THE DAILY EVENING TELEGRAPH PHILADELPHIA, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1870. the jesux of itisxon r". The following article Fiske, of Harvard, is by Frofcssor John from The MoJern Thinker: Of all the founders of relfgions, Jesus is at nee the best known and the least known to the modern scholar. From, the dogmatic point of view he is the best known, from the historic point of view he is the least known. The Jesns of dogma is in every lineament familiar to ns from early childhood; but con cerning the J 8sn b of history we possess but few facts resting upon trustworthy evidence; and in order to form a picture of him at once consistent, probable, and distinct in its out line, it is necessary to enter upon a long aad difficult investigation, in the coarse of which some of the most delicate apparatus of modern criticism will not fail to be required. This circumstance is sufficiently singular to reqnire especial explanation. The case of Sakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, which inBy perhaps be cited as parallel, is in reality wholly different. Not only did Sakyamuni live five centuries earlier than Jesus, among a people that have at no time possessed the art of insuring authenticity in their records of events, and at an era which is at best but dimly discorned through the mistB of fable and legend, but the work which he achieved lies wholly out of the course of European history, and it is only in recent times that his career has presented itself to us as a pro blem needing to be solved. Jesus, on the other hand, appeared in an age which is fami liarly and in many respects minutely known to ns, and among a people whose fortunes we can trace with historio certainty for at least seven centuries previous to hi birth; while his life and achievements have probably had a larger share in directing the entire subse quent intellectual and moral development of Europe than those of any other man who has ever lived. Nevertheless, the details of his personal career are shrouded in an obscurity almost as dense as that which envelops the life of the remote founder of Buddhism. This phenomenon, however, appears less fit range and paradoxical when we come to examine it more closely. A little reflection will disclose to us several good reasons why the historical records of the life of Jesus should be so soanty as they are. In the first place, the activity of Jesus was private rather than public. Confined within exceedingly narrow limits, both of space and of duration, it made no impression whatever upon the politics or the literature of the time. His name did not occur in the pages of any con temporary writer, Roman, Greek, or Jewish. Doubtless the case would have been wholly different had he, like Mahomet, lived to a ripe age, and had the exigencies of his pecu liar position as the Messiah of the Jewish people brought him into relations with the empire; though whether, in such case, the success of his grand undertaking would have been as complete as it has actually been, may well be doubted. Secondly, Jesus did not, like Mahomet and Paul, leave behind him authentic writings which might serve to throw light upon his mental development as well as upon the ex ternal facts of his career. Without the Koran and the four genuine Epistles of Paul, we should be nearly as much in the dark con cerning these great men as we now are con cerning the historical Jesus. We should be compelled to rely, in the one case, npon the untrustworthy gossip of Mussulman ohrom clers, and in the other case upon the garbled statements of the "Acts of the Apostles," a book written with a distinct dogmatic pur pose, sixty or seventy years after the occur rence of the events which it professes to re cord. It is true, many of the words of Jesus, pre served by hearsay tradition through the gene ration immediately succeeding his death, have come down to ns, probably with little alteration, in the pages of the three earlier evangelists. These are priceless data, since, bb we shall see, they are almost the only ma terial at our command for forming even a partial conception of the character of Jesus' work. Nevertheless, even here the cautious inquirer has only too often to pause in the face of the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic utterances of the great teacher from the later interpolations suggested by the dog ' xnatic necessities of the narrators. Bitterly must the historian regret that Jobus bad no philosophio disciple, like Xeno- phon, to record his memorabilia Of the various writings included in the New Testament,the Apocalypse alone (and possibly the Epistle of Jade) is from the pen of a personal acquaintance of Jesus; and be sides this, the four epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Ilomans, make np the sum of the writings from which we may demand contemporary testimony. Yet from these we obtain absolutely nothing of that for which we are seeking. The brief writings of Paul are occupied exclusively witn tne internal significance of Jesus work. The epistle of Jade if it be really written by Jesus' brother of that name, which is doubtful is solely a polemic directed against the innovations of Paul. And the Apocalypse, tne worn 01 tne nery and imaginative dis ciple John, is confined to a prophetic descrip tion of the Messiah s anticipated return, and tells ns nothing of the deeda of that Messiah awhile on the earth. Here we touch upon our third considera tion the consideration which best enables ns to see why the historic notices of Jesus are so meagre. Ilightly considered, the statement with which we opened this article is its own explanation. The Jesus of history is so little known, just because the Jesus of dogma is so well known. Other teachers Paul, Maho i ; . mei, oaxyainum nave come merely as preachers of righteousness, speaking ia the name of general principles with which their own personalities were not directly impli cated, but Jesus, as we snail see, bet ore the close of his life, proclaimed himself to be something more than a preacher of righteous ness. He announced himself and justly. irom nis own poini 01 view as tne loug-ex-pected Messiah sent of Jehovah to liberate the Jewish race. The success of his religious teachings became at once implicated with the question of his personal nature and character. After the sudden and violent termination of his career, it immediately be came all-important with his followers to piovethat he was really the Messiah, and to insist npon the certainty of his speedy return to earth. Thus the first generation of disci ples dogmatized about him, instead of nar rating his life a task which to them would have seemed of little profit. For them the all-absorbing object of contemplation w.i the immediate future rather than the imme diate past. As all the earlier Christian lite rature informs ns, for nearly a century after the death of Jesus, his followers lived in daily anticipation of his triumphant return to earth. The end of all things being so near at hand, no attempt was made to insure the accurate and complete memoirs for the use of a posterity which was destined, in Christian imagination, never to arrive. - The fifct Christians wrote Lot little, even rapins, at tho end of a century, preferring second-hand or third-hand oral tradition to the written gospela which were then beginning to come into ciroala tion. Memoirs of the life and teachings of Jesus were called forth by the necessity of having a written standard of doctrine to which to appeal to amid the growing differ ences of opinion which disturbed the Church. Thus tho earlier gospels exhibit, though in different degrees, the indications of a modi fying, sometimes of an overruling, dogmatic purpose. There ia, indeed, no conscious vio lation of historio truth, but froin the varied mass of material supplied by tradition, such incidents are selected as are fit to support the views of the writers concerning the per sonality of Jesus. Accordingly, while the early gospels throw a Rtrong light upon the state of Christian opinion at.the dtttes when they were successively composed, the infor mation which they give concerning Jesus himself is, for that reason, often vague, un critical and contradictory. Still more is this true of the fourth gospel, written late in the second century, in which historio tradition is moulded in the interents of dogma until it becomes no longer recognizable, and "in tho place of the human Messiah of the earlier ac counts, we have a semi-divine Lo,ro i or Au n. detached from God and incarnate for a brief season in the likeness of man. Not only was historv subordinated to dogma by the writers of the Gospel narra tives, but in the minds of the fathers of the Church who assisted in determining what writings should be considered canonical, dog niatio prepossession went very much further than critical acumen. Nor is thia strange when we reflect that critical discrimination in questions of literary authenticity is one of tne latest acquisitions ol tne cultivated human mind. In the early ages of the Church, the evidence of the genuineness of any literary production was never weighed critically; writings containing doctrines ac ceptabie to tne maiomyoi unnstians were quoted as authoritative, while writings which supplied no dogmatic want were overlooked, or perhaps condemned as apochryphal. A striking instance of this is furnished by the fortunes of the Apocalypse. Although perhaps the best authenticated work in the New Testament collection, its millenarian doctrines caused it to become unpopular as the Church gradually ceased to look for the speedy return of the Messiah, and, accord ingly, as the canon assumed a definite shape, it was placed among the "Antilegomena, or doubtful books, and continued to hold a pre carious position until after the time of the Protestant Keformation. Un the other hand, the Fourth GoBpel, which was quite unknown and probably did not exist at the time of the quartodeciman controversy (A. D. 108), was accepted with little hesitation, and at the be ginning of the third century is mentioned by Irenncns and Tertnllian as the work of the Apostle John. To this uncritical spirit, lead ing to the neglect of such beoks as failed to answer the dogmatic requirements of the Church, may probably be attributed the loss of so many of the earlier gospels. It is donbtless for this reason that we do not pos sess the Aramrcan original of the "Logia" of Matthew, or the "Memorabilia" of Mark, the companion of Peter, two works to which Papias (A. D. 120) alludes as containing authentic reports of the utterances of Jesus. These considerations will, we believe, suffi ciently explain the curious circumstances that, while we know tne J esus of dogma so intimately, we know the Jesus of history bo slightly Ihe literature of early Christianity enables us to trace with tolerable complete ness the progress of opinion concerning the nature of Jesus from the time of Paul's early missions to the time of the Nicene Council; but npon the actual words and deeds of Jesus it throws a very unsteady light. The dog matic purpose everywhere obscures the his toric basis. This same dogmaiic prepossession which has rendered the data for a biography of Jesus so scanty and untrustworthy, has also until com paratively recent times prevented any un biased critical examination of such data as we actually possess. Previous to the eighteenth century an attempt to deal with the life of Jesus upon purely historical methods would have been not only contemned as irrational, bat stigmatized as impious. And even in the eighteenth century, those writers who had become wholly emancipated from ecclesiastic tradition were so destitute ef all Historic sympathy and so unskilled in scientific methods of criticism that they utterly failed to comprehend the requirements of the prob lem. Their aims were in the main polemic, not historical. They thought more of over throwing current dogmas than of impartially examining the earliest Christian literature with a view of eliciting its historic contents; and, accordingly, they accomplished but little. Two brilliant exceptions must, however, be noticed. Spinoza, in the seventeenth cen tury, and Lessing, in the eighteenth, were men far in advance of their age. They are the fathers of modern historical criticism; and to Lessing in particular, with his enor mous erudition and incomparable sagacity, belongs the honor of initiating that method of inquiry which, in the hands of the so-called Tubingen school, has led to such striking and valuable conclusions concerning the age and character of the New Testament litera ture. But it was long before any one could be found fit to bend the bow which LessiBc and Spinoza had wielded. A succession of able scholars Sender, Eichhorn, Paulus, Schleiermaeher, Bretschneider, and De Wette were required to examine, with German patience and accuracy, the details of the sub ject, and to propound various untenable hypotheses before such a work as that of Strauss. The "Life of Jesus," pub lished by Strauss when only twenty-six years of age, is one of the monumental works of the nineteenth century, worthy to rank as a historical effort along with Niebuhr's "His tory of liome," Wolf's 'Prolegomena," or Bentley's "Dissertation on FhtlariB." It in stantly superseded and rendered antiquated everything which had preceded it; nor has any work on early Christianity been written in Germany for the past thirty years which has not been dominated by the recollection of that marvellous book. ' Nevertheless, the labors of another generation of scholars have carried our knowledge of the New Testament literature far beyond the point which it had reached when Strauss first wrote. At that time the dates of but few of the New Testa ment writings had been fixed with any approach to pertainty; the age and character of the fourth gospel, the genuineness of the Pauliue epistles, even the mutual relations of the three Synoptics, were still undete riuined; and as a natural re Bult of this uncertainty, the progress of dogma during the first century was illy'undir Btood. At the present d-y it is impa-wb'o to read the early work of Strauss without beinj; impressed with the necessity of obtaining positive data as to the origin and dogmatio character of the New Testament writings, be fore attempting to reaoh any conclusions as to the probable career of Jesus. These posi tive data we owe to the genius and dili gence or tne inmngen mouooi, ana, nusve all, to its founder, Ferdinand uuristian livir. Beginning with the epistles of Paul, of which he distinguished four as genuine, Baur gra la ally worked his way through the entire New Testament collection, detecting with that inspired insight which only unflinching dili gence can impart to original genius the age at which each book was written, and the circumstances which called it forth. To give any account of Baur's detVilad conclusions, or of the method by which he reached them, would require a volume. They are very scantily presented in Mr. Mackay's work on the "Tubingen School and its Ante cedents," to which we may refer the reader desirous of further information. We cm here merely Bay that twenty years of ener- S;etic controversy have only served to estab ish nearly all Baur's leading conclusions more firmly than ever. The priority of the so-called gospel of Matthew; the