human reason.

This, however, is the necessary conse

quence of our shortsightedness. Extending beyond the domain of finite reason, faith penetrates the barrier which hides the spiritual world from view, grasps as living realities what human reason cannot fathom, and reposes implicit confidence in the Word which reason assures us is the declaration of the Most High concerning things unseen.

From the latter part of M. Renan's Introduction to "The Life of Jesus," we gather that he is a deserter from the religion of the Cross--or rather, we should say, from the profession of it--and thinks that being once a believer, although now an apostate, he will be all the more acceptable as a writer of Christ's life, and all the more likely to write in accordance with "sincere history." I presume, however, that Christ at least would prefer the sincerity and truthfulness of a friend to the all but inevitable gloss and misrepresentation of an enemy, given to the world in justification of his apostacy.

It is an established and Divine truism, that "the natural man receiveth not the things of God." In this, not only those who are usually styled "orthodox," but every observing mind of ordinary intelligence must, I think, concur. How, then, can a man in his natural, unconverted state, be qualified to verify the sacred writings, or distinguish between the inspired and the uninspired; or, as Renan has vainly and presumptuously attempted, between the true and the false, since he altogether discards their claim to inspiration, yet maintains that they contain "eternal truth,”—indirect emanations from the mind of the Deity. Such a work must obviously be referred to religiously competent men-men who have not only intellectual ability, but true spiritual discernment; scholars of acknowledged reputation as God

fearing, truth-loving men. To men so qualified, by a careful collation and critical examination of ancient Scripture manuscripts and other historic documents, coupled with fervent prayer for the guiding hand of God, whose Almighty Spirit first indited the sacred Oracles,-spurious writings, mistakes of copyists, or any interpolations that may have crept into them by the hands of man, would certainly be more easily discoverable, than to any other class of men. To such men, this most sacred and important work has been committed, and by them our authorised version of the Gospels has long since been pronounced a true and reliable compilation, the canonicity of which is indisputable. Slight errors and discrepancies, introduced through the negligence or inadvertence of transcribers, it may contain; but these are of little or no importance as compared to the doctrinal and saving truths of the Gospel, in respect to which, there having been no various reading in any of the ancient manuscripts, it is universally acknowledged to be perfect.

M. Renan pronounces against certain portions of our received version, not because they are defective in historical authenticity-knowing full well that the passages he declaims against are as well authenticated as the rest—but because the doctrines inculcated are, to his mind, unreasonable, and because the style of some of the remarks ascribed to Jesus are not, in his judgment, in accordance with the style of some of His other addresses; as though it were an unheard-of and an impossible thing in a writer or a speaker to vary in the least, whatever the occasion might be, from his ordinary style of writing or speaking. Claiming, as he

does, the freedom of a free-thinker, we

must of course

accord to M. Renan the right of judgment in the matter;

but we must be permitted to say that he hereby lays himself open to the charge of great inconsistency, inasmuch as the varied style of his own work, and assertions—when it suits his purpose to make them-in reference to Christ's changing His mode of address according to circumstances, are a witness against him.1

The inspiring Spirit in revealing to His chosen instruments the truths to be made known, or in directing them in the choice of historical facts to be recorded, and the use they were to make of them, made use of their natural capacities and varied mental constitutions; thus giving rise to the diversities of style, and thought, and modes of expression, which are everywhere apparent in the sacred writings. The idea of a Divine or supernatural inspiration as connected with the production of those sacred books, however, M. Renan utterly rejects; and with all the simplicity of one who had never once heard of such a doctrine, asks in reference to the addresses of our Lord, "Were there stenographers present to fix those fleeting words of Jesus?" To which we shall not be misunderstood if we reply, There was one-He who first uttered them, and who promised that after His ascension the Holy Ghost should be given to His apostles and evangelists to "guide them into all truth, and to bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them." Renan, however, being, as he gives us to understand, a careful reader of the New Testament, has discovered, he thinks, that the evangelists themselves did not even claim to be inspired. But did they not, we might ask, claim to be the apostles of our Lord? And is it not recorded that the inspiring Spirit was poured out upon them on the day of Pentecost? Does the fact, moreover, that the Jewish prophets and writers of the Old Testa

1 See his work, pp. 226, 229.

ment did not in so many words assert their inspiration, prove or imply that they were not to be regarded as inspired men? Was not their style simply, "Hear ye the word of the Lord"? And does not this correspond with the style of the Evangelists and the other writers of the New Testament in designating their writings, "the word, the testimony, and the Gospel of Christ and of God, the record which God hath given of His Son," &c.? And if their style of address in this respect is the same, and the prophets of the Old Testament dispensation were declared by Christ and His apostles to be holy men of old who wrote and spoke "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and that, therefore, whatsoever was written by them concerning Christ, He said must certainly be fulfilled- we may not from the absence, in so many words, of personal claims to inspiration on the part of the evangelists, exhibit, as Renan, our lack of judg ment in jumping to the conclusion that they were uninspired Paul did not thus directly assert his claim to inspiration, and yet he assures us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." And that this general declaration in reference to inspiration includes himself and his writings, we may gather from the declaration of another apostle concerning him: "Even as our beloved brother, Paul, also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned [in the school of Christ] and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."1 "All" Paul's epistles are here declared to be "Scripture," inasmuch as Peter associated them with it, and declares them to contain " some things" which were wrested by the unstable in common with "the other 12 Pet. iii. 15, 16.

men.

Scriptures." He also asserts that Paul wrote them by "the wisdom given unto him;" in other words, that he was endowed with the gift of inspiration, although, like the evangelists, he makes no direct allusion to it in his own writings. As a leading teacher in the school of error, M. Renan would do well to ponder the signiñcant exhortation given by Paul to the disciples whose doctrinal views were at this time directly opposed to those of the Renan school: “Beware lest ye also, being led away by the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." The condemnation of the leaders in error must be great indeed.

Having premised the foregoing general remarks, we come now more directly to the consideration of M. Renan's observations relative to the Gospels and their authors. "The four personages," Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in Renan's opinion, "are not strictly given as the authors" of the Gospels at the head of which their names stand. They merely signify," he says, "that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these apostles, and claiming their authority." It might as well be said that the names of Luther, Calvin, or Renan, placed upon the title page of the works they profess to have written, "are not strictly given as the authors of those works which come to us in their names. He must have credit, however, in speaking of Matthew and Mark, for the admission (p. 11) that "the two first Gospels bear, not without reason, the name of the Gospel according to Matthew, and of the Gospel according to Mark." He further remarks that "these Gospels present parallel parts so long and so perfectly identical that it must be supposed, either that the final compiler of the first had the second under his eyes, or vice versa, or that both copied from the same prototype." The latter, Renan, the latter, I

C