in the Commons, in 1837, to the day of his triumphal return to Parliament, after the signing of the Berlin treaty in 1878, success came to him as the reward of unflagging determination. "I will sit down now, but the time will come when you will hear me" -the historic ending of his maiden attempt -was the watchword of this determination. Few statesmen have entered the arena of politics with less armor on than he. He was an alien in race and in appearance. Even in school-so he tells us in "Contarini Fleming" and "Vivian Grey"-his eastern extraction had stood in his way. He was without riches-in fact, often embarrassed for money. He was a coxcomb in his dress, and a speaker after a fashion then unknown at the hustings and on the floor of the House. Any one with less will power would have speedily turned tail and fled. But he fought his way through all. He could afford to wait. He could accept defeat with grace, and failure with good temper. He had complete confidence in himself and in the final rising of his star.

Four times he had attempted to enter Parliament and had failed. The fifth time he succeeded. For three times he was a member of the cabinet, twice as chancellor of the exchequer, and once even he was prime minister, without having a parliamentary majority with which to work. On the fifth occasion (1874) he took office with a strong majority in both Houses and sustained by the publicly acknowledged good will of the sovereign. Two years later, this coxcomb of an alien race passed into the House of Lords, and sat with the select representatives of England's nobility as Earl Beaconsfield of Beaconsfield, Viscount Hughenden of Hughenden, Knight of the Garter.

With this determined will he combined an exact knowledge of the extent of his own powers. While he never underrated them, he never for long taxed them beyond their strength. He tried poetry in "The Revolutionary Epoch." He knew that he had failed; and, though some of his verses in "Venetia" are said by critics to have real value, he never tried again to write in

verse. He found that his powers lay in a different direction, and he used those powers to his utmost advantage. This knowledge of himself gave him the needed courage. No more dauntless act is on record than his daring attack on Sir Robert Peel (1845) from out of the ranks of that minister's own supporters. It was a great risk to take. Peel was an accomplished parliamentarian, the first man in England. But he who took that risk had full knowledge of his own powers and felt his ability to follow the road upon which he had started.

Disraeli has been called the Great Sphinx, and one of Punch's celebrated caricatures represents him as such with a knowing wink in one of his eyes. I do not think that this carries with it any charge of insincerity or simulation. He abhorred cant in all its forms; and, if his aspirations were not of an ethereal nature, he was the first to say so. He worked for a name and for place. "Fear not, faint not, falter not. Obey the impulse of thine own spirit and find a ready instrument in every human being," is the advice given to one of his heroes. But he never once descended to a low trick or a mean action. They who accuse him of insincerity have missed the root nature of his being.

It was his constant boast that he was the representative of the Semitic principle. Few Jews who live outside of the synagogue have had so strong a feeling for their race as had Disraeli. Few Jews who live within its four walls have made the extravagant claims for the work their people have done in the world's history which this Jewish. member of the English Church puts into the mouth of Sidonia. It speaks well for him that he never put the fact of his origin in the background. He prided himself in that which others cited to his discredit. And even when malicious tongues had been silenced by his success, he continued to glory in it.

The foundations of his character were laid in this Semitism. The blood of JudæoSpanish grandees ran in his veins and affected his whole character. If he had

the love of show and of spangle and of garish ornamentation, showing itself in his own personal appearance and in the characters of his novels, he had also that indomitable courage in the face of untoward and ill-starred fate which had enabled his forefathers to withstand suffering and pain. He owed to it that ubiquity, that suppleness and pliancy which made it possible for him to accommodate himself so readily to altered circumstances. He owed to it, also, that love of law and order, that veneration for old England in its feudal character, that desire to "conserve" the old that made him the real founder of the Conservative party, the vindicator of the British constitution.

But this descendant of the haughty race of Spanish Jews had been born in England. He had read voraciously and had traveled much. He had imbibed something of the new spirit which had caused his father to leave the Bevis Marks Synagogue on account of what he called the "narrowness of the Jewish system." This new had, in a sense, been grafted upon the old. Dis raeli himself believed that the graft had been successful. To the people at large it appeared different. He was looked upon as inconsistent and unsteady. It appeared impossible that one and the same man could be both courtier and tribune. The one was his Semitic nature, the other the English ongrafting. It seemed impossible that one and the same man could, to use his own words, "approve the action of the Chartists and at the same time disapprove of Chartism." The Englishman in him compassionated the workman's lot and felt for his aspirations. The Semite in him thought that this could be carried out only by a return to a sort of feudal system, in which the various sections of society should have duties as well as rights. It seemed impossible that one who rated so highly the genius of the Semite and the value of the Semite's religious gift to mankind could at the same time be the stanch upholder of the Protestant Established Church. His ancestors had been brought up in an established Jewish Church, in

which ecclesiastical authority had not been weak. But he had become an Englishman and he looked now to the church of that country and was zealous for it. He inveigled his own conscience into really believing that "Christianity was Judaism for the multitude." And so these two streams were continually flowing through him. They were the expression of a double nature, which only in his own mind could live on side by side. He commenced political life as a Radical; he ended as a Conservative. "No statesman can disregard with impunity the genius of the epoch in which he lives" was his own explanation ! In the changing character of events it is difficult to estimate the effect which individual statesmen exercise upon the destinies of the country they have been called upon to lead. "One who affects the mind of his generation" is a great man, according to Disraeli's own definition. But adjectives have little meaning; and the title "great" has been oftener misapplied than it has been deserved. Disraeli can hardly be said to have exerted a strong influence upon the development of the internal life of Great Britain. No great measure will remain connected with his name. He was the ruling spirit of the Derby administration of 1867; but the Reform Bill which he passed was but a trump card snatched from the Whigs and played for the success it would bring his party with the people. He had, it is true, called the Jews to enter Parliament. But he had been entirely unable to grapple with the great Irish question. Gladstone had come into power in 1868 with the express purpose of finding a solution to this difficult problem. He left the ministry in 1872, with nothing accomplished. Now was Disraeli's chance. But he let the chance slip; he tacitly acknowledged his inability to do anything. His Public Worship Act, which was intended to put a stop to ritualism, has not stopped discussion and acrimonious debate within the ranks of the church.

But the success of his later years, the only years in which he had real power to mold the course of events, lies in his policy

toward the Greater Britain and the globe at large. He was an imperialist in the truest sense of the word. England's greatness, to him, lay in her colonial empire and in the work which she could there do to make ⚫ her civilizing influence felt in all directions. Disraeli has been reproached with being the father of jingoism. In so far as jingoism is a natural outcome of all imperialism, this charge may be true. He has also been reproached with having tried to make of England an Asiatic power. Recent events in the far East have shown how clear a view this Hebrew-English prophet had. The great world-struggles of the twentieth century will be in Asia. Disraeli saw the small cloud on the horizon. Asia was to live again at some time, and he undoubtedly felt that his own race would in some manner share in this upbuilding. He had a romantic interest in Palestine; in the face of Bulgarian atrocities and of a strong anti-Mohammedan sentiment, he upheld the integrity of the Turkish Empire; Turkey had been sinned against as much as she had sinned. He created his queen empress of India and brought Indian soldiers to Malta. He acquired possession of Cyprus, and bought up a controlling interest in the Suez Canal. He saw that England's great enemy was Russia, whether at Constantinople or near the Himalayas. Had his policy been continued, England would not now be confronted by the danger of being wiped out of Asia by that same Russia, nor would she see Muscovite railroads and Muscovite soldiers at the very gates of her Indian Empire. And even should England turn from the dream of becoming a great Asiatic power to the hope of becoming a great African one under a Cecil Rhodes, the foresight of Disraeli in securing for her a firm foothold at the joining of the continents will go a long way toward enabling her to realize such a hope. To all this the policy of the Liberals had been in direct opposition. It had been an almost unbroken series of disasters and of retreat. And with this retreat went also the prestige of England in the council of European nations. The four years of

Gladstone's administration (1868–72) had seen the pitiful rôle of England during the Franco-Prussian War, the undoing of everything gained by the Crimean War, and the enforced settlement of the Alabama Claims. It was Disraeli who once more raised that rôle to some importance; and his traditions have been sacredly kept by his pupil, the Marquis of Salisbury. The Berlin Conference (1878), which he had called, in order to save Turkey from falling a prey to England's enemy, Russia, was perhaps the great success of his life. His figure dominated its councils; and though most of its provisions have remained without effect, it has brought England once again into its rightful place as one of the great European powers. Shortly after the congress had been held, the words of Zachariah (viii. 23) were not inaptly applied: "In those days it shall come to pass that ten men shall take hold of the languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you."

I have said that as a speaker his style was unknown to the House at the time he entered it. No greater contrast can be imagined than between the two great leaders who for so many years stood upon opposite sides of the table. Gladstone was forceful in his simplicity; he was calm, even when speaking with great emphasis. Disraeli was never calm, except when he was poking fun or pouring out his sarcasm. He had a jerky way of talking; his whole body would sway and his head and hand assist in marking certain points. He was greatest in sudden effects; his most deadly weapon was sarcasm. It was this that brought such big game as Peel to his feet. But at times it cost him dear. When he spoke of "grasping the bloody hand" of O'Connell he brought down upon him the fury of the whole Irish party, which at one time almost submerged him. In answer to a criticism of Gladstone, he described his great opponent as "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and egotistical imagination!"

But Disraeli was something more than a

statesman and an orator.

Like Julius Cæsar, Cicero, Frederick the Great, Guizot, and Thiers, he was also an author. At one time, in early life, he seriously thought of taking to literature as a profession. He was a voluminous writer. The literary merit is greater in his earlier than in his later works. But they are all full of fine pieces of description, and exhibit those powers of sarcasm and debate which won him influence in his chosen walk of life. All his novels are "tendency" novels, with the exception, perhaps, of "Venetia" and "Henrietta Temple." Sybil" treats

66

works by which he will live longest as an author. They are the political novel, of which he was largely the creator. Here, under a very thin guise, we can follow the political life of the time in which their author played so important a part. "Contarini Fleming" and "Vivian Grey" are full of pictures of his own early life.

As statesman, orator, writer he was never idle. Nothing that Disraeli did was small and puny, and he will always remain one of the most picturesque figures among the many great men who have served England during the Victorian Age. When he once stood for election he was asked upon what

He showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs.-Acts i. 3.

I

N treating the resurrection of Jesus Christ we are oppressed with a sense of its tremendous importance. No fact excels it. No fact carries so much in it. Christianity stands or falls with it. Risen or not risen? that is the question. If Christ be not risen then his character is a wreck, and a wreck from which it is impossible to save anything worth advocating, worth having, worth keeping.

But if Christ be risen, what then? Then Christianity is divine and true, and everything that conflicts with Christianity is human and false. Then Jesus of Nazareth is what he claimed to be-the Son of God. Then redemption on Calvary is a glorious reality. Then life beyond the grave is a fact. Then the coming triumph of goodness is certain and indisputable.

Risen or not risen? that is the question. In dealing with this question we take the position of the text, viz.:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historic fact, and as such it is substantiated by infallible proofs.

I. As an historical fact the resurrection of Christ is established by other facts which grow out of it and which are connected with it.

(a) The Christian Church is a witnessing fact. Whence this great organization, the Christian Church? Where did it get its missionary life? It got it from the resurrected Christ, who said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." What gospel does it bring to the world? The gospel of the resurrection. This is its creed, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and shall believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." But what is the Christian Church? It is an organization linked to the days of the apostles by an unbroken history. It is the fruit of Christ's resurrection. It stands related to Christ's resurrection just as this republic stands related to the patriotism of the revolutionary heroes.

(b) The Christian Sabbath is a witnessing fact. The Christian Sabbath was not the original Sabbath; the Jews in our midst with their seventh-day Sabbath are a proof

keeping they are raising the question from

ians keep a different Sabbath?" The answer to this question brings out the history of the Christian Sabbath. This is its history: The Christian Sabbath is kept as a memorial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as such it dates back to the time when the apostles saw the Risen One. In the Christian Sabbaths which have blessed the earth we have a grand chain of time which is made out of the links of weeks. Taking hold of the last formed link and throwing our might into one long, strong, testing pull, we can feel the rebound which tells that the far-away first link is securely fastened to an eternal reality. I would as soon doubt the fact commemorated by the Fourth of July as doubt the fact commemorated by the Lord's Day.

In the second place

2. As an historical fact the resurrection of Christ is established by the testimony of competent witnesses.

Our source of information and authority is the New Testament. This book introduces us to the witnesses and furnishes us with a copy of their testimony. According to the New Testament there are two classes of witnesses, viz.: Christ's enemies and Christ's friends.

It is important to notice just here that there are some things which are admitted by both classes. They agree upon three things at least: first, that Jesus Christ was dead; second, that Jesus Christ was buried in the tomb of Joseph, which was closed with a great stone, sealed with the Roman seal, and guarded by a Roman guard; third, that on the morning of the third day the tomb was empty.

The enemies of Christ had every motive to account for the empty tomb in a way to dishonor Christ. The very same envy and hate which surrounded the cross surrounded the tomb. Nevertheless, we are bound candidly to listen to what these enemies say. How do they account for the empty tomb? They persuaded the Roman soldiers to say: "While we slept the disciples of Jesus came and stole his body away"!

sleeping men. "While we slept his disciples came and stole his body." They saw nothing. They were asleep. As sleeping men they were virtually dead to everything transpiring. To admit that they slept was to admit that they knew nothing, and were therefore incompetent as witnesses. Their testimony was only a conjecture. Conjecture is not evidence. No court of law allows facts to be buried by theories and conjectures. Conjectures and theories are all that the enemies of Christ have ever produced up to date. This story, which falls to pieces of itself, is positively the best story that the enemies of Christ have ever gotten up as an explanation of the empty tomb.

It is said by the enemies of Christ that the witnesses of the resurrection deliberately bore false testimony, in order to deceive the world. This way of accounting for the empty tomb is no better than the soldiers' story, because there was no possible or conceivable motive to induce the disciples of Jesus to deceive the world. If Christ rose not they were deceived themselves, and it would have been human nature for them then to brand their cruel deceiver with infamy instead of glorifying him by the proclamation that he had risen. It is not human nature to treat deceivers as though they were saints. Mark what the disciples met with because they proclaimed the resurrection of Christ! They were persecuted by those who crucified Christ. They were scourged and stoned and exiled. Are these the things which tempt men to become impostors?

Besides all this, we must keep before us the results which the fact of Christ's resurrection worked in these witnesses. It lifted them out of their old selves and made them new men. They rose to higher faith and higher work. They gave the world its purest doctrine, and principles, and ideals. Their raised character is a proof of the raised Christ. The tree of falsehood has never grown such lives as the after lives of the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus