resisting modern mind to adopting the conclusion that Jesus had an actual and miraculous resurrection from the dead.

fairness, and come what may come of it to either party, the words of Christ in Matthew must henceforward constitute for them, as well as us, the only ultimate standard of scientific arbitration.

very naïvely reserve to themselves the purely arbitrary prerogative of squarely turning their backs upon their own historical conditions of And, in view of the developments of this debate, whenever it simply suits their emerliscussion, the reason for this is now very pat-gency of argument. No, in all scholarly ent, namely, that, regarded from the present standpoint, the gospel records of Jesus' resurrection would require to come before us on precisely an equal footing with any other uncorroborated and unsupported ghost story, such as that, for example, which is detailed above concerning our recent Ulster apparition. In the case of Jesus, as in the case of the Ulster suicide, there would be the same perfectly sincere faith that the apparition had been witnessed; but, in either case, what mind pervaded with modern habits of scientific thought would for an instant hesitate to say that the hypothesis of illusion or hallucination would be immeasurably more rational and credible than the hypothesis of an actual rising from the dead?

And it has been almost exclusively because of their being permitted to isolate the mere gospel story of Jesus' resurrection altogether from the other all-decisive data going to make up a full decision of the case, and to treat it by itself, like any other uncorroborated and unsupported ghost-story, that the modern anti-supernaturalists have been able, now for nearly three-quarters of a century, more and more largely, and more and more increasingly, to divide the faith of thinking men and women all over the Christian world, as it concerns the validity of the current Christian view of this vital Christian tenet.

But all such anti-scientific, anti-supernaturalistic playing with our subject must at last be ended. Seventy-five years are assuredly long enough for this sort of wading in the shallows. It is high time to say that the gospel records of the Resurrection cannot possibly be regarded by any scholar as if they were but a common and uncorroborated ghost-story; whereas they form in truth a component and integral portion of the Bible, and more particularly of the gospels.

And if we who occupy the supernaturalistic position argumentatively consent to make a complete truce concerning every mooted modern gospel question, and to go directly over and conduct the entire investigation of such a cardinal Christian tenet as that of Jesus' resurrection, altogether from the very standpoint insisted upon by our opponents, namely, that merely the words of Christ in Matthew constitute "the basis of all that we know of the teachings of Jesus," our opponents assuredly must not, even after that,

No sooner do we come, however, to consider, from the anti-supernaturalistic point of view, the question of the miraculous resurrection from the dead, not of some merely imaginary Jesus, but of that Jesus alone who speaks to us in Matthew, than forthwith we find that it is utterly impossible for us ever to arrive at any fixed and final verdict on this question without becoming confronted with the almost fearful query what we are to think of that specific Jesus personally, in case he did not have a real resurrection. We may indeed endeavor to amuse ourselves for a season with our problem, like another Strauss, as if it were a simple question in psychology; and for another season, like another Feuerbach, as if it were a simple question of our personal assertion; and for still another season, like another Renan, as if it were, at the very worst, but a simple question of hallucination, fraudulently aided and abetted, perhaps a very trifle, by certain friends of Jesus. But all this time we have been most steadily averting our faces from the very historical basis of the whole investigation, namely, from the words of Christ in Matthew. And when we once begin to direct our thoughts to those specific words of Jesus, turn and twist them, and even contort them as we may, we still must always, invariably and unavoidably, reach precisely this result, namely, that whatever may be either true or false concerning any other Jesus, the Jesus whose words remain to us in Matthew, beyond all doubt or question, not only prior to his crucifixion predicted, but subsequently to his crucifixion attested, his real death and real resurrection.

Nor is this all; but we must furthermore remember that this question of the personal complicity of this Jesus with his resurrection, does not in any sense come before us as an original, exceptional, and isolated question connected with his mental and his moral character. Conversely, long before we could even reach this special question of his resurrection for a separate investigation, we have found ourselves obliged formally, in a preceding paper, and by way partly of

THE RESURRECTION.

recapitulation, and partly of additional suggestions, in the present one, to trace this Jesus step by step through a most unparalleled career of deliberate thaumaturgy ;— have been compelled, in fact, either to say that this Jesus was in truth a superhuman wonder-worker of the very highest order, or else to say that this Jesus was in truth among the greatest knaves and fools combined ever known or dreamed of. Here indeed everything is precisely of a piece concerning that Jesus of which alone we speak, and who is the only Jesus of which any scholarly recognition whatever can be made in this deliberation, namely, that Jesus whose words remain to us in Matthew. If, in other words, the resurrection of that Jesus was a real one, it is then to be regarded by us merely as his "crowning miracle"; if, on the contrary, it was not a real one, it is then to be regarded by us merely as his crowning act of foolishness and fraud.

