pressed in Matthew x. 37-"He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me;" thus giving Christ as our Saviour, Lord, and God, the highest seat in our hearts, and the preference in all things, even to wife and children and to life itself, ever forsaking all in spirit for Christ which leads to its literal relinquishment, with cheerful and hopeful resignation, if circumstances require. And in making the sacrifice thus required, through the mercy and kindness of God toward us we have the promise and the possession of manifold more peace and true joy here, and in the world to come "life everlasting" with eternal glory in the Paradise of God.

66

"The transcendent idealism of Jesus," M. Renan further remarks, never permitted Him to have a very clear notion of His own personality. He is Father, His Father is He. No one could know the Father except through Him. . . The title, Son of man, expressed His character as Judge; that of Son of God, His power and His participation in the supreme designs. Intoxicated with infinite love, He forgot the heavy chain which holds the spirit captive; He cleared at one bound the abyss, impossible to most, which the weakness of the human faculties has created between God and man. 271 Not at all, Renan, not at all, He did not "forget" it; His language was quite consistent with the perfect knowledge He had of His high original. Please to allow Himself to know best what He was, and whether or not there was an infinite distance between Himself and the Deity. Please to allow that He may have been quite as capable of judging of Himself and how to express that judgment, as Monsieur Renan is of judging and expressing it for Him. M. Renan "forgets," or quite overlooks the fact, that between Christ and God no such infinite "abyss," 1 Pp. 182, 183.

as he speaks of, exists. He tells us, however, as we have before observed, that "the universal conscience has styled Jesus the Son of God, and justly so."1 But why justly so? Why "because," he goes on to say, "He has done more to establish religion on the earth than any other man ever did, or probably ever will do." But why, Renan, if He was but a man, say, "probably more than any other man ever will do?" Why not, to use your own words, "have a larger idea of the powers which nature conceals in her bosom?" You have had successively arising your Cakya-Mounis, to whom you have referred as religious founders of the past, and between whom and Jesus you have instituted a comparison; then why not another arise still more enlightened and powerful than either of the preceding? Reasoning from analogy, there must surely be some human prodigy of greatness and power lying in the womb of the future, who will yet arise as the founder of a religion which shall more fully comport with our advanced civilization and enlightenment. If the "universal conscience" must have a religion, surely the eternity that is before us will not be behind the eternity that is past in giving birth to religious founders corresponding with the advanced requirements of the progressive future.

As a good distance of time has intervened since the last founder of a religion arose, and our philosopher, at least in some respects, regards himself as superior to our Lord Himself, perhaps it would not be amiss for the "universal conscience" to direct its eye towards M. Renan, as the founder and teacher of a religion suited to the present advanced wants of the world. But will it, does he think? Ah, he knows right well it will not, nor to any other; and by this time, it is to be hoped that, like many other haters.

1 Page 45.

of the truth, he has at least a secret misgiving that Jesus Christ, who by the "universal conscience" has been styled the "Son of God," is really the Son of God, in the evangelical sense of the term, and that therefore another will never arise on whom the universal conscience will be fixed. But why does he question the reasonableness of a Divine Teacher having arisen, and of prophets, apostles, etc., inspired and commissioned by God to reveal His Will to man respecting the religion best adapted to his wants, and which the Divinely implanted universal conscience, craving, may rest upon, and be satisfied? Putting it to the test of human reason, which, I ask, is the more reasonable of the two, that God, who made man a worshipping creature, should reveal to the intelligent worshipping world His Will in the matter, or that He should leave them wholly in the dark respecting the nature of the legitimate Object of their worship, and of the form and character such worship should assume? The "universal conscience," universal reason, and universal common sense, will certainly pronounce in favour of the former, philosopher Renan to the contrary notwithstanding.

"It is unnecessary to remark," observes Renan, "how remote from the thought of Jesus was the idea of a religious book, containing a code of articles of faith. Not only did He not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of the infant sect to produce sacred books."1 To show how very inconsistent M. Renan is in this last remark, we need but refer the reader to our chapter on the authenticity of the Gospels, and to quotations in other parts of this work, where he acknowledges that they had the Scriptures of the Old and now abolished dispensation as a precedent, and also that the Apostles commenced writing such books within a very short time of the death of our Lord. And as to its being "remote from the

1 Page 214.

thoughts of Jesus" while dwelling with His disciples, we read that in His intercessory character He prayed for those who should afterwards believe on Him through their word; that He said of the woman who had anointed Him with precious ointment, "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her,"1 which certainly implies that a written record of such events was not remote from the mind of Jesus; and in the Apocalypse. we read that He gave His servant, the Apostle John, an express command relative to the Book which contained His written revelations. But what passed between Himself and His apostles on this subject while He was with them, it is impossible to say. Mark writes that, "when they were alone, He expounded all things to His disciples ;" and from John xxi. 25, and other passages, we gather that Jesus both did and said "many things" which were left unrecorded. Suffice it, however, to say, that the Apostle of the Gentiles tells us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; that Peter recognized Paul's Epistles as Scripture, and classed them with the "other Scriptures,” 5 and which were therefore written and recognized as the Word of inspiration not only before Peter's death, but before he wrote his own Epistle; that no revelation or event of sacred history can be called Scripture until it is recorded in a book; and, that therefore, all Scripture being given by inspiration of God, the writing of sacred books was not only contemplated by the Divine mind, but every sentence of them, being Scripture, was written under the direct inspiration and infallible guidance of the Divine Spirit-quite as surely as that the Apostles spoke by the immediate inspira8 Mark iv. 34.

1 Mark xiv. 9.

2 Rev. ii. I; xxii. 10.

tion of God when they "spake with other tongues," and when upon other occasions, according to the teaching of Jesus, it was not they that spoke, but, as He said to His disciples, "the Spirit of their Father that spake in them; and St. Paul-"not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." "

In the same discriminating tone, and, in view of the Divinity of Christ so plainly demonstrable from the Word of God, with a degree of assurance the folly of which might raise a smile even in the gravest but for the gravity of the subject, he proceeds to tell us that, "Although born at a time when the principle of positive science was already proclaimed, Jesus knew nothing of this progress. He lived entirely in the supernatural. That He had no knowledge of the general state of the world is apparent from each feature of His most authentic discourses. He knew nothing beyond Judaism; His mind preserved that free innocence which an extended and varied culture always weakens "3 Our philosopher gives this as an inference which he draws from the observation of our Lord, "Behold they which are gorgeously apparalled, and live delicately, are in kings courts." A very just and obvious inference, is it not?" It is doubtful," he further observes, "if He understood the Hebrew writings in their original tongue. It is not probable that Jesus knew Greek." But enough of such nonsense! How ridiculous it sounds to a Christian's ear! He "by whom the worlds were made," and Who is the Governor of the universe, having "all power in heaven and in earth," knew nothing beyond Judaism! He of whom it is written that He knew what was in the minds of men before it was uttered, He who could read the thought of the heart in whatever language or tongue it may have been conceived, 2 1 Cor. ii. 13. 3 Pages 55-59.

1 Matt. x. 20.