p. 145Professor Bioplasm (called and sworn)
Examined by Mr. British Protoplasm: I have the honour, Professor Bioplasm, of putting some questions to you to-day, touching a matter affecting the public interest?—I shall do my best to answer them.
I regret we should have to call you away from your professional duties at such an inconvenient hour of the day?—We have all to submit to the claims of citizenship.
Thank you for making my duty so agreeable. You are, I believe, professor of biology, physiology, comparative anatomy, and several kindred sciences in one of our leading Universities?—Yes.
A position you have attained by the industrious cultivation of rare abilities?—I have tried to do my duty.
You are author of several scientific works—Yes, sir.
Which, I believe, have commanded a very extensive reading, and have exercised a wide-spread influence?—More than they deserve, I fear.
Your speciality, I believe, lies in the department of anthropology, or the science of human origin and development?—I have given a good deal of attention to that subject.
And I believe you have arrived at conclusions considerably at variance with what were formerly commonly-received ideas on the subject?—I believe so.
May I trouble you to tell us in a word or two what the nature of the divergence is?—The idea that has hitherto prevailed, to a large extent, has been that human existence p. 146 upon earth is due to specific creation at a comparatively recent period.
You discredit that view of the case?—I believe the facts of science warrant—nay, compel—the recognition of a much greater antiquity for man upon earth than has been suspected. Indeed, it is quite impossible to assign limits to it. Fifty thousand years is a comparatively small period, in view of the facts brought to light by the researches of the past twenty or thirty years.
Researches in which I believe you have had the honour of taking a distinguished part?—As I have said, I have done my best.
I believe, also, in conjunction with your eminent collaborators in science, you have come to some other conclusions of a revolutionary character on the subject of biology?—Yes.
Will you tell us in brief what these are?—We have not as yet arrived at any definite theory as to the nature of life; but so far as our researches have gone, one or two conclusions we consider tolerably well established. We consider specific creation out of the question. We regard life as the spontaneous organic concretion of the primordial energy of the universe, under the operation of laws we have not yet been able to discover. I do not mean that the various forms of life we now see upon earth have sprung at once into their present form, but that they are traceable backwards to a process which in earlier times began spontaneously in a very small and scarcely perceptible way, and gradually became more complex as ages advanced, assuming new and diversified forms, according to the exigencies of environment, leading to the differentiation of simple parts and powers, and the consequent development of species, or different forms of life.
This doctrine, I believe you designate the doctrine of development by evolution?—It is variously designated, and is now currently known as the doctrine of evolution.
And generally accepted?—As far as I can judge, generally accepted.
You consider that it satisfactorily accounts for the appearance p. 147 of the human species upon earth?—I believe so, though you will understand our aim has not been to explain anything, or to get up a theory, but merely to go on amassing facts, and noting the conclusions to which they point.
Quite so: and by that process, you have been compelled to discard the theological theory that man was miraculously formed out of nothing about 6,000 years ago?—We are not so much bent upon discarding theology, as on ascertaining scientific truth.
Quite so: but as a matter of fact, that has been the practical result: to discredit and render completely obsolete the Bible account of the matter?—I cannot speak for others: and as regards myself, I never was much of a theologian.
Now, Professor Bioplasm, we wish to bring your conclusions to bear practically upon the present trial. You are acquainted with the defendants more or less, I presume?—I cannot say that I am acquainted with them. I have heard of them in a distant sort of way.
You may be aware of the peculiarity of their crotchet?—In a general way.
You agree with the evidence that has already been adduced in this trial, that it is a hurtful crotchet?—Of my own knowledge, I cannot say much about it. I should say that any religious crotchet is bound more or less to be hurtful.
You agree that it would be a beneficial thing to put a stop to the public agitation of it?—It would, of course, be a good thing if you could stop a hurtful crotchet. There might be a difference of opinion as to the best way of doing it. I should say the more scientfic knowledge you diffuse among the people, the less chance will hurtful crotchets have.