But so soon as we have ventured out so far as this from shore, we then for the very first time begin to realize that the central current of the argument and evidence in favor of the Christian view of Jesus' resurrection, and the like, instead of having been so soon as this exhausted, has in fact now but fairly caught us; and that there is after this no longer any choice left us, excepting either, in the first place, to yield ourselves up and go like an arrow directly down the stream to Christian standing-ground; or else, in the second place, to turn defiantly back against the whole rush and struggle of both the argument and evidence, and so attain at last to anti-Christian standing-ground only by the sheer force of dogged dogmatical resistive swimming. For no sooner do we reach the point in our investigation, which is above arrived at, than up comes the further question, how that Jesus, whose words remain to us in Matthew, ever came to place himself in such a superhuman attitude before his contemporaries, that either a most astounding series of actual miracles, or else a most astounding series of glaring and shameless frauds, ending with a personal rising from the dead, alone could rally to his rescue. no sooner is this question asked than, for reaBut sons partially suggested in the present paper, and fully to be developed in a future one, out comes the fact that the special Jesus referred to, undertook to play the rôle of the superhuman Son of God before his contemporaries, after such a fashion, that, in default of his being in truth the Son of God he claimed to be, not only in the direction of his thaumaturgy,

assumed, the honors which he received, the but also in the direction of the titles which he supernatural knowledge to which he laid a claim, the divine prerogatives connected with the human race which he presumed to exerthe moral and religious life and rights of all others, this Jesus would stand convicted be cise-that in these respects, not to instance of being the most deliberate, despicable, and fore the bar of modern thought and culture detestable impostor and charlatan combined, in all religious annals.

tually be forced upon the anti-Christians, that
But if the absolute alternative should even-
the Jesus in question was either really the
superhuman Son of God he claimed to be,
not have been the latter?
or else such an impostor and charlatan, may he

quire sufficient scientific courage squarely
When the modern anti-supernaturalists ac-
to discuss that question with the Christian,
they will then soon enough discover whether
pistol held to their heads by the defend
that view of Jesus is merely an empty
Prof. Froschammer above impliedly admits,
ers of ancient orthodoxy, or whether, as
death and destruction to every current or
it is a pistol loaded to the very muzzle with
supernatural.
conceivable creed and system of the anti-

Meanwhile the prior question is, whether
fairly averted by the anti-supernaturalists, or
the absolute alternative can
whether it can only be vaulted and evaded—
hereafter be
as it thus far surely has been, and that by all,
from Paulus down to Herbert Spencer.

Now, gentlemen, be pleased to come at
regard to our belief in the great leading
once to close quarters with us Christians in
supernatural features of both Christ and
Christianity.

We perfectly agree with Renan: “The tianity will only speak their deepest uttercritical studies relating to the origin of Chrispurely secular and non-religious spirit, acances when they shall be cultivated in a cording to the method of the Hellenists, the Moslems, the Hindoos, men strangers to all theology, who dream neither to applaud nor to defame, neither to defend nor to overthrow the dogmas."

We frankly and without reserve throw down to you the gauntlet in all these investigations, ought to do, and that is, "to follow reason to do precisely what Huxley justly says we and fact in singleness and honesty of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the faith that a hell of honest men will be more endurable than a paradise full of angelic shams."

But before we will abandon our belief as Christians in the great leading supernatural features of either Christ or Christianity, we

demand,-what you have thus far plainly failed to give us, namely, good and valid reasons for our doing so.

OLD AND BLIND.

GALLANT Gray-beard, can't you see
You unconscionable bat, you—
While you play the devotee,
That the girl is laughing at you?

You were handsome in your day,
You are well preserved and thrifty,
And your manners, one may say,
Are superb, but-you are fifty!

Don't be foolish, now you're old,
Flirting in this feeble fashion,—
Trying on a hearth grown cold

To re-light a boyish passion.

You have had your day of youth,

With its tender freaks and fancies;

You have known a woman's truth,

And have lived Love's sweet romances.

Ay, I know her lips are red;

True, her curls are black and glossy;

Yes, she bears a dainty head,

And her eyes are sweet and saucy.

But she knows you act a part,

While you try to tease and please her,-
Knows, Old Make-Believe, your heart
Is as dead as Julius Cæsar ;-

Knows it, though a simple girl,

And is laughing while you linger;-
Knows it well, and, like a curl,

Winds you round her jeweled finger!

But if you must act a part;

If you cannot drop your feigning,
Feign you have not in your heart
Such a thing as love remaining.

Come and stand with me, my friend,-
She'll permit you-never doubt her!
Do as I do, and pretend

Not to care a fig about her!

CONCERNING SOME IMPERIAL BOOTY.

If the French newspapers are read by the Solitary Prince, Yih-tsing, Emperor of China, His Celestial Highness must be very much diverted about this time. All Paris, and especially all Paris journalism, has been discussing this question: Whom do the things belong to? The ex-Empress of the French, formerly Countess of Teba, or Mamselle Montijo, is administratrix of the last will and testament of the late L. N. Bonaparte. She claims, among other real and personal property, the Chinese museum at Fontainebleau. From her cool retreat at Chislehurst, she demands, in behalf of her son, the reputed heir to whatever property was left by her late husband, a vast number of works of art, curiosities, articles of virtu and sundry parcels of real estate in and around Paris. It is in the Chinese collection, however, that we now have any special concern, as disinterested observers of the little games of kings, emperors and political chess-players.

Let us go back a few centuries. When China was Cathay and Pekin was Cambaluc, say about A. D. 1264, Kublai Khan made that city the seat of empire. In the time of the Tsin dynasty, that is to say, B. C. 222, it had been the capital; and when Kublai Khan, then in the meridian of life and at the zenith of his power, there fixed his residence, he built for himself a great and wonderful city of palaces and temples just outside the environs of Cambaluc.

Doubtless, no such work of human hands has been seen on the earth since the time of Solomon; possibly, the famous. hanging gardens of Babylon may have been somewhat more wonderful; but no other fabric was ever comparable to it for extent and magnificence. Messer Marco Polo, whose reputation as a champion romancer in his day, has since been replaced by the the honest renown which he deserves, says that the palace was enclosed by a wall of four miles in compass; that five gates opened on each side of this four-square mural defense; and that the palace was subdivided into innumerable temples, kiosks and palaces. It was known, in fact, as "The One Hundred and Eight Temples." Of the chief structure Marco says: "You must know that it is the greatest Palace that ever was. The roof is very lofty and the walls of the palace are covered with gold and silver. They are also adorned

|

And

with representations of dragons (sculptured
and gilt,) beasts and birds, knights and
idols, and sundry other subjects.
on the ceiling, too, you see nothing but gold
and silver and painting."

"The Hall of the Palace," says the en-
thusiastic old chronicler, who saw what he
describes, "is so large that it could easily
dine six thousand people; and it is quite a
marvel to see how many rooms there are
besides. The building is altogether so
vast, so rich, and so beautiful that no man
on earth could design anything superior to it.
The outside of the roof is all colored with ver-
milion and yellow and green and blue and
other hues, which are fixed with a varnish so
fine and exquisite that they shine like cryst-
al, and lend a resplendent luster to the Palace
as seen from a great way round. The roof,
too, is made with such great strength and
solidity that it is fit to last forever. More-
over on the north side of the Palace, about
a bow-shot off, there is a hill which has
been made by art from the earth dug out
of the lake; it is a good hundred paces in
height and a mile in compass.
This hill
is entirely covered with trees that never
lose their leaves, but remain ever green.
And I assure you wherever a beautiful tree
may exist, and the Emperor gets news of
it, he sends for it and has it transported
bodily with all its roots and the earth at-
tached to them. No matter how big the
tree may be, he gets it carried by his ele-
phants; in this way he has got together the
most beautiful collection of trees in all the
world. And he also caused the whole hill
to be covered with ore of azure, which is
very green. And thus not only are the trees
all green, but the hill itself is all green
likewise; and there is nothing to be seen
on it that is not green; and hence it is
called the GREEN MOUNT; and in good
sooth 'tis named well."

Thus Marco Polo. Old Purchas, recounted this wonderful story of The One Hundred and Eight Temples, called Xandu by Ramusio and described as Chandu by Friar Odoric. It was in "Purchas His Pilgrimes," that Coleridge read the fascinating tale of Kublai Khan's magnificence, whereupon he dreamed the poem beginning:

"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan

A stately pleasure-dome decree;