Pauline pur pose of Luke, the second in date of our gos pels; the derivative and second-hand char acter of Mark; and the unapostolic origin of the fourth gospel, are points which may for the future be regarded as completely estab lished by circumstantial evidence. So with respect to the pseudo-Panline epistles, Baur's work wns done so thoroughly that the only question still left open for much discussion is that concerning the date and authorship of the first and second Thessalonians a point of quite inferior importance so far as our present subject is concerned. Seldom have such vast results been achieved by the labor of a single scholar. Seldom has any histori cal critio possessed such a combination of analytic and of co-ordinating powers as Baur. His keen criticism and hisSvonderful flashes of insight exercise upon the reader a truly poetic effect like that which is felt in con templating the marvels of physical dis covery. The comprehensive labors of Baur were followed np by Zeller's able work on the "Acts of the Apostles," in which that book was shown to have been partly founded upon documents written by Luke, or some other companion of Paul, and expanded and modi ned by a much later writer, with the purpose ot covering up tne traces ot tne early sohism between the Pauline and the Petrine sections of the Chnrch. Along with this, Schwegler's work on the "Post-Apostolic Times" deserves mention as clearing np many obscure points relating to the early development of dogma Finally, the "New Life of Jesus," by Straass, adopting and utilizing the principal discove ries of Baur and his followers, and combining all into one grand historical picture, worthily completes the task which the earlier work of the same author had inaugurated The reader will have noticed that, with the exception of Spinoza, every one of the names above cited in connection with the literary analysis and criticism of the New Testament is the name of a German. Until within the last decade, Germany has irfoed possessed almost an absolute monopoly of the science of Biblical criticism; other countries having remained not only unfamiliar with its methods, bnt even, crossly ignorant of its conspicuous results, save when some German treatise of more than ordinary popularity lias now and then been translated. But da ring the past ten years France has entered the lists; and the writings of lieville, Keuss, Nicolas, D'Eichthal, Scherer, and Colarie teBtify to the rapidity with which the German seed has fructified upon her soil. None of these books, however, have achieved such wide-spread celebrity, or done so much toward interesting the general pub ho in this class of historical inquiries, as the "Life of Jesus," by Renan. This pre-emi. nenoe of fame is partly, but not wholly, de served. Irom a purely literary point of view, Kenan's work doubtless merits all the celebrity it has gained. Its author writes a style such as is perhaps equalled by that of no other living Frenchman. It is by far the most readable book which has ever been written concerning the life of Jesus. And no doubt some of its popularity is duo to its faults, which, from a critical point of view, are neither few nor small. For Kenan is certainly very faulty, as a his torical critic, wnen ne practically ignores the extreme meagrenessj of our positive knowledge of the career of Jesus, and de scribes scene after scene in his life as mi nutely and with as much confidence as if he had himself been present to witness it all. Again and again the critical reader feels prompted to ask, now do you know all this? or why, out of two or three conflicting accounts, do yon quietly adopt some parti cular one, as if superior authority were Self- evident? But in the eye of the uncritical reader, these defects are excellencies; for it is unpleasant to be kept in ignoranoe when we are seeking after definite knowledge, and it is disheartening to read page after page of an elaborate discussion which ends in con vincing us that definite knowledge cannot be gained. In the thirteenth edition of the "Vie de Jesus" Kenan has correoted some of the most striking errors of the original work, and in particular has, with praiseworthy candor. abandoned his untenable position with regard to the age and character ot the fourth Gospel. As is well known, Kenan in his earlier edi tions ascribed to this Gospel a historical value superior to that of the synoptics, be Mjeving it to nave been written by an eye r witness of the events which it relates; aud from this source, accordingly, he drew the larger share of his materials. Now, if there is any one conclusion concerning the New Testament literature which mast be regarded as incontrovertibly established by the labors of a whole generation of scholars, it is this, that the fourth Gospel was utterly unknown nntil about A. D. 170; that it was written by some one who possessed very little direct knowledge of Palestine; that its purpose was rather to expound a dogma than to give an accurate record oi events, ana that as a guide to the comprehension of the career of Jesus it is of far less value than the three Bynoptio gospels. It is impossible, in a brief review like the present, to epitomizo the evi dence upon which this conclusion rests, which may more profitably be sought in the ltev. J. J. Taylor's work on "The Fourth Gospel, or in Davidson s ' Introduction to the New Testament." It must suffice to men tion that this gospel is not cited by Papias; that Justin, Maroian, and valentinus make no allusion to it, though, since it famishes so much that i3 germane to their views, they would gladly have appealed to it, had it been in existence, when those views were a yet questionable; and that, hnally, in the great quartodeciman controversy, A. D. ICS, the gospel is not only not mentioned, but the aa tboril v of John is cited by Polyearp in flat cm tradiction of the view after wards taken by this evangelist. Still more, the assumption of Kenan led at once into complicated diffi jul'ies with referei oe to the Apocalypse. 'The fourth gospel, if it does not unmistakably announce itself as the work of John, at least professes to be Johannine; and it cannot for a moment be supposed that suoh a book, making such claims, could have gained cur rttcy during JoLu's lifetiwo without calling forth his indignant protest. For, in reality, iio book in the New Testament collection would so completely have shocked the prejudices of the Johannine party. John's own views are well known to us from the Apocalypse. John was the most enthusiastic of milienarians and the most narrow and rigid of Judaizers. In his antagonism to the Pauline innovations he went further than Feter himself. Intense hatred of Paul and his followers appears in several passages of the Apocalypse, where they are stig matized as ' Nicolaitans," "deceivers of the people," "those who say they are apostles and are not," "eaters of meat offered to idols, ' "fornicators, "pretended Jews, "liars, "synagogue of Satan," etc (Chap."ii.) On the other hand, the fourth Gospel contains nothing millenarian or Judaical; it carries Pauline nniversalism to a far creater extent than Taul himself ventured to carry it, even condemning the Jews fts children of dark ness, and by implication contrasting them unfavorably with the Gentiles; and it con tains a theory of .the nature of Jesus which the Ebionitish' Christians, to whom John be longed, rejected to the last. In his present edition Kenan admits the insuperable force of these objections, and abandons his theory of the apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel. And as this has necessitated the omission or alteration of all such passages as rested upon the authority of that Gospel, the book is to a considerable extent rewritten; and the changes are such as greatly to increase its value as a history of Jesus. Nevertheless, the author has so long been in the habit of shaping his conceptions of the career of Jesus by the aid of the fourth gospel, that it has become very difficult for him to piss freely to another point of view. He still clings to the hypothesis that there is an ele ment of historio tradition contained in the book, drawn from memorial writings which had perhaps been handed down from John, tnd which were inaccessible to the synoptists. in a very interesting appendix he collects the evidence in favor of this hypothesis, which, indeed, is not without plausibility, 6ince there is every reason for supposing that the gospel was written at Lphestis, which a century before had been John's place of resi dence. But even granting most of Kenan's assumptions, it must still follow that the authority of this gospel is far inferior to that of the synoptics, and can in no case be very confidently appealed to. The question is one of the first importance to the historian of early Christianity. In inquiring into the life of Jesus, the first thing to do is to establish firmly in the mind the true relations of the fourth gospel to the first three. Until this has been done no one is competent to write on the subject; and it is because he has done this so imperfectly that Kenan's work is. from a critical point of view, so imperfeclly successiui. The anonymous work entitled "The Jesus of History," which we have placed at the head of this article, is in every respect note worthy as the hrst Bystematio attempt made in England to follow in. the footsteps of Ger man criticism in writing a life of Jesus. We know of no good reason why the book should be published anonymously, lor as a historical essay it possesses extraordinary merit, and does great credit not only to its author, but to English scholarship and acumen. It is not, indeed, a book calculated to captivate the imagination of the reading public Though written in a clear, forcible, and often elegant style, it possesses no such won derful ruecoricul charm us the work uf lienau; and it win probably never una naii-a-uozen readers where the "Vie de Jesus" has found a hundred. But the success of a book of this sort is not to be measured by its rhetorical excellence, or by its adaptation to the literary tastes of an uncritical and nmnstructed public, bat rather by the amount of critical sagacity whioh it brings to bear upon the elucidation of the many difficult and disputed points in the subject of which it treats. Measured by this standard, the "Jesus of History" must rank very high, indeed. To Bay that it throws more light upon the career of Jesus than any work which has ever before been written in English would be very inadequate praise. since the Ingush language has been singu larly deficient in this branch of historical literature. We shall convey a more just idea of its merits it we say that it will bear com parison with anything which even Germany nas produced, save only the works of Strauss, Baur, and Zeller. The fitness of our author for the task which he has undertaken is shown at the out Bet by his choice of materials. In basing his conclusions almost exclusively npon the state ments contained in the first Gospel he is tip- held by every sound principle of criticism The times and places at which oar three Bynoptio Gospels were written have been, through the labors of the Tubingen critics, determined almost to a certainty. Of the three "Mark" is unquestionably the latest; with the exception of about twenty verses it is entirely made up from "Matthew and "Luke,' the diverse Petrine and Pauline ten dencies oi wmcn it strives to neutralize in conformity to the conciliatory disposition of the Church at Kome, at the epoch at which this Gospel was written, about A. D. 130, The third Gospel was also written at Rome some fifteen years earlier. In the prefaoe its author desoribes it as a compilation from pre viously existing written materials. Anions these materials was certainly the first Gospel, several passages of which are adopted word for word by the author oi "ijuke. Yet the narrative varies materially from that of it he firsk gospel in many essential points. The arrangement of events is less natural, and. as in the "Acts of the Apostles" by the same author, there is apparent throughout the de sign of suppressing the old discord between Paul and the judaizing disciples, and of re presenting Christianity as essentially Pauline from the outset, now iar i aui was correct in his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, it is difficult to decide. It is, no doubt. possible that the first gospel may have lent to the words of Jesus an Ebiouite coloring in some instances, and that now and then the third gospel may present us with a truer ac count, lo this supremely important point we shall by and by return. For the present it must suffice to observe that the evidences of an overruling dogmatio purpose are gene rally much more vonspicaous in the third svnoptist than in the first; and that the very loose manner in whioh this writer has handled his materials in the "Acts" is not calculated to inspire ns with confidence in the historical acouraoy of his gospel. The writer who, in spite of the direct testimony of Paul himself, could represent the apostle to the Gentiles as acting under the direction of the disciples at Jerusalem, and who pats Pauline sentiments into the mouth of Peter, wool certainly have been capable of unwarrantably giving a rauiine turn to the teachings of Jefcus himself. We are, therefore, as a last resort, brought back to the first gospel, whioh we find to possess, as a histoiual narrative, far stronger claims npon our attention than the second and third. In all probability it tad assumed nearly its present shape before A. V. 100; its origin u unmistakably Palesu nian; it betrays comparatively few indications of dogmatic purpose; and there are strong reasoriBfor believing that the speeches of Jesus recorded in it are in substance taken from the genuine "Logia' of Matthew mentioned by Papias, which mast have been written aa early as A. D. CD-70, before the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, we are inclined to ngree with our author that the Gospel, even in its present shape (save only in a few interpolated passages) may have existed as early as A. D. 80, since it places the time of Jesus second coming Im mediately after the destruction of Jerusalem; whereas the third evangelist, who wrote forty five years after that event, is careful to tell us "Ihe end is not immediately. Moreover, it must have been written while the Paulo Petrine controversy was still raging, as is shown by the parable of the "enemy who sowed the tares," which manifestly refers to rani, and also by the allusions to "false prophets" (vii, 15), to those who say "Lord, Lord, ' end who "cast out demons in the name of the Lord" (vii, 21-1! "), teaching men to break tho commandments (v, l-20.) Ihere is, therefore, good reason for believing that we have here a narrative written not much more than fifty years after the death of Jesus, based partly upon the written memorials. of an apostle, and in the mam trustworthy, save where it relates occurrences of a marvellous and legendary character. Such is oar author's conclusion, and in describing the career of the Jesus of history, he relies almost excla Bively upon the statements contained in the first gospel. Let ns now, after this long but inadequate introduction, give a brief sketch of the life of Jesus, as it is found in oar author. To he ccin!inwL FOR SALb. A FINS S U O A K PLANTATION FOR SALE. Situated In the State of Louisiana, parish of riaciucrnlncs, at about thirty-five miles below the city of New Orleans, on the left bank of the river Mississippi. Having a front of about thirty-six acres on Eaid rlver, by a depth of about thirty-seven acres, making a superficies of thirteen hundred and twenty three acres, about four hundred acres of which are under culture, the greater portion planted with sugar-cane. A sufficient quantity of seed-cano will be reserved to plant about one hundred acres next season. With all necessary buildings, including a fine dwelling-house, sugar-house, with steam sugar mill, and the Rlllicux apparatus, all complete, and in actual use, laborers' quarters, stables, etc. This plantation is susceptible of making three to four hundred hogsheads of sugar next year, and the crop can easily be raised to six hundred hogsheads, and even more. Tit'.es indisputable. This fine property will be sold low, to close a con cem. For farther particulars apply to E. L. MOSS, No. 200 WALNUT Street, 9 6 mwf lm Philadelphia, FOB SALB A VEKy VALUABLE HOUSE and LOT at the N. W. corner of Eorty-seoond street and Kingaesaing avenue. House built of brown stone, three stories, contain ing 16 rooms, and finished in the best and most sub stantial manner, with all the modern Improvements one of the most desirable houses In Weal Phila delphia. Property should be seen to be appreciated. Persons wishing to know the terms and examine the property can do so by calling on JAMES M. SEL LERS, until 3X P. at No. 144 S. SIXTH Street, and In the evening at No. 600 S. FORTY-SECOND Street. 9 lotf P E. A NEW AND ELEGANT BROWN-STONE RESI DENCE, East side of Logan Square. Replete with every convenience. Inquire at premises. Lot 22 by ISO feet. 9 a lm TO RENT. rro RENT TO A QUIET GENTLEMAN A handsome furnished Parlor and Bed-room in a private family. Inquire at 9 14 lot No. 33 S. ELEVENTH Street. "0 RENT TUB STORE NO. 723 CHESNUT Street. Arrly on the premises between 10 and 12 o'clock A. M. SIT tf WATCHES, JEWELRY, ETO. .tJwiS i LADOMLUS & C(T OIAM0XD DEALERS & JEWEIERSA V"WAT0HE3 and JEWELBT BEP AIRED. 02 Chestnut Bt., Phil: OAND BRACELETS. CHAIN BRACELETS. We have just received a large and beautiful as soruneat of Gold Band and Chain Bracelets, Enamelled and engraved, of all sizes, at very low low prices. New styles constantly received. WATCHES AND JEWBLKY In great variety. LEWIS LADOMUS A CO., 8 11 fmwj No. 602 CHESNUT Street. TOWER CLOCKS. No. 22 NORTH SIXTH STREET, Agent for STEVENS' PATfiNT TOWER CLOCKS, both Remontoir & Graham Escapement, striking hour only, or striking Quarters, and repeating hour on full chime. Estimates furnished on application either person ally or by mail. C2C WILLIAM B. WARNS & CO., Wholesale Dealers In 82t1 Becond floor, and late of No. 85 S. THIRD St. SUMMER RESORTS. QONCRE88 HALL. CAPE MAY, N. J., Opens June 1. Closes October 1 Mark and Blmon Eaasler'a Orchestra, and ful Military Band, of 120 pieces. TERMS 130 per day June and September. 4"00 per day July and August. The new wing la now completed. Applications for Rooms, address 4 14 3t J. r. OAKB. PreprMoc o NK DOLLAR OOOD8 FOR W CENTS u u fit) uizoa tf no. m a. juuuu tuw REAL ESTfrTK AT AUOTION. c B. Bv virtue and In execution ot the powers contained In a Mortgage executed by THE CENTHAL PASSENGEU RAILWAY COMPANY of the city f rhllBdelphta, belrlng date of eighteenth day of April, 1S63, and recorded in the oiliee lor recording opens gnu mortgages lor uie city and connty of Philadelphia, In Mortgage Book A. C. II., No. 50, page 465, etc., the undersigned Trustees named in said mortgage WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION, at the MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE, In the city of Philadelphia, by MESSRS. THOMAS & SONS, Auctioneers, at 13 o'clock M., on TUESDAY, the eighteenth day of October, A. 1). 1S70, the property described In and conveyed by the said mortgage, to wit: iso. l. ah mose two contiguous iota or pieces oi ground, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate on the east side of Broad street, in the city of Philadelphia, one of them be ginning at tne distance or nineteen reel seven inches and five-eighths southward from the southeast corner of the Bald Broad and Coates streets ; thence extending eastward at right angles with said Broad street eighty-eight feet one Inch and a half to ground now or late oi satuuei miner; tnence soutnwara along said ground, and at right angles with said Coates street, seventy-two feet to the northeast cor ner of an alley, two feet six Inches tn width, leading south waid Into penn street; thence west ward crossing said alley and along the lot of ground hereinafter described and at right angles with said Broad street, seventy-nine feet to the east side of the said Broad street; and thence northward along the east line of Bald Broad street seventy-two feet to the place of beginning. Subject to a Ground Kent of l'2&0, silver money. No. 8. The other of them situate at the northeast comer of the said Broad street and Penn street, containing