence of different animals previously, from what came after. The animals found in the fossil state did not exist now. Consequently, there must have been a break in the line of animal existence: that break would coincide with the catastrophe that brought the earth into the chaotic state, in which it was found at the crisis of the Adamic reordering or creating. The Bible statements as to the creation of animals applied to those that were made 6,000 years ago, and not to those that existed in a previous age. The witness complained that the Bible said nothing about the animals of a previous age. Counsel contended that that was no reason why we should reject what it told us of the animals appertaining to our own age. The Bible only professed to give an account of things from the Adamic beginning; and it was idle to object to this account because it did not go back further, and portray the p. 315 cosmic revolutions of prior ages. The witness admitted there was some force in these considerations, but did not seem to feel the explanation was entirely satisfactory, especially as he contended the difficulty extended to man himself, as well as the animals. As to this point, he said the Bible certainly taught that man came upon the scene 6,000 years ago; whereas, according to the latest researches of science, man must have been upon the globe 50,000 years at least. On this, some very curious and amusing passages ensued between the witness and the cross-examining Counsel. In the first place, Counsel startled the witness and the Court, by taking up this novel position, that, if a 50,000 years’ antiquity for the human race could be established by science, there would be nothing in that fact inconsistent with the Bible account of the origin of the Adamic race 6,000 years ago. Then he startled us still more, and amused us all exceedingly, by a series of questions to the witness, intended to prove that, upon scientific principles, the present amount of human population upon the earth was inconsistent with a 50,000 years’ presence of man upon earth, and entirely consistent with the Bible account, that the present race began about 6,000 years ago. The most astounding feature of this arithmetical performance was the contention that, if the view entertained by some scientists were correct, viz., that man had been steadily upon the earth for 50,000 years past, the population upon earth at the present moment ought to be countless myriads of billions, even if the human race had only increased all that time only at the slow rate of twice in 500 years. I confess I at first felt very sceptical as to this suggestion; but I have since taken the trouble of figuring it out, and there can be no doubt it is perfectly correct. The witness was staggered at the array of figures presented by Mr. Alltruth as the sum total; and well he might. It constitutes one of the most formidable obstacles to the human antiquity theory I have heard of. Doubtless the mathematics of the case are in favour of the Bible account. It is for you to judge, Gentlemen. The extent of human population now upon the earth is in harmony with the idea of a beginning taking p. 316 place 6,000 years ago; and not at all in harmony with the idea of human generation having been in progress for 50,000 years, if we are to suppose that generation has been uninterrupted all that time. The witness admitted the force of the facts, and contented himself with asking Counsel what he meant by saying that even a 50,000 years’ antiquity would be consistent with the Bible account. Counsel’s answer you heard. It does not directly bear upon the issue which you have to decide; and, therefore, we may pass on. These various matters, you will perceive, do not involve any direct evidence of the resurrection of Christ. They have more to do with clearing away the difficulties experienced by educated gentlemen of the Shrewd Observer stamp in receiving that doctrine. But though this is of merely secondary value, it may strike you, Gentlemen, as being a kind of evidence of considerable importance in its place. Obviously, if these difficulties were uncleared away, positive evidence would lack much of its force. It would be like a blocked line, on which the most powerful railway train could not run. It is for you to judge whether the cross-examination to which the witnesses were subjected had the effect of clearing the line or not. That some success was realized in the effort, I think most people must have felt, who listened to the questions and answers that passed between Counsel and witnesses.
But the really important part of the case will be found to lie in Counsel’s efforts to develop the positive evidence of Christ’s resurrection. To this I would bespeak your patient and most serious attention. It is upon the view you may take of this that your verdict must depend. A beginning was made in the questions addressed in cross-examination of the witness Bad Laugh, as to whom I have to say that a more unsatisfactory witness it was never my lot to see in the witness box. His brusque and impatient manners might have been tolerated, on the score of want of culture; but his rudeness to Counsel, and his obstinate and glaring evasions of the issues of his own answers are without palliation on any ground whatever. They are deserving of the severest censure. They could not but excite p. 317 the reprehension of all honest men, who witnessed the sickening exhibition. He was the first witness called by the plaintiffs, in compliance with the suggestion of the Court, to prove that the faith of the defendants was a matter of imposture or mistake. I thought it necessary there should be some effort in this direction: because it must be obvious, to every reasonable mind, that it is not enough to show that a certain amount of present disadvantage results from the proceedings. The question is, does that disadvantage lead to a greater ultimate advantage than could be attained if that disadvantage were not incurred? This is the rule by which the nature of all kinds of disadvantage whatsoever is determined. The sowing of seed, looking at the transaction by itself, means the loss of so much grain: and, as a matter of loss, it is a matter of disadvantage. But when we realize that this loss will lead to the gain of a larger quantity of grain than would be possessed if the loss were not submitted to, we are able to see that the loss of the seed is but a temporary evil, which an enlightened man willingly submits to, and would not by any means avoid. Many other examples of the same thing will occur to you. The real question, therefore, is, does the disadvantage at present resulting from the defendants’ proceedings lead to advantage hereafter of a greater sort; and this depends upon whether or not their belief is a true one, that Christ rose and now exists with great power in his hands. Therefore, I thought it well to direct the attention of Counsel for the plaintiffs to this part of the case, and to ask them to make some endeavour to show that the defendants were proceeding upon mythical grounds in working in the confidence that Christ had risen. Two witnesses were called in response to this suggestion, and Mr. Bad Laugh was the first of these. As I have said, his performance as a witness was far from satisfactory. Nevertheless, admissions were drawn from his mouth which demand your serious consideration in deciding whether the proceedings of the defendants should be interfered with.
In support of the contention of the plaintiffs, the witness Bad Laugh had nothing to offer but his own confident p. 318 assertions. To start with, he denied the resurrection of Christ, on the ground that the idea of a dead man coming to life was an absurdity on the face of it. That there is nothing in this, I should think most of the Jury will be satisfied, on the most casual reflection. To whom would the idea of a dead man coming to life be an absurdity? To mere human power. But the view put forward in the apostolic testimony—of the truth of which you have to judge—is that Christ’s resurrection was due to divine power. Would any sane man say that it was absurd to imagine divine power capable of raising a dead man? The argument might, with more cogency, be turned against the appearance of man in life at all. It is agreed, on all hands, that there was a time when human life did not exist upon the face of the earth. At such a time, it must have been intrinsically a more absurd idea that man would appear upon earth than that when man once having arrived upon the scene, a dead man should be brought to life. No, Gentlemen of the Jury, whatever you may think of the evidence of Christ’s resurrection, it must commend itself to your judgment that the return of the dead to life is no more incompatible with the power that exists in the universe, than the phenomenon of such a witness as Bad Laugh being permitted by that power to appear alive in the witness box. It is the question of the evidence you have to consider, and not of the possibility, which is beyond all question.
What evidence do the defendants offer in support of their belief in the resurrection of Christ? That is the question. The answer to the question is definite enough when taken in all its parts. To begin with, they produce the New Testament. Now here is a very palpable thing, calling for close and critical attention. It is not a matter to be dismissed lightly. There can be no question about the ancientness of the New Testament—how ancient is a material point you will have to determine. The book is of a somewhat composite character, but its main object is to exhibit the life and sayings of Jesus Christ. It does this in four accounts, professedly written by four men, three of whom were personal disciples and companions of p. 319 Christ, and one a colleague of the disciples in the labours by which the Christian faith was originally established in the world. The remaining part of the book—consisting of an account of the transactions of the apostles, and the letters of the apostle Paul and others—it will be important to take into account further on. Meanwhile we look at it as a history of the life of Christ. There can be no doubt the history is written with remarkable simplicity, and yet remarkable power and lucidity. It does not aim so much at artistic effect. There is no effort to paint the scenes in which its transactions were laid. The great aim is to record what Christ said and did, and only so much of the surroundings are noted as are needful to furnish a framework, or setting, for the strictly biographical part. If this biography is to be accepted, there can be no doubt about the resurrection of Christ; for the fact of his resurrection is set down with as much plainness and precision as the fact of his crucifixion The question is, are we to accept it as a true account? In deciding this question, several points are most important to be considered. Were the professed writers of the New Testament (personal disciples of Christ) the real writers? If the real writers, were they competent to judge of the reality or otherwise of the things they recorded? And have we any guarantee that they were men of probity, who would only record what they knew to be true? Some evidence has been given on these points, and to this I would direct your careful attention.
The witness, Bad Laugh, hazarded the suggestion that the New Testament was not the production of its professed writers, but was a literary compilation concocted in the middle of the second century. He did not venture to call it a forgery, though it will strike most men that a document professedly the writing of one man (any of the letters of Paul, for example), but in reality the writing of another, could not be described or considered as other than a forgery. His theory was that the New Testament was an attempt, in the middle of the second century, to give a literary embodiment to the traditions then in circulation concerning Jesus Christ, of whose historical p. 320 existence the witness seemed to have no doubt. If such a theory were established, the value of the New Testament, as an evidence of Christ’s resurrection, would, of course, be entirely destroyed; because no reliance could be placed on statements made at second-hand, and especially by men with so little moral scruple as to put into circulation as a work of the apostles, a document, or a collection of documents, which had no such authorship. But the attempt to establish this theory must have been, I should think, in the opinion of the Jury a lamentable failure. No sort of evidence was adduced in its support: and, at every step, the theory was in collision with the facts. The Jury may remember the questions addressed to the witness. He was asked why he fixed on the middle of the second century as the time when the New Testament was produced; he could not tell exactly. He said he did not fix upon the middle of the second century as a hard and fast line. He thought it could not be traced earlier. By being traced earlier, he meant no earlier mention could be found in contemporary writers. Asked to mention the writers on whom he relied for taking it so far back as the middle of the second century, after much fencing, he mentioned Clement, of Alexandria; Irenæus, of Lyons; Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others. These writers all flourished about that time, and mention and cite the New Testament freely in their writings, from which the witness considered we were safe in allowing the existence of the New Testament at that date. You will probably consider such a conclusion too obvious to make it necessary for me to point out its inevitable sequentiality to such a state of facts. What must surprise everyone is that the witness did not perceive, or at least would not allow, that the same facts took the existence of the New Testament rather further back than the age in which it was so quoted as an authority. As Counsel put it to the witness, the very fact that the New Testament was generally quoted as an authority, A.D. 150, shows that it must have been in that position for a considerable time previously; for it is inconceivable that a book, produced at that time, should suddenly be accepted p. 321 and quoted as an authority in various parts of the world at the same time. Counsel endeavoured to put this beyond all possible contradiction, by quoting various writers who wrote long before A.D. 150—Polycarp, Ignatius, Hermas, Clement, and others, some of whom were born earlier, in the very first century itself, all of whom quote from the New Testament, in the same way as Irenæus, Tertullian, and the others. The witness had no answer to these cases, except a general allegation that some of the books in question were forgeries. No answer to this can be more complete than the remark of Counsel, that, even if forgeries, it would not affect their value as witnesses to the existence of the New Testament. They were in circulation in the first century, and whoever wrote them could not have quoted the New Testament, if the New Testament had not existed at that time. It seems to me, Gentlemen, whatever we may think of the resurrection of Christ, we are bound to accept the authenticity of the New Testament. It is impossible to conceive that a book universally accepted in Christendom from the beginning as the work of the apostles, can be other than the work of the apostles. The considerations of common sense, derived from experience of the working of affairs among men, will show us that, had it not been the work of the apostles, the fact would have been found out and proclaimed at the very start. It is not as if it were a single book, Gentlemen. It is a number of books; and it is not even as if it were a number of books in the ordinary sense. Many of these books were letters in the first instance, addressed to various communities scattered throughout the Roman Empire. They were the private property of these communities, in the first instance, and make allusion to their private affairs. It is impossible, in view of this, that the fabrication of such a book could have escaped detection. The Christian communities at Rome, Corinth, Colosse, and the other places to which Paul’s letters are addressed, would have been the first to rise and say that no such letters had ever been addressed by the Apostle Paul to them; and, hence, the imposture would have been detected and denounced at the very start. But not a p. 322 word of such denunciation—not a whisper of doubt—has assailed the circulation of these writings for eighteen hundred years. I think you will be of opinion that there is only one conclusion possible in the premises. Even if it had been what is called a monograph—the private production of a single pen—the uncontradicted reputation of all time would be accepted as decisive of the question of authorship; but, in the case of a heterogeneous and public compilation like the New Testament, it admits of no question. It leaves no room for doubt. It is absolutely and unanswerably conclusive. Counsel next directed the witness’s attention to the evidence afforded by the contents of the book itself of the truthfulness of this conclusion. He quoted various extracts, and asked the witness whether, in his opinion, it was possible such things could have been written by a forger or literary fabricator. There is great weight in this line of argument, especially when we come to consider the sayings and the teachings of Christ, and the remarkable style of the apostolic epistles. But it is not necessary we should follow this part of the evidence. The conclusion which such evidence is cited to establish—viz., the authenticity of the New Testament irrespective of the nature of its teaching—is too well established on the grounds already indicated, to make it necessary that we should go into any literary analysis of the contents of the New Testament. Most men will be of the opinion expressed by Professor Bioplasm, that “it is the height of folly to attempt to deny that the apostle Paul wrote the letters bearing his name”; and by Mr. Workfellow—that there is ten times more evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament than of any other book in the world whatsoever.
We have now to consider what follows from the authenticity of the New Testament. On this point, some incisive questions were put to Professor Bioplasm—a candid witness, though unfavourable to the views entertained by the defendants. His attention was called, first, to the formal narratives of Christ’s resurrection contained in that part of the New Testament known as “the Gospels,” and then to the numerous casual allusions and declarations p. 323 on the subject, contained in Paul’s epistles, and he was asked whether, in view of the authenticity of the documents, these narratives and allusions did not amount to the written testimony of actual witnesses to Christ’s resurrection?—testimony as actual as if we saw the writers step into the witness box and give evidence with their own actual lips—the testimony, too, as Counsel pointed out, not of one man only, but of a number of men, who, at various times, and in various places, had interviews with Christ after his resurrection. Professor Bioplasm rather fenced with the question; but still on the whole, he answered candidly that, doubtless, the New Testament was equivalent to the personal testimony of the apostles. Asked why he did not receive it, he said his difficulty was the nature of the thing they bore testimony to. He did not deny the possibility of resurrection in the abstract, but resurrection was so wholly foreign to all available acquaintance with Nature, that he could not help feeling there must have been some mistake. He admitted the evidence was strong; it could not well be stronger. He would not deny the capability of the witnesses. He admitted that men who could write the New Testament were far from muddle-headed. Incapable men could not have written such a book. The writers were evidently men of mental vigour. Counsel next called the attention of the witness to the nature of the thing testified to. He could not but allow that the writers of the New Testament were capable of judging of the evidence of their senses. Very ordinary men were able to tell what they saw. There was no great depth of penetration required for a man to be sure whether he saw a person on the street and talked with him or not. There certainly could not be anything much simpler for a person to be called upon to give evidence of. Any ordinary man would be able to give reliable evidence as to a fact of that sort. Witness could not deny that this was the nature of the evidence the apostles gave—viz., that Christ, with whom they were on terms of loving intimacy, after being put to death by Pontius Pilate, appeared to them again alive, hale and sound—appeared not once, but often, during a period of p. 324 forty days—and not to one only but to several at various times, and to many at once—and not in a hurried way, but deliberately, talking with them on the subject of his crucifixion, and of his resurrection, and of the course they were to pursue when he should leave them. He admitted the explicit nature of the evidence: that it was the evidence of many witnesses: that it was evidence to a fact easy to judge of—a fact of seeing and hearing. He was also disposed to admit it was an honest testimony. All he had to say in extenuation of his disbelief was, that the testimony was so extraordinary that he confessed himself unable to credit it.
Now, Gentlemen, it is for you to judge whether this is a reasonable or a tenable position. In doing this, it is only fair that you should take into account the witness’s explanation of his inability to take any other. He said he might find himself logically compelled to surrender to the testimony of the apostles, if the road were perfectly clear in all other respects. Here he explained that he referred to scientific difficulties. There was such a hopeless chasm, he said, between the Bible and the results of modern biological and anthropological research, that he could not but conclude there must have been some great mistake at the bottom of the Christian movement. He admitted the evidence of Christ’s resurrection was strong: he did not know that a historical case could be stronger: still there was the invincible barrier of science. Counsel suggested that it would be more logical to accept a demonstrated truth, even if it appeared to conflict with our conceptions of scientific truth, than to reject it because of those conceptions which might turn out to be mistaken, or at all events—when we were better acquainted with science—not inconsistent with the first demonstrated truth. Professor Bioplasm admitted there was some weight in the suggestion, but confessed his inability to apply it in view of the teachings of biological and anthropological science.
Here Counsel proceeded to put some questions by way of testing the claims of the sciences in question. It may be worth while, Gentlemen, just to follow the line of examination for a moment or two; because if you entertain p. 325 any decided leaning towards the doctrine of the evolution of species with which those sciences are principally associated in the popular mind, you will, doubtless, share Professor Bioplasm’s difficulty in receiving the evidences of Christ’s resurrection. There can be no doubt if man has appeared upon the earth as the result of a gradual development of species from the lowest forms, during countless ages, the Bible account that he was specifically created 6,000 years ago—an account endorsed by Christ—must be wrong; and, if so, it would be difficult to resist the feeling that Christ’s endorsement of error as truth, would militate against his claims in all other directions. This part of the case, therefore, deserves as close a consideration as you can bestow upon it.
The Professor had first to admit that the two leading teachers of the theory of evolution were at issue with regard to the initial principle of the system. Mr. Wind, the father of evolution, holds that the first forms of life were miraculously created, while Professor Hawk Ill contends that the first form of life, from which all others have sprung, came into existence by spontaneous generation. Such a discrepancy between the two pillar-advocates of evolution certainly must have the effect of creating the feeling that the theory is not on a stable footing. The one believes in God, and the other does not; the one believes in specific miraculous creation, and the other does not. It would be difficult for the divergence to be greater. Professor Bioplasm avowed a preference for the second of these views, and his readiness to defend Professor Hawk Ill’s views from attack. I think it was generally manifest—and even to the witness himself—that he found his task difficult before he got through. He based the argument on the discovery of the moneron—a tiny creature without any apparent organization, consisting, to all appearance, of a little bit of pure albumen, and found at the bottom of the ocean. He did not say it had been proved that this creature developed into higher forms. The position he took was that its organless simplicity made it easy to “imagine” such a thing taking place. Asked if it was scientific to introduce p. 326 the element of imagination into a scientific process, the witness said he used the word “imagine” for want of a better word. Still, he did not remove the impression that at the most vital point of the whole theory—the starting point—the believers in spontaneous generation had to resort to mere hypothesis. Counsel’s aim in the questions that followed was to show that the hypothesis was inconsistent with the facts of the case. The hypothesis was that the creature was without organs (as only an organless creature could be conceived to spontaneously generate); but the witness had to admit that the moneron performed functions necessitating organization. It moved; it absorbed nutrition; it assimilated the same to its substance, and grew larger in consequence; and, finally it propagated by self-division at a certain stage. Witness admitted it was reasonable to conclude that a creature must have organs to be capable of performing these organic functions. No organs were apparent, and this was the ground for the idea that it had no organs; but Counsel recalled his attention to the fact, which he admitted, that there were creatures which undoubtedly possessed organs, which were invisible under the microscope. And, therefore, the invisibility of the organs could have no weight in presence of the performance of functions evidently involving the use of organs. Now, it is an accepted maxim with scientific men of every school, that no creature with organs (technically styled “heterogeneous parts”) could originate by spontaneous generation. Consequently, the difficulty for the witness was, how to maintain the spontaneous generation of the moneron in the face of its evident possession of organs. The witness felt the pinch, but Counsel quickly passed to another and equally damaging point. He asked the witness if he had ever known a case of spontaneous generation. The witness had to answer in the negative, and volunteered the admission that spontaneous generation was not now possible. Not now possible! Counsel quickly seized the advantage. If not now possible, how could there be any certainty about its possibility at any time? The answer revealed the slenderness of the ground p. 327 on which the theory stands: “The general conditions of life upon earth, under which spontaneous generation is assumed to have taken place, are so entirely altered. Spontaneous generation, which now is, perhaps, no longer possible, may have taken place at a time when enormous masses of carbon impregnated the atmosphere, before they were condensed into coal, in the primary coal mountains.” “Assumed,” and “may have” don’t look well in a theory which makes pretensions to such certainty of truth, as to be made a ground for refusing credence to authenticated evidence—the evidence of Christ’s resurrection—evidence which the witness said his only reason for not accepting was the teaching of this same scientific theory. Counsel emphasized on this, and then went on to point out what had apparently escaped the witness, that carboniferously-impregnated atmosphere could have nothing to do with the supposed possibility of spontaneous generation, for the simple reason that the moneron, according to Professor Hawk Ill, existed millions of years before the carbon age began. The witness was taken by surprise, and confessed his perplexity. Counsel increased his perplexity by challenging the idea that the conditions of life had altered since the first beginning of life upon the globe. He called his attention to the fact that certain species of fishes and molluscs were extant at the present time, without the slightest change having taken place in their organic structures, though they had lived long before the carboniferous age, as shown by their fossil presence in the lowest silurian stratum, and had continued down to the present time unchanged. The witness, being pressed on the point, admitted that the fact looked like positive proof that the conditions of life, instead of being entirely different, had been exactly the same all the way down. Being asked why, in that case, spontaneous generation should take place at the beginning and not now, the witness candidly confessed his inability to answer. Pressed further, he admitted that the moneron existed at the present time in vast numbers, with the same apparently organless simplicity that characterized it at the epoch of its supposed spontaneous generation. Asked why the creature should p. 328 exist at all now, on the evolutionist hypothesis that new and improved varieties inevitably supplanted and exterminated the older, he confessed he had never addressed himself to the consideration of that problem. He said he would require considerable time for reflection, before he could suggest an explanation of the fact (in harmony with the theory of evolution) that the very lowest organism, the weakest, the most defenceless, the best adapted for the food for others, and, consequently, the most unfit for survival, should, instead of becoming “rarer and rarer, and finally extinct,” as the theory required, should exist in countless millions, while all the thousands of intervening variations between this, the supposed first form of life and the higher developments, should have disappeared without leaving a vestige behind. Then followed certain very cogent suggestions of difficulty in the way of the idea of such a creature beginning to improve itself, and transmitting the improvements to descendants. These we need not follow particularly. Suffice it that at every step, the development theory (on the strength of which the evidence of Christ’s resurrection is put aside) became more and more lame, until the witness himself manifestly felt it could not walk. The most trenchant part of the examination, perhaps, was that in which Counsel asked the witness whether spontaneous generation would not be quite as wonderful as a miracle. Witness answering that a miracle was out of the range of experience, Counsel made a telling point when he asked if spontaneous generation was within the range of experience? The witness admitted that it was not within the range of experience, because it was not now possible, according to the hypothesis. It was no wonder that the witness seemed fairly crushed when upon this, Counsel rejoined “and yet you call it scientific—a thing that never occurred within known experience, which you admit cannot occur: which you think may have occurred certain millions of years ago, and yet, against the occurrence of which, there are reasons and objections which you cannot answer?” The case for the plaintiffs was certainly made to look quite hopeless when Counsel added: “But miracle, of p. 329 which the world has heard, which has been credibly testified in many cases, which is the only explanation of the system of things existing in Christendom, and which even, in the domain of Nature, the most eminent naturalists of the day hold to be the only satisfactory explanation of the start of life upon earth, you call that unscientific?”
It will not be necessary, Gentlemen, to follow the further arguments against evolution which Counsel elicited in the course of his examination of Professor Bioplasm. If you think the points already noticed have, in the least, shaken the pretensions of evolution to be considered a demonstrated science, you will feel yourselves at the greater liberty to allow due weight to the facts and arguments submitted to you in proof of Christ’s resurrection. There remain but a few more of these to be glanced at. They were very fully brought out in the speech which Mr. Alltruth addressed to the Court, and they have, to some extent, been looked at in our review of the evidence. They were, in the main, summed-up in Counsel’s contention that the resurrection of Christ, as a doctrine, stands firmly imbedded in the Hebrew system of teaching that preceded the Christian era for many centuries. This idea, Gentlemen, deserves to be looked fairly in the face. If it can be established, it unquestionably constitues a powerful argument in support of the position occupied by the defendants, for, as Counsel argued, you have not only, in that case, to consider the actual evidence of Christ’s resurrection, but you have to look at, and find a reasonable explanation of, a system of teaching and expectation going before for ages. Could that system of teaching and expectation have been of merely human origin, which anticipated, foreshadowed, and required the events realized in the life of Christ ages after? And if not of merely human origin, is not the resurrection of Christ established by that system itself, even if we lacked the evidence of its actual occurrence? And if you say it was of merely human origin, then Counsel asks, with a cogency calling for your most earnest and careful attention, how you account for the origin of the Jewish nation; for the character of the Jewish law; for the anti-Jewish p. 330 sentiment of the messages delivered by the prophets; for the utterance of hundreds of prophecies, which have all come true, and are now fulfilling before our eyes, and for the peculiar, unique, non-human character of the Bible as a whole, and its wonderful agreement one part with another, though produced by over forty disconnected writers, scattered over an immense period of time. These points were elaborated at some length, and with some force, and they deserve your serious consideration. Counsel also spoke of the application that was made by the apostles of the resurrection of Christ as a proof of its reality. It was pointed out that it was preached as a matter of world-wide importance, having a cosmopolitan bearing, and extending through all time. The argument on this was, that it was not conceivable that a matter existing only in the imagination of narrow-minded and superstitious men, could ever have come to assume such a shape, and, still less, that it could ever have come to be received by multitudes of people in the face of the opposition set up by the authorities. It was contended that the only reasonable explanation of the form in which the resurrection was promulgated, and of the extraordinary success of the preaching of it (unsupported as it was by physical force of any kind) lay in the fact that it really happened, and was a divine event, forming an important link in the world-programme that is being worked out on the face of the earth in the course of the ages. This argument was powerfully supported by the case of Paul, the apostle, the facts connected with whom were very fully presented to you. You may be of the opinion that there was force also in the concluding argument, that the mental constitution of man requires us to recognize immortality and perfection as a possibility in the universe—not necessarily at the present moment—at some epoch or other, of which we can know nothing, by scientific investigation, and under conditions which, it may be, human imagination could not prescribe; indefinite in that sense, but definite enough, as a matter of general induction. The application of this argument is pointed enough. The defendants point to the system of faith founded on p. 331 the resurrection of Christ; and they say: “See, here is the complement of the inference of philosophy; here is hope for human life in its individual relations now, and the prospect of an unclouded futurity for the race—in an age and order of things which Christ is able to establish, and will establish upon earth.” And they turn to the system of the plaintiffs, and they say, that, with all the intellectual pleasures and social enjoyment of the scientific era, and the scientific system, there is no hope in it, and no prospect but that of an eternal objectless repetition of abortive life of men and animals upon earth.
Now, Gentlemen, it is for you to take all these things into serious account. You will give the whole matter your earnest consideration, and return a verdict in accordance with the convictions that may commend themselves to you in the case. I need not remind you of the long-established maxim of the law, that, if you have the least doubt that the defendants are in the wrong, you will give them the benefit of that doubt, and set them at liberty to renew the labours from which the plaintiffs would interdict them; and all men at liberty to embrace their doctrine, which is a glorious one, if true. If, on the other hand, you really think that the defendants are following a phantasm to their own hurt, and the hurt of society in general, you will find for the plaintiffs, and it will then be for the Court to consider how best to give effect to your decision. Gentlemen, consider your verdict.