Well, waiving that point for the present, we wish you to give the Court the benefit of your superior knowledge, as to whether there is any possibility of the crotchet of the defendants being founded on truth. You may have discerned in the course of this trial that their reply to our action is, that their doctrine is true: and out of deference p. 148 to his Lordship’s judgment, we have had to deal with this point, and to try to show that the idea of its being true is out of the question. For this reason, we have had to go out of our way, so to speak, and interfere greatly against our inclination, with the privacy and the privilege, shall I say, of a gentleman in your eminent position?—As regards that, I am ready to place my services at the disposal of the Court at any time.
You see the position: What have you to say to the idea of Christ having risen from the dead?—The fact of the matter is, the subject is quite out of my line.
Have you no opinion on the subject?—I never gave it particular attention. I have had enough on my hands other ways.
Can you give the Court no guidance in the matter?—Well, if you ask my opinion, candidly, I should have to say, of course, that—ah—the subject is outside practical investigation, and, therefore,—ah—that it is impossible to entertain a definite opinion. A man can only have knowledge on a subject that he can investigate.
Do I understand you to say, then, that possibly the resurrection of Christ occurred?—I do not say that. The subject is not in my province, you understand.
I must come to the point, Professor; excuse me being personal?—If you ask if I am a Christian, I should say, I am.
That is not specific enough for my purpose. I should have to ask what you mean by being a Christian?—I believe in Christian doctrines or precepts of life.
You mean you believe in Christian ethics—Christian rules of behaviour?—Quite so.
But that is not the question. Do you believe in the doctrines on which the ethics are founded?—Which do you mean? Because there are different versions of the doctrines in Christendom?
I see the difficulty. Well, let me put it to you plainly, thus: Do you believe that Christ rose from the dead?—If you put it in that way, I am bound to say candidly that I do not.
Thank you, Professor. That is the point to which I p. 149 wished you to come. Now I wish to draw you out, if possible, Professor, with all deference and respect, and sincerely regretting I should have to put you to this trouble, as to the reasons that lead you to take that position. You will, of course, perceive that that is the issue involved in this trial. The defendants allege the resurrection of Christ as the great justification of the proceedings of which we complain, and if we can exhibit reasons that will convince the jury that that justification is unfounded, we shall render a great service to the community at large?—As I have said, I have not made the subject one of special study, and I do not know that I can assist the Court with an exhibition of specific reasons in support of my non-belief. My reasons are more of a general character.
Would you favour the Court with an indication of them?—Well, they would be something like this: I make what I know, the rule by which I judge of that which I do not know. I know what science teaches. Of this I have no doubt; it is not a subject admitting of doubt. I do not personally know about the things the Bible tells us of; but I know that the knowledge which I am personally sure of is opposed to what the Bible tells us. Therefore I conceive I have no alternative but to refuse what the Bible tells us.
Thank you, Professor: that is highly satisfactory, I am sure?—In fact, I am incapable of believing what is opposed to manifest truth. It is not a question of choice. A man cannot choose what he will believe. He is obliged to believe what is true, if he have eyes to see. There are some reasons why I should be glad to believe the Bible, if it were a matter of choice.
You would believe in the resurrection of Christ if it were logically admissible?—Undoubtedly.
But you cannot?—I cannot.
You hold it to be inconsistent with what you know of the facts of Nature?—The investigation of Nature reveals a state of things totally at variance with Bible cosmical theories; consequently, there is, to my mind, a strong presumption established against everything out of the way p. 150 of Nature which it teaches; and, it is unnecessary for me to remark, that the coming of a dead man to life again is entirely out of the way of Nature.
You put it very fairly and very convincingly, as I should think my friends on the other side must feel.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: We shall see about that presently.
Mr. British Protoplasm: I believe you are not alone in your views on these subjects?—I believe not. In fact, they are generally accepted in educated circles.
Ah, but I mean as regards the scientific support of independent minds?—Oh: yes, there is quite a variety of writers on these subjects now-a-days.
Original writers: not mere purveyors?—Oh, quite so; men of independent thought.
There is Professor Tin Dale?—Yes; he is an original writer of great power; he has written extensively on light and sound as molecular modes of motion.
And Professor Huck’s Lie?—Yes; he is quite an authority in my own line—the inventor of protoplasm and bioplasm, and also of something else—I forget—which he has had to abandon as a mistake.
Then there is Professor Hawk Ill?—Yes; he has undoubtedly put the top stone on the theory of evolution. He has proved the descent of man from the simplest forms? and he successfully broached the suggestion that the simplest form of all—the moneron—a simple inorganic living sac became accidentally, or, at all events, spontaneously developed in the primeval play of the primordial life force.
And I have omitted to mention the world-renowned Mr. Leschar Wind?—You mean, Mr. Windar.
Win Dar or Dar Win; we call him Mr. Wind for short?—Oh, quite so; he is a very eminent man: in fact he may claim to be the father of evolution. Most of us have only studied on his lines; and some of us think we have improved on him.
In the company of these men you have no cause to feel ashamed of the conclusions you maintain?—The very reverse. I can desire no better company, though, of p. 151 course, you understand, I hold my position independently of any company.
That’s understood; but you will naturally feel strengthened in your position by the endorsement of so many able and original, and, I may even say, brilliant, intellectual men?—Oh, undoubtedly.
Their arguments have never been answered in any way?—There have been a few attempts. At first, rather strong things were written in reply to them, but the attempts grew weaker as time went on and facts accumulated, until finally, it may be said, the whole position has been surrendered. There are no more ardent evolutionists than some of the clergy.
Very well, Professor Bioplasm, that is all I have to ask you to-day. We are much obliged to you for giving evidence. I daresay my friend may have a question or two for you.
Cross-examined by Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Professor Bioplasm, I hope you will pardon me if my questions should appear somewhat intrusive. I wish to show all the respect due from one gentleman to another: but the issue at stake is of such vast importance that it is necessary to probe matters to the very bottom, in what may seem an unrelenting way?—I think I understand. I will promise to be very meek.
Thank you, and I doubt not you will be as frank as meek?—It will not be my fault if I do not answer your questions clearly and candidly.
And I will endeavour that it shall be no fault of the questions as regards such amount of perspicacity as I may be able to command?—We ought to be able to get along.
His Lordship: I have no doubt you will. It is interesting to have a case conducted with frankness and candour on both sides.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Now, Professor Bioplasm, I understand you to say that you could not believe in the resurrection of Christ, because it was opposed to science, or something of that sort?—I said it was out of the way of Nature.
p. 152 Out of the way of Nature: you mean out of the way of your experience of Nature?—We can only know Nature by our experience of it.
But you do not profess to have experienced the whole of Nature?—I should not, of course, make such a profession.
Very well: You mean that your experience of Nature disinclines you to believe in the resurrection of Christ?—That is not the whole of my objection.
But let us take one thing at a time. Do you say that your lack of the experience of resurrection is sufficient reason for saying resurrection is impossible?—I should not, of course, be disposed to take that ground. The more a man knows of Nature, the less is he disposed to dogmatize about what is possible and what is impossible.
You would not say the resurrection of Christ was impossible in the abstract?—As I have said, it is not for me to say what is impossible. What I say is, that resurrection is entirely out of the way of Nature, so far as I have experience of Nature, and therefore a natural presumption presents itself against the reception of the idea.
If you saw a dead man come to life again, you would believe it?—I should, of course, believe it.
If your friends saw a dead man come to life in your absence, should you refuse to believe because you hadn’t seen it?—I should, of course, consider their testimony, but with much predisposition against receiving it, I must confess.
Perhaps so, but if it stood the test in all ways, what then?—Well, you put a hypothetical case, you see.
I do, but only to illustrate an actual case. You are aware that a testimony has been delivered to the resurrection of Christ?—I suppose there has.
There can be no doubt about that, can there?—There has been no such testimony in our day.
The testimony exists in our day, does it not?—You refer to the New Testament?
I do?—Yes, I suppose I must admit the testimony exists: but not in the form most convenient for test.
Pass over that just now; here is a written testimony to p. 153 the fact, or alleged fact, let me say, to adapt myself to your point of view, that Christ rose from the dead. As a scholar, can you doubt that that testimony is the testimony of the apostles?—You refer now to the authenticity question.
I refer to a question of fact; does not every rule by which we ascertain the authenticity of any book or document, establish the authenticity of the apostolic writings?—I have not given the question a very close attention, but, I admit that I know of no reason to dispute the authenticity of public documents so long in the hands of Christendom. I think, had they not been authentic, the fact would long ago have become apparent.
Do not these writings contain intrinsic marks of authenticity?—I think so, so far as I am acquainted with them.
Very well; if these documents are authentic, does it not come to this: that we have the written depositions of the apostles to the fact of Christ’s resurrection?—I suppose it must be admitted.
As actual a testimony as if it came orally from the lips of the men who wrote these documents?—Well.
Have you considered how explicit the testimony is?—Not particularly.
You were in Court during the examination of the last witness?—Yes, not a very satisfactory performance.
You heard the citations from the New Testament on this point?—Yes.
It is not necessary to read them again, but you will allow me to indicate a salient point or two, in addition to the testimony then adduced. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv., after citing the evidence of Peter, the twelve, and sundry others, says, “Last of all, HE WAS SEEN OF ME, ALSO.” In another part of the epistle he asks, “Have I not SEEN Jesus Christ, our Lord?” (1 Cor. ix. 1). In his speech in the synagogue of Antioch, he expressly says: “God raised him from the dead, and HE WAS SEEN MANY DAYS of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people” (Acts xiii. 30, 31). Paul finally found himself in custody in consequence of p. 154 the agitation caused by his testimony to the resurrection of Christ. When so in custody, Festus, the Roman governor of one of the Syrian provinces, had occasion to state Paul’s case to King Agrippa. His statement lays hold of this very feature. He says, “Against whom (Paul), when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and Jesus, who was dead, WHOM PAUL AFFIRMED TO BE ALIVE” (Acts xxv. 18, 19). These features of the apostolic narrative are, of themselves, sufficiently explicit as to the place occupied by the resurrection of Christ in the apostolic testimony; but I desire to call your attention to one very large and fruitful department of evidence on the question, one on which it is impossible to lay too much stress. I refer to the casual allusions and declarations throughout the letters of the Apostle Paul. I apprehend you recognize the authenticity of these letters?—I have no reason to doubt that the epistles were actually written by the Apostle Paul.
You do not share the reservations of the last witness?—I do not. To tell the truth, I do not think, from the way he treated the subject, that he had any real reservations himself. It is impossible to have any real doubt on the point. Whatever we may think of what Paul teaches, it seems to me the height of folly to attempt to deny that he wrote the letters bearing his name.
That being so—(and I thank you for so full and frank an admission, though it is but the admission of palpable truth)—I desire to call your attention to the constant way in which the resurrection crops up in these letters, as a matter of notorious fact within the writer’s personal knowledge, and which he also takes for granted in the most natural way: “Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. xv. 20). This is his postulate in arguing with the Corinthians as to the truth, or otherwise, of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The ground of this postulation is as strong as it could be: “I have seen him” (ver. 8). Then he speaks of Christ who “died for p. 155 them and rose again” (2 Cor. v. 15); of believing on “him who raised up Jesus from the dead” (Rom. iv. 24). He states that Christ “was raised again for our justification” (ver. 25). In chap. vi. 4, he says, “Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father”; speaks of Christ as “him who is raised from the dead” (vii. 4); refers to “the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead” (viii. 11), and God as “He that raised up Christ from the dead” (Ib.). In 1 Cor. vi. 14, he plainly says, “God hath both raised up the Lord Jesus, and will also raise us up by his own power.” In 1 Cor. xv. 15, he says, “We have testified of God that He raised up Christ from the dead”; in 2 Cor. iv. 14, “He that raised up the Lord Jesus”; Eph. i. 20, “God raised him from the dead, and gave him glory”; 2 Tim. ii. 8, “Jesus Christ, the seed of David, was raised from the dead”; 1 Thess. iv. 14, “Jesus died, and rose again”; Rom. xiv. 9, “Christ both died and rose, and revived.” I might also quote from the epistles of John in the same way; also of Peter; also from the Apocalypse, where is the unusually distinct exhibition of Christ as “He who was dead and is alive.” But I should probably only weaken my argument by further citations. My question is this: seeing the authenticity of the New Testament is a fact to be admitted by every man recognizing the most ordinary canons of literary criticism, and seeing the New Testament abounds with assertions of Christ’s resurrection, does not the existence of the New Testament in our day amount to the existence of the testimony of personal witnesses to Christ’s resurrection?—Such as the testimony is, no doubt it is as you say.
Could the testimony be stronger?—I don’t know that it could, as a matter of words.
In what way could it be stronger?—As I have said, it would have been open to test had the witnesses been alive.
What test could you have applied?—It is impossible to say just on the spur of the moment.
To what could your tests have been directed?—I cannot exactly say.
Must they not necessarily have been directed to two p. 156 points—the capability of the witnesses to give evidence, and their trustworthiness in a moral sense?—Doubtless these would be leading points.
If a man is able and honest, you would accept his evidence?—Most of us would, I think.
Do you think the writings constituting the New Testament are tolerable evidence of capacity?—In a certain sense, no doubt.
Could muddle-headed men produce such writings?—So far as you can judge a man by writings, I should say the writers of the New Testament were men of fair average intelligence.
Do not the writings show they were much more than men of average intelligence?—It is a matter of opinion.
Could a man of only average intelligence write an account which should combine such conciseness with such amplitude of information; such brevity with such lucidity; and such simplicity with such majesty of diction, as you find exemplified in any of the four gospels?—You put it strongly.
I do; the facts warrant it?—Well, as I have said, the writers were evidently men of considerable mental vigour.
Should you not consider the question of their capability as decisively settled by the nature of these writings alone, as it ever could be by any test you might apply if they were alive?—I should not like to go so far as that.
Should you like to say that men not capable could produce such writings?—I must, of course, allow that incapable men could not write such a book.
And now consider the nature of the fact which they bear witness to. Should you not consider that the writers of such a book would be able enough to judge as to the evidence of their senses?—I do not know that I quite apprehend your meaning there?
Is not a very ordinary human being able to give evidence of what he sees?—In ordinary circumstances, of course.
There is no great depth of penetration required for a man to be sure whether he sees a thing or not?—It depends on the nature of the subject.
p. 157 Well, the question of whether a man was seen on the street, you would not consider a very recondite question, or one calling for special gifts of discernment?—It would depend
If you coachman or your abigail informed you they had seen your friend Mr. Protoplasm passing on the road, you would not think of doubting their word?—If I knew my friend was somewhere else, I should doubt it, of course.
I don’t know that you would doubt even in that case. I think it much more likely that you would fall back upon some supposition that your friend had unexpectedly returned?—Perhaps.
Especially, if not only your coachman but your scullery maid, and not only they, but several persons in the street, all separately and independently, testified to the fact that your friend had both walked down the road and had spoken to several persons?—I should of course think there was something in it.
Should you not consider the appearance of a person on the street and his talking with passers-by, the simplest of all subjects on which witnesses could give evidence?—There certainly could not be anything much simpler.
You would not consider that evidence on such a point would require any profound sort of qualification?—Of course not.
Any ordinary sort of man you would consider quite capable of giving reliable evidence to a fact of that sort?—Quite so.
Should you consider the men who were able to write the New Testament, able to judge of the truth in such a case—as to whether your friend Mr. Protoplasm really walked down the street?—You are becoming needlessly precise, are you not?
I think not. The very evident matter in question is so generally and systematically denied or ignored, that we require to be precise. I must repeat my question. Would not men able to write the New Testament be able to judge whether they saw a man or not?—There is but one answer of course.
p. 158 And that is “yes”?—Yes.
Now, have you considered that that is just the nature of the fact they bear witness to—that Christ, with whom they were on terms of close and loving intimacy, after being put to death by Pontius Pilate, appeared to them again alive, hale, and sound?—That is what they say.
And you admit they were able to judge?—Well, of course they knew whether they saw him or not, but they might be mistaken.
Do you really think so?—I think so. I have been mistaken myself often, when I supposed I have seen so-and-so in a crowd, or passing along on the street. It has turned out afterwards that it was not the person at all.
Ay, there might be a mistake in that case, where it is only one occasion that is in question, and only one witness (yourself), and where the thing is hurried and momentary; but suppose you saw the person several times, and that you saw him deliberately, and talked with him; and that other friends were with you, and saw and conversed with your friend also, could there be any mistake in such a case?—Well, of course, it would make a difference.
Are you not aware that this was the state of the case with regard to Christ?—Yes, so far as the New Testament account goes.
It is the New Testament account we are considering, and you have admitted that that account is the account of personal eye-witnesses, and competent eye-witnesses. Their trustworthiness we shall come to presently. I return to my question: are you not aware that as Paul expresses it in the words I quoted a moment back, “Christ was seen many days” of them who accompanied him to Jerusalem—that is, his disciples—“seen of them forty days,” as Luke has it (Acts i. 3), “showing himself alive by many infallible proofs”?—It is so stated.
Are you not aware that Peter states that they, “the disciples—ate and drank with him, after he rose from the dead” (Acts x. 40-41)?—I suppose it is so stated.
Are you not aware that there are accounts, in the New Testament, of several deliberate interviews at which Jesus talked with his disciples on the subject of his crucifixion, p. 159 and of his resurrection, and of the course they were to pursue when he should leave them (see Luke xxiv., John xx., and Acts i.)?—I cannot deny that there are such accounts, of course.
Now, assuming these accounts to be true, did the case admit of any mistake, such as you have illustrated in the case of your friend in the crowd?—Ah, you ask me to assume a good deal.
At present, it is only for the sake of argument that I ask you to assume the truthfulness of the account. You have admitted that the account is an authentic account, that is, an account actually written by the professed writers, who were disciples of Christ; and you have admitted their capability of judging of such a simple matter as whether they saw Christ or not; and my question is, suppose that in addition to capable men, we prove them truth-speaking men, does it not follow that the facts to which they testify are of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of mistake?—I don’t know about that.
In what other way could the fact of Christ’s resurrection have been made apparent to them?—It is not for me to say.
I think it is, if you take a position of antagonism to their testimony. Suppose a friend of yours whom you knew to have died, were to present himself alive to you, in what other way could he satisfy you of his reality and identity than by coming to see you, and not once, but coming often; and talking with you freely of matters that you both knew; and allowing you to handle him and examine him, especially as to marks on his body that you knew to be there; and dining with you, and making appointments with you for a period of over a month. Could you possibly have any doubt after such an experience?—If I really had such an experience, I could not, of course, entertain any doubt; but, you see, I am not happy enough to have had such an experience.
But we are dealing with a case where such an experience is testified?—Well?
In admitting the authenticity of the New Testament, you have admitted it is the testimony of the very men p. 160 themselves. It is no second-hand account. It is their own actual evidence, as actual as if we saw them step into the witness box and tell us all about it by their own lips. And, remember, it is not the evidence of one. One man might be mistaken; though I fancy that one man (even if it were yourself, Professor Bioplasm, in the case supposed) would feel strongly enough convinced. But here are a number of men—eleven who stand officially related to the matter—men chosen as official witnesses—and not eleven only, but a multitude besides—“five hundred brethren at once,” of whom Paul says, “the greater part remain unto the present (the time of his writing), but some are fallen asleep?”—But does it not say that “some doubted” (Matt. xxviii. 17)?
Yes, at the first: and the statement that they doubted is really an evidence of the most valuable kind when properly construed?—You have such a facility for turning anything to account.
Nay, do not pay me that compliment, Professor. I deem it a reflection on the subject itself. It is not a matter of ingenuity: it is a matter of logical construction. Look here: Why was it written that they doubted? Is not such a record an evidence of candour in the narrative? Would a partizan writing without regard to truth have recorded such a fact? And, if not a partizan writing, it is a true writing, and therefore this follows: that it is not only true they doubted at first (that is, “some”), but that they afterwards believed? So then you have to consider this: What dispelled their doubts? The doubts were dispelled; for you find these same doubters foremost afterwards in the testimony for Christ’s resurrection. What led to this dispelling of their doubts? What led them to believe? For they did believe, and suffered persecution for their belief? If you attach any weight to their doubts, you must attach weight to the dispelling of the doubts. Their doubts were natural in the presence of an unprecedented event, especially in view of this, that Christ’s crucifixion, which they had not thought possible, had shattered all their confidence in him; and, consequently, not expecting him to die, now that they knew he was dead, they did not expect him to rise; and when he p. 161 rose, it was natural it should be a theme of bewilderment to them, especially to the less quick-minded of them. It was natural that some should doubt; but in view of the fact that all doubt afterwards fled, are we not justified in coming to the conclusion that the facts, of which they were witnesses, were of a character to put an end to all doubt?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My friend is making a speech.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I beg pardon, I was answering the suggestion of the Professor: Now, Professor Bioplasm, there is only one more question I have to put at this stage of the subject, and that is this: you have admitted the New Testament is the authentic testimony of the apostles, to a fact of which you have admitted they were capable of judging: have you any reason to doubt the truthfulness of their testimony?—Their testimony is so extraordinary that I confess myself unable to credit it.
Is that the only reason you have for doubting it?—No others occur to me at the present moment.
Do you think they wrote what they knew to be untrue?—I should not like to say such a thing.
Do you not think the truthfulness of their testimony is guaranteed to us?—In what way?
By the results it brought upon them?—Oh, you mean persecution.
Yes?—Well, you see, all religions have been persecuted. I do not see that that proves anything.
Stop a bit, Professor; do you not think that submission to persecution proves the sincerity of the person persecuted?—It may prove their sincerity, but I do not see that it proves the truth of what they believe.
Does not that depend upon what they are persecuted about?—I don’t see it. The rule holds good whether the Catholics persecute the Protestants or the Protestants persecute the Catholics. They both have their opinions, and they are both equally sincere.
Ay, in that case, I grant persecution proves nothing, because it is a matter of opinion in both cases. In the formation of an opinion, a man may be wrong, and sincerity p. 162 of his conviction is no proof of the truth of his conviction. But suppose it is not a matter of opinion a man is persecuted for, but a matter of knowledge?—I am not sure that I apprehend the distinction.
Well, suppose I were to ask you: is it your opinion that I am talking to you, what should you think of that way of expressing myself?—I should think it a curious way of expressing yourself—inapplicable to the case, in fact.
Quite so: it is not a matter of opinion with you that I am talking to you. It is a matter of knowledge: you know I am talking to you. But if I were to ask you, what is your opinion about the Tichborne case, you would not think the question inapplicable?—Not at all.
The Tichborne case being a matter out of your actual knowledge, you would feel that any view you should entertain must be a mere opinion which, depending on the construction of evidence, might be wrong?—Quite so.
Suppose it became a public law that all who believed in Thomas Castro as Sir Roger Tichborne should be hanged, and you allowed yourself to be hanged for that opinion (if that is your opinion), your hanging would prove you to be sincere in your opinion; but it would not prove your opinion to be right?—Quite so.
But suppose it should become an important question in some way, some time after this, whether you were in this Court to-day, and it should be contradicted that you had been here, and you should maintain that you had, and you should be threatened with imprisonment if you persisted in that statement, and you persisted, notwithstanding, and were actually imprisoned; and not only you, but a number of gentlemen who are here to-day, and who should give evidence that you were here, on the ground that they had seen and heard you; suppose they also joined you in your imprisonment, and in submission to heavy penalties; would not your imprisonment prove something more than sincerity?—I see your point. It would prove we were pretty well convinced about the matter in dispute.
And the matter in dispute being a matter of which you p. 163 had actual personal knowledge, and could not be mistaken about, would not your submission to imprisonment be proof to other people that your statement was true?—Doubtless there is some force in that.
Have you realized that the apostles were not persecuted for a matter of opinion, but for a matter of personal knowledge?—It never occurred to me particularly to think of it in that light.
Let me direct your attention to this most important feature of the case. Take the first collision of the apostles with the authorities, as recorded in the authentic Acts of the Apostles. Peter, addressing a crowd of Jews in the temple enclosure, delivered himself thus concerning the crucifixion—then a recent event: “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.” We read further on that as the apostles “spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people, and that they preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (Acts iii. 14, 15; iv. 1-3). And it goes on to inform us that the captain took the apostles into custody, and locked them up for the night. Next day, pretty much according to the modern police routine, they were brought into court, and charged before the magistrates (i.e., the rulers, elders and scribes). The charge was the performance of a certain miracle in subversion of the orthodox doctrine. Mark the defence of the apostles: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole” (iv. 10). After deliberation, the Bench of judges “commanded them (the apostles) not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered, and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have SEEN and HEARD” (verses 18-20). The people were so much in favour of the apostles p. 164 at this time, that the authorities, after reprimanding them, were compelled to discharge them. After this, we read (iv. 33) that “with great power gave the apostles WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS.” The greatness of the power by which they did so may be estimated from the fact recorded (chap. v. 12) that “by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people . . . insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the street, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter, passing by, might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folks and them which were vexed with unclean spirits, and they were healed every one.” The public effect produced by these occurrences became so great that the authorities again bestired themselves. “The high priest rose up and all they that were with him, and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.” From this, the apostles were divinely liberated, and they were then re-arrested next day, without violence, and brought before the authorities. Note the issue upon which this re-hearing of the case turned, as defined by the judges themselves, and note the rejoinder of the apostles: “Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than man. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus WHOM YE SLEW AND HANGED ON A TREE. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things, and so, also, is the Holy Spirit whom God hath given to them that obey him” (Acts v. 28, 32). If you follow the narrative of the apostolic persecutions throughout, you find this same feature is constantly prominent: that it was not for their opinions but for their testimony to a matter of fact within their personal knowledge that they were persecuted. Now, in view of this, I return to my p. 165 question, Do you not think that the truthfulness of the apostolic testimony, that they had seen and spoken to Christ many times since his crucifixion, is guaranteed to us by the sufferings to which the apostles submitted on account of that testimony?—I now see your drift.
What do you say to the question?—I do not know exactly what to say. There is, of course, considerable force in it.
Do you not think you are logically bound to surrender to it, and admit that the testimony of the apostles is true?—I might think so if the road were perfectly clear in all other respects.
What am I to understand by that?—Well, you see, there are the scientific difficulties.
What scientific difficulties? I understand you to say that you were not prepared to hold that the resurrection of Christ was impossible?—I said so, and from that I do not go; but there are other difficulties besides the question of the possibility or impossibility of resurrection in the abstract.
What are they?—I referred to them in answer to Mr. Protoplasm.
You mean the modern scientific theories of human origin?—Quite so. There is such a hopeless chasm between the Bible and the results of modern biological and anthropological research, that I cannot but conclude there must be some great mistake at the bottom of the Christian movement.
Do you think that is quite a logical position to take, Professor?—I think so.
You cannot set aside the evidence of Christ’s resurrection?—I admit, as you put it, it is rather strong.
In point of fact, it is unanswerable in any reasonable treatment of the facts?—I admit it is very strong.
Could a historical case be stronger?—I don’t know that it could.
Does it not amount to demonstration?—I should hardly like to go so far as that.
Is it not as near demonstration as such a subject is capable of?—I might admit as much as that.
Can the facts be explained apart from the hypothesis p. 166 of Christ having risen?—I should not like to be called upon to explain them apart from that hypothesis; still—
Still what?—There is the invincible barrier of modern science.
We shall see about modern science directly; but do you not think, Professor, it would be more logical to accept a demonstrated truth, even if it appears to conflict with our conception of some other truth, than to shut the mind to its reception because of our assumption that something else is true, or that the first truth cannot be reconciled with the second?—There is some weight in that suggestion.
Very well; now, Professor, we will go from that. I now wish to put some questions to you as to these scientific difficulties of which you make so much.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Are the scientific difficulties likely to take long?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: They will take a little time.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I thought your cross-examination of the professor was to be short?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I could not speak positively: I expressed the hope it might be so.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: If my memory serves me, it was something more than a hope.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Well, let us say an expectation. I was presuming on the ease with which we should get on with such a candid witness.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I hope you have not been disappointed.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I have nothing to complain of, but the subject is large. If your witness would admit the facts, we should make quick work.
His Lordship: I understand the cross-examination of this witness is still likely to occupy some time?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I fear so, my Lord.
His Lordship: Probably it will suit parties to take an adjournment till to-morrow?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: That would be convenient, my Lord.
The Court adjourned till next day.