p. 334The Clerk of the Court: Gentlemen of the Jury, answer to your names, and you shall each of you, as your names are called, a true deliverance make touching the matters you have had in charge.
The Jury then answered to their names, and delivered their verdict as follows:—
Mr. Christ Admirer: The evidence establishes Christ’s resurrection beyond a doubt, and the verdict ought to be for the defendants.
Mr. Honest Doubter: Perhaps Christ rose, and perhaps he did not. It is for better men than me to say. I think, on the whole, the evidence is in favour of the defendants.
Mr. Science Dabbler: The glorious scientific achievements of this enlightened century require a verdict for the plaintiffs, whatever may be the evidence on the side of the defendants. Experiments made with retorts and other appliances, in my own possession, convince me of the ultimate reductibility of all phenomena to the differentiation of the impassive absolute through the affinities evolved in the molecular combinations of the primitive atomic constituents of primordial force.
Mr. Dissipation Follower: What does it matter? Of course Christ didn’t rise: how could he? A drop of the creature would do the defendants lots of good.
Mr. Smartsophist: You see, it is plain that if we are to admit this sort of evidence, there is nothing on earth but what we could prove. We all want money; I suppose, according to the defendants’ arguments, we shall all p. 335 get some. I hope so: but I prefer waiting before I am quite sure. If we are to believe because it is written, I for one, shall not know what to believe: for, in point of fact, everything is written. I can go into a bookseller’s shop and find books on every imaginable subject. So much for the New Testament; and as for the state of things on the earth, I can find all kinds of state of things—Buddhism, Mahommedanism, Confucianism—all sorts of “isms.” No, I give my verdict for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Sheer Stupidity: I have tried to follow the case. I think I understand it a little. It is about Christ and Pontius Pilate. I always used to think it was true about them, from what I used to hear at church. The other people—about protoplasm as they call it, and such like, I don’t exactly know what to make of them. I have wondered about monkeys sometimes. I think the defendants should be let off if they promise to behave.
Mr. Hopeful: The glory of the universe convinces me there must be hope for man. I find no hope among the plaintiffs; I see a good hope well proved with the defendants. Therefore I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Observer-of-Facts: I cannot shut my eyes. The Jews and Christendom, the New Testament, and the Old Testament tell me there has been a something at work higher than man. I believe the defendants are right, and give my verdict accordingly.
Mr. Loverof Truth: How can I doubt? Christ rose assuredly: verdict accordingly.
Mr. Indignant-at-Shams: I like the genuine article. Science is genuine so far; Christ is genuine altogether. If there is any shamming, it is in the assumed indignation at the so-called deformities of Bible narrative. I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Pleasure Hunter: I don’t see as all this fuss can do a fellah any good. What does it matter one way or the other? The thing is to enjoy yourself. I give my verdict both for the plaintiffs and the defendants.
p. 336 Mr. Actor-out-of-his Convictions: I certainly think the defendants have made good their case, and I shall lose no time in making their acquaintance, and seeing what I can do to help them.
Mr. Diligent-in-Everything: I am of the same opinion as the last Juryman. I think the defendants are in the right, and I would advise them to do more than ever to let men know that Christ rose from the dead.
Mr. Worshipper-of-Protoplasm: I am considerably disgusted to stand in the same box with gentlemen who give the verdicts we have just heard. The whole affair is a revival of antiquated fanaticism, which cannot but have the effect of obstructing the progress of science, and arresting the splendid developments that are going forward in the direction of the discovery and utilization of the cosmic forces, whether we consider them in their abstract primordial aspect, or concreted in the protoplastic ladder of life, exhibited in the department of physical development from the moneron up to man. I give my verdict for the plaintiffs, of course.
Mr. Befogall: The mists that arise on the profound consideration of any abstraction like the cause of the differentiation of form and life in the several classes of mammal and other life, contemplated embryo-logically; or the probable origin of those moral subjectivities that have found expression in the propagation and establishment of the Christian faith, interfere with a clear verdict on such a matter as has been brought before the Court; I remain neutral.
Mr. Hearty-in-Everything: Unquestionably, Christ rose, I give both my verdict and myself to the defendants.
Mr. Promoter of Political Improvement: I can see a fine prospect for human affairs, if we get a ruler such as Christ is said to be: immortal, omnipotent, infallible—especially assisted in the administration of an universal empire by co-rulers of the same sort. I am charmed, I admit, by the idea of such a possibility. The evidence p. 337 of Christ’s resurrection seems to me more than fairly established. I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Hater-of-Lies: I detest imposture; I hate sham and shammers; but I love truth as well, and I cannot for the life of me see where there is any ground for doubting the probity of the apostles, or the truth of the testimony. They seem, to me, thoroughly genuine men. I vote for the defendants.
Mr. Appreciator-of-Beauty: I cannot but recognize the peerless excellence there is about everything pertaining to Christ. Even if we hadn’t evidence of his resurrection, I could not help feeling that where there is so much beauty in all his aspects—his actions, his words, his attitude to mankind—there must be much truth. Having the evidence in addition, I am satisfied. My verdict goes for the defendants.
Mr. Believer-of-Evidence: I cannot refuse to believe what is so manifestly proved. I give my verdict to the defendants.
Mr. Candour: I have listened attentively to both sides. I believe there is truth in science; but I cannot see that what truth there may be in science is contradicted by what has been proved true of Christ. I cannot give my verdict for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Care-for-Reputation: I do not exactly see my way, your Lordship, to give a definite verdict. You see there are difficulties on both sides; and I am sure all the Gentlemen concerned are highly respectable in every way.
Mr. Fearer-of-God: It is not compatible with the character of the Maker of all things, as we see it reflected in the constitution of heaven and earth, that He should intend the present imperfect life of man as a finality for such a being. I am compelled to believe He would purpose something more in harmony with the high aspirations with which He has endowed us; and, also, that He would tell us of His purpose. The evidence shows that p. 338 He has done so in Christ, and I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Euthusiastic-in-Good: How is it possible that a man could hesitate in his verdict? I see nothing on one side but cold intellect, proved fallible by its changes every ten years; on the other, I see every form of excellence, and every form of beneficence that man could hope for or desire, guaranteed to us in the proved and uncontradictable resurrection of Christ. I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Sublimity: Amazing wisdom! Astounding goodness! Stupendous might! I thank God He has delivered human life from its pettiness and inanity, and human futurity from impenetrable gloom, by such a glorious chapter in history as the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Without hesitation, I give my verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Trierof Dreams: I think it is possible to discriminate between phantasy and reality by the application of well-known and universally-accepted tests and principles founded on experience. I have carefully tested every phase of this case by the application of these principles. I do not say the plaintiffs are wrong in the high place they give to science, but I do think they are not justified in dismissing the apostolic testimony as a thing founded on delusion. It stands every test by which reality is determined. In my judgment, it is neither a dream nor a hallucination, nor a mistake, nor an imposture, but a matter of plain and sober historic reality. I cannot, with such a view, record my verdict for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Cloudy Thoughtful: I don’t know how to look at it, exactly. It is a thing that no person can see through quite, so as to be right square sure about it either way. I have sometimes thought the plaintiffs had it, and then I have thought it was the defendants, upon my word; there may be something in what they say, but I cannot tell—not so as to be justly sure, you know.
p. 339 Mr. Loverof Debate: My Lord, we have had a rare treat. I have enjoyed the discussion all round amazingly. I should like it all over again. I rather like the idea of a new trial. I don’t so much care about a verdict. The arguments are to my taste. I think there is about as much on one side as on the other. No doubt every man will be of his own opinion.
Mr. Paul Brother: In my judgment there is only one way of it. The defendants are in the right. It is as clear as noon-day. The evidence cannot be put aside. Christ unquestionably rose from the dead. And we may all be thankful for it, my Lord, for I see some interesting prospects for us all if Christ is coming again.
And so the trial ends for the present.