should say. They both copied from Christ, and they were both helped by the "one and self-same Spirit," and hence the "identity of the parallel parts." A consideration of the fact that even without supernatural guidance, the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who retained alike the remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them, together with the simple admission of the well-established fact of the Divine inspiration of the sacred writers, would have removed this and many other difficulties from Renan's mind. But no, since it involves the supernatural, it must be discarded-his creed, composed of baseless assumptions, will not admit of it.

The industry Renan has exhibited in connection with his work is certainly commendable. He says, "I do not believe I have neglected any source of information as to ancient evidences. Without speaking of a crowd of other scattered data (alluding, doubtless, to the vast Latin collection of Lightfoot, Otho, and others, of which he elsewhere speaks; also to the mass of ancient writings by Christian and heathen authors, which are all to be regarded as collateral evidences of the authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures-besides these, he says) "there remain, respecting Jesus and the time in which He lived, five great collections of writings-1st, The Gospels and the writings of the New Testament in general; 2nd, The compositions called the Apocrypha of the Old Testament; 3rd, The works of Philo; 4th, Those of Josephus; 5th, The Talmud," a Jewish work written by the enemies of Christianity, and containing the mass of writings which had been accumulating in the Jewish schools for generations. As the result of such laborious researches, M. Renan is now prepared to say :-" On the

whole, I admit as authentic the four Canonical Gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed. Matthew evidently merits an unlimited confidence as to the discourses; they are the Logia, the identical notes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the teachings of Jesus. Mark is full of minute observations, coming doubtless from an eye-witness. The facts are related with a clearness for which we seek in vain amongst the other Evangelists. He is the one of the three synoptists who has remained the most primitive, the most original, the one to whom the fewest after elements have been added. The Gospel of Luke is a regular composition, founded on anterior documents. Luke had probably under his eyes the biographical collection of Mark and the Logia of Matthew." Whether this be the case or not, Luke records many things that are not found in either of the other Gospels, "having," as he says, "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." "He interprets the documents," Renan continues, "according to his own idea; he has not the absolute impassibility of Matthew and Mark. The author of this Gospel is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles. The date of it can be determined with much precision by considerations drawn from the book itself. But if the Gospel of Luke is dated, those of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for it is certain that the third Gospel is posterior to the first two, and exhibits the character of a much more advanced compilation. We have besides on this point an excellent testimony from a writer of the first half of the second century- namely, Papias, who was all his life seeking to collect whatever could be known of the person of Jesus." Of John's Gospel, he says: "That it represents

to us a version of the life of the Master, worthy of high esteem, and often to be preferred, is demonstrated in a manner which leaves us nothing to be desired, both by exterior evidences and by examination of the document itself. No one doubts that, towards the year 150, the fourth Gospel did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from St. Justin, from Anthenagorus, from Tatian, from Theophilus of Antioch, from Irenæus, show that thenceforth this Gospel mixed in every controversy, and served as a corner-stone for the development of the faith. Irenæus is explicit; now Irenæus came from the school of John, and between him and the Apostle there was only Polycarp. Let us add that the first Epistle attributed to St. John is certainly by the same author as the fourth Gospel; now this epistle is recognised as from John by Polycarp, Papias, and Irenæus. But it is above all, the perusal of the work itself which is calculated to give this impression. The author always speaks as an eye-witness; he wishes to pass for the Apostle John. If, then, this work is not really by the Apostle, we must admit a fraud of which the author convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the time respecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there is no example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind. [Nor of any other "kind," Renan, although your creed has frequently led you to endeavour to convict them of it.] Besides, not only does the author wish to pass for the Apostle John, but we see clearly that he writes in the interest of this Apostle. On each page [this is an exaggeration] he betrays his desire to fortify his authority and show that he has been the favourite of Jesus."

Now these important concessions, which I have collected from different parts of M. Renan's Introduction, are forced

from him by the overwhelming weight of the historic evidence to which he has had access; and had he candidly framed his religious theory and doctrinal creed in rational accordance with these admissions, and with others which he elsewhere makes, he would have proved himself a friend instead of an enemy, to the best of causes, and to humanity. But it appears to be in the nature of some, chameleon-like, to quickly change their colour; instead of steadfastly serving his generation as a white-robed angel of light, he suddenly changes to the midnight hue of the child of darkness; and these fits of transformation, judging from his apostacy and the extremely discordant sentiments frequently expressed in his work, are, we should say, a marked characteristic of the

man.

It will be seen from the quotations given above, that Renan does not attempt to call into question the historical authenticity of the Gospels, knowing, as he does, that they rest on too solid and immovable a foundation—that of ancient manuscripts, versions, and references to, and extensive quotations from the Scriptures found in the writings of both Christian and heathen authors, dating back even as early as the first century, and the times of the Apostles themselves. But although he cannot call into question their general authenticity, he endeavours by every means in his power to undermine their authority. No sooner has he made the admissions referred to above, than he, in effect, recalls them by an unscrupulous and unsparing application of his most unrighteous and unphilosophic principles of historic criticism: “That the Gospels are in part legendary," he says, "is evident, since they are full of miracles and of the supernatural." Mark well his philosophic reason for pronouncing them "legendary."

1

Page 8.

Equally rational and satisfactory is the following: "There was no scruple," he says, "in inserting additions, in variously combining them, and in completing some by others. The poor man who has but one book wishes that it may contain all that is dear to his heart. These little books margin of his copy

were lent, each one transcribed in the the words and the parables he found elsewhere, which touched him. The most beautiful thing in the world has thus proceeded from an obscure and purely popular elaboration." Renan gives no authority for making this assertion, and has none, or he would have given it, according to his rule, which he assures us he never departs from. The assertion is therefore perfectly gratuitous and baseless. Had he expressed himself conjecturally, it would certainly not have been so repulsive to our sense of propriety, in respect to a matter so sacred and important; but even then it would have been most unreasonable, for each and all of the sacred writings certainly contain much that was at least calculated to engender such "scruples." They all profess to contain the holy, unvarying, unvarnished truth of God Himself. Paul, whose writings were dispersed among the Christian Churches during his life, declared that "his Gospel was not from man," and that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" and those who possessed the book of Revelation must have been held in check, one would think, by the awful curse pronounced against those who should presume to add to or take from the Word of God.

But scruple, or no scruple, what sufficient motive could they have had for all this transcribing, adding, combining, completing, etc., that Renan speaks of as having been done by even the "poor" people? Suppose they really had no scruple about adding to, altering, and in various ways tam

1 Page 12.