The "germs of theology," &c., that he complainingly speaks of as being in "the discourses which the fourth Gospel attributes to Jesus," does not prevent him from quoting John as often as it suits his purpose to do so. As he has himself intimated, he frequently gives him the preference to what he calls "the three synoptic Gospels." We will here, however, give a specimen of his manner of dealing with such quotations from John. It clearly indicates the defective judgment of the man who is determined to make everything bend to his scheme. Quoting from John in reference to Christ's having “formed some valuable friendships," he gives as authentic history that, "very early he attracted the attention of a certain Nicodemus, a rich Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrim, and a man occupying a high position in Jerusalem. This man, who appears to have been upright and sincere, felt himself attracted towards the young Galilean. Not wishing to compromise himself, he came to see Jesus by night, and had a long conversation with Him. He doubtless preserved a very favourable impression of Him, for afterwards he defended Jesus against the prejudices of His colleagues." To this narrative which Renan gives as authentic, he adds in a note1 referring to the conversation between our Lord and Nicodemus :-"We are certainly free to believe that the exact text of the conversation is but a creation of John's." In other words, liberty must be conceded M. Renan to select and prune from the narrative according as it may best suit him in the accomplishment of his most unreasonable and unholy purpose, as he has also done in other of John's narrations. That this is his meaning and design here might be confirmed by many passages from his 1 Page 167.

work, but one may suffice :-"All these discourses," he says, "bear too strongly the imprint of the style peculiar to John for them to be regarded as exact. The anecdote related in chapter six of the fourth Gospel, cannot, however, be entirely stripped of historical reality."1 But by what possible rule of reason or right, I would ask, may he accept one part of the narrative of our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus as true history, and regard the other as false-the one as veritable facts; and the other a fictitious "creation of John's "? It is perfect nonsense. The secret, as in all similar cases, is this-A portion of the narrative clashes with his creed ; it involves the supernatural-" Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This is the distasteful part; this is the sentiment that his proud heart, his haughty spirit, cannot brook.

66

At one time, comparing John's Gospel with the synoptics," unfavourably to the former, he says,

"Between these two authorities no critic can ever hesitate; at another, unfavourably to the latter, imagining that John helps him to the proof of a point, he unhesitatingly affirms that John's narrative of this portion has a greater authority." 3 The conversation of Jesus with the woman at the well as related in John 4, suits him, because, he says, "the anecdote certainly represents one of the most intimate thoughts of Jesus, and the greater part of the circumstances have a striking appearance of truth. . . The day on which he uttered this saying, he was truly Son of God."4 In his rejecting particular passages solely because they interfere with the general religious theory which he has invented for himself-well knowing that they are quite as well authen1 Page 215. 2 Page 16. Page 265-note. 4 Page 176.

ticated as other passages that he receives-we recognize a practical exemplification of one of his favourite principles, and one which he dares to apply to the holy Jesus:"To conceive the good, in fact," he says, "is not sufficient; it must be made to succeed amongst men. To accomplish this, less pure paths must be followed."1 Renan thinks he has religion; but this is not

conceived a good theory of enough ; "it must be made to to accomplish this, "less pure The influence of Christ's name

succeed among men," and paths must be followed." in the present state of society is essential to its success; if by any means possible therefore, Jesus must be made to give it His sanction, or at least, not to so pointedly condemn it-right or wrong, true or false, it must if possible be backed by the influence of His name; and if the apostles, His biographers, make Him speak otherwise, they must be silenced and made to give place to His 19th century biographer, who is, of course, a more competent person, and withal furnished with more authentic information respecting Him than they were !

Renan tells us (page 29) that the Gospels contain "contradictions." To which I reply:-Contradiction is the work of man. Scripture cannot contradict itself; and if any one thinks he has discovered a contradiction in the Bible, there must be a flaw somewhere, if not in the passage before him, then in his own understanding of it, which is by far the more likely of the two. A degree of Divine light and spiritual wisdom, even the scholar would doubtless find to be a material help to him at such times; aye, and a properly cultivated and unprejudiced judgment would be no impediment to a proper understanding of the seeming and supposed contradiction. But the

1 Page 91.

Gospels, Renan informs us, really contain "contradictions," and therefore—well, we will not say that it must be so. The man who is in all likelihood not aware that his own work is full of inconsistencies and contradictions (a specimen or two of which we have already given) would not, one would think, be the readiest at detecting contradictions in the writings of others. He does not tell us what they are. This is to be regretted, as it would most probably have afforded us an additional exemplification of his logic.

Renan makes an assertion, however, on page 46, from which we infer that the following must be one of the contradictions to which he refers :-"Jesus was born at Nazareth," he says, and in proof refers the reader to Matt. xiii. 54, which reads thus::"And when He was come into his own country, He taught them in their synagogue." Now in v. 1, chapter ii. of his Gospel, Matthew affirms that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea." But if in chapter xiii. he has affirmed that Christ was born at Nazareth, as Renan would have his readers believe, Matthew would himself have been the author of a palpable contradiction. Now how absurd such a supposition with respect to a matter so plain. Does Renan really suppose that he has readers simple enough to believe that Matthew would be guilty of so flagrant a contradiction, as to say in one chapter that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and in another that He was born at Nazareth? The one chapter being as well authenticated, is of course as certainly his as the other. But is there really anything in the two passages bearing even the most distant approach to a contradiction? Let us see. By the first, it is asserted that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; by the second, that He was born at Nazareth? No, but simply that He had come

into His own country, where He had lived from the time of Joseph's "return with the young child from Egypt;" and hence, in accordance with universal custom, was very properly called His own country, although not the place in which by a concurrence of circumstances (providentially ordered, Renan) he happened to have been born. In turning to the parallel passage, Luke iv. 16, as though expressly designed to meet such cavils, I find it actually thus expressed :-" And He came to Nazareth where He had been brought up." Such captious quibbling as Renan here exemplifies, and which his work is full of, might be pardonable in school-boys, or college novices, who will sometimes argue for argument's sake; but such condescension, we should say, il comports with the dignity of a scientific gentleman and a philosopher.

But why does M. Renan exhibit such concern about the place of Christ's birth? Why, simply this: there was a little circumstance connected with it that clashes with his creed. An ancient prophecy is connected with it, and it had its fulfilment in His birth at Bethlehem-" And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule My people Israel."-Matt. ii. 4-6.

Another difficulty presents itself to the mind of M. Renan. Luke is made by our translators to say that Joseph, who was "of the house and lineage of David," went to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. (Luke ii. 2). This point, which has