In front or breadth on the said Broad street eighteen feet, and in length or depth east ward along the north line of said Penn street seventy-lour feet and two inches, and on the line of said lot parallel with said Penn street seventy-six feet five inches and three-fourths of an Inch to Bald two feet six inches wide alley. Subject to ground rent Of 72, silver money. No. 8. All that certain lot or piece of ground be 1 ginning at the S. E. corner of Coates street and Broad street, thence extending southward along the said Broad street nineteen feet seven Inches and five eighths of an Inch ; thence eastward eighty feet one inch and one-halt of an Inch ; tnence northward, at right angles with said Coates street, nrne feet to the south side of Coates street, and thence westward along the south side of said Coates street ninety feet to the place of beginning. No. 4. Four Steam Dummy Cars, twenty feet long by nine feet two inches wide, with all the necessary steam machinery, seven-Inch cylinder, with ten-inch stroke of piston, with heating pipes, &c Each will seat thirty passengers, and has power sufficient to draw two extra cars. Note. These cars are now In the custody of Messrs. Grlce fc Long, at Trenton, New Jersey, where they can be seen. The sale of them Is made snhjecc to a Hen for rent, which on the first day of Jnly, 1870, amounted to 000. No. B. The whole road, plank road, and railway of the said The Central Passenger Railway Company of the city of Philadelphia, and all their land ;(not Included In Nos. 1, 2, and 8,) roadway, railway, rails, rights of way, stations, toll houses, aud other super structures, depots, depot greuuds and other real estate, buildings and improvements whatsoevsr.and all and singular the corporate privileges and fran chises connected with said company and plank road an railway, and relating thereto, and all the tolls. Income, Issues, and pro tits to accrue from the same or any part thereof belonging to said company, and generally all the tenements.hereditaraents and fran chises of the said company. And also all the cars of every kind (not Included in No. 4,) machinery, tools, lmplements,and materials connected with the proper equipment, operating and conducting of said road, plank road, and railway: and all the personal pro perty of every kind and description belonging to the said company. Together with all the streets, ways, alleys, pas sages, waters, water-courses, easements, franchises, rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments ana ap purtenances whatsoever, unto any of the above mentioned premises and estates belonging and ap pertaining, and the reversions and remainders, rents, Issues, and profits thereof, aud all the estate, right, title, Interest, property, claim, and demand of every nature and kind whatsoever of the said Com pany, aa wen at law as in equity or, in, and to the same and every part and parcel thereof. TERMS OF SALE. The properties will be sold In parcels aa numbered, On each bid there shall be paid at the time the pro perty is struck on Fllty Dollars, nnless the price is less than that sum, when the whole sum bid shall be paid. W. L. SCnAFFER, Tmot, 813 61t W. W. LONU8TRKTH, rrn8Ie' LUMBfcR. 1C7A" SrRUCE JOIST. IOTA 10 4VJ SPRUCE JOIST. lOlU HEMLOCK. HEMLOCK. 1QI-A SEASONED CLEAR PINE. 1Qwa 10 I U SEASONED CLEAR PINK. J.O I U CHOICE PATTERN PINK. SPANISH CEDAR, FOR PATTERNS. RED OEDAR. H Q17A FLORIDA FLOORING. iQ'7 10 IV FLORIDA FLOORING. 10 I U CAROLINA FLOORING. VIRGINIA F LOOKING. DELAWARE FLOORING. ASH FLOORING. WALNUT FLOORING. FLORIDA STEP BOARDS. RAIL PLANK. t C 7 AWALNUT BOARDS AND PLANK. -f D7A 10 I v WALNUT BOARDS AND PLANK. 10 I V WALNUT BOARDS. WALNUT PLANK. 1C7A UNDERTAKERS' LUMBER, -t 07A 10 i J UNDERTAKERS' LUMBER, 10 I V RED CEDAR. WALNUT AND PINE. 1870 SEASONED POPLAR. SEASONED CHERRY. 1870 ASH. WHITE OAK PLANK AND BOARDS, HICKORY. 1870 CIGAR BOX MAKERS' CIGAR BOX MAKERS' 1870 SPANISH CEDAR BOX BOARDS, 1870 CAROLINA SCANTLING. CAROLINA H. T. SILLS. NORWAY SCANTLING. 1870 1QWA CEDAR SHINGLES. iQRA 10 4 V CYPRESS SHINGLES. 10 IV MAULE, BROTHER fc CO., 11? No. 2500 SOUTH Street PANEL PLANK, ALL THICKNESSES. COMMON PLANK, ALL THICKNESSES. " 1 COMMON BOARDS. 1 and 2 SIDE FENCE BOARDS. WHITE PINE FLOORING BOARDS. YELLOW JttiD SAP PINE FLOORINGS, IV and K bPRUC'E JOIST, ALL SIZES. HEMLOCK JOIST. ALL RIZES. PLASTERING LATH A SPECIALTY, Together with a general assortment of Building Lumber for sale low for cash. T. W. SMALTZ, 6 31 6m No. 1115 RIDGE Avenue, north of Poplar St. United States Builders' Mill, FIFTEEBTH Street, Below Market. . ESLER & BROTHER, PROPRIETORS." Wood Mouldings, Brackets and General Turning Work, Band-rail Balusters and Newel Posts. 9 1 3r A LARGE A t SOR rMKNTALWA Y8JIN H AN D BUILDING MATERIALS. E. B. THOMAS & CO., D1AUBS H Doors, Blinds, Sash, Shutters1 WINDOW FRAMES, ETC, M. W. 008NIB 0V EIGHTEENTH and MARKET Street! 41912m PHILADELPHIA LEXANDBR G. CATTKLL A CO., PRODUCE COMMISSION MERCHANTS, No. 2 NORTH WHARVES '. AMD NO. KT NORTH W4TR STREET, PHILADELPHIA. ' ' AXBXASB & CAnasu BLUAX CATOaU